EPTI don't agree with most of your points, but you are welcome to join the eu politics thread and blather on about outdated, ridiculous monarchical systems
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2830
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8677 Posts
I don't agree with most of your points, but you are welcome to join the eu politics thread and blather on about outdated, ridiculous monarchical systems | ||
|
Reivax
Sweden214 Posts
Considering how much real power a monarch in a european country can exercise. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8677 Posts
no gun discussion here folks, US people do it this way, other people another way. end of story. there's also a gun thread for that. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23560 Posts
So there is some dispute about the wording of this rule. Any English majors or lawyers want to interpret this rule? Does the chooser of the correct outcome of the coin flip win or lose a delegate or is it indeterminable based on the wording? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Alur
Denmark3900 Posts
On February 02 2016 18:54 Reivax wrote: That analogy would be valid if the second amendment allowed the populace arming themselves with everything up to nerf guns. Considering how much real power a monarch in a european country can exercise. Yeah, the way I see it European monarchs are state financed lineage museums that double as ceremonial door mats for important foreign guests. But I digress, since this seems like an inappropriate place for that discussion. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
also Democrat Party is literally DreamHack | ||
|
DickMcFanny
Ireland1076 Posts
On February 02 2016 19:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Holy shit if that YouTube video is legit and the Clinton precinct captain didn't do a recount... Care to elaborate? | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23560 Posts
On February 02 2016 19:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: https://youtu.be/eXOPuFQkve4 Looks like she clearly lied to me. Anyway, the Iowa democratic party (led by a Hillary supporter) hasn't declared a winner despite the math showing Bernie couldn't win if all the results were legitimate. The only one saying Hillary actually won is Hillary. Wouldn't be surprised for Iowa to eventually go to Sanders. On February 02 2016 20:06 Ghostcom wrote: I'm so confused. How do you ever figure that this was the best system :S My theory is (especially before the internet and phone banking software) it allowed organization to play a bigger role than voter preference, giving establishment candidates an advantage. | ||
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
| ||
|
zeo
Serbia6334 Posts
On February 02 2016 20:06 Ghostcom wrote: I'm so confused. How do you ever figure that this was the best system :S I don't understand why so much room for fraud is allowed. People with open baskets going around collecting plain pieces of paper that could have been printed at home. I mean, thats ok for highschool elections but how many millions have been pumped into these primaries? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22036 Posts
On February 02 2016 20:11 Kipsate wrote: Does this thing work with winner takes it all or ? No, its proportional. Only the general is winner takes all. So the general result is that Bernie did well at tieing and Trump did not manage to turn his polling into actual votes? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23560 Posts
On February 02 2016 20:30 Gorsameth wrote: No, its proportional. Only the general is winner takes all. So the general result is that Bernie did well at tieing and Trump did not manage to turn his polling into actual votes? Well the idea from the establishment was that his results would be dramatically worse, he under-performed but not by a lot and not as much as Rubio and Cruz over performed. New Hampshire will take a disaster for either Bernie or Trump to lose. The focus is on what the governors do. If one of the governors (Kasich, Bush, Christie) out performs Rubio they aren't going anywhere for a few more states. Before Iowa Rubio was 5th, if he can at least get to third he still has a viable path (albeit remote) whether the others stay in or not. If Rubio finishes 4th or 5th (or worse) the establishment lane stays a clusterf. It should be noted that Trump got more votes than any other Republican in history (other than Cruz). | ||
|
DickMcFanny
Ireland1076 Posts
Neither of them are the biggest states, nor the smallest, nor have a representative population, they're not the first nor the last going by alphabet... Why not shake it up a bit, instead of letting some Evangelists decide who gets a big momentum boost from the word go? Oh, and clearly the average intelligence in Iowa is lower than the average on the slow bus. I get how people get lured in by Trump, but Ted Cruz?! You have to be a certain kind of moron to fall for his obvious pandering. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11712 Posts
| ||
|
DickMcFanny
Ireland1076 Posts
On February 02 2016 21:05 Simberto wrote: The reasonable way to do things would be to do them simultaneously at all the places, so results from one can't influence another. But there does not seem to be anything reasonable at all about the US election system. Well at least in the USA, only 70% of the population are politically disenfranchised. Compared to EU member states, where it's closer to 100% than it is to 99%. We can shit over the dog and pony show all we want, but at least the USA have some residual traces of democracy left. | ||
| ||
