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.
I would perhaps argue that candidates like Romney are exactly why Trump and Cruz are doing so well right now. A significant part of the GOP is saying "Fucking stop with these types of guys".
Also, wasn't GH saying black people were gonna be what helps Bernie win?
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).
Ok, i have to say this:
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.
Sorry for the derailing.
On February 21 2016 22:35 Gorsameth wrote: Again, I specifically said there is plenty wrong with the caucus system. But that video is a terrible example. It does not try to point out the major flaws of the system or how it can be fixed. Just listen to the guy "omg he wrote something on his hand, this is so bad", "omg he dropped a piece of paper, so bad!" This is throwing everything you see at the wall hoping something sticks.
A mistake was made, the mistake was corrected yes? The fact some people already left is irrelevant to this mistake, there was not a miss count. So long as the delegates were assigned in the end everything is fine.
Did you guys read my post or just click the video? I said the guy was a jack ass... and then clarified that the point wasn't his commentary but how much of a cluster the process is.
And I explained that the number won doesn't mean much if they aren't selected so "everything" is NOT "fine". I understand why this wouldn't be clear for people outside of the system, hell it's clear some of the people running it don't even understand it.
Again, the mistake was discovered before everyone left. Was the mistake corrected and were the delegates selected in the end. yes or no?
And if the video is pointless and you don't want it argued then don't link it.
I'm patient because you obviously don't know how this works. No the mistake was not corrected. Though even if it was, my point is that no one should be ok with the fact that our election system is so terrible and terribly executed (this wasn't a one time thing).
On February 22 2016 01:16 Mohdoo wrote: I would perhaps argue that candidates like Romney are exactly why Trump and Cruz are doing so well right now. A significant part of the GOP is saying "Fucking stop with these types of guys".
Also, wasn't GH saying black people were gonna be what helps Bernie win?
Not sure what you're referencing but Black people are the only people standing between Sanders and victory so I would consider his victory predicated on their support.
Though from a political "Hillaryesque" POV he could just open it up a bit more on white voters while she panders to black voters and win the nomination that way. But Sanders doesn't play that game.
According to the entry polling in Nevada he's winning Hispanic voters and basically every category except old white rich people and black people. He's made significant progress with some black voters, but they were almost completely ignored by both campaigns in NV so I wouldn't expect SC to look quite as one sided (prolly picks up another 4-10 points). and according to the campaigns math he can win the nomination with just over about 33% of the black vote (though I'm sure he'll be fighting for more).
I have to give it to the media and Clinton's campaign (whenever they aren't one in the same) for shifting expectations so dramatically that losing a 20 point lead in a state everyone said since Bernie entered the race would be a blowout in favor of Hillary shrunk to a 5 point win and momentum shift, even with the sketchy stuff like Reid, the fliers, sneaking in voters against the rules, insane wait times/lines, overcrowded under prepared venues, shifted venues, just turning people away from sheer incompetence, etc...
Without Clinton pulling every political trick in the book this wouldn't even be a close race. If they were just competing on their ideas and records this would be over. But too many of her supporters are comfortable picking the best player at a rigged game instead of the player who plans to change the game. Even the most ruthless and cynical plays she makes get little more than a shrug from far too many of her supporters.
On February 22 2016 01:58 Schmobutzen wrote: Please, can anyone sane american explain to me, why such a creature as Trump is this ridicilously successfull?
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.
Sorry for the derailing.
On February 21 2016 22:35 Gorsameth wrote: Again, I specifically said there is plenty wrong with the caucus system. But that video is a terrible example. It does not try to point out the major flaws of the system or how it can be fixed. Just listen to the guy "omg he wrote something on his hand, this is so bad", "omg he dropped a piece of paper, so bad!" This is throwing everything you see at the wall hoping something sticks.
A mistake was made, the mistake was corrected yes? The fact some people already left is irrelevant to this mistake, there was not a miss count. So long as the delegates were assigned in the end everything is fine.
Did you guys read my post or just click the video? I said the guy was a jack ass... and then clarified that the point wasn't his commentary but how much of a cluster the process is.
And I explained that the number won doesn't mean much if they aren't selected so "everything" is NOT "fine". I understand why this wouldn't be clear for people outside of the system, hell it's clear some of the people running it don't even understand it.
Again, the mistake was discovered before everyone left. Was the mistake corrected and were the delegates selected in the end. yes or no?
And if the video is pointless and you don't want it argued then don't link it.
I'm patient because you obviously don't know how this works. No the mistake was not corrected. Though even if it was, my point is that no one should be ok with the fact that our election system is so terrible and terribly executed (this wasn't a one time thing).
I am very much aware how the system works and the man is shown to tell people to not leave and that they still need to assign delegates. Unless you can find me an actual (preferable somewhat less biased then this guy) proof that even after this the delegates were not appointed then you have a (big) point but this right now is just a basic error being made and then fixed that has no impact on the outcome (assuming again that the delegates were assigned in the end, which appears to be the case).
Yes the system is bad, I have said so repeatedly. But any system that involved a human at any point is going to have mistakes happen. What matters is if those mistakes are then fixed and again, the video shows the mistake being fixed.
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.
Sorry for the derailing.
On February 21 2016 22:35 Gorsameth wrote: Again, I specifically said there is plenty wrong with the caucus system. But that video is a terrible example. It does not try to point out the major flaws of the system or how it can be fixed. Just listen to the guy "omg he wrote something on his hand, this is so bad", "omg he dropped a piece of paper, so bad!" This is throwing everything you see at the wall hoping something sticks.
A mistake was made, the mistake was corrected yes? The fact some people already left is irrelevant to this mistake, there was not a miss count. So long as the delegates were assigned in the end everything is fine.
Did you guys read my post or just click the video? I said the guy was a jack ass... and then clarified that the point wasn't his commentary but how much of a cluster the process is.
And I explained that the number won doesn't mean much if they aren't selected so "everything" is NOT "fine". I understand why this wouldn't be clear for people outside of the system, hell it's clear some of the people running it don't even understand it.
Again, the mistake was discovered before everyone left. Was the mistake corrected and were the delegates selected in the end. yes or no?
And if the video is pointless and you don't want it argued then don't link it.
I'm patient because you obviously don't know how this works. No the mistake was not corrected. Though even if it was, my point is that no one should be ok with the fact that our election system is so terrible and terribly executed (this wasn't a one time thing).
I am very much aware how the system works and the man is shown to tell people to not leave and that they still need to assign delegates. Unless you can find me an actual (preferable somewhat less biased then this guy) proof that even after this the delegates were not appointed then you have a (big) point but this right now is just a basic error being made and then fixed that has no impact on the outcome (assuming again that the delegates were assigned in the end, which appears to be the case).
Yes the system is bad, I have said so repeatedly. But any system that involved a human at any point is going to have mistakes happen. What matters is if those mistakes are then fixed and again, the video shows the mistake being fixed.
Where do you see delegates selected? I see no one selected
So even if they found people to sign up, the likelihood they show up is dramatically reduced as they would have been basically forced into signing up or just not sending a representative so it may be people who aren't showing up. Or just the supporters that were left even if they were all for Bernie or all for Hillary.
It's not that "mistakes happen" it's that we know we have a terrible system and no one here other than Bernie actually wants to fix it. jfc feel like I've been speaking a foreign language for the past 24 hours.
On February 22 2016 01:58 Schmobutzen wrote: Please, can anyone sane american explain to me, why such a creature as Trump is this ridicilously successfull?
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.
Sorry for the derailing.
On February 21 2016 22:35 Gorsameth wrote: Again, I specifically said there is plenty wrong with the caucus system. But that video is a terrible example. It does not try to point out the major flaws of the system or how it can be fixed. Just listen to the guy "omg he wrote something on his hand, this is so bad", "omg he dropped a piece of paper, so bad!" This is throwing everything you see at the wall hoping something sticks.
A mistake was made, the mistake was corrected yes? The fact some people already left is irrelevant to this mistake, there was not a miss count. So long as the delegates were assigned in the end everything is fine.
Did you guys read my post or just click the video? I said the guy was a jack ass... and then clarified that the point wasn't his commentary but how much of a cluster the process is.
And I explained that the number won doesn't mean much if they aren't selected so "everything" is NOT "fine". I understand why this wouldn't be clear for people outside of the system, hell it's clear some of the people running it don't even understand it.
Again, the mistake was discovered before everyone left. Was the mistake corrected and were the delegates selected in the end. yes or no?
And if the video is pointless and you don't want it argued then don't link it.
I'm patient because you obviously don't know how this works. No the mistake was not corrected. Though even if it was, my point is that no one should be ok with the fact that our election system is so terrible and terribly executed (this wasn't a one time thing).
I am very much aware how the system works and the man is shown to tell people to not leave and that they still need to assign delegates. Unless you can find me an actual (preferable somewhat less biased then this guy) proof that even after this the delegates were not appointed then you have a (big) point but this right now is just a basic error being made and then fixed that has no impact on the outcome (assuming again that the delegates were assigned in the end, which appears to be the case).
Yes the system is bad, I have said so repeatedly. But any system that involved a human at any point is going to have mistakes happen. What matters is if those mistakes are then fixed and again, the video shows the mistake being fixed.
These "elections" look like a pure farce. There is no saving in that, even whiteout mistakes the whole system would still be horrible..
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.
Sorry for the derailing.
On February 21 2016 22:35 Gorsameth wrote: Again, I specifically said there is plenty wrong with the caucus system. But that video is a terrible example. It does not try to point out the major flaws of the system or how it can be fixed. Just listen to the guy "omg he wrote something on his hand, this is so bad", "omg he dropped a piece of paper, so bad!" This is throwing everything you see at the wall hoping something sticks.
A mistake was made, the mistake was corrected yes? The fact some people already left is irrelevant to this mistake, there was not a miss count. So long as the delegates were assigned in the end everything is fine.
Did you guys read my post or just click the video? I said the guy was a jack ass... and then clarified that the point wasn't his commentary but how much of a cluster the process is.
And I explained that the number won doesn't mean much if they aren't selected so "everything" is NOT "fine". I understand why this wouldn't be clear for people outside of the system, hell it's clear some of the people running it don't even understand it.
Again, the mistake was discovered before everyone left. Was the mistake corrected and were the delegates selected in the end. yes or no?
And if the video is pointless and you don't want it argued then don't link it.
I'm patient because you obviously don't know how this works. No the mistake was not corrected. Though even if it was, my point is that no one should be ok with the fact that our election system is so terrible and terribly executed (this wasn't a one time thing).
I am very much aware how the system works and the man is shown to tell people to not leave and that they still need to assign delegates. Unless you can find me an actual (preferable somewhat less biased then this guy) proof that even after this the delegates were not appointed then you have a (big) point but this right now is just a basic error being made and then fixed that has no impact on the outcome (assuming again that the delegates were assigned in the end, which appears to be the case).
Yes the system is bad, I have said so repeatedly. But any system that involved a human at any point is going to have mistakes happen. What matters is if those mistakes are then fixed and again, the video shows the mistake being fixed.
Where do you see delegates selected? I see no one selected
So even if they found people to sign up, the likelihood they show up is dramatically reduced as they would have been basically forced into signing up or just not sending a representative so it may be people who aren't showing up. Or just the supporters that were left even if they were all for Bernie or all for Hillary.
It's not that "mistakes happen" it's that we know we have a terrible system and no one here other than Bernie actually wants to fix it. jfc feel like I've been speaking a foreign language for the past 24 hours.
Gee I wonder why a heavily edited video by a man who aims to discredit everything he can find did not show the mistake being corrected in his video...
And no your not speaking a foreign language. But you sure are failing at reading english.
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.
Sorry for the derailing.
On February 21 2016 22:35 Gorsameth wrote: Again, I specifically said there is plenty wrong with the caucus system. But that video is a terrible example. It does not try to point out the major flaws of the system or how it can be fixed. Just listen to the guy "omg he wrote something on his hand, this is so bad", "omg he dropped a piece of paper, so bad!" This is throwing everything you see at the wall hoping something sticks.
A mistake was made, the mistake was corrected yes? The fact some people already left is irrelevant to this mistake, there was not a miss count. So long as the delegates were assigned in the end everything is fine.
Did you guys read my post or just click the video? I said the guy was a jack ass... and then clarified that the point wasn't his commentary but how much of a cluster the process is.
And I explained that the number won doesn't mean much if they aren't selected so "everything" is NOT "fine". I understand why this wouldn't be clear for people outside of the system, hell it's clear some of the people running it don't even understand it.
Again, the mistake was discovered before everyone left. Was the mistake corrected and were the delegates selected in the end. yes or no?
And if the video is pointless and you don't want it argued then don't link it.
I'm patient because you obviously don't know how this works. No the mistake was not corrected. Though even if it was, my point is that no one should be ok with the fact that our election system is so terrible and terribly executed (this wasn't a one time thing).
I am very much aware how the system works and the man is shown to tell people to not leave and that they still need to assign delegates. Unless you can find me an actual (preferable somewhat less biased then this guy) proof that even after this the delegates were not appointed then you have a (big) point but this right now is just a basic error being made and then fixed that has no impact on the outcome (assuming again that the delegates were assigned in the end, which appears to be the case).
Yes the system is bad, I have said so repeatedly. But any system that involved a human at any point is going to have mistakes happen. What matters is if those mistakes are then fixed and again, the video shows the mistake being fixed.
These "elections" look like a pure farce. There is no saving in that, even whiteout mistakes the whole system would still be horrible..
And please note the dozen orso times where I have agreed with that. But that doesn't change that the video GH linked is pure garbage and does more harm then good to the message he tries to bring across.
On February 22 2016 02:29 Mohdoo wrote: GH do you have any thoughts on black support for Sanders after Nevada?
My hope is that Sanders has been saving a something special for this week to help woo black voters and take him to victory, but realistically he probably hasn't.
SC is kind of Hillary's NH in that it's in the top 5 blackest states and they represent one of the biggest percentages of Black voters in any state.
That being said based on the demographic and voting projections, Sanders camp would consider greater than 33% of the black vote in SC a win and proof they can win the nomination (in combination with the Nevada results with Hispanics).
If Hillary loses more than 40% of the black SC vote the nomination is all but over. Keep in mind Sanders is in it till the end so Hillary can't ever lose that black support without taking white support from Sanders or she's done. As she hasn't really "taken" any support from Sanders this whole election but he's erased her advantage with a Hispanic demo in NV and shrunk her lead among Black voters by 20 points in 2 months in SC despite the media narrative she's hanging on by the skin of her teeth.
She bet hard on tonight combined with the smear from America to discourage Sanders supporters. It was actually quite "Art of War"ish.
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.
Sorry for the derailing.
On February 21 2016 22:35 Gorsameth wrote: Again, I specifically said there is plenty wrong with the caucus system. But that video is a terrible example. It does not try to point out the major flaws of the system or how it can be fixed. Just listen to the guy "omg he wrote something on his hand, this is so bad", "omg he dropped a piece of paper, so bad!" This is throwing everything you see at the wall hoping something sticks.
A mistake was made, the mistake was corrected yes? The fact some people already left is irrelevant to this mistake, there was not a miss count. So long as the delegates were assigned in the end everything is fine.
Did you guys read my post or just click the video? I said the guy was a jack ass... and then clarified that the point wasn't his commentary but how much of a cluster the process is.
And I explained that the number won doesn't mean much if they aren't selected so "everything" is NOT "fine". I understand why this wouldn't be clear for people outside of the system, hell it's clear some of the people running it don't even understand it.
Again, the mistake was discovered before everyone left. Was the mistake corrected and were the delegates selected in the end. yes or no?
And if the video is pointless and you don't want it argued then don't link it.
I'm patient because you obviously don't know how this works. No the mistake was not corrected. Though even if it was, my point is that no one should be ok with the fact that our election system is so terrible and terribly executed (this wasn't a one time thing).
I am very much aware how the system works and the man is shown to tell people to not leave and that they still need to assign delegates. Unless you can find me an actual (preferable somewhat less biased then this guy) proof that even after this the delegates were not appointed then you have a (big) point but this right now is just a basic error being made and then fixed that has no impact on the outcome (assuming again that the delegates were assigned in the end, which appears to be the case).
Yes the system is bad, I have said so repeatedly. But any system that involved a human at any point is going to have mistakes happen. What matters is if those mistakes are then fixed and again, the video shows the mistake being fixed.
Where do you see delegates selected? I see no one selected
So even if they found people to sign up, the likelihood they show up is dramatically reduced as they would have been basically forced into signing up or just not sending a representative so it may be people who aren't showing up. Or just the supporters that were left even if they were all for Bernie or all for Hillary.
It's not that "mistakes happen" it's that we know we have a terrible system and no one here other than Bernie actually wants to fix it. jfc feel like I've been speaking a foreign language for the past 24 hours.
Gee I wonder why a heavily edited video by a man who aims to discredit everything he can find did not show the mistake being corrected in his video...
And no your not speaking a foreign language. But you sure are failing at reading english.
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.
Sorry for the derailing.
On February 21 2016 22:35 Gorsameth wrote: Again, I specifically said there is plenty wrong with the caucus system. But that video is a terrible example. It does not try to point out the major flaws of the system or how it can be fixed. Just listen to the guy "omg he wrote something on his hand, this is so bad", "omg he dropped a piece of paper, so bad!" This is throwing everything you see at the wall hoping something sticks.
A mistake was made, the mistake was corrected yes? The fact some people already left is irrelevant to this mistake, there was not a miss count. So long as the delegates were assigned in the end everything is fine.
Did you guys read my post or just click the video? I said the guy was a jack ass... and then clarified that the point wasn't his commentary but how much of a cluster the process is.
And I explained that the number won doesn't mean much if they aren't selected so "everything" is NOT "fine". I understand why this wouldn't be clear for people outside of the system, hell it's clear some of the people running it don't even understand it.
Again, the mistake was discovered before everyone left. Was the mistake corrected and were the delegates selected in the end. yes or no?
And if the video is pointless and you don't want it argued then don't link it.
I'm patient because you obviously don't know how this works. No the mistake was not corrected. Though even if it was, my point is that no one should be ok with the fact that our election system is so terrible and terribly executed (this wasn't a one time thing).
I am very much aware how the system works and the man is shown to tell people to not leave and that they still need to assign delegates. Unless you can find me an actual (preferable somewhat less biased then this guy) proof that even after this the delegates were not appointed then you have a (big) point but this right now is just a basic error being made and then fixed that has no impact on the outcome (assuming again that the delegates were assigned in the end, which appears to be the case).
Yes the system is bad, I have said so repeatedly. But any system that involved a human at any point is going to have mistakes happen. What matters is if those mistakes are then fixed and again, the video shows the mistake being fixed.
These "elections" look like a pure farce. There is no saving in that, even whiteout mistakes the whole system would still be horrible..
And please note the dozen orso times where I have agreed with that. But that doesn't change that the video GH linked is pure garbage and does more harm then good to the message he tries to bring across.
You seem to be failing to comprehend what was being shown. Focusing way to much on the host. But at least you confirmed that you have no reason to believe the delegates were selected or that the problem was fixed despite your repeated assertions that it was.
If you had ever actually participated in one of these you would probably have a better grasp of just how big of a clusterfuck it is to try to do what you are suggesting. The reason the guy looks frantic is because it was fubar. He could of ended up with all Hillary supporters and had no way to know so instead of Sanders getting his share they all could of went to Hillary or all to Bernie and there would be nothing he could do to remedy it.
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.
Sorry for the derailing.
On February 21 2016 22:35 Gorsameth wrote: Again, I specifically said there is plenty wrong with the caucus system. But that video is a terrible example. It does not try to point out the major flaws of the system or how it can be fixed. Just listen to the guy "omg he wrote something on his hand, this is so bad", "omg he dropped a piece of paper, so bad!" This is throwing everything you see at the wall hoping something sticks.
A mistake was made, the mistake was corrected yes? The fact some people already left is irrelevant to this mistake, there was not a miss count. So long as the delegates were assigned in the end everything is fine.
Did you guys read my post or just click the video? I said the guy was a jack ass... and then clarified that the point wasn't his commentary but how much of a cluster the process is.
And I explained that the number won doesn't mean much if they aren't selected so "everything" is NOT "fine". I understand why this wouldn't be clear for people outside of the system, hell it's clear some of the people running it don't even understand it.
Again, the mistake was discovered before everyone left. Was the mistake corrected and were the delegates selected in the end. yes or no?
And if the video is pointless and you don't want it argued then don't link it.
I'm patient because you obviously don't know how this works. No the mistake was not corrected. Though even if it was, my point is that no one should be ok with the fact that our election system is so terrible and terribly executed (this wasn't a one time thing).
I am very much aware how the system works and the man is shown to tell people to not leave and that they still need to assign delegates. Unless you can find me an actual (preferable somewhat less biased then this guy) proof that even after this the delegates were not appointed then you have a (big) point but this right now is just a basic error being made and then fixed that has no impact on the outcome (assuming again that the delegates were assigned in the end, which appears to be the case).
Yes the system is bad, I have said so repeatedly. But any system that involved a human at any point is going to have mistakes happen. What matters is if those mistakes are then fixed and again, the video shows the mistake being fixed.
These "elections" look like a pure farce. There is no saving in that, even whiteout mistakes the whole system would still be horrible..
Honestly I don't see what's wrong here (no, I'm actually dead serious). I mean yes, if you consider that a party choosing its presidential candidate should be a example of democracy, what we're currently seeing is a farce. Now look at it another way : a party is a party. I don't believe (correct me if I'm wrong 'cuz obviously I'm no American) that they have any legal obligation of choosing their candidate by making people vote ; in fact, I think it's fair to assume that many of each party's establishment would be happy to choose the candidates between themselves instead of having a bloodshed that weakens everyone, financially as well as politically. In fact, I think it's also fair to say that the only reason we see these primaries happening is that both parties want to occupy the media space as soon as possible, as well as giving a (false) impression of being open to popular opinion. Thus it is only normal that a primary is a farce, and that it is by essence unfair towards the non-establishment candidate(s).
On February 22 2016 01:58 Schmobutzen wrote: Please, can anyone sane american explain to me, why such a creature as Trump is this ridicilously successfull?
Because they hate the system because they have no real say, yet keep being told they should and do have a say, so they sabotage it deliberately.
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.
Sorry for the derailing.
On February 21 2016 22:35 Gorsameth wrote: Again, I specifically said there is plenty wrong with the caucus system. But that video is a terrible example. It does not try to point out the major flaws of the system or how it can be fixed. Just listen to the guy "omg he wrote something on his hand, this is so bad", "omg he dropped a piece of paper, so bad!" This is throwing everything you see at the wall hoping something sticks.
A mistake was made, the mistake was corrected yes? The fact some people already left is irrelevant to this mistake, there was not a miss count. So long as the delegates were assigned in the end everything is fine.
Did you guys read my post or just click the video? I said the guy was a jack ass... and then clarified that the point wasn't his commentary but how much of a cluster the process is.
And I explained that the number won doesn't mean much if they aren't selected so "everything" is NOT "fine". I understand why this wouldn't be clear for people outside of the system, hell it's clear some of the people running it don't even understand it.
Again, the mistake was discovered before everyone left. Was the mistake corrected and were the delegates selected in the end. yes or no?
And if the video is pointless and you don't want it argued then don't link it.
I'm patient because you obviously don't know how this works. No the mistake was not corrected. Though even if it was, my point is that no one should be ok with the fact that our election system is so terrible and terribly executed (this wasn't a one time thing).
I am very much aware how the system works and the man is shown to tell people to not leave and that they still need to assign delegates. Unless you can find me an actual (preferable somewhat less biased then this guy) proof that even after this the delegates were not appointed then you have a (big) point but this right now is just a basic error being made and then fixed that has no impact on the outcome (assuming again that the delegates were assigned in the end, which appears to be the case).
Yes the system is bad, I have said so repeatedly. But any system that involved a human at any point is going to have mistakes happen. What matters is if those mistakes are then fixed and again, the video shows the mistake being fixed.
These "elections" look like a pure farce. There is no saving in that, even whiteout mistakes the whole system would still be horrible..
Honestly I don't see what's wrong here (no, I'm actually dead serious). I mean yes, if you consider that a party choosing its presidential candidate should be a example of democracy, what we're currently seeing is a farce. Now look at it another way : a party is a party. I don't believe (correct me if I'm wrong 'cuz obviously I'm no American) that they have any legal obligation of choosing their candidate by making people vote ; in fact, I think it's fair to assume that many of each party's establishment would be happy to choose the candidates between themselves instead of having a bloodshed that weakens everyone, financially as well as politically. In fact, I think it's also fair to say that the only reason we see these primaries happening is that both parties want to occupy the media space as soon as possible, as well as giving a (false) impression of being open to popular opinion. Thus it is only normal that a primary is a farce, and that it is by essence unfair towards the non-establishment candidate(s).
Well DWS from the DNC said as much, Which is one reason on a long list, of why I repeatedly tell people to stop pretending they didn't/aren't trying to rig the election. And to stop acting like saying they did/are makes someone a kook.
The Republican side is actually far more democratic but they have more winner take all to help balance out the control, problem is, their strat for taking out the people's candidates didn't account for a Trump. One of the many things he's exploiting within the R nomination process is the thirst for power overwhelming reason so that he is only faring so well because of how inept they are to adjusting to the dynamic he brought to the race (and them having a much different plan for the general).
I want to point out that until we get a little more clarity in the matter, we can't really say if the Latino vote went for Hillary or Bernie. Hillary won pretty big in the big Latino areas (60 % of delegates?), but that's contrasted with GH's point about the entry/exit polling saying Bernie won by 53 to 45 or so.
I also find it a bit of an odd boast for the campaign to be touting "we won the Latino vote". Can't explain exactly why, but it's just... weird to me.
On February 22 2016 02:58 ticklishmusic wrote: I want to point out that until we get a little more clarity in the matter, we can't really say if the Latino vote went for Hillary or Bernie. Hillary won pretty big in the big Latino areas (60 % of delegates?), but that's contrasted with GH's point about the entry/exit polling saying Bernie won by 53 to 45 or so.
I also find it a bit of an odd boast for the campaign to be touting "we won the Latino vote". Can't explain exactly why, but it's just... weird to me.
But it was beyond the margin of error and even Hillary winning by 10 points among Hispanics would be a loss of the narrative of the gap.
Probably something similar to being told every day that other Black and Hispanic people are Hillary's "firewall", but much less palpable or significant.
Three-fourths of Republicans participating in Saturday’s South Carolina GOP primary say they support presidential hopeful Donald Trump’s proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the U.S., according to an exit poll.
A CBS News exit poll of Palmetto State primary voters found that 75 percent said they support Trump’s proposal, while 23 percent said they oppose it.
Just days after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif. – the worst on U.S. soil since 9/11 – Trump sparked a media backlash for saying that all Muslims should be temporarily banned from entering the country.
The proposal has been ridiculed as impossible to implement and called racist by some, but it has resonated with many people concerned about the potential for terrorists to infiltrate the U.S.
Not a surprise this would come on the heals of a white guy rampaging around Kalamazoo shooting innocent people and while almost every month some crazy white guy goes into a populated area and tries to kill random (or not so random) innocent people. I won't hold my breath on when white America takes a hard look at themselves and realizes they have a culture problem.
Oh and for context there are ~7,000 Muslims in the whole state of SC.
Three-fourths of Republicans participating in Saturday’s South Carolina GOP primary say they support presidential hopeful Donald Trump’s proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the U.S., according to an exit poll.
A CBS News exit poll of Palmetto State primary voters found that 75 percent said they support Trump’s proposal, while 23 percent said they oppose it.
Just days after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif. – the worst on U.S. soil since 9/11 – Trump sparked a media backlash for saying that all Muslims should be temporarily banned from entering the country.
The proposal has been ridiculed as impossible to implement and called racist by some, but it has resonated with many people concerned about the potential for terrorists to infiltrate the U.S.
On February 22 2016 01:58 Schmobutzen wrote: Please, can anyone sane american explain to me, why such a creature as Trump is this ridicilously successfull?
EPT
