ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 6th September 2019, 12:56 PM   #41
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,595
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
And Obama never had the dictorial rule over the Dems that Trump had over the GOP.
Exactly how does this dictatorial rule Trump has over the GOP manifest itself?

What makes you think it exists?

What's an example of it?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 12:58 PM   #42
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 18,852
I'm starting to understand how theprestige felt about logger. Well done guys, well done.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 01:00 PM   #43
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,595
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Living in another reality, I see.

And government by referendum works really great;just look at how well it worked in the UK....
Greater levels of direct democracy works ok here:
https://www.democracy-international....rect-democracy

Our system brought us the Iraq war and then concentration camps for kids, so it's not like more emphasis on the "representative" part of representative democracy necessarily works better.

Brexit could have happened without a referendum, too.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 01:05 PM   #44
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,677
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
The point being is that those votes would have been all but useless. The Dem primaries are largely decided by super delegates.



I didn't say they skewed anything, they didn't have to. The super delegates all but decide the primary.
No, super delegates did not decide anything. While they are free to vote for who they choose, they usually support the candidate with the most regular delegates. (Many who had declated for clinton in 2008 switched to obama for example.)

Furthermore clinton recrived many more regular delegates than sansers did. If super delegates did not exist clinton still would have won handily.

Sent from my LG-K121 using Tapatalk
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 01:06 PM   #45
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,761
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
The Resistanceô cult seems to expect sane people to join in to their lying cheating obfuscating games because it's necessary to get rid of Trump who is lying cheating obfuscating.

Not a winning strategy I would think.
I would think that posting ******** is not a winning strategy, but you and Trump seem to disagree with me.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 01:07 PM   #46
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,595
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
No, super delegates did not decide anything. While they are free to vote for who they choose, they usually support the candidate with the most regular delegates. (Many who had declated for clinton in 2008 switched to obama for example.)

Furthermore clinton recrived many more regular delegates than sansers did. If super delegates did not exist clinton still would have won handily.

Sent from my LG-K121 using Tapatalk
I agree with you about that point, but I think the DNC tried to limit early debates to favor Clinton.

It wasn't exactly "rigging", but a mild form of table-tilting.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 01:16 PM   #47
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 44,955
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
The point being is that those votes would have been all but useless. The Dem primaries are largely decided by super delegates.



I didn't say they skewed anything, they didn't have to. The super delegates all but decide the primary.
Still apples and oranges.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 01:18 PM   #48
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,125
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
What's the difference between uncontested and "essentially" uncontested?

Were the Obama-challengers lacking in some essential quality which rendered them functionally non-existent?
For one thing, none of them managed to get even half as many votes as "uncommitted"/"no preference" in 2012. Somehow, I expect people like former congressman Joe Walsh or governor Bill Weld will receive far better reception than Keith Judd (most notable for being in jail in 2012) or Vermin Supreme (notable for wearing a boot on his head and having a rapper name).

(For reference, GWB crushed the GOP primary in 2004 - and again, the second place pick was "uncommitted"/"no preference". Wiki doesn't give totals for 1996 or 1984)
Mumbles is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 01:19 PM   #49
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,471
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
"Not uncontested" = "contested", yes?
If I tell you that the number of people who agree with you is essentially zero, is it zero or not? Probably not, right?

Saying "essentially contested" is a clever way to downplay the fact that, yeah, it was contested, but the contestants didn't matter because we don't want the comparison to stick.

Now, in this specific case there are other things that indicate that there are significant difference between the two, but contestation's not one of them.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 01:21 PM   #50
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 44,955
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
For one thing, none of them managed to get even half as many votes as "uncommitted"/"no preference" in 2012. Somehow, I expect people like former congressman Joe Walsh or governor Bill Weld will receive far better reception than Keith Judd (most notable for being in jail in 2012) or Vermin Supreme (notable for wearing a boot on his head and having a rapper name).

(For reference, GWB crushed the GOP primary in 2004 - and again, the second place pick was "uncommitted"/"no preference". Wiki doesn't give totals for 1996 or 1984)
I agree, but whether or not a challenge to Trump is hopeless (it probably is) is not the point. The point is giving party members the right to choose. A lot of people here just do not get that.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 01:21 PM   #51
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,471
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
The point being is that those votes would have been all but useless. The Dem primaries are largely decided by super delegates.
No, not quite.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 01:29 PM   #52
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 44,955
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
No, not quite.
No,not at all.
The idea that the superdelagates control the Democratic Party is silly, and, frankly, smacks of another excuse by the Berniebots as to why he lost so badly in 2016.
And I repeat, if Biden or Warren win the nomination, the most likely scenarios, I fully expect a repeat of this nonsense from the Berniebros.
Irony is that Warren and Sanders are not that far apart on the isuses, but Warren has a more mainstream, less college radical style,and with the Berniebors it's all about the style.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 01:32 PM   #53
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,595
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
For one thing, none of them managed to get even half as many votes as "uncommitted"/"no preference" in 2012. Somehow, I expect people like former congressman Joe Walsh or governor Bill Weld will receive far better reception than Keith Judd (most notable for being in jail in 2012) or Vermin Supreme (notable for wearing a boot on his head and having a rapper name).
The likelihood of Walsh doing better than the ponies, zombies, and toothpaste guy did is high, but the chances of him beating Trump are still approximately 0%, whereas the probability that running a primary against Trump would harm the GOP is nearly 100%, so...the overall differences there are still a matter of a small degree, as far as I can tell.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 01:45 PM   #54
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,513
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
The Dems don't play clean either. They made up their mind that Hillary was going to be the candidate no matter what (not that I disagree with it) over Bernie. As shown above they've practiced this a few times as well.

It makes sense to me. If you're the incumbent then save your energy, funds, and ideas for the main fight. No sense in messing around before hand.
And the myth gets repeated yet again. It's amazing how propaganda sticks with people.

Tell me, besides Sanders' whining about the debate schedule and one ignorant email about a debate question that was a no brainer in the first place* just what did the Party do to make Clinton the candidate?

Individuals in the Party that supported Clinton personally does not count as the same thing unless you can show what actions they specifically took. And no super-delegate votes impacted the outcome.


*I'm convinced Brazille made that stupid mistake to feel like a bigwig FoH (Friend of Hillary).
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 01:48 PM   #55
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,513
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
But at least the Dems did not cancel a primary for Hillary. You had the chance to vote against her.
If you don't see the difference between this and what the GOP is doing, you are hopeless.
She also wasn't the incumbent.

After hearing there is historical precedents, I think this is not the scandal it appears. Make the case, I'm still reading.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 6th September 2019 at 01:50 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 01:50 PM   #56
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,513
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Except of course they didn't.

Some of the the higher-ups in the party may have expressed a preference for Clinton, but there's no evidence that they took any significant action to skew the results in her favor.

Clinton was a long time democrat (along with whatever party contacts that provides) with greater name recognition than Sanders. The fact that Sanders (someone who wasn't even a member of the party prior to his run) did as well as he did is the surprising bit.
Yep.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 01:55 PM   #57
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,513
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
What part of 'But you could still vote against Hillary in the primaries" don't some people here understand?
The part about she wasn't an incumbent.


Quote:
I get a sick feeling that if Biden of Warren win, the Berniebots will pull the same crap they did in 2016. I think the Bernie movement has become as much of a Personality cult as the Trump movment..just with a different styler, that's all.
Since they don't have the demon Clinton to blame for Bernie's persecution, and since Warren is also not the establishment bad guy, I don't see the same circumstances forming.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 02:00 PM   #58
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,513
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
The point being is that those votes would have been all but useless. The Dem primaries are largely decided by super delegates.
No, they are not.

Quote:
I didn't say they skewed anything, they didn't have to. The super delegates all but decide the primary.
No, they do not.

Though they did decide some primaries in the past.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 02:03 PM   #59
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,595
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
And The GOP removes all doubt...it has become a Authoriatarian Party which has abandoned all Traditional Ideas of Democracy In the US.
Quote:
They have become totally corrupted by power, and will throw away all the principals they say they support in order to keep it.
All Hail Dear Leader!
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
The GOP and its lickspittle supporters digust me frankly.
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Republicans no now longer really believe in democracy. A major party has gone authoritarisn.
NOW do some of you get why I break with the liberals when it comes to gun ownership?
Remember when you said:

Quote:
And I am not happy about this, since I have a mistrust of the "progressives" as well. FOr one thing they have adapted a "all conservatives are evil" attitude that is a mirror image of the "all liberals are evil" attitude you see on the right.
There's a word for what you're doing here...
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 02:30 PM   #60
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,125
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
No,not at all.
The idea that the superdelagates control the Democratic Party is silly, and, frankly, smacks of another excuse by the Berniebots as to why he lost so badly in 2016.
Yeah, Sanders made some profound mistakes in 2016 that led to Hillary winning the great majority of delegate, and a strong majority of votes. I distinctly remember the Bernie Bros arguing that the southern states, which overwhelmingly voted for Clinton in the primaries, "shouldn't count". In reality, Sanders completely failed to campaign to black voters who make up the strong majority of southern democrats. The campaign simply assumed that it was a waste of time, that Clinton's support was rock-solid (it wasn't, as Obama showed in 2008), and so the end result was a massive advantage for Clinton, who actually *did* campaign to black voters.

(And for people who want to whine about looking at this sort of demographic - get over it. There's a reason why candidates put up with The Breakfast Club, and it's because they know that part of their voter base pays more attention to Charmalagne tha God than they do tv ads or debates with 10 people on the stage)

Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
The likelihood of Walsh doing better than the ponies, zombies, and toothpaste guy did is high, but the chances of him beating Trump are still approximately 0%, whereas the probability that running a primary against Trump would harm the GOP is nearly 100%, so...the overall differences there are still a matter of a small degree, as far as I can tell.
Take another look at the map - we technically had a dem presidential primary in Maryland in 2012. Only Obama managed to qualify, though, so you could vote for him, or you could vote for nobody. Guess who won? The real matchups were for, say, the house, or state reps. (and in my county, local seats like school board as well).

I doubt that a primary in, say, South Carolina would have anyone but Obama listed in the primary, either, so skipping the primary is mostly a budgeting issue. I do have to wonder if they're also cancelling all state and local primaries, though, or if they're just protecting Dolt 45. The latter isn't going to work - it'll just result in Walsh, Weld, and whoever else going on tv to talk about how weak he is and how the GOP had to cancel primaries to protect him.
Mumbles is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 02:56 PM   #61
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,513
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I agree with you about that point, but I think the DNC tried to limit early debates to favor Clinton.

It wasn't exactly "rigging", but a mild form of table-tilting.
Which they changed after Sanders went on a whining campaign.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 03:00 PM   #62
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,513
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
Yeah, Sanders made some profound mistakes in 2016 that led to Hillary winning the great majority of delegate, and a strong majority of votes. I distinctly remember the Bernie Bros arguing that the southern states, which overwhelmingly voted for Clinton in the primaries, "shouldn't count". In reality, Sanders completely failed to campaign to black voters who make up the strong majority of southern democrats. ...
I think Sanders got a little singed when he implied he marched with King when he only was in the crowd at the Dream speech.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 03:13 PM   #63
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 44,955
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
The part about she wasn't an incumbent.


Since they don't have the demon Clinton to blame for Bernie's persecution, and since Warren is also not the establishment bad guy, I don't see the same circumstances forming.
I think they will make Warren the Establishment Bad Guy if Warren wins. The hardcore Berniebots are a Personality Cult, you should know this.
People on the left can be just as stupid and short sighted as people on the right.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 03:16 PM   #64
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 44,955
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Remember when you said:



There's a word for what you're doing here...
Yeah, it's "Not seeing everything in terms of Good and Evil, and not ignoring stupidity and wrong just because it's happening on the political side I usually agree with".
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 03:17 PM   #65
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 44,955
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I think Sanders got a little singed when he implied he marched with King when he only was in the crowd at the Dream speech.
Of course I suspect that the Mall in Washington could not possibly hold half the people who claim to have been there when King gave that speech......
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 03:20 PM   #66
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 44,955
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
Yeah, Sanders made some profound mistakes in 2016 that led to Hillary winning the great majority of delegate, and a strong majority of votes. I distinctly remember the Bernie Bros arguing that the southern states, which overwhelmingly voted for Clinton in the primaries, "shouldn't count". In reality, Sanders completely failed to campaign to black voters who make up the strong majority of southern democrats. The campaign simply assumed that it was a waste of time, that Clinton's support was rock-solid (it wasn't, as Obama showed in 2008), and so the end result was a massive advantage for Clinton, who actually *did* campaign to black voters.

(And for people who want to whine about looking at this sort of demographic - get over it. There's a reason why candidates put up with The Breakfast Club, and it's because they know that part of their voter base pays more attention to Charmalagne tha God than they do tv ads or debates with 10 people on the stage)



Take another look at the map - we technically had a dem presidential primary in Maryland in 2012. Only Obama managed to qualify, though, so you could vote for him, or you could vote for nobody. Guess who won? The real matchups were for, say, the house, or state reps. (and in my county, local seats like school board as well).

I doubt that a primary in, say, South Carolina would have anyone but Obama listed in the primary, either, so skipping the primary is mostly a budgeting issue. I do have to wonder if they're also cancelling all state and local primaries, though, or if they're just protecting Dolt 45. The latter isn't going to work - it'll just result in Walsh, Weld, and whoever else going on tv to talk about how weak he is and how the GOP had to cancel primaries to protect him.
The point is not if a challenger had a realistic chance of beating Trump, but that the GOP voters should have opportunity to vote. If that cost the party a bit of money, so be it.
I think it's wrong for either party to do this,although in the case of Trump it's a lot worse because of his Toxicticity.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2019, 03:39 AM   #67
Nova Land
/
Tagger
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whitleyville, TN, surrounded by cats
Posts: 5,773
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
From your link:
It is not unprecedented for state Republicans or Democrats to decide not to hold a presidential primary when an incumbent is running essentially uncontested. In South Carolina, a key early primary state, Republicans decided to nix their presidential primaries in 1984 and 2004, when Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were up for their second terms; while state Democrats skipped their contests in 1996 and 2012, with Bill Clinton and Barack Obama running for reelection, respectively.
HTH. HAND!
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post

You should make more of an effort to read up on and learn the details of things you're posting about before you post misleadingly, as you did in this case.

The CNN sentence you quoted is all right for someone who just wants a general idea about primaries, but it's not detailed. And in your attempt to fill in what those details are, you got things seriously wrong.

The Democrats most certainly did hold primaries in 1996. If you don't think they did, you might want to contact the FEC, as they've got results posted for those primaries.

Here's a link to the 1996 presidential primary results, which includes both the Republican primary results and the Democratic primary results. Starting at the top:
Originally Posted by Federal Elections Commission
ALABAMA

Primary Election: June 4, 1996

Clinton, Bill D 243,588 80.65
Uncommitted D 45,764 15.15
LaRouche, Lyndon D 12,686 4.20
Total Party Votes: 302,038
A handful of states and Puerto Rico did not hold Democratic primaries that year because, as is explained in footnotes for those states, a Democratic primary was not held in those states because Bill Clinton was the only candidate who qualified for the ballot in those states. So Connecticut, Florida, New York, South Carolina, and Puerto Rico didn't bother with a primary because only one candidate would have been on the ballot; and the Democratic Party in (Nevada and South Dakota also didn't take part in their state's presidential primaries that year, although the FEC footnote for those states is less clear as to the reason.) All the other states had Democratic primaries that year.

Similarly, there were Democratic primaries in 2012. Here's a link to the Wikipedia page listing the results of the 2012 Democratic primaries. Again there's a small number of states which didn't bother holding a Democratic presidential primary, but the overwhelming majority of states did.

If you'd actually read up on this subject a little to verify what you were claiming before posting your But what about the Democrats? comment you'd know that.

In the past some state parties haven't bothered holding primaries when there was only one candidate who had qualified to appear on their ballot. That's not what the CNN story cited in the OP of this thread appears to be about. It's about state parties deciding not to have primaries in 2016 regardless of whether any candidates besides Trump would be able to qualify to be on their ballot if they had one. And despite what Kelli Ward and Drew McKessick are quoted as saying in the story, about this not being something new and unprecedented, this does appear to be something new and unprecedented. I am not aware of any presidential election in the past where there were challengers who were able to qualify to be on the primary ballot but a primary was not held.

I am not an expert on this subject. If there are any genuine examples of Democrats or Republicans in the past cancelling their primaries even though there were challengers who qualified to be on the primary ballot, I'd be interested in learning about that. But that does not appear to be what happened in either 1996 nor 2012, and it was very poor skeptical practice to put those forward as examples without looking up the details to verify the claim being made.
Nova Land is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2019, 04:24 AM   #68
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,637
Originally Posted by Nova Land View Post
I am not an expert on this subject. If there are any genuine examples of Democrats or Republicans in the past cancelling their primaries even though there were challengers who qualified to be on the primary ballot, I'd be interested in learning about that. But that does not appear to be what happened in either 1996 nor 2012, and it was very poor skeptical practice to put those forward as examples without looking up the details to verify the claim being made.
It is a bit of an irony to claim that an event didn't occur, and then post links to show that it did in the very next post.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2019, 04:44 AM   #69
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,240
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Yeah, it's "Not seeing everything in terms of Good and Evil, and not ignoring stupidity and wrong just because it's happening on the political side I usually agree with".
I don't think all conservatives are evil. I think, in the US, all conservatives are Democrats.

At least if we define "conservative" as fiscally responsible and patriotic. If we define it as "longing for past authoritarian rule", as was originally the case, they are actually doing quite well in the GOP.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

Last edited by uke2se; 7th September 2019 at 04:45 AM.
uke2se is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2019, 08:40 AM   #70
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,097
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
After reading through that it appears in all three cases that "effectively unopposed" is accurate.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2019, 10:12 AM   #71
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,134
Originally Posted by Nova Land View Post
You should make more of an effort to read up on and learn the details of things you're posting about before you post misleadingly, as you did in this case.

The CNN sentence you quoted is all right for someone who just wants a general idea about primaries, but it's not detailed. And in your attempt to fill in what those details are, you got things seriously wrong.

The Democrats most certainly did hold primaries in 1996. If you don't think they did, you might want to contact the FEC, as they've got results posted for those primaries.

Here's a link to the 1996 presidential primary results, which includes both the Republican primary results and the Democratic primary results. Starting at the top:


A handful of states and Puerto Rico did not hold Democratic primaries that year because, as is explained in footnotes for those states, a Democratic primary was not held in those states because Bill Clinton was the only candidate who qualified for the ballot in those states. So Connecticut, Florida, New York, South Carolina, and Puerto Rico didn't bother with a primary because only one candidate would have been on the ballot; and the Democratic Party in (Nevada and South Dakota also didn't take part in their state's presidential primaries that year, although the FEC footnote for those states is less clear as to the reason.) All the other states had Democratic primaries that year.

Similarly, there were Democratic primaries in 2012. Here's a link to the Wikipedia page listing the results of the 2012 Democratic primaries. Again there's a small number of states which didn't bother holding a Democratic presidential primary, but the overwhelming majority of states did.

If you'd actually read up on this subject a little to verify what you were claiming before posting your But what about the Democrats? comment you'd know that.

In the past some state parties haven't bothered holding primaries when there was only one candidate who had qualified to appear on their ballot. That's not what the CNN story cited in the OP of this thread appears to be about. It's about state parties deciding not to have primaries in 2016 regardless of whether any candidates besides Trump would be able to qualify to be on their ballot if they had one. And despite what Kelli Ward and Drew McKessick are quoted as saying in the story, about this not being something new and unprecedented, this does appear to be something new and unprecedented. I am not aware of any presidential election in the past where there were challengers who were able to qualify to be on the primary ballot but a primary was not held.

I am not an expert on this subject. If there are any genuine examples of Democrats or Republicans in the past cancelling their primaries even though there were challengers who qualified to be on the primary ballot, I'd be interested in learning about that. But that does not appear to be what happened in either 1996 nor 2012, and it was very poor skeptical practice to put those forward as examples without looking up the details to verify the claim being made.
Ouch.

When whataboutism goes wrong.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2019, 04:35 PM   #72
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,207
Have they ever cancelled state primaries this early? I mean I’d get not bothering with a Presidential primary in a state that’s late in the primary season and the writing is already on the wall, but I’ve been hearing about primary cancellations for a while now.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2019, 06:05 PM   #73
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,742
The cancellation of the SC primary is specifically intended to stop that clown Mark Sanford. Last seen pretending to be hiking the Appalachian trail while secretly canoodling with his South American sweetheart.

It's a bit of hardball politics. Shocking I know, compared to the way the DNC totally did not rig the 2016 contest in favor Clinton.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2019, 06:12 PM   #74
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,513
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I think they will make Warren the Establishment Bad Guy if Warren wins. The hardcore Berniebots are a Personality Cult, you should know this.
People on the left can be just as stupid and short sighted as people on the right.
Yes, there are a few hardcore Burners in this forum.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2019, 06:21 PM   #75
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,511
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
The cancellation of the SC primary is specifically intended to stop that clown Mark Sanford. Last seen pretending to be hiking the Appalachian trail while secretly canoodling with his South American sweetheart.
Yeah, why settle for a penny ante clown like Sanford when you can have Bozo Trump. LOL!

Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2019, 06:32 PM   #76
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,595
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Yes, there are a few hardcore Burners in this forum.
No, actual "hardcore Burners" (true Personality Cult types) won't shut up about their hypothesis that Warren is a cryptofascist corporate sellout neoClintonite who's secretly running just to sabotage Sanders and the left.

These people are all over Twitter, and reddit to a lesser extent.

Look through these to see it in all its glory:

https://twitter.com/philosophrob

https://twitter.com/empathyeducates
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.

Last edited by kellyb; 8th September 2019 at 06:33 PM.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2019, 06:46 PM   #77
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,314
It's awfully noble of the state GOP people to think of the taxpayers and wish to save them money.

Remind me again why states spend money to hold partisan elections?

In all seriousness, I think the way we elect presidents is a complete mess, and the 50+ different ways of selecting delegates to partisan activities in state sponsored, and funded, elections is the most ridiculous aspect of it all. Unfortunately, the problem with trying to pass electoral reform is that it has to be approved by the people who won the last election, using the unreformed system.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2019, 06:54 PM   #78
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,595
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
In all seriousness, I think the way we elect presidents is a complete mess, and the 50+ different ways of selecting delegates to partisan activities in state sponsored, and funded, elections is the most ridiculous aspect of it all. Unfortunately, the problem with trying to pass electoral reform is that it has to be approved by the people who won the last election, using the unreformed system.
Agreed on all counts. It's an infuriating and borderline-intractable problem.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2019, 07:39 PM   #79
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,207
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
The cancellation of the SC primary is specifically intended to stop that clown Mark Sanford. Last seen pretending to be hiking the Appalachian trail while secretly canoodling with his South American sweetheart.
.
An odd reasoning given Trumpís multiple infidelities.

I thought Trump was super-popular within the party. Why does hardball need to be played like this instead of letting things just run their course?
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2019, 08:15 PM   #80
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,314
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
An odd reasoning given Trumpís multiple infidelities.

I thought Trump was super-popular within the party. Why does hardball need to be played like this instead of letting things just run their course?
They remember Pat Buchanan in 1992.

He was never a serious candidate. He never won a single primary. There was absolutlely zero chance he was going to take the nomination from GHWB, but it provided an opportunity to make Bush look bad all through the primary season.

I don't know to what extent it contributed to the election of Bill Clinton that fall, but it certainly didn't do Bush or the GOP any good.


I kind of hope what comes out of this is that Weld declares that since the GOP process is rigged, he'll run as an independent. That's not very likely, but you never know.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:24 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.