ILF4LYF
http://www.ilovefuzz.com/
D.o.S. wrote:You're all still wrong about this. I think Trump speaks to exactly why the electoral college is a good idea.
Is this the "Hillary's Kill List" bs that my uncle forwarded to me, despite it having been debunked 20 years ago? The Bey-gazi fantasy? Or is this about retroactive classification totally jumping the shark and the political media completely not getting it or not wanting to get it because it's fun to play like something wrong happened at the time? Where there is smoke, sometimes there is a smoke machine.jwar wrote:I wouldn't say that it's a spite vote. Hilary is a fucking criminal and has breached national security on a number of levels. The fact that she allowed to still run, is beyond me. The fact that she could President is dumbfounding. I just cannot fucking believe it. That bitch should be in fucking prison. Not running around picking up delegates. This country is completely fucked.
D.o.S. wrote:You've convinced me.
in what way? is the question we're asking: should we allow everyone's opinion to be equal when electing representatives? maybe not; obviously some people know more about certain topics than others or perhaps have a more valuable perspective. but does the electoral college do a good job of serving this function? to be honest, I don't know for myself, maybe I should read up on it more. I think eventually when everyone has equal access to information and education, everyone's vote would be as intellectually sound as anyone else, and a popular vote would be adequate.D.o.S. wrote:You're all still wrong about this. I think Trump speaks to exactly why the electoral college is a good idea.
How are you going to get everyone equal access to information and education without involving the government?ChetMagongalo wrote:in what way? is the question we're asking: should we allow everyone's opinion to be equal when electing representatives? maybe not; obviously some people know more about certain topics than others or perhaps have a more valuable perspective. but does the electoral college do a good job of serving this function? to be honest, I don't know for myself, maybe I should read up on it more. I think eventually when everyone has equal access to information and education, everyone's vote would be as intellectually sound as anyone else, and a popular vote would be adequate.D.o.S. wrote:You're all still wrong about this. I think Trump speaks to exactly why the electoral college is a good idea.
the ideal situation for many superdelegates is for them to merely use their vote as a ceremonial affirmation of the voters' consensus. That's why hundreds of them are currently biding their time, not picking anyone. Many superdelegates are in it for the perks -- a hotel room at the convention, a place amid the pageantry on the floor -- and would rather not see their potentially decisive power being used to decide a nominee.
This sentiment was well expressed by Missouri Democratic Sen. (and superdelegate) Claire McCaskill back in April of 2008:
"The majority of superdelegates I’ve talked to are committed, but it is a matter of timing,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.). “They’re just preferring to make their decision public after the primaries are over. ... They would like someone else to act for them before they talk about it in the cold light of day.”
And back in the spring of 2008, the way the race had shaped up had placed a lot of undue attention on the superdelegates and their role in the process. There came a moment in the race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama when Clinton's mathematical path to notching the nomination didn't make sense unless a lot of superdelegates started breaking her way.
And it wasn't just the raw arithmetic that mattered. She needed momentum as well, because she was locked in a situation where she had to start winning primaries by decisive margins that hadn't yet manifested themselves. Getting party elites to come out for her -- against the run of play -- was necessary to add a dose of energy to facilitate this outcome.
So Clinton got to the point where she had to start publicly and flamboyantly courting the superdelegates. (Obama, rest assured, was doing the same in a more publicly restrained way.) And many of those superdelegates properly recognized that their lives might get dicey if, after the voters demonstrated a clear desire to nominate their party's first black candidate, some affluent Beltway toff threw the election in a different direction. (Around the same time, the Clinton campaign was also seeking to have the full delegate slate from a pair of states fully credentialed after the party punished them for various primary calendar shenanigans, a much better case for a nominal leader of the "party of the little guy" to be making.)
According to her and her husband they were showing the proper way to throw a Nazi salute, while they're not Nazis themselves.Faldoe wrote:That would be awesome if that lady is trolling the Lefties. Putting in a lot of effort.
She was born in Germany in 1946, so I guess she missed out on refining her technique with the Bund Deustcher Mädel.D.o.S. wrote:According to her and her husband they were showing the proper way to throw a Nazi salute, while they're not Nazis themselves.Faldoe wrote:That would be awesome if that lady is trolling the Lefties. Putting in a lot of effort.
Which is actually an incredible answer.
