|
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 December 21 2016 08:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 08:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 21 2016 08:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 21 2016 07:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 21 2016 07:32 zlefin wrote:
super delegates seem rather pointless unless you intend to actually use them for something; and right now the policy seems to generally be to not use them.
They might have some value if used judiciously and rarely; but most people have too stupid a sense of democracy for that to work out well in practice.
I'd like to just ditch primaries altogether and just use approval voting.
I'd also like any system that favors picking moderates for president.
I should blame the politicians for not putting forth more proposals to avoid debacles as happened this election. Primaries are a new addition, and fairly recently at that. Before the parties would present someone based on who they wanted. Primaries were then added later. Superdelegates were a stopgap so that weird things like republicans voting in your primary to force a double conservative choice wouldn't happen. If you remove super delegates. And then you make everything open primaries. Then you'll just have Democratic primaries with people like Huckabee running as a spoiler so you end up with a Red vs Red general election. Okay, primaries are supposed to be a long pep-rally for the establishment choice. Brought in because people liked the idea of thinking they were influencing the outcome, and it helped generate money and organize. Superdelegates have 0 to do with Republicans voting in a primary. That's just a total fabrication. (Should add they nominated a pro-fracking, bank friendly, proud moderate, hawk, so if that's what they were for, they failed). The idea that we would get a Huckabee winning the Democratic nomination is flat out stupid. Any argument that uses such fear should be disregarded with haste. Huckabee would do about as well as Jim Webb did (provided Democrats don't put up the least favorable candidate they've ever run again). EDIT: Also, can Joe Manchin just put the R next to his name already? "We need to declare a war on drugs" is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've heard from a Senator this year. Primaries becoming Pep Rallies is because of what the people asked for. Just a several decades ago the "primaries" was just the DNC announcing who will be running in the general. Took about a day to release the news, a week for it to circulate, and boom--process over. The primaries becoming what it is now is because non-liberals wanted it to be a circus. Primaries are what they are because that's what the parties and the networks wanted. But they aren't what the media or the party purports them to be. I presume you didn't address the other points because you realized your error.
There was nothing to address. Preventing people from other parties from doing last minute changes to their allegiance and letting their temporary populist surge split the party is exactly what superdelegates were meant to stop. The fear was if a republican would do it, but turns out independent white men do it also.
|
On December 21 2016 07:26 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 07:22 Introvert wrote:
The GOP primary system as it currently functions to help a well known establishment candidate win with a lower % of the vote. It's just less obvious because there are no super delegates.
I do find it funny that the party whining about the electoral college being undemocratic has super delegates though, that's pretty funny come to think of it. You'll have a hard time finding people around here who still support super delegates.
I've been reading the thread. You can find dozens of posts defending super delegates because they generally voted with the eventual state primary winner (for better or for worse). I can only recall GH criticizing their use; maybe there was one other? The thread average was complacency with their continued use, period.
|
A Boca Raton school teacher and member of The Satanic Temple activist group has launched a local controversy after erecting a 300-pound pentagram display next to a nativity scene on public grounds in early December 2016. Some time overnight on 20 December 2016, an angry observer ran over it, according to Boca Raton police. Local news footage showed the pentagram on the grass, bisected by tire marks.
According Mark Economou, spokesman for the Boca Raton Police Department, an officer patrolling the area noticed at about 2 a.m. on 20 December 2016 that the display had been knocked down and there were tire marks around it. The display has been vandalized several times since being installed and has drawn anger from some residents who say it offends them. The incident is being investigated and so far, there are no suspects, Economou said.
http://www.snopes.com/2016/12/20/pentagram-displayed-florida-park-run-angry-driver/
|
On December 21 2016 06:49 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 06:31 kwizach wrote:On December 21 2016 06:13 Nebuchad wrote:On December 21 2016 04:55 kwizach wrote:
@Nebuchad: How does Perez being an "alternative to Ellison" (as in, he's running as well?) mean that he's "not as good as Ellison on all three of those points"? Presumably if he was going to do and represent the same things there wouldn't be a need to run him against Ellison If he decided to run, I'm guessing it's (among other reasons) because he thinks he can do a better job. I fail to see how him running indicates by default that he's a "clearly inferior" candidate compared to Ellison. This is not an accurate depiction of what I've said. I've said he was inferior for three reasons, and I could make out he was going to be inferior on these reasons because they got him to run against Ellison. The first one is arguable, to be honest. Let's drop it. Let's say they're going to do just as good a job at grassroots. The second and third one are not. It's pretty obvious that someone picked by Bernie represents a clearer shift to the left than someone picked by Obama. And it's pretty obvious that it's going to be perceived that way. I think the facts are pretty clear, but let's posit that they aren't, he still ends up the superior pick on perception alone.
I don't know what "facts" you're talking about. The only fact or actual argument you've mentioned was that Ellison has been endorsed by Sanders (this is why you say Ellison is superior to Perez with regards to your two last reasons). I do not agree with the idea that not being endorsed by Saders makes Perez a "clearly inferior" candidate, or someone who would be less efficient as head of the DNC. I also disagree that "perception alone" suffices to make Ellison a superior candidate, or even that Perez has a "perception" deficit (except among ardent supporters of Sanders).
Perez has a fantastic record when it comes to defending both workers' rights and civil rights, and is an extremely skillful administrator and policy strategist. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
|
can someone tell me why we still haven't properly dealt with the whole Puerto Rico is broke thing?
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/puerto-rico-governor-elect-says-island-will-run-out-money-n698246
Puerto Rico's Governor-elect Ricardo Rossello is warning that the U.S. territory will run out of money by February to pay public employees.
Rossello said that only about $147 million remains in the island's coffers. His announcement comes amid ongoing transition hearings in which Puerto Rico public agencies are presenting their current financial status and accomplishments for the past four years.
|
not sure; but puerto rico's issues run pretty deep.
what kidn of dealing with it would you like to do?
and congress doesn't work too hard on puerto rico
but it shoudln't be suprising; I mean, we've known social security has a problem for decades, and it still hasn't been fixed.
|
On December 21 2016 09:58 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:can someone tell me why we still haven't properly dealt with the whole Puerto Rico is broke thing? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/puerto-rico-governor-elect-says-island-will-run-out-money-n698246Show nested quote +Puerto Rico's Governor-elect Ricardo Rossello is warning that the U.S. territory will run out of money by February to pay public employees.
Rossello said that only about $147 million remains in the island's coffers. His announcement comes amid ongoing transition hearings in which Puerto Rico public agencies are presenting their current financial status and accomplishments for the past four years.
If they're not officially a state most of the US really doesn't care. (They have no say in presidential elections, senate, etc.) Basically the US only cares about things it has to care about, and Puerto Rico isn't one of those things.
|
On December 21 2016 10:23 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 09:58 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:can someone tell me why we still haven't properly dealt with the whole Puerto Rico is broke thing? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/puerto-rico-governor-elect-says-island-will-run-out-money-n698246Puerto Rico's Governor-elect Ricardo Rossello is warning that the U.S. territory will run out of money by February to pay public employees.
Rossello said that only about $147 million remains in the island's coffers. His announcement comes amid ongoing transition hearings in which Puerto Rico public agencies are presenting their current financial status and accomplishments for the past four years.
If they're not officially a state most of the US really doesn't care. (They have no say in presidential elections, senate, etc.) Basically the US only cares about things it has to care about, and Puerto Rico isn't one of those things.
That's fairly dishonest. I mean, its true, but not in that context.
The truth is that we can only care about Y amount of things at a time (resource wise both fiscal and political) and there are Z amount of problems that need to be fixed.
Z is a shit tonne bigger than Y. So its usually a battle trying to convince the country to shift its focus from one thing to another.
As an example:
Bernie doesn't like Genocide.
Bernie does like getting votes.
Which is why Bernie is willing to allow Genocide to happen if it gets him votes.
|
In what way is Sanders not a Democrat? Because he doesn't pay the annual DNC party dues? He is a Progressive Democrat in all but name. The Vermont Democratic Party chose him as their nominee last time around.
In saying that the super duper delegates voted with the winner in the end, you folk miss the point. Primaries are decided largely in the pre-vote stages. By endorsing Hillary so thoroughly they got rid of the competition. O'Malley didn't get chump change because no one liked him, he got chump change for votes because we weren't meant to care about him. Sanders had very little support until he had late term exposure and arguably it was too late.
GH argued before the DNC leaks confirmed what sane people knew but Hillary diehards denied, and Clinton was a stronger candidate a year ago. Hence, fewer complaints until after the fact.
|
On December 21 2016 10:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 10:23 Nevuk wrote:On December 21 2016 09:58 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:can someone tell me why we still haven't properly dealt with the whole Puerto Rico is broke thing? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/puerto-rico-governor-elect-says-island-will-run-out-money-n698246Puerto Rico's Governor-elect Ricardo Rossello is warning that the U.S. territory will run out of money by February to pay public employees.
Rossello said that only about $147 million remains in the island's coffers. His announcement comes amid ongoing transition hearings in which Puerto Rico public agencies are presenting their current financial status and accomplishments for the past four years.
If they're not officially a state most of the US really doesn't care. (They have no say in presidential elections, senate, etc.) Basically the US only cares about things it has to care about, and Puerto Rico isn't one of those things. That's fairly dishonest. I mean, its true, but not in that context. The truth is that we can only care about Y amount of things at a time (resource wise both fiscal and political) and there are Z amount of problems that need to be fixed. Z is a shit tonne bigger than Y. So its usually a battle trying to convince the country to shift its focus from one thing to another. As an example: Bernie doesn't like Genocide. Bernie does like getting votes. Which is why Bernie is willing to allow Genocide to happen if it gets him votes.
I'm enjoying the off-topic (in this context) Bernie bashing, but uh, continue with that, I guess.
I don't think it's dishonest. I will clarify a bit what I meant, that there's not really a reason for most of the US to care. Puerto Rico, though a territory of the US, is generally more effectively treated as a very small ally of limited importance to the US. If they were a state and had some sort of direct, visible effect on the other states they would be much more likely to be able to get some sort of funding.
There are issues with this : there's no political will to make them a state within the US, and apparently there wasn't really that much as of the last referendum on the matter within the territory either.
Simply put, what are the negative repercussions on the rest of the US if puerto rico goes completely bankrupt? If it can't be clearly explained in a short sentence then the average American is going to think it unimportant in the grand scheme of things- and they're probably right. That may not be a terribly moral argument, but it's not meant to be. It's meant to be descriptive. Puerto Rico going bankrupt honestly would have far less of an impact on the US than a european country going bankrupt, even though they wouldn't be part of the US.
The likely outcome of all of this is a program akin to Michigan's emergency managers system where the US appoints someone to control Puerto Rico's spending in return for a paltry bailout, does a terrible job, and ruins the island's economy for generations.
|
Puerto Rico could probably fix its problems with a negotiation into becoming a new US state. The last vote was close but I'm surprised they haven't tried to put in another vote with their new problems.
|
On December 21 2016 10:54 Sermokala wrote:
Puerto Rico could probably fix its problems with a negotiation into becoming a new US state. The last vote was close but I'm surprised they haven't tried to put in another vote with their new problems.
also DC passed a state resolution but I can't see the republicans giving the dems 2 more senators
|
On December 21 2016 11:07 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 10:54 Sermokala wrote:
Puerto Rico could probably fix its problems with a negotiation into becoming a new US state. The last vote was close but I'm surprised they haven't tried to put in another vote with their new problems. also DC passed a state resolution but I can't see the republicans giving the dems 2 more senators
Peuerto rico would probably make a good missouri compromise with DC.
|
On December 21 2016 10:45 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 10:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 21 2016 10:23 Nevuk wrote:On December 21 2016 09:58 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:can someone tell me why we still haven't properly dealt with the whole Puerto Rico is broke thing? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/puerto-rico-governor-elect-says-island-will-run-out-money-n698246Puerto Rico's Governor-elect Ricardo Rossello is warning that the U.S. territory will run out of money by February to pay public employees.
Rossello said that only about $147 million remains in the island's coffers. His announcement comes amid ongoing transition hearings in which Puerto Rico public agencies are presenting their current financial status and accomplishments for the past four years.
If they're not officially a state most of the US really doesn't care. (They have no say in presidential elections, senate, etc.) Basically the US only cares about things it has to care about, and Puerto Rico isn't one of those things. That's fairly dishonest. I mean, its true, but not in that context. The truth is that we can only care about Y amount of things at a time (resource wise both fiscal and political) and there are Z amount of problems that need to be fixed. Z is a shit tonne bigger than Y. So its usually a battle trying to convince the country to shift its focus from one thing to another. As an example: Bernie doesn't like Genocide. Bernie does like getting votes. Which is why Bernie is willing to allow Genocide to happen if it gets him votes. I'm enjoying the off-topic (in this context) Bernie bashing, but uh, continue with that, I guess. I don't think it's dishonest. I will clarify a bit what I meant, that there's not really a reason for most of the US to care. Puerto Rico, though a territory of the US, is generally more effectively treated as a very small ally of limited importance to the US. If they were a state and had some sort of direct, visible effect on the other states they would be much more likely to be able to get some sort of funding. There are issues with this : there's no political will to make them a state within the US, and apparently there wasn't really that much as of the last referendum on the matter within the territory either. Simply put, what are the negative repercussions on the rest of the US if puerto rico goes completely bankrupt? If it can't be clearly explained in a short sentence then the average American is going to think it unimportant in the grand scheme of things- and they're probably right. That may not be a terribly moral argument, but it's not meant to be. It's meant to be descriptive. Puerto Rico going bankrupt honestly would have far less of an impact on the US than a european country going bankrupt, even though they wouldn't be part of the US. The likely outcome of all of this is a program akin to Michigan's emergency managers system where the US appoints someone to control Puerto Rico's spending in return for a paltry bailout, does a terrible job, and ruins the island's economy for generations.
It wasn't a Bernie bash, just stating facts.
Most politicians would rather get everything done, but they can't, and so compromises have to be made. Bernie would rather not allow Syrians to be slaughtered. But he also would not want to lose his supporters. Between political energy spent on Syria or political energy spent appeasing his voters--he'd rather appease his voters.
Its the same with Puerto Rico. Until someone has more to lose ignoring Puerto Rico than helping Puerto Rico--then it will not get help.
|
On December 21 2016 10:32 LegalLord wrote:
In what way is Sanders not a Democrat? Because he doesn't pay the annual DNC party dues? He is a Progressive Democrat in all but name. The Vermont Democratic Party chose him as their nominee last time around.
In saying that the super duper delegates voted with the winner in the end, you folk miss the point. Primaries are decided largely in the pre-vote stages. By endorsing Hillary so thoroughly they got rid of the competition. O'Malley didn't get chump change because no one liked him, he got chump change for votes because we weren't meant to care about him. Sanders had very little support until he had late term exposure and arguably it was too late.
GH argued before the DNC leaks confirmed what sane people knew but Hillary diehards denied, and Clinton was a stronger candidate a year ago. Hence, fewer complaints until after the fact.
He signed up as an independent, decided to run for president, signed up as a democrat, lasted one election cycle, then resigned being a democrat to become an independent again. It is that easy for a non-democrat to jump ship and then cut bait. Sure, the populist surge on social media heralded him as their savior--but really anyone can have a populist following. This time it was Bernie, next time it won't necessarily be Bernie. The Superdelegates are there to make sure the Democratic Party remains the Democratic party.
|
On December 21 2016 11:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 10:32 LegalLord wrote:
In what way is Sanders not a Democrat? Because he doesn't pay the annual DNC party dues? He is a Progressive Democrat in all but name. The Vermont Democratic Party chose him as their nominee last time around.
In saying that the super duper delegates voted with the winner in the end, you folk miss the point. Primaries are decided largely in the pre-vote stages. By endorsing Hillary so thoroughly they got rid of the competition. O'Malley didn't get chump change because no one liked him, he got chump change for votes because we weren't meant to care about him. Sanders had very little support until he had late term exposure and arguably it was too late.
GH argued before the DNC leaks confirmed what sane people knew but Hillary diehards denied, and Clinton was a stronger candidate a year ago. Hence, fewer complaints until after the fact. He signed up as an independent, decided to run for president, signed up as a democrat, lasted one election cycle, then resigned being a democrat to become an independent again. It is that easy for a non-democrat to jump ship and then cut bait. Sure, the populist surge on social media heralded him as their savior--but really anyone can have a populist following. This time it was Bernie, next time it won't necessarily be Bernie. The Superdelegates are there to make sure the Democratic Party remains the Democratic party.
doesnt the state of vermont not do political parties?
|
On December 21 2016 11:57 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 11:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 21 2016 10:32 LegalLord wrote:
In what way is Sanders not a Democrat? Because he doesn't pay the annual DNC party dues? He is a Progressive Democrat in all but name. The Vermont Democratic Party chose him as their nominee last time around.
In saying that the super duper delegates voted with the winner in the end, you folk miss the point. Primaries are decided largely in the pre-vote stages. By endorsing Hillary so thoroughly they got rid of the competition. O'Malley didn't get chump change because no one liked him, he got chump change for votes because we weren't meant to care about him. Sanders had very little support until he had late term exposure and arguably it was too late.
GH argued before the DNC leaks confirmed what sane people knew but Hillary diehards denied, and Clinton was a stronger candidate a year ago. Hence, fewer complaints until after the fact. He signed up as an independent, decided to run for president, signed up as a democrat, lasted one election cycle, then resigned being a democrat to become an independent again. It is that easy for a non-democrat to jump ship and then cut bait. Sure, the populist surge on social media heralded him as their savior--but really anyone can have a populist following. This time it was Bernie, next time it won't necessarily be Bernie. The Superdelegates are there to make sure the Democratic Party remains the Democratic party. doesnt the state of vermont not do political parties?
Did they tell Bernie that?
http://fusion.net/story/329994/bernie-sanders-independent/
|
On December 21 2016 10:32 LegalLord wrote:
In saying that the super duper delegates voted with the winner in the end, you folk miss the point. Primaries are decided largely in the pre-vote stages. By endorsing Hillary so thoroughly they got rid of the competition. O'Malley didn't get chump change because no one liked him, he got chump change for votes because we weren't meant to care about him. Sanders had very little support until he had late term exposure and arguably it was too late.
The reason Clinton received more exposure has absolutely nothing to do with superdelegates. It was because of her name recognition and of having been in the spotlight as Secretary of State and as the second-place finisher in the 2008 primary. Those are what influenced many voters, not the number of superdelegates she had in her corner (as we saw in her race against Obama in 2008).
|
On December 21 2016 10:32 LegalLord wrote:
In what way is Sanders not a Democrat? Because he doesn't pay the annual DNC party dues? He is a Progressive Democrat in all but name. The Vermont Democratic Party chose him as their nominee last time around.
In saying that the super duper delegates voted with the winner in the end, you folk miss the point. Primaries are decided largely in the pre-vote stages. By endorsing Hillary so thoroughly they got rid of the competition. O'Malley didn't get chump change because no one liked him, he got chump change for votes because we weren't meant to care about him. Sanders had very little support until he had late term exposure and arguably it was too late.
GH argued before the DNC leaks confirmed what sane people knew but Hillary diehards denied, and Clinton was a stronger candidate a year ago. Hence, fewer complaints until after the fact.
re: first paragraph;
the dues kinda matter.
A party is a mutual support alliance. while it's not the system I prefer, as I dislike political parties, that's the way it is.
And as always, there's the perception/reality difference. If it's perceived he's not doing enough to support the party, then there's no sense of mutual obligation to support back. There's a lot more to being in a party than voting similarly.
Just because he's a political liberal doesn't make him a Democrat.
and it's politics, Names matter. Symbols matter.
your other points were dealt with by other people so I'm not gonna argue them.
|
Some people may say, "we can't support that guy, he didn't pay his club membership fee" which is essentially the complaint here.
I personally see that a completely petty and idiotic reason, but it is their party, and if they wish to lose the support of an important part of their base then it is their right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
