|
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. |
On March 30 2016 09:20 Chewbacca. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2016 09:15 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On March 30 2016 09:13 Introvert wrote:
Is he talking about the months immediately prior to the November election? Or the primary season? I don't mind the length of either, but surely it's obvious why the primary season can't be just a month. it's really really not, and it's frustrating how you point to the status quo as justification for the status quo Look at the Republican primary, it started with what, like 12 candidates? A month is not really enough time for the average person to have a good understanding of the positions/differences between all of those candidates. Sure it is possible with spending time researching or staying glued to the news constantly, but that is pretty atypical.
actually it is; the thing is, most people don't pay attention until the primary is close to them, and then they make a decision based on poor and limited information anyways. The same could be done quite easily without having them be all spread out.
And without the undemocratic, and kinda stupid issues of the ill-thought out ordering.
|
On March 30 2016 09:32 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2016 09:20 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 30 2016 09:15 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On March 30 2016 09:13 Introvert wrote:
Is he talking about the months immediately prior to the November election? Or the primary season? I don't mind the length of either, but surely it's obvious why the primary season can't be just a month. it's really really not, and it's frustrating how you point to the status quo as justification for the status quo Look at the Republican primary, it started with what, like 12 candidates? A month is not really enough time for the average person to have a good understanding of the positions/differences between all of those candidates. Sure it is possible with spending time researching or staying glued to the news constantly, but that is pretty atypical. actually it is; the thing is, most people don't pay attention until the primary is close to them, and then they make a decision based on poor and limited information anyways. The same could be done quite easily without having them be all spread out. And without the undemocratic, and kinda stupid issues of the ill-thought out ordering.
yea i still feel the same way
pretty sure trump and hillary wouldve won in either case so i'm not seeing how drawing it out actually does anything
|
But the current system allows the candidates to tell an entirely different story each week depending on what states are next!
Imagine if the presidential candidate would have to have a single program for the entire country! Much better when you can tell everyone what they want to hear.
|
On March 30 2016 09:32 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2016 09:20 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 30 2016 09:15 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On March 30 2016 09:13 Introvert wrote:
Is he talking about the months immediately prior to the November election? Or the primary season? I don't mind the length of either, but surely it's obvious why the primary season can't be just a month. it's really really not, and it's frustrating how you point to the status quo as justification for the status quo Look at the Republican primary, it started with what, like 12 candidates? A month is not really enough time for the average person to have a good understanding of the positions/differences between all of those candidates. Sure it is possible with spending time researching or staying glued to the news constantly, but that is pretty atypical. actually it is; the thing is, most people don't pay attention until the primary is close to them, and then they make a decision based on poor and limited information anyways. The same could be done quite easily without having them be all spread out. And without the undemocratic, and kinda stupid issues of the ill-thought out ordering.
I guess you just have a lot more faith in the average American than I do.
|
On March 30 2016 09:40 Chewbacca. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2016 09:32 zlefin wrote:On March 30 2016 09:20 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 30 2016 09:15 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On March 30 2016 09:13 Introvert wrote:
Is he talking about the months immediately prior to the November election? Or the primary season? I don't mind the length of either, but surely it's obvious why the primary season can't be just a month. it's really really not, and it's frustrating how you point to the status quo as justification for the status quo Look at the Republican primary, it started with what, like 12 candidates? A month is not really enough time for the average person to have a good understanding of the positions/differences between all of those candidates. Sure it is possible with spending time researching or staying glued to the news constantly, but that is pretty atypical. actually it is; the thing is, most people don't pay attention until the primary is close to them, and then they make a decision based on poor and limited information anyways. The same could be done quite easily without having them be all spread out. And without the undemocratic, and kinda stupid issues of the ill-thought out ordering. I guess you just have a lot more faith in the average American than I do.
that's funny because i'm reading it the opposite
was probably sarcasm tho
|
On March 30 2016 09:41 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2016 09:40 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 30 2016 09:32 zlefin wrote:On March 30 2016 09:20 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 30 2016 09:15 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On March 30 2016 09:13 Introvert wrote:
Is he talking about the months immediately prior to the November election? Or the primary season? I don't mind the length of either, but surely it's obvious why the primary season can't be just a month. it's really really not, and it's frustrating how you point to the status quo as justification for the status quo Look at the Republican primary, it started with what, like 12 candidates? A month is not really enough time for the average person to have a good understanding of the positions/differences between all of those candidates. Sure it is possible with spending time researching or staying glued to the news constantly, but that is pretty atypical. actually it is; the thing is, most people don't pay attention until the primary is close to them, and then they make a decision based on poor and limited information anyways. The same could be done quite easily without having them be all spread out. And without the undemocratic, and kinda stupid issues of the ill-thought out ordering. I guess you just have a lot more faith in the average American than I do. that's funny because i'm reading it the opposite
He thinks that the one month is enough time for the average American to make an informed decision between the 12 Republican candidates and I think the need more time, and you see it as me having more faith in their abilities? Hell, I bet the average person couldn't even tell me meaningful differences between all of the remaining candidates even after all of these months..
|
On March 30 2016 09:43 Chewbacca. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2016 09:41 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On March 30 2016 09:40 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 30 2016 09:32 zlefin wrote:On March 30 2016 09:20 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 30 2016 09:15 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On March 30 2016 09:13 Introvert wrote:
Is he talking about the months immediately prior to the November election? Or the primary season? I don't mind the length of either, but surely it's obvious why the primary season can't be just a month. it's really really not, and it's frustrating how you point to the status quo as justification for the status quo Look at the Republican primary, it started with what, like 12 candidates? A month is not really enough time for the average person to have a good understanding of the positions/differences between all of those candidates. Sure it is possible with spending time researching or staying glued to the news constantly, but that is pretty atypical. actually it is; the thing is, most people don't pay attention until the primary is close to them, and then they make a decision based on poor and limited information anyways. The same could be done quite easily without having them be all spread out. And without the undemocratic, and kinda stupid issues of the ill-thought out ordering. I guess you just have a lot more faith in the average American than I do. that's funny because i'm reading it the opposite He thinks that the one month is enough time for the average American to make an informed decision between the 12 Republican candidates and I think the need more time, and you see it as me having more faith in their abilities?
No, he thinks the Average American doesnt make an informed decision anyway, so why even bother.
|
On March 30 2016 09:45 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2016 09:43 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 30 2016 09:41 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On March 30 2016 09:40 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 30 2016 09:32 zlefin wrote:On March 30 2016 09:20 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 30 2016 09:15 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On March 30 2016 09:13 Introvert wrote:
Is he talking about the months immediately prior to the November election? Or the primary season? I don't mind the length of either, but surely it's obvious why the primary season can't be just a month. it's really really not, and it's frustrating how you point to the status quo as justification for the status quo Look at the Republican primary, it started with what, like 12 candidates? A month is not really enough time for the average person to have a good understanding of the positions/differences between all of those candidates. Sure it is possible with spending time researching or staying glued to the news constantly, but that is pretty atypical. actually it is; the thing is, most people don't pay attention until the primary is close to them, and then they make a decision based on poor and limited information anyways. The same could be done quite easily without having them be all spread out. And without the undemocratic, and kinda stupid issues of the ill-thought out ordering. I guess you just have a lot more faith in the average American than I do. that's funny because i'm reading it the opposite He thinks that the one month is enough time for the average American to make an informed decision between the 12 Republican candidates and I think the need more time, and you see it as me having more faith in their abilities? No, he thinks the Average American doesnt make an informed decision anyway, so why even bother.
indeed, which is essentially my reasoning as well
ignoring the fact that "informed" might mean vastly different things to people with different political opinions
|
On March 30 2016 09:45 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2016 09:43 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 30 2016 09:41 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On March 30 2016 09:40 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 30 2016 09:32 zlefin wrote:On March 30 2016 09:20 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 30 2016 09:15 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On March 30 2016 09:13 Introvert wrote:
Is he talking about the months immediately prior to the November election? Or the primary season? I don't mind the length of either, but surely it's obvious why the primary season can't be just a month. it's really really not, and it's frustrating how you point to the status quo as justification for the status quo Look at the Republican primary, it started with what, like 12 candidates? A month is not really enough time for the average person to have a good understanding of the positions/differences between all of those candidates. Sure it is possible with spending time researching or staying glued to the news constantly, but that is pretty atypical. actually it is; the thing is, most people don't pay attention until the primary is close to them, and then they make a decision based on poor and limited information anyways. The same could be done quite easily without having them be all spread out. And without the undemocratic, and kinda stupid issues of the ill-thought out ordering. I guess you just have a lot more faith in the average American than I do. that's funny because i'm reading it the opposite He thinks that the one month is enough time for the average American to make an informed decision between the 12 Republican candidates and I think the need more time, and you see it as me having more faith in their abilities? No, he thinks the Average American doesnt make an informed decision anyway, so why even bother.
Well I don't think they do either, but I also don't think we should design our system around the thought process of, well they don't know what's going on anyway, so fuck it.
|
On March 30 2016 09:49 Chewbacca. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2016 09:45 mahrgell wrote:On March 30 2016 09:43 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 30 2016 09:41 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On March 30 2016 09:40 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 30 2016 09:32 zlefin wrote:On March 30 2016 09:20 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 30 2016 09:15 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On March 30 2016 09:13 Introvert wrote:
Is he talking about the months immediately prior to the November election? Or the primary season? I don't mind the length of either, but surely it's obvious why the primary season can't be just a month. it's really really not, and it's frustrating how you point to the status quo as justification for the status quo Look at the Republican primary, it started with what, like 12 candidates? A month is not really enough time for the average person to have a good understanding of the positions/differences between all of those candidates. Sure it is possible with spending time researching or staying glued to the news constantly, but that is pretty atypical. actually it is; the thing is, most people don't pay attention until the primary is close to them, and then they make a decision based on poor and limited information anyways. The same could be done quite easily without having them be all spread out. And without the undemocratic, and kinda stupid issues of the ill-thought out ordering. I guess you just have a lot more faith in the average American than I do. that's funny because i'm reading it the opposite He thinks that the one month is enough time for the average American to make an informed decision between the 12 Republican candidates and I think the need more time, and you see it as me having more faith in their abilities? No, he thinks the Average American doesnt make an informed decision anyway, so why even bother. Well I don't think they do either, but I also don't think we should design our system around the thought process of, well they don't know what's going on anyway, so fuck it.
in either case im pretty sure people with sufficient motivation could always properly research their candidates ahead of time... libraries are still free...
in the drawn-out version, it just becomes much easier to be inundated with what is essentially advertising for months and come out mistakenly thinking you know anything at all
|
My point is, most people only pay attention in the last month anyways; so they don't need more than a month of time overall.
And plenty of countries manage to have elections without spending months and months of campaigning all over the place.
A month is plenty of time to get information if you're paying attention, and no amount of time matters if you're not paying attention.
This is setting aside the other more fanciful ways to improve the system (as direct voting isn't very good in general, just adequate).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's a big country. the process allows candidates to travel around and whatnot. american local representation stuff
|
Nah. I used to think a month or two was plenty of time for American politics.
Now I'm glad America takes over a year on it. You may be able to learn the candidates policy positions, but we'd have never have known about Ted Cruz's great sex scandal by now despite running as the moral preacher candidate.
American politics is A+.
You get to dig into every candidates sordid history. It takes a lot of time.
|
Which also means an extended period of time where they're not doing they're job because they're off campaigning, even more so than politicians usually are.
|
On March 30 2016 10:01 SK.Testie wrote:
Nah. I used to think a month or two was plenty of time for American politics.
Now I'm glad America takes over a year on it. You may be able to learn the candidates policy positions, but we'd have never have known about Ted Cruz's great sex scandal by now despite running as the moral preacher candidate.
American politics is A+.
You get to dig into every candidates sordid history. It takes a lot of time.
i miss when entertainment was privatized
fucking socialism
|
On March 30 2016 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2016 04:27 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 30 2016 03:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2016 03:56 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 30 2016 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:The delegate gap is gonna go up along with the popular vote gap over the next couple of weeks. We'll see about that. Maybe I said months, but with that correction wanna bet on it? I'll bet her lead has peaked without hesitation. One month from now (so April 29) we'll see how the numbers have changed. If Bernie has closed the gap in pledged delegate count from what it is today, I will donate $27 to his campaign (or your favorite charity/ whoever else I have no moral objection to giving to) and provide proof of the transaction. If not, I will provide you with a short list of questions about Hillary's record I want you to read up on and have you post your findings here. Does that sound fair? We will use The Green Papers for the results. As of right now, the total stands at 1266 - 1038 (Clinton +228). This is the "soft" total and estimates the outcome of the most recent contests, while the "hard" one does not take those into account. If Clinton leads by more than 228 delegates, I am considered the winner. If her lead is smaller then 228 delegates, you are. To account for potential adjustments as the numbers shake out, if the lead has changed by less than 10 delegates we will call it a wash. Sounds reasonable. One issue though. PA is already saying it will likely take weeks to count their votes. As with happened in AZ, this will likely favor HRC in projections and estimates. I'd either want PA to wait to be fully counted or not included.
I say toss, unless by the 29th we agree the count is pretty reliable. I don't think it will be an AZ situation.
On March 30 2016 04:30 jcarlsoniv wrote:Don't worry GH, ticklish goes soft on bets 
Is it surprising? My username is ticklishmusic, come on.
|
Have any news outlets besides the somewhat questionable National Enquirer taken a stance one way or the other on the Cruz "scandal"? Putting it in quotes because I'm genuinely not sure if this is a real thing or if it's the NE making up stuff as they have been famous for in the past. Any responses from more knowledgeable posters are greatly appreciated! Thanks!
|
On March 30 2016 10:19 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2016 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2016 04:27 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 30 2016 03:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2016 03:56 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 30 2016 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:The delegate gap is gonna go up along with the popular vote gap over the next couple of weeks. We'll see about that. Maybe I said months, but with that correction wanna bet on it? I'll bet her lead has peaked without hesitation. One month from now (so April 29) we'll see how the numbers have changed. If Bernie has closed the gap in pledged delegate count from what it is today, I will donate $27 to his campaign (or your favorite charity/ whoever else I have no moral objection to giving to) and provide proof of the transaction. If not, I will provide you with a short list of questions about Hillary's record I want you to read up on and have you post your findings here. Does that sound fair? We will use The Green Papers for the results. As of right now, the total stands at 1266 - 1038 (Clinton +228). This is the "soft" total and estimates the outcome of the most recent contests, while the "hard" one does not take those into account. If Clinton leads by more than 228 delegates, I am considered the winner. If her lead is smaller then 228 delegates, you are. To account for potential adjustments as the numbers shake out, if the lead has changed by less than 10 delegates we will call it a wash. Sounds reasonable. One issue though. PA is already saying it will likely take weeks to count their votes. As with happened in AZ, this will likely favor HRC in projections and estimates. I'd either want PA to wait to be fully counted or not included. I say toss, unless by the 29th we agree the count is pretty reliable. I don't think it will be an AZ situation. Show nested quote +On March 30 2016 04:30 jcarlsoniv wrote:Don't worry GH, ticklish goes soft on bets Is it surprising? My username is ticklishmusic, come on.
Sounds fair, I'll take it. Of course your donation will be of your own will, per FEC guidelines, but you're on. I needed a little fire to get back on my phonebanking horse.
I'm getting reports that Hillary has already acquiesced to Bernie's request for a NY debate, can anyone from Hillary's side confirm?
|
hillary's camp here, refuse to confirm or deny
|
On March 30 2016 10:30 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
hillary's camp here, refuse to confirm or deny
Haha so it's a yeah? If so, I can just get the "I told you so" out of the way now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
