Jump to content
270soft Forum

NV CAUCUS RESULTS THREAD


Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I am, right now.  
 

I’m trying to set appropriate expectations, as most folks naturally haven’t invested the time in learning the ins and outs of how this works, and might be in for a disappointment in thinking it was rigged against Bernie when the reality is that these are the same rules for everyone — and to the extent that they’re different from 2016 (no super delegates in first round, for example), those changes were made FOR Bernie and his supporters.

Well, let's be honest, here. U.S. party nominations have NEVER been representative, unbiased, transparent, or fair, and have always been easily manipulatable by the corrupt party bosses. Before the 1970's, they didn't even bother with meaningful primaries - the conventions ended up deciding. So, let's chop the inappropriate expectations down even further, dispel the illusions, and call a spade a spade as to what the party nomination process has ALWAYS been in American history - and how it's always ended up de facto cheating and rigging elections and stripping American voters of their real choice of political leadership.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

Well, let's be honest, here. U.S. party nominations have NEVER been representative, unbiased, transparent, or fair, and have always been easily manipulatable by the corrupt party bosses. Before the 1970's, they didn't even bother with meaningful primaries - the conventions ended up deciding. So, let's chop the inappropriate expectations down even further, dispel the illusions, and call a spade a spade as to what the party nomination process has ALWAYS been in American history - and how it's always ended up de facto cheating and rigging elections and stripping American voters of their real choice of political leadership.

Teach me the magic Canada way where everything is pure and light.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Teach me the magic Canada way where everything is pure and light.

It's not perfect, and never has been. I've never claimed it is. It's different. But I don't recall saying it's "pure and light" (somehow, people on Internet forums, who, as far as I can gather, have never met, have developed a bad habit of putting words in my mouth I've never said as a ridiculous way of trying to criticize me. I can't figure this bizarre phenomenon out). Besides, I wasn't actually speaking about American elections in relativity there (again, I think words are being put in my mouth) - I was criticizing the American electoral system on it's own. The Westminster Parliamentary Responsible Government with a highly vestigial and purely ceremonial Viceregal Constitutional Monarchy is too different of a system to a Constitutional Presidential Republic with a Separation of Powers to be directly and easily compared right over the table.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

It's not perfect, and never has been. I've never claimed it is. It's different. But I don't recall saying it's "pure and light" (somehow, people on Internet forums, who, as far as I can gather, have never met, have developed a bad habit of putting words in my mouth I've never said as a ridiculous way of trying to criticize me. I can't figure this bizarre phenomenon out). Besides, I wasn't actually speaking about American elections in relativity there (again, I think words are being put in my mouth) - I was criticizing the American electoral system on it's own. The Westminster Parliamentary Responsible Government with a highly vestigial and purely ceremonial Viceregal Constitutional Monarchy is too different of a system to a Constitutional Presidential Republic with a Separation of Powers to be directly and easily compared right over the table.

Ok, we've ruled out Canada.  Which country has the perfect system that we're being compared to, then?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

Ok, we've ruled out Canada.  Which country has the perfect system that we're being compared to, then?

Why is a standing, extant example of superiority needed? Can't suggested reform and betterment be in their own context and arena?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Patine said:

 (somehow, people on Internet forums, who, as far as I can gather, have never met, have developed a bad habit of putting words in my mouth I've never said as a ridiculous way of trying to criticize me. I can't figure this bizarre phenomenon out). 

It's sarcasm, and it usually comes from a place of exhaustion.

I hope this explanation was helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

Why is a standing, extant example of superiority needed? Can't suggested reform and betterment be in their own context and arena?

Were you suggesting reform and betterment?  I only saw criticism.  

Every now and then, I allow myself to dive in and ask "What does Patine like?"  

But the answer seems to consistently be nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

It's sarcasm, and it usually comes from a place of exhaustion.

I hope this explanation was helpful.

Well, you're mostly exhausting yourself by being deliberately obtuse and intractable to any rational discussion, knowing full well (or at least you should) that such responses are forthcoming. One might even go so far as to say you're baiting - and then not liking the results.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

Were you suggesting reform and betterment?  I only saw criticism.  

Every now and then, I allow myself to dive in and ask "What does Patine like?"  

But the answer seems to consistently be nothing.

You've NEVER asked me for my ideas for reform. You just assume, without asking or inquiring, that I have none, by absolute baseless presumption, and then excoriate me for daring to criticize.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

Well, you're mostly exhausting yourself by being deliberately obtuse and intractable to any rational discussion, knowing full well (or at least you should) that such responses are forthcoming. One might even go so far as to say you're baiting - and then not liking the results.

...you responded to my reply to Admin, and I'm the one who is baiting.  

But I will agree that I am obtuse for repeatedly responding, a waste of both of our days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

...you responded to my reply to Admin, and I'm the one who is baiting.  

But I will agree that I am obtuse for repeatedly responding, a waste of both of our days.

That specific response isn't quite what I meant...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

You've NEVER asked me for my ideas for reform. You just assume, without asking or inquiring, that I have none, by absolute baseless presumption, and then excoriate me for daring to criticize.

I don't ask you for your criticism either, but that comes in spades.

It is accurate that I do not value your opinion enough to sincerely ask for your reform ideas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I don't ask you for your criticism either, but that comes in spades.

It is accurate that I do not value your opinion enough to sincerely ask for your reform ideas.

Actually, I did give a big package of electoral reform ideas I thought would be good for the U.S. a few months ago. You read them, and made a few comments (you might recall learning about an MMP electoral system was from a YouTube video by a "guy with a fun-sounding New Zealand accent." So, please don't say I've never offered such suggestions. And criticism is something that few ask for, but many need. It's rarely solicited, voluntarily.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Patine said:

Actually, I did give a big package of electoral reform ideas I thought would be good for the U.S. a few months ago. You read them, and made a few comments (you might recall learning about an MMP electoral system was from a YouTube video by a "guy with a fun-sounding New Zealand accent." So, please don't say I've never offered such suggestions. And criticism is something that few ask for, but many need. It's rarely solicited, voluntarily.

I actually do recall that -- which was in response to me asking you once again for your reform ideas.  For once, you actually gave what I took to be a real response.  And I, in turn, took the time to actually read it and even research the parts that I didn't immediately understand.

This is what happens when you offer constructive criticism, instead of just another "everything America sucks" rant, which is exhausting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I actually do recall that -- which was in response to me asking you once again for your reform ideas.  For once, you actually gave what I took to be a real response.  And I, in turn, took the time to actually read it and even research the parts that I didn't immediately understand.

This is what happens when you offer constructive criticism, instead of just another "everything America sucks" rant, which is exhausting.

Criticizing the American electoral system is NOT the same as saying "everything America sucks." I have never made such a brazen and absolutist statement - EVER. There are a lot of admirable things, and things that have improved the world greatly, that have come out of the United States - and there are also a lot of bad ideas, things that could use  (and even NEED) improvement, and things actively doing harm to themselves and the rest of the world. The United States is certainly not unique at all among nations in that evaluation, either. However, the American electoral system is among the aspects of "things that could use (and even NEED) improvement."

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ishan said:

@Patine I've heard that the Canadian system is worse as not many people are members of the party and party bosses could kick you out of the party at any time if you are a Canadian Politican.

Political party is defined differently as a legal concept. In Canada, being a "party member," is more akin to JUST being a candidate, national, state, or local committee member, fundraiser, electoral and campaign staff, etc., whereas as being a "loyal party voter," in Canada is roughly equivalent to being a "registered party member," in the U.S. And, once again, I have never once said the Canadian electoral system is perfect, or doesn't need major reform itself. It needs a lot of work, too - no denying (and I never have actually denied it). It's just that, because the government systems are so notably different, electoral reforms that would better the American system, except for a few fundamental ideas, would not directly help the Canadian system without serious analog thinking, and vice versa. The political party I have supported on the Federal level every election but once in the 21st Century has some really great ideas about electoral reform in Canada. Unfortunately, despite being in the top four Federal parties, and earning respectable seat totals, and even once being official opposition, they have never formed government on the Federal level ONCE.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Patine said:

Political party is defined differently as a legal concept. In Canada, being a "party member," is more akin to JUST being a candidate, national, state, or local committee member, fundraiser, electoral and campaign staff, etc., whereas as being a "loyal party voter," in Canada is roughly equivalent to being a "registered party member," in the U.S. And, once again, I have never once said the Canadian electoral system is perfect, or doesn't need major reform itself. It needs a lot of work, too - no denying (and I never have actually denied it). It's just that, because the government systems are so notably different, electoral reforms that would better the American system, except for a few fundamental ideas, would not directly help the Canadian system without serious analog thinking, and vice versa. The political party I have supported on the Federal level every election but once in the 21st Century has some really great ideas about electoral reform in Canada. Unfortunately, despite being in the top four Federal parties, and earning respectable seat totals, and even once being official opposition, they have never formed government on the Federal level ONCE.

To be fair, the NDP has had bad leaders like Muclair and maybe Singh, (Singh might of been the reason why the NDP did badly especially in Quebec but he did well in the Debate) and there should be some sort of PR by Province or Ranked Choice Voting, this I agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ishan said:

To be fair, the NDP has had bad leaders like Muclair and maybe Singh, (Singh might of been the reason why the NDP did badly especially in Quebec but he did well in the Debate) and there should be some sort of PR by Province or Ranked Choice Voting, this I agree.

I greatly miss Layton. RIP

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...