• Sanders urging superdelegates to abandon Clinton
    79 replies, posted
To be honest the best president that America could have would be one that doesn't do all that much in the end. Low levels of activity amongst sovereigns seem to coincide with periods of relative peace and prosperity.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50021186]To be honest the best president that America could have would be one that doesn't do all that much in the end. Low levels of activity amongst sovereigns seem to coincide with periods of relative peace and prosperity.[/QUOTE] First of all, the president is not a sovereign. Second of all, a president who does nothing is as useless as our current congress that does nothing. We need a president who will try to fix the problems that he or she had when he or she took office.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50021186]To be honest the best president that America could have would be one that doesn't do all that much in the end. Low levels of activity amongst sovereigns seem to coincide with periods of relative peace and prosperity.[/QUOTE] Then people will feel more and more disenchanted with the political process and they will vote for a guy like Trump, because Obummer didn't do all that much in the end!
[QUOTE=_Axel;50018419]Why does the US election process have to be so needlessly convoluted? What's wrong with the whole population voting and % of total voters being what determines who becomes the president?[/QUOTE] Okay its time for some history. The found fathers thought people had equal rights and were unfathombly stupid. Voting in elections is not actually a guaranteed right, it came out of necessity as pointed out during many Supreme Court cases and like privacy is protected as a right even though there's no clause. Till about Manifest Destiny, people were chosen by an oligarchy.
[QUOTE=_Axel;50018419]Why does the US election process have to be so needlessly convoluted? What's wrong with the whole population voting and % of total voters being what determines who becomes the president?[/QUOTE] Because when NYC alone has a bigger population than 39 voting states, its easy to see how they can be disenfranchised. Same reason why we have the house and senate.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50021330]First of all, the president is not a sovereign. Second of all, a president who does nothing is as useless as our current congress that does nothing. We need a president who will try to fix the problems that he or she had when he or she took office.[/QUOTE] Except presidents that try to do that usually end up making matters worse in the end, or achieve little at best. Even then, to assume that a guy, whose office is constantly becoming less powerful and more symbolic can fix all of these problems afflicting the nation is to put too much hope and focus onto the efforts of a single individual. [QUOTE=Chaitin;50021352]Then people will feel more and more disenchanted with the political process and they will vote for a guy like Trump, because Obummer didn't do all that much in the end![/QUOTE] That's because state and local governments are becoming more impotent and less responsible for various things, so they're increasingly pinning their hopes on a central government that is quite incapable of administering to Americas problems. The process of actually voting for these presidents is counterproductive because they'll get into office, barely manage anything (Trump will be practically crippled in office), and they will slowly lumber along while the regional and local governments below them continue to ossify.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;50020191]When GOP debate Moderator Bret Baier noted that several high-ranking military and intelligence officials said they believed the rank-and-file military would refuse to commit war crimes, per their training to refuse illegal orders — he asked what Trump would do. He replied: "They won't refuse. They're not going to refuse me. Believe me." The correct response is "I would not issue those illegal orders in the first place" — so in effect — Trump is admitting to being a future war criminal.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=EcksDee;50019825]He is however promising to actually legit commit war crimes if he gets into office.[/QUOTE] Still, nothing but words.
[QUOTE=proch;50021589]Still, nothing but words.[/QUOTE] Admitting to conspiring to be a future murderer is also — nothing — "but words."
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50020869]And you ruined it. I wouldn't trust a Facepuncher to run a country, even myself.[/QUOTE] Gore/That Cat 2000. [QUOTE=proboardslol;50021080]Wanna remind everyone that primaries have nothing to do with the law; they're private organizations choosing their candidates privately. They can do whatever they want and they in no way have to be democratic. Primaries didn't even exist before 1968, they just chose whatever person they wanted.[/QUOTE] Exactly. The Democratic Primaries aren't supposed to be democratic in so much as they're a private function of the Democrat political machine. You're not voting for the candidate, but for representatives of your state who will support said candidate at the national convention. The Superdelegates are effectively a compromise, the party reserving a certain degree of delegates to party heavies, as they're the ones with the most vested interest in the success of their party.
the Superdelegates won't go against the will of people if Bernie Sanders turns out to be a lot more popular than they projected, especially in swing states. If people just vote for him they could likely change their minds.
[QUOTE=GarbageCan;50021647]the Superdelegates won't go against the will of people if Bernie Sanders turns out to be a lot more popular than they projected, especially in swing states. If people just vote for him they could likely change their minds.[/QUOTE] If somehow they do, there would be a shitstorm of epic proportions.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;50020933]We would have still had 9/11. The difference is that Gore wouldn't strip us of our liberties in response. He wouldn't invade random countries entirely unrelated to the September 11th attacks in a prolonged occupation. George W. Bush was planning to invade Iraq long before 9/11.[/QUOTE] Republicans controlled (narrowly) the house in 2000 and had like 48 seats in the Senate. They would still have existed after an Gore win and they would have savaged him for 9/11. You're papering over a lot of things to get to his Al Gore utopia. Democrats were more than happy to go along to get along with the Patriot Act, the Iraq War. Republicans on the other hand would have used 9/11 to rip the Democrats for being soft on terror. Remember they tried (and succeeded for a time) blaming the terrorist attacks on Bill Clinton because he didn't get Osama or whatever. It's just as likely that a "nerdy" Al Gore would have caused an even larger route for Dems in the 2002 midterms, and that he himself after being whittled down for being weak on terror would have lost his 2004 re-election to George Dubya.
[QUOTE=Srillo;50021781]Republicans controlled (narrowly) the house in 2000 and had like 48 seats in the Senate. They would still have existed after an Gore win and they would have savaged him for 9/11. You're papering over a lot of things to get to his Al Gore utopia. Democrats were more than happy to go along to get along with the Patriot Act, the Iraq War. Republicans on the other hand would have used 9/11 to rip the Democrats for being soft on terror. Remember they tried (and succeeded for a time) blaming the terrorist attacks on Bill Clinton because he didn't get Osama or whatever. It's just as likely that a "nerdy" Al Gore would have caused an even larger route for Dems in the 2002 midterms, and that he himself after being whittled down for being weak on terror would have lost his 2004 re-election to George Dubya.[/QUOTE] "nah man your hypothetical is stupid my hypothetical is how it really woulda happened"
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50020520]I doubt there will ever be another example of just how badly broken our political system is in my lifetime, or of the consequences that such a system can lead to.[/QUOTE] I don't know about that. We have the potential for a Hillary vs Cruz. Even if Bernie and Trump win the popular vote, the parties could just be like "fuck it" and choose their establishment candidate instead. Afaik nothing legally prevents them from doing this, it's bad PR but that's it. And I doubt they care about bad PR, because there is no viable alternative but them.
Parties very much care about PR because PR is what gets them elected. You can have all the money in the world but if people wont vote for you they won't get elected. That's why Trump splitting the Republican base is so troubling to the Republicans; you have the Tea Party establishment in Cruz (fairly popular), the outsider tearing down the walls and walking right in (Trump) and the very moderate leaning Republican (Kaisch). Right now it can be Cruz doing his thing and Kaisch trying to get votes away from Trump so that Trump can't end up with a majority. (Trump currently holds a plurality of the votes, if he were to get a majority the republicans would have to choose him). I don't think the democrats are as split between the ideas of Bernie and Hillary, at worst Hillary loses a bit of the youth vote that have historically not been that reliable. Bernie could get the traditionally progressive youth vote on the path to be more active in politics which is probably the main thing that makes him a viable candidate at all.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50022121]I don't know about that. We have the potential for a Hillary vs Cruz. Even if Bernie and Trump win the popular vote, the parties could just be like "fuck it" and choose their establishment candidate instead. Afaik nothing legally prevents them from doing this, it's bad PR but that's it. And I doubt they care about bad PR, because there is no viable alternative but them.[/QUOTE] I know Trump pledged to back the GOP nomination, but I'm pretty sure if he wins the popular vote and the Republicans "cheat" him out of the nomination then he's going to tear up the agreement and run Independent. And at this stage the only question is whether Trump will secure the 1237 delegates needed for automatic nomination, Cruz is too far behind to realistically catch up. Sure, if he fails to get the 1237 then the GOP can nominate whoever they want, but it would tear the party in half.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50021186]Low levels of activity amongst sovereigns seem to coincide with periods of relative peace and prosperity.[/QUOTE] It's the peace and prosperity that causes the low activity, not the other way around. It's only OK for the government to sit on its ass if it's truly got nothing to do, which almost never actually happens.
[QUOTE=lavacano;50022544]It's the peace and prosperity that causes the low activity, not the other way around. It's only OK for the government to sit on its ass if it's truly got nothing to do, which almost never actually happens.[/QUOTE] Iunno, it seems like the most active rulers generally tend to preside over the most aggressive plans, such as needless wars or overambitious domestic policies. Both world wars, possibly Korea, Vietnam, and now the recent war on terror for instance involved grossly overexerting themselves for dubious goals. Like it's quite easy for America to actually avoid going to war due to the fact it has only two neighbours (both of which it has good relations with) and is surrounded by oceans far away from anybody that could actually pose a threat to it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.