This is not The Haters Club You're Looking For discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
I hate super delegates!
message 1:
by
Stephen
(last edited May 22, 2008 06:35AM)
(new)
May 21, 2008 06:29AM
I hate how American democracy works to the benefit of the chosen few! How outraged would Americans be if Obama lost the primary election to Clinton because of super delegates?
reply
|
flag
There's a cynical view that superdelegates, being "well-informed" members of the DNC, would be able to make the assumed correct choice in nominating their party's candidate.
Any way you look at it, the whole superdelegates process serves to tell the general voting public that should it come down to it, what they want doesn't mean shit, as long as the DNC makes their so-called "informed" decision.
I think we're getting our panties all up in a wad, really. It won't come down to a superdelegates decision, and even if it does, those so-called "undecides" have probably already made up their minds, but they're not tipping their hand just yet.
Any way you look at it, the whole superdelegates process serves to tell the general voting public that should it come down to it, what they want doesn't mean shit, as long as the DNC makes their so-called "informed" decision.
I think we're getting our panties all up in a wad, really. It won't come down to a superdelegates decision, and even if it does, those so-called "undecides" have probably already made up their minds, but they're not tipping their hand just yet.
Rusty - as I recall from CNN the purpose is this. Say, Denzel Washington wanted to run and people voted for him just cause he's hot. Well, the supers have the best interest of the party at heart and will circumvent this by putting someone else in. Now that is not the example they used but that was the gist of it. I agre with Stephen though. But it looks like the situation may be reversed with Clinton losing due to supers.
Honestly, I don't understand why the hell they're there.
You also get all the free cigars and cognac you could ever want. And hookers, too! I totally wish I was a super delegate...
How does one apply for all the superswag a superdelegate can get?
Oh Gussy don't be a p*ssy. Your comment to that girl was ssoooooooo not piggish. I mean, u said u wanted to wait until she was 18 right?
My current issue with the superdelegates:Dear Undecideds,
What are you waiting for? What possible information are you missing? Is there some issue, fact, or secret you're waiting on? Have you asked to inspect them for embarrassing tattoos and they've declined? Because the way I understand it, you've had nearly unlimited access to both candidates for months now, with the possible exception of being able to inspect them for tattoos. If there's anything you needed to know, you know it by now. I know you're in it for the wining and dining, but the rest of us would really like a nominee now.
Sincerely,
Lisa
How 'bout Gnarly Carlie?
And, no, I wanted to wait until she was 21. If you're not old enough to legally drink, then I don't wanna talk to you.
And, no, I wanted to wait until she was 21. If you're not old enough to legally drink, then I don't wanna talk to you.
I smell super delegate.and Gus, thats the best thing Ive ever been called. I like it. Though I really prefer my name were Charlie.
Ooh, Donna's a superdelegate? From the all-important Goodreads lobby? Hooray, we're represented well and honorably! *buys Donna dinner* *says nice things about Obama* *asks if she's found out if Obama has any tattoos*
Meh, the superdelegates remind me of the electoral college, which was written into the Constitution for the aristocrats, oh excuse me richer more powerful land-owners, to rectify any mistakes the stupid masses did. IMO the electoral college should be done away with. I think the Dems will be taking a look at their more modern version of the Super Delegates.
What would happen if the will of the majority of Americans were upset by the super delegates? Is democracy harmed or is it simply acknowledged as a farcical system of pretended participation?
I hate to break the news to you, Stephen, but the concept of electoral participation amongst the general public is an illusion. The 2000 and 2004 general elections proved that.
I only wish we the people would take to the streets and scream bloody murder, and we would only stop until the blood of the electoral oligarchy flows. I mean, how is it that citizens from other nations, who risk so much by protesting the unfair results of an election, can take to the streets, but we're merely content to allow the Supreme Court to award the Presidency to someone who didn't win the general election.
I only wish we the people would take to the streets and scream bloody murder, and we would only stop until the blood of the electoral oligarchy flows. I mean, how is it that citizens from other nations, who risk so much by protesting the unfair results of an election, can take to the streets, but we're merely content to allow the Supreme Court to award the Presidency to someone who didn't win the general election.
The electoral college was established to ensure equal representation to less populous states. It is a wise policy that should never be abolished. Super Delegates is quite different, where they can actually discard the popular vote and select the candidate of their choosing. It precisely meant to give current office holders a chance to CYA if the minions "choose unwisely". hmmmmm...interesting...for all the bleating by a certain political party about "selected not elected" it turns out that that is exactly how they operate their own convention. Pot...meet kettle. Kettle...pot.
Point taken, Not Bill. It's all a load of hypocrisy.
The question remains--"What would happen if the will of the people is thwarted by the almighty wisdom (greed, good old boys, aristocrats, hierarchy,special interests, lobbyists etc) of the super delegates?" Would the American people be outraged to the point of action, or would we simply retreat to our favorite apathetic corner wimpering I told you so?
Sadly, I think it's the latter, not the former. As long as we're content with the status quo in our lives, how the President gets "elected" is of no real concern to us.
Now, if gas prices keep skyrocketing the way they are, then I can see people taking to the streets. Hell, rioting may occur. You can give us a President placed into power illegally or unethically, but don't disturb our livelihoods.
Now, if gas prices keep skyrocketing the way they are, then I can see people taking to the streets. Hell, rioting may occur. You can give us a President placed into power illegally or unethically, but don't disturb our livelihoods.
I'm hoping that they in fact do toss the vote out and select the candidate. End result: rioting. Count on it. And, it's about time peoples got really pissed off at the government. A little revolution on the part of the people now and then is a good thing. It's been 232 years since our last, I think we're about due.
Don't get me wrong though...it's not the form of government...it's the lying sack o shit weasels who run it.
Me? Revolution? Oh yeah....like you don't know. But of course, I'm in charge. Sardines for all!
It was Thomas Jefferson who made the following comments about revolution--"God forbid that we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion". He went on to state - "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is their natural manure."
And yet people still cite the 2nd Amendment:“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
We don't even have a militia any more!
I think the National Guard is the militia, Lori. "The Militia Act of 1903 organized the various state militias into the present National Guard system."National Guard of the United States Wikipedia article.
Yes I agree. But is my neighbor a national guard? No. So why does he have a gun?That's what I mean - times change, and our laws need to reflect that.
I love my guns, and I am not giving them up. I am a law abiding person, and it is my right to own them. I have severalM40
.40 glock
.338 S&W
.308 FAL **scout
AR15
.22 Browning pistol
.22 varmint
And since I live in a class 3 fire arms state :D
I have my baby 240G Machine gun, she purrs like a kitten and when I have a really bad day I like to take her out to the range and blow a few thousand rounds. The feeling of her humming in my hands is vary relaxing. IMO the only gun restrictions should be placed on criminals. If you are a clean person the buy whatever you want.
(Mental health is also an issue. However someone with a mental issue still has the right to protect themselves. I can see restricting their gun ownership to low velocity low rate of fire weapons.)
Well, I was talking about the 2nd Amendment, and how I don't see it giving free rights for individuals to own guns as pro-gun people cry, just the militia. However if you want to talk about guns in this day and age, well! I personally hate guns, wouldn't allow my kid to play in a house where there are guns unless I know the people well and have seen they are locked up in something like those fingerprint boxes. But if you want to own a gun, I'm not gonna judge you - you seem like a decent human being. I may not understand, but that's OK - I don't understand Jesus as the Messiah, doesn't mean I have anything against people who do.
What I don't get is why aren't pro-gun advocates for stricter gun control? What's wrong with waiting for a longer period of time while alot of checks and balances are carried out? The last crazy school killer had a record of mental instability. He got a gun and now innocent people are dead. So I disagree, someone with mental problems shouldn't have guns.
I am tired of hearing that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Yeah, sure, but it's a lot easier to kill someone, or several someones, with a gun.If we're going to have guns around, they should be at least as regulated as cars. To own and operate a gun, you should have to pass a written test, and a shooting test to get a license, and you should have to renew that license every four years or so.
I'm also tired of hearing about slippery slopes and sending messages, but that's another story.
I am all for a test and a license to own guns. That is reasonable. What isn’t reasonable is to charge ridiculous “fees” to register, and ridiculous “fees” for the license. For much of my life I lived in a state where it was next to impossible to purchase a gun of any sort. People were still dieing every day from firearms. And recently (a month or 2 ago) what was it 32 people in one weekend? When you restrict honest people from owning firearms you leave them wide open for criminals. Granted I believe most of the 32 people were gang members so it was mainly crooks shooting crooks, but that point also backs up what I am saying. Criminals will always have guns. I think it is a needed counterweight that honest people have them as well. We can not count on law enforcement or the government to protect our families in periods of civil un-rest. Think back to the Rodney King riots That was just a small percentage of the L.A. population and the law enforcement was totally overwhelmed. Even after the military arrived it was sketchy. I’ll keep my guns, thank you, and I will continue to be responsible with them.
I'm not one who advocates getting rid of guns. Personally, I don't like guns, nor do I like being around them. But if you want your guns, I'll defend your right to own a gun.
I'm all for personal responsibility and accountability. Your right to own a gun should coincide with being a responsible gun owner.
I'm all for personal responsibility and accountability. Your right to own a gun should coincide with being a responsible gun owner.
If people actually defended themselves by shooting criminals, it'd make the local news, if not the national news. I'm pretty sure it just doesn't work that way.Once read a statistic, a long time ago and I can't remember the citation so you're welcome to take it with a grain of salt, that a gun in the home is 47 times more likely to injure or kill someone in the home (kids-playing-around accident, thought there was an intruder but it was the 16-year-old sneaking in after curfew, suicide, domestic violence, hunting accident, tried-to-shove-it-in-my-waistband-to-look-cool accident, taken from you and used against you, whatever) than it is to injure or kill an intruder.
47 is a lot.
Oh, and countries that don't allow anyone to have handguns (Britain: 10 handgun deaths per year; US, 10,000+) don't have handgun deaths.
And thank you to whoever pointed out that the 2nd amendment does not and never has protected the individual right to bear arms. But you're welcome to join the well-regulated militias. I personally think the 2nd amendment, the way it's written, should be more relevant to 'don't ask, don't tell' than it is to buying a gun at Wal-Mart.
Lisa said:If people actually defended themselves by shooting criminals, it'd make the local news, if not the national news. I'm pretty sure it just doesn't work that way.
I don’t think it would make local news or national news. In Alaska we have this wonderful law DLP (defense of life and property) There are a few hundred cases tried every year regarding DLP in Alaska. You get to see the little article in the back of the paper somewhere. But when a drug deal goes bad and the drug trafficker (usually some teenager) gets shot and killed then it is front page news and on the nightly news for a week wail everyone talks about the need for stricter gun laws. This may sound really terrible, but as long as crooks are shooting themselves I’m fine with it. If they were not shooting themselves then they would be stabbing/beating themselves to death. In the life of crime you play for keeps, it is not a tickling contest.
Once read a statistic, a long time ago and I can't remember the citation so you're welcome to take it with a grain of salt, that a gun in the home is 47 times more likely to injure or kill someone in the home (kids-playing-around accident, thought there was an intruder but it was the 16-year-old sneaking in after curfew, suicide, domestic violence, hunting accident, tried-to-shove-it-in-my-waistband-to-look-cool accident, taken from you and used against you, whatever) than it is to injure or kill an intruder.
If you own guns you should be responsible with them, they are not toys. If you have small children in the house and your firearms are not properly secured then I am totally open to discussions on criminal charges being brought against the parents, in the event of an accident.
By then it's a little too late. That's 47 criminal trials against parents (or whatever) to every one in which a criminal (or whatever) shoots another criminal.
Sound right to anyone here?
(And it does actually make the local news here every time supposed criminal shoots criminal in what might otherwise be an overlooked part of North/Northeast Portland, though I may live in a bizarre utopia where people actually care because there are only 20-25 violent deaths here every year, depending on whether you count cops shooting someone; so I may be naive, but I imagine all 20-25 of those deaths make the news, and the ones that are the "good guys" "winning" might get bumped up to lead stories.)
But we digress - the issue is not guns, but our economic, social and economic freedoms. These are the thing that we are losing today. What are we willing to do to safegaurd these freedoms?
we always digress.Stephen is an undercover agent trying to identify the people in here who may partake in some anti-government plot so that he may turn you into a political prisoner.
I wish Stephen would change his avatar to something friendlier. That would make me stop dismissing his hyperbole and skimming his rants.
What are we willing to do to safeguard our basic economic, political and social freedoms beside wishing this question would go away?
Stephen, I think we've got it. The answer to your question is either we sit back and just let it happen, or we let our anger and disappointment spur us into action and reform the system.
What else you wanna know?
What else you wanna know?
Thank you for the information. I hope we don't sit back and let it happen, although I feel it may be the option that most choose. I have another question -- just how much anger and disappointment will we absorb before the few are spurred into action?
Didn't you ask that question already, Stephen?
You're a bot, aren't you?
You're a bot, aren't you?
I get the feeling I'm listening to a political pundit. A whole lot of "talking points" but no substance whatsoever.
What are we willing to do to safeguard our basic economic, political and social freedoms beside wishing this question would go away?I vote, regularly and as often as is legal.
Since when is it either/or, act or don't act? And why would all people have the same threshold for action?It is a continuum, and every day some people see something that causes them to act in some small way differently than they did the day before. Everyone will act in a different way, toward different ends, too. It's simplistic to phrase it as if there's one great solution out there, and people either move toward it (100%) or choose to do nothing.
The political powers that be have met. Florida and Michigan are half states occupied by half people who cast half of a vote. The Democratic party should be renamed to something more suitable-they are certainly not Democratic. But, then again, Democracy in the United States is simply an illusion good only for the promotion of foreign wars. In my own way, I am vindicated. For many years, I was a Democrat before turning Republicn , before realizing that neither party is concerned with the needs of Americans or America. Today, I am a 20 year Independent. It is not an effective affiliation, but, at least, I do not feel like a complete fool!
I'm a little frustrated they'll be counted at all. Apparently the party only half-means what it says. Obama's okay with the compromise, though, so I suppose I ought to be, too.
Stephen's democracy can exist in a vacuum, if he wants, but he should remember that there's no air in there, so it may not be a fun place to live for very long. My democracy operates in the real world, where the will of the people is actually moderated and organized to try to make it work outside of a vacuum, in a huge and diverse country, at the sometimes-conflicting national, state, and local levels. Democracy without some organization and rules isn't much better than anarchy.
What if Florida had decided to hold their election for president on some day other than the first Tuesday in November?
Hmmm.The individual voter in Michigan didn't have any say in the date chosen by "Michigan". Why should he or she be penalized and disenfranchised?
The Republican vote took place and counted.
How impartial and private would polling be if all Republicans voted during one month, and all Democrats voted in another?
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
