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.
Suppose we have three candidates, A, B, and C, and that there are three voters with preferences as follows (candidates being listed left-to-right for each voter in decreasing order of preference): Voter First preference Second preference Third preference Voter 1 A B C Voter 2 B C A Voter 3 C A B
If C is chosen as the winner, it can be argued that B should win instead, since two voters (1 and 2) prefer B to C and only one voter (3) prefers C to B. However, by the same argument A is preferred to B, and C is preferred to A, by a margin of two to one on each occasion. Thus the society's preferences show cycling: A is preferred over B which is preferred over C which is preferred over A.
This situation implies that the choice of winner by a voting mechanism could be influenced by whether or not a losing candidate is available to be voted for. This result holds even when we don't have exactly three voters or an even split in votes for first choice of candidate.
I'll use this election's group of candidates as an example. Let's imagine that we have three candidates: candidate A is the Republican Donald Crubio, B is the Democrat Hillary Sanders, and C is the independent... well I don't know of any independents in American politics, so let's just call our imaginary candidate James Raynor. Let us further assume that roughly equal chunks of voters preferences are split in the same way as the table above.
Given the primary system, if A (Donald Crubio) runs vs C (Raynor) in the Repub primary, then Raynor beats Donald, because C > A. Then, we have C (Raynor) vs B (Hillary Sanders) in the general election, so Hillary Sanders wins, because B > C.
However, if B (Hillary Sanders) runs vs C (Raynor) in the Dem primary, then Hillary beats Raynor, because B > C. Then, we have A (Donald Crubio) vs B (Hillary Sanders) in the general election, so Donald Crubio wins, because A > B.
(For this example, we don't consider the situation where Donald Crubio and Hillary Sanders fight for the same party nomination, because that would be hilariously unrealistic. However, it would result in Raynor winning the general election.)
So the bolded part of the statement above is illustrated by this example, because who wins in the general is determined by which party nomination Raynor chooses to seek.
On February 21 2016 15:22 oneofthem wrote: it is certainly a curious way of referring to arrow theorem. guy thinks it is a defense of democratic voting or something? i hope you dont take the reference to a dictator in that blurb literally it is a rather tragic use of terminology
I just wanted to point out that though one can find flaws in the American voting system, so he can also find flaws in pretty much every other conceivable voting system as well. I'm sure we could still improve the US voting system though. One obvious good choice would be to get rid of all caucuses for example, or standardize the way delegates are allocated across different states. (By that I mean make all states winner take all or proportionally allocate delegates, but the current split in methods is truly retarded.)
Also, dictator is indeed a terrible choice of word in that article.
Of course perfect democratic system would be impossible. I even said as much.
But a system where the preferred choice(s) of the majority can be removed through the opinion of a minority before they can even cast a vote is beyond flawed.
I don't get it.
If you have 4 candidates, at 40%, 20%, 20%, and 20%, there is no majority opinion. Just because hypothetically if only the first two candidates were running, they might be at 40% and 60%, that doesn't mean the majority was beaten out... If a majority really wanted it, they would have voted for the second candidate - I don't think alternate realities count. What am I missing?
What you're missing is that 100% of the country isn't even given an opportunity to vote on each of those 4 candidates.
The entire system of primaries essentially means that two entirely separate minorities act as gatekeepers for who the entire country gets to vote on.
Of course, correct me if I'm wrong, but last I checked most states didn't allow anyone to vote.
On February 21 2016 14:52 xDaunt wrote: We'll see how things progress, but democrats should be worried by the record turnouts on the republican side versus the mediocre turnouts on the democratic side.
yup.
though I bet a trump/cruz nomination would be quite the uniting force among DEMs. and trump is still winning...
that's why I think and said from the start rubio is the only way to go forward for the GOP. he could make a real contest of the presidency.
people around and in the middle would rather vote for a furuncle in a tie than trump/cruz.
I agree. I think a Trump nomination has the dual effect of hurting Republican turnout, due to a third of the party hating him, while the fear of a Trump presidency would put a fire under the Democratic electorate.
Suppose we have three candidates, A, B, and C, and that there are three voters with preferences as follows (candidates being listed left-to-right for each voter in decreasing order of preference): Voter First preference Second preference Third preference Voter 1 A B C Voter 2 B C A Voter 3 C A B
If C is chosen as the winner, it can be argued that B should win instead, since two voters (1 and 2) prefer B to C and only one voter (3) prefers C to B. However, by the same argument A is preferred to B, and C is preferred to A, by a margin of two to one on each occasion. Thus the society's preferences show cycling: A is preferred over B which is preferred over C which is preferred over A.
This situation implies that the choice of winner by a voting mechanism could be influenced by whether or not a losing candidate is available to be voted for. This result holds even when we don't have exactly three voters or an even split in votes for first choice of candidate.
I'll use this election's group of candidates as an example. Let's imagine that we have three candidates: candidate A is the Republican Donald Crubio, B is the Democrat Hillary Sanders, and C is the independent... well I don't know of any independents in American politics, so let's just call our imaginary candidate James Raynor. Let us further assume that roughly equal chunks of voters preferences are split in the same way as the table above.
Given the primary system, if A (Donald Crubio) runs vs C (Raynor) in the Repub primary, then Raynor beats Donald, because C > A. Then, we have C (Raynor) vs B (Hillary Sanders) in the general election, so Hillary Sanders wins, because B > C.
However, if B (Hillary Sanders) runs vs C (Raynor) in the Dem primary, then Hillary beats Raynor, because B > C. Then, we have A (Donald Crubio) vs B (Hillary Sanders) in the general election, so Donald Crubio wins, because A > B.
(For this example, we don't consider the situation where Donald Crubio and Hillary Sanders fight for the same party nomination, because that would be hilariously unrealistic. However, it would result in Raynor winning the general election.)
So the bolded part of the statement above is illustrated by this example, because who wins in the general is determined by which party nomination Raynor chooses to seek.
Also @wolf.
You are postulating a problem that is actually the inverse of the typical problem with the system which is why primaries exist: Need for consolidating support. While your hypo is interesting, historically the situation is actually that the third party takes primarily from one party in the general. So a candidate that is acutally the last choice of a majority ends up winning because he was the first choice of a plurality. Or you end up with regional candidates who take States so that they end up essentially unrepresented by the winner.
On February 21 2016 14:52 xDaunt wrote: We'll see how things progress, but democrats should be worried by the record turnouts on the republican side versus the mediocre turnouts on the democratic side.
yup.
though I bet a trump/cruz nomination would be quite the uniting force among DEMs. and trump is still winning...
that's why I think and said from the start rubio is the only way to go forward for the GOP. he could make a real contest of the presidency.
people around and in the middle would rather vote for a furuncle in a tie than trump/cruz.
I agree. I think a Trump nomination has the dual effect of hurting Republican turnout, due to a third of the party hating him, while the fear of a Trump presidency would put a fire under the Democratic electorate.
As i have said before, the best marker is how the US economy performs between now and November. Recession = far likelier Republican win.
Besides, with billionaire Liberal Bloomberg running expect him to pull a ton of Democrat votes, especially if Clinton is the nominee.
On February 21 2016 14:52 xDaunt wrote: We'll see how things progress, but democrats should be worried by the record turnouts on the republican side versus the mediocre turnouts on the democratic side.
yup.
though I bet a trump/cruz nomination would be quite the uniting force among DEMs. and trump is still winning...
that's why I think and said from the start rubio is the only way to go forward for the GOP. he could make a real contest of the presidency.
people around and in the middle would rather vote for a furuncle in a tie than trump/cruz.
I agree. I think a Trump nomination has the dual effect of hurting Republican turnout, due to a third of the party hating him, while the fear of a Trump presidency would put a fire under the Democratic electorate.
As i have said before, the best marker is how the US economy performs between now and November. Recession = far likelier Republican win.
Besides, with billionaire Liberal Bloomberg running expect him to pull a ton of Democrat votes, especially if Clinton is the nominee.
Well, it's getting pretty late for Bloomberg to run. He'd have to declare very soon if he wants any chance.
On February 21 2016 14:52 xDaunt wrote: We'll see how things progress, but democrats should be worried by the record turnouts on the republican side versus the mediocre turnouts on the democratic side.
yup.
though I bet a trump/cruz nomination would be quite the uniting force among DEMs. and trump is still winning...
that's why I think and said from the start rubio is the only way to go forward for the GOP. he could make a real contest of the presidency.
people around and in the middle would rather vote for a furuncle in a tie than trump/cruz.
I agree. I think a Trump nomination has the dual effect of hurting Republican turnout, due to a third of the party hating him, while the fear of a Trump presidency would put a fire under the Democratic electorate.
One third of the Party may hate him, but does one third of the usual Republican electorate hate him?
On February 21 2016 14:52 xDaunt wrote: We'll see how things progress, but democrats should be worried by the record turnouts on the republican side versus the mediocre turnouts on the democratic side.
yup.
though I bet a trump/cruz nomination would be quite the uniting force among DEMs. and trump is still winning...
that's why I think and said from the start rubio is the only way to go forward for the GOP. he could make a real contest of the presidency.
people around and in the middle would rather vote for a furuncle in a tie than trump/cruz.
I agree. I think a Trump nomination has the dual effect of hurting Republican turnout, due to a third of the party hating him, while the fear of a Trump presidency would put a fire under the Democratic electorate.
One third of the Party may hate him, but does one third of the usual Republican electorate hate him?
Why would a republican voter just go out and vote for Clinton because they don't like Trump? It doesn't make sense, why would they stay home? Because they want 8 more years of Obama? Republicans are coming out in record numbers while democrats are staying home.
As for these primaries, why do people think Cruz voters would vote for Amnesty Rubio? Really, this whole '35% is Trumps ceiling' is the same kind of pants on head political commentary thats been wrong ever single time since Trump announced his run. People think that just because they don't like Trump no one likes him and they look like idiots every single time.
Because Clinton is a known commodity. Establishment, won't do too much. Hell even has ties to wall street that they might like so they know she won't be so bold. While Trump is the fucking Joker, no one has any clue what this guy is going to do. Plus as been stated in this thread, a lot of conservatives don't really consider him conservative. Trump would have to work real hard just to pull together all the factions of the GOP. Meanwhile the Dems just have to say "Do you want Trump?" then people on the left circle the wagons around Hillary just to keep him out. Hillary can spend most of her time pandering a bit to catch more moderate GOP voters while maintaining a lot of support from the dem side, maybe use her VP pick to retain more Sanders supporters.
On February 21 2016 19:05 Slaughter wrote: Because Clinton is a known commodity. Establishment, won't do too much. Hell even has ties to wall street that they might like so they know she won't be so bold. While Trump is the fucking Joker, no one has any clue what this guy is going to do. Plus as been stated in this thread, a lot of conservatives don't really consider him conservative. Trump would have to work real hard just to pull together all the factions of the GOP. Meanwhile the Dems just have to say "Do you want Trump?" then people on the left circle the wagons around Hillary just to keep him out. Hillary can spend most of her time pandering a bit to catch more moderate GOP voters while maintaining a lot of support from the dem side, maybe use her VP pick to retain more Sanders supporters.
By that logic all Trump has to do is say 'Do you want Clinton?'. Most republicans are terrified of another Obama, and she will be even worse
I think a Hillary vs Trump election actually has record low turnout (for dems at least) and it ends up like a mid term and Republicans wreck house.
Just to put a period on who ridiculously crappy the caucus process is they didn't close the polls in SC until this evening yet they counted 700,000+ votes and reported all of them. They closed the caucus doors at noon PT and they still haven't reported all of the ~80,000 votes.
To put the participation into perspective it's less than the 08 year and the only about 20% of Democratic voters has ever shown up for a caucus. In SC today nearly 750,000 Republicans voted compared to just over 1 million in the GENERAL in 2008.
Besides all the shadiness of Clinton's campaign we seriously need to make voting more practical. Even just junking caucuses.
On February 21 2016 10:08 Deathstar wrote: Representative democracy is the best system we have. It consistently out-performs totalitarian governments like in China in the long-run. There's also no such thing as the average voter. Especially in a country that is as diverse in ideology. ethnicity, and culture as the US.
that was before reality was determined by what's popular on twitter though
this guy just won the SC primary
That's a pretty bland tweet. Its subtext is the lengths Obama will bend over for the Muslim community and Muslim countries and his disdain or apathy towards citizens and allies. Both are well-accepted by Republican primary voters of nearly every stripe, save for Bush and Kasich supporters. Even Merkel in your country might raise the same level of pablum on her immigrant issue.
Such willful ignirance. The obvious subtext is that Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim, which is something the majority of his supporters no doubt believe.
You dig the willful blind generalizations out of your hate. He wouldn't even get the muslim poll numbers if his policies and actions weren't so aligned with favorability. Let's get another speech on a terrorist attack focusing on the pre-post-attack backlash and condemning it! So take the ignorance of your own ignorance elsewhere.
On February 21 2016 10:55 Nyxisto wrote:
On February 21 2016 10:49 Danglars wrote:
On February 21 2016 10:22 Nyxisto wrote:
On February 21 2016 10:08 Deathstar wrote: Representative democracy is the best system we have. It consistently out-performs totalitarian governments like in China in the long-run. There's also no such thing as the average voter. Especially in a country that is as diverse in ideology. ethnicity, and culture as the US.
that was before reality was determined by what's popular on twitter though
That's a pretty bland tweet. Its subtext is the lengths Obama will bend over for the Muslim community and Muslim countries and his disdain or apathy towards citizens and allies. Both are well-accepted by Republican primary voters of nearly every stripe, save for Bush and Kasich supporters. Even Merkel in your country might raise the same level of pablum on her immigrant issue.
Sure there's 30% of people in whatever country willing to eat this stuff up and I have little idea about American primaries honestly so I don't know how much Trump's success until now actually means but it is utterly ridiculous how his persona continues to survive and is immune to criticism. It's a complete erosion of politics in regards to civility, reason and so on. It's like reality television.
I get why you would generalize this to the overall persona, I really do. He's over the top and he's dedicated to anti-PC statements in all forms and subjects. Douglas Adams did a good series on the statement and others in (link) an article and (link) the series. Let me add some short comments on the "immune to criticism" and "civility & reason" parts.
First, GOP supporters have seen much of the criticism of Trump to itself be overblown and unfounded. It started with immigration, how the TV news and columnists marginalized supporters of a border fence as the first step to comprehensive immigration reform. Now Trump emphatically states that view in yuuuge press conferences, relates its impact, covers sanctuary cities, and deservedly wins support. The predictable response of establishment figures in both parties is the exact same establishment mainstream view that got people riled up in the first place—so it's easily swept away. If there had been a vibrant debate on immigration with all positions considered, there would be no Trump or he'd have to try his luck on a new central issue. Disparage your sincerely held view for decades and see if you also don't give the first guy you hear supporting your viewpoint some leeway in criticism.
Now, how about the charge that he's being uncivil and unreasonable. His supporters and the conservative base of the GOP have for some time now regarded Obama's deeply vindictive speeches as about as uncivil as it gets. He takes executive power to new levels, and presumes to lecture the other side about what idiots they are for calling it that. Talk about Muslim violence in the middle east and he'll bring up the crusades, an extreme level of religious conflation. On nearly every policy disagreement he straw-mans the opposition, whether he calls it based on racist or outgroup-based or inherently against American values. I know many readers are coming from an American liberal mindset, so you might agree with Obama on his stances. However, you haven't gone through 7 years of Obama trashing mainstream conservative values that you hold and showing outright contempt for state rights and the rule of law. He's an incredibly partisan politician and is responsible for his behavior towards his political opponents.
I say the GOP base has grown tired of sincerely uncivil and unreasonable comments and actions from the current president and his administration (case can also be brought for the Bush attackers of yesteryear), dressed up in flowery language and condescending fortune-cookie aphorisms (RIP Scalia). The first guy to repeatedly fight back on a big podium with bombast ignites the reserves of indignation. Call it inciting incivility if you want. It's been going on for some time now. To cite a Germany example, just to reaffirm my conceptual basis, you think Merkel's administration would've received the same verbal disparagement had it not covered up the sex attacks that occured on new year's eve? To conclude, the left has fundamentally eroded the civil debate and the appeal to reason for long enough, and only now are receiving back the fruits of their labors.
Yes sure you can probably give some blame to the 'establishment' in the US as well as in Europe to not listen to a certain part of their population, marginalizing them and so on and that's obviously where some of the backlash comes from including the stuff Merkel has had to endure, but Obama has never said or done anything that is even remotely comparable to the stuff he faces. Large parts of the Republican voterbase literally seem to believe that he is either a Muslim or not American, and that is 100% grounded in his biography as a black man with Hussein as a second name. If he would be John von Wienerschnitzel descending from German Protestants he wouldn't be facing these accusations. There ought to be some line where this stuff ends and politics begins. Yes Merkel get's a lot of those comments as well, but not from other politicians or candidates, but tone is getting more raw here as well.
There is a certain part of the population that seems to be so intrinsically anti-pluralist and extremist that they can not participate in a democracy and the political system, and the political system as a whole has the job to signal that and not agitate them further.
I think y'all are overblowing the Obama=Muslim and Obama's from Kenya minorities, and I'm honestly not sure if that's a psychological refuge from wishing your opponents were paranoid simpletons. If Mr. Whitey McWhite had done the same things Obama had to Iran & Israel & the Arab Spring, and given the same speeches about 2nd amendment gun rights and pre-post-terrorism backlash, he'd get the same people today viciously attacking him. I guarantee it. I disagree with your perspective, but hell, this is a forum I welcome disagreement.
I'd even say the modern Democratic party is very insular and extremist. The GOP establishment is equal or next in line on the former. With the political debate shifted left, the overton window shifted left, the word extremist means less and less as widely applied. I'd reserve it for those wanting to abolish the federal reserve and privatize the army. Trump's pronouncements on punitive tariffs certainly are just that. But sane immigration policy, a return to limited government and budgeting a social safety net within our means, social policy reserved for the people's representatives and not the courts—these ought to be the center-right or right in politics. The marginalization of right-wing ideas and the advancement of social justice norms have done greater damage, and as you say, ought to end where politics begins.
The overwhelming delegate leader for the Republican Presidential Primary race just said the following about the President:
I wonder if President Obama would have attended the funeral of Justice Scalia if it were held in a Mosque? Very sad that he did not go!
Any of your arguments about "I think y'all are overblowing the Obama=Muslim and Obama's from Kenya minorities, and I'm honestly not sure if that's a psychological refuge from wishing your opponents were paranoid simpletons." are utterly invalid. The Republican base has spoken and spoken clearly. They support guys who at least suggest President Obama is a Muslim.
I'm just glad he quoted the tweet, I responded, later on you quote the same tweet. Responding to a tweet with the same tweet is too meta for me. It's like troll-bait: "Look its shocking! Reminder: Trump's supporters are bigoted assholes." Next up: Let's rediscover some gold old The Onion articles and smirk about how spot on they are with the GOP.
On February 21 2016 14:52 xDaunt wrote: We'll see how things progress, but democrats should be worried by the record turnouts on the republican side versus the mediocre turnouts on the democratic side.
Yeah Nevada's stats were eerie. I haven't heard an explanation why campaign managers and party strategists wouldn't be wringing their hands over this.
On February 21 2016 14:10 Nyxisto wrote: It actually surprises me that this nationalist stuff is working in the US. I think especially Trumps "we are losing" rhetoric is pretty interesting because I thought an important feature of American conservatism is that America never really can't lose because the American people can never go really wrong, which usually automatically disempowers political authorities. Trump seems to stress that there's a need to 'make' America great and that he's the right guy for the job which sounds pretty authoritarian for the American right.
I also don't think that he sounds a lot like he wants limited government at all, especially in regards to civil rights.
I don't think its surprising that as America's Federal Government starts to look more like a European government in its format (more redistribution, more powerful administrative agencies) that our politics starts to look more like European politics. I think a lot of his supporters are ones who say, "All these powers have been used to take money from us and give it to XX, we should have a strongman just redistribute it all back."
When you look at Trump, he uses much of the same general ideas that an Obama or a Bernie does, (the 1%, money in politics, needing to use executive action to get things done) and just comes to a massively different set of prescriptions. Plus he has a yuugely different rhetorical style.
Edit. Also, I think you are misunderstanding him a bit. He is saying the American people didn't go wrong, the "leaders" and politicians did. And he says, don't blame yourself you had no choice because your choice was between "loses every deal" Obama and "crappy soldier who got captured" McCain.
That's exactly why he's a centrist and the appeal is a novelty in the modern age. Trump says Obamacare was a failure, but let him do it and it'll be a yuuge success. Big government isn't full of winners, all it needs is the right guy heading it.
So say Trump takes the nomination. If you're a conservative voting for Trump in the general election, it's at least the third time you've voted for the lesser of two evils. He'll grow government, he might gut Obamacare to do public option Trumpcare, but at least the border will be safe for the first time in a generation. You'll shudder at how big government solutions get a bright new Republican sticker on them (and down a shot of whiskey as TARP and NCLB memories return). But at least he might restrain the regulatory state to keep business chugging.
What is with this sudden start of the use of "yuuge". Doesn't it make you feel incredibly stupid writing like that? I know that it is supposed to be some kind of jab at the thing you are pointing at, but it just looks so idiotic. And it appears to have started only some weeks ago, but now i see it every few posts.
On February 21 2016 21:10 Simberto wrote: Ok, short segway.
What is with this sudden start of the use of "yuuge". Doesn't it make you feel incredibly stupid writing like that? I know that it is supposed to be some kind of jab at the thing you are pointing at, but it just looks so idiotic. And it appears to have started only some weeks ago, but now i see it every few posts.
I believe its because of Trump's accent when he says huge.
On February 21 2016 21:10 Simberto wrote: Ok, short segway.
What is with this sudden start of the use of "yuuge". Doesn't it make you feel incredibly stupid writing like that? I know that it is supposed to be some kind of jab at the thing you are pointing at, but it just looks so idiotic. And it appears to have started only some weeks ago, but now i see it every few posts.
It's a New York thing.
______________________________
I'm straight flabbergasted that people are ok with this crap (host guy is a jack ass but the video shows what a cluster NV was).
On February 21 2016 21:10 Simberto wrote: Ok, short segway.
What is with this sudden start of the use of "yuuge". Doesn't it make you feel incredibly stupid writing like that? I know that it is supposed to be some kind of jab at the thing you are pointing at, but it just looks so idiotic. And it appears to have started only some weeks ago, but now i see it every few posts.
It's a New York thing.
______________________________
I'm straight flabbergasted that people are ok with this crap (host guy is a jack ass but the video shows what a cluster NV was).
Was there an actual mistake with the counting? It doesn't seem so. Yeah its bad that he forgot but was it corrected properly? It seems so. (who exactly goes to the convention to be the delegate is minor at best. Its the count that matters. And it surely doesn't help that the source is as biased as they come "once again people voted against their interests".
This is what I meant by saying Bernie supporters are just throwing everything that seems slightly off at the wall and hoping something sticks.
There was a count. There is no indication the count was wrong. What is the major problem here?
The primary caucus system is pre-historic but its not an anti-bernie conspiracy. Just the usual American lack of updates to a process as times change.
On February 21 2016 21:10 Simberto wrote: Ok, short segway.
What is with this sudden start of the use of "yuuge". Doesn't it make you feel incredibly stupid writing like that? I know that it is supposed to be some kind of jab at the thing you are pointing at, but it just looks so idiotic. And it appears to have started only some weeks ago, but now i see it every few posts.
It's a New York thing.
______________________________
I'm straight flabbergasted that people are ok with this crap (host guy is a jack ass but the video shows what a cluster NV was).
Was there an actual mistake with the counting? It doesn't seem so. Yeah its bad that he forgot but was it corrected properly? It seems so. (who exactly goes to the convention to be the delegate is minor at best. Its the count that matters. And it surely doesn't help that the source is as biased as they come "once again people voted against their interests".
This is what I meant by saying Bernie supporters are just throwing everything that seems slightly off at the wall and hoping something sticks.
There was a count. There is no indication the count was wrong. What is the major problem here?
The primary caucus system is pre-historic but its not an anti-bernie conspiracy. Just the usual American lack of updates to a process as times change.
Well you're wrong. I wasn't posting this to indicate any conspiracy, there's more than enough info out there to show that the DNC tried to rig the nomination process, and that's not a conspiracy, that's just the reality.
My point is showing that the caucus system is totally screwy (even though Sanders may win every other caucus from here out for a variety of reasons).
As for how it could impact the outcome, if delegates don't show they don't count even if they were won, so it could dramatically change the outcome of their particular caucus which is a problem regardless of who happens to be favored by it.
That Hillary, as the defacto leader of the party, doesn't even mentioning how terrible the Democratic party is at it is what I'm talking about with people being ok with it.
Yeah it goes on a long list but it belongs there with shit we brag about but do worse than much of the first world. There happens to be a guy trying to clear up that list and two other groups trying to stop him.
On February 21 2016 21:10 Simberto wrote: Ok, short segway.
What is with this sudden start of the use of "yuuge". Doesn't it make you feel incredibly stupid writing like that? I know that it is supposed to be some kind of jab at the thing you are pointing at, but it just looks so idiotic. And it appears to have started only some weeks ago, but now i see it every few posts.
It's a New York thing.
______________________________
I'm straight flabbergasted that people are ok with this crap (host guy is a jack ass but the video shows what a cluster NV was).
While i do agree that the process in general seems to be inexplicably unorganized, the guy commenting in that video comes off as a complete douchebag. I am usually not an angry person, but that guy is just such a smug douche that he made me want to punch him despite agreeing with the general idea of what he is saying, just by the way he says it and how he focusses on utterly irrelevant details like "He is writing on his hand omg!" I am pretty sure i couldn't stand being in a room with that guy for more any period of time, and he actively makes me want to not vote for sanders (Despite the fact that a) i can't even vote in the US and b) i do think that Sanders is by far the best candidate around.). One should really be careful when selecting the people one wants to represent an organisation, and that guy it not one i would want around any organisation i am in favor off.
EPT
