3/22 primaries - Beating a dead Bernie edition - Polidicks

Nope.

Why not? I really want to see where you're coming from. [editline]edit[/editline] People didn't get to vote for who they wanted. I don't think that's a thing that can just be glanced over.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;49996331]And do nothing.[/QUOTE] I swear you're the biggest pessimist on fp There's nothing wrong with looking to improve the situation, If everyone disgruntled with the process did more about it we wouldnt be in this situation in the first place

[QUOTE=ewitwins;49996157] People are [b]fucking pissed[/b].[/QUOTE] [b]GOOD.[/b] They [b]should[/b] be. This election is the most corrupt since 1876, when Samuel Tilden defeated Rutherford B Hayes and the Party Bosses made a deal that allowed Hayes to win as long as he ended reconstruction.

We The People petitions are not "call-to-actions" — they are inquiries meant to evoke a response from the Administration explaining their current policy, that's it. They also bring up how in the past they might have done something relevant to the current petition— not— something they plan to do in the future [I]in response[/I] to the petition. Further on why I wont sign it— on August 13, 2013, the Washington Post published an article on about 30 petitions that had been left unanswered for an average of 240 days despite each having met the signature goals. The Arizona Election crisis is not something that could be held for 240 days. It has to be rectified immediately— which is not something We The People is catered for. To further demonstrate the laughable nature of We The People: when the marijuana legalization petition reached the required threshold, they enlisted Gil Kerlikowske, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy to craft a response. According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998, "the Director must oppose all attempts to legalize the use of illicit drugs in any form" further demonstrating the nature of how it is primarily a website of "explaining our current policy" — as opposed to the misconception— of [I]changing[/I] policy. With the exception of the cell phone unlocking bill, I challenge you to find me one petition that actually resulted in meaningful and tangible action. Only then, I will sign the Arizona petition.

Personally I think that the only basis on which someone signs a petition or not should be whether or not they agree with it, not because they think it will or wont succeed

[QUOTE=Radio Yes;49996138]no matter who you support, these people were denied their right to vote. that is not acceptable no matter what. there's some serious shady shit going on and NO ONE should accept that, even if you hate Bernie[/QUOTE] These votes are irrelevant technically anyway. The parties have the right to determine their candidate, not the people. These votes are just a show case of popularity.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49997750]These votes are irrelevant technically anyway. The parties have the right to determine their candidate, not the people. These votes are just a show case of popularity.[/QUOTE] Whatever the rules for each party's nomination process actually say, the parties ultimately answer to the people; no government can continue to exist without the support of its people. Going against the popular vote will not end well for a party.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49997750]These votes are irrelevant technically anyway. The parties have the right to determine their candidate, not the people. These votes are just a show case of popularity.[/QUOTE] An accurate representation of popularity is (or should be at least) incredibly important for the parties. It lets them know which candidate to put their support behind so that they're best represented and have the greatest chance of succeeding in the general election. That's why primaries exist in the first place.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;49997675]Personally I think that the only basis on which someone signs a petition or not should be whether or not they agree with it, not because they think it will or wont succeed[/QUOTE] 1. The petition is going to succeed. 2. Nothing will happen. We The People is the wrong platform for challenging or changing law. This is because virtually anyone, from Mexico to state-sanctioned DPRK can sign a petition on the site, which purports to be reserved exclusively for United States residents. Can you imagine someone form the DPRK, remotely signing one of those California initiative-petitions you routinely see on your campuses without ever having been to the United States? That's why We The People is not a genuine platform to change law; and it will never change public law. What you should do instead, is to file legal challenges in court challenging the Arizona elections. Call up an attorney, mail the District Attorney and express your concerns about the election process. Only though these legal challenges, will you see results manifest. [editline]24th March 2016[/editline] The last election crisis [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore"]was resolved through the courts[/URL]— and always will be— not through "We The People"

[QUOTE=DaMastez;49997770]Whatever the rules for each party's nomination process actually say, the parties ultimately answer to the people; no government can continue to exist without the support of its people. Going against the popular vote will not end well for a party.[/QUOTE] Except the parties aren't the government. They're an independent organization that produces candidates for election.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;49997829]1. The petition is going to succeed. 2. Nothing will happen. We The People is the wrong platform for challenging or changing law. This is because virtually anyone, from Mexico to state-sanctioned DPRK can sign a petition on the site, which purports to be reserved exclusively for United States residents. Can you imagine someone form the DPRK, remotely signing one of those California initiative-petitions you routinely see on your campuses without ever having been to the United States? That's why We The People is not a genuine platform to change law; and it will never change public law. What you should do instead, is to file legal challenges in court challenging the Arizona elections. Call up an attorney, mail the District Attorney and express your concerns about the election process. Only though these legal challenges, will you see results manifest. [editline]24th March 2016[/editline] The last election crisis [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore"]was resolved through the courts[/URL]— and always will be— not through "We The People"[/QUOTE] That's fair. Personally I see petitions less as something that guarantee a response and more as a tool to raise awareness, they're not legally binding by any means and they're practically just big requests for someone to do something. If enough people show support for a particular issue or enough grievance for something they object to it would be unwise to ignore it.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;49998007]That's fair. Personally I see petitions less as something that guarantee a response and more as a tool to raise awareness, they're not legally binding by any means and they're practically just big requests for someone to do something. If enough people show support for a particular issue or enough grievance for something they object to it would be unwise to ignore it.[/QUOTE] They're not legally binding because we're a republic, not a democracy. The masses don't pass laws via petition.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49998051]They're not legally binding because we're a republic, not a democracy. The masses don't pass laws via petition.[/QUOTE] I wasn't arguing against them being not legally binding lol

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49998051]They're not legally binding because we're a republic, not a democracy. The masses don't pass laws via petition.[/QUOTE] Except republics and democracies aren't mutually exclusive. America is pretty much a de facto democracy

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49998089]Except republics and democracies aren't mutually exclusive. America is pretty much a de facto democracy[/QUOTE] You know what I mean. Democracy as in the whole mass of people vote to pass or deny laws.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49998114]You know what I mean. Democracy as in the whole mass of people vote to pass or deny laws.[/QUOTE] Iunno, seems kinda disingenuous like that since it would mean no country (even Switzerland is iffy) would be a democracy

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49997750]These votes are irrelevant technically anyway. The parties have the right to determine their candidate, not the people. These votes are just a show case of popularity.[/QUOTE] Then why hold a vote at all?

[QUOTE=Wolfos;49998443]Then why hold a vote at all?[/QUOTE] Nominating a candidate with a horrible chance of winning would be pointless for that party, so they need to make sure their candidate is able to actually be competitive on election day. By nominating the candidate with the highest amount of delegates, it basically represents that candidate as having the best chance out of all other candidates from that same party for winning the election. For example, if the Republican party nominated Jeb Bush and effectively ignored the delegate process and was pitted against either Hillary or Bernie he would be absolutely demolished. However, at this point its pretty clear that Trump (most likely) or Cruz will receive the nomination because of the delegate system showing they stand the largest chance against the Democratic nominee.

[QUOTE=WitheredGryphon;49998493]Nominating a candidate with a horrible chance of winning would be pointless for that party, so they need to make sure their candidate is able to actually be competitive on election day. By nominating the candidate with the highest amount of delegates, it basically represents that candidate as having the best chance out of all other candidates from that same party for winning the election. For example, if the Republican party nominated Jeb Bush and effectively ignored the delegate process and was pitted against either Hillary or Bernie he would be absolutely demolished. However, at this point its pretty clear that Trump (most likely) or Cruz will receive the nomination because of the delegate system showing they stand the largest chance against the Democratic nominee.[/QUOTE] That's not how the system works at all... Politics are so partisan that the nominees will be people who most strongly appeal to the more radical elements of their parties registered members. And that isn't very important for the general election, those people would vote for their party anyway. How you win the general election is by pulling undecided voters and moderates from the other party. People like Trump and Hilary may appeal to diehard Republicans and Democrats, but they have little draw with the voters who matter. Meaning a moderate democrat (let's say Biden, or hell, Bernie) would be likely to crush Trump, and Kaisch would stand an excellent chance of beating Clinton. The only balance here is that both sides seem likely to end up with what would normally be an unelectable candidates.

[QUOTE=AlexConnor;49998691]That's not how the system works at all... Politics are so partisan that the nominees will be people who most strongly appeal to the more radical elements of their parties registered members. And that isn't very important for the general election, those people would vote for their party anyway. How you win the general election is by pulling undecided voters and moderates from the other party. People like Trump and Hilary may appeal to diehard Republicans and Democrats, but they have little draw with the voters who matter. Meaning a moderate democrat (let's say Biden, or hell, Bernie) would be likely to crush Trump, and Kaisch would stand an excellent chance of beating Clinton. The only balance here is that both sides seem likely to end up with what would normally be an unelectable candidates.[/QUOTE] How is Bernie more moderate than Hillary?

[QUOTE=Altimor;49998803]How is Bernie more moderate than Hillary?[/QUOTE] He has appeal to both people who consider themselves democrats or republicans, Hillary won't get any republican voters, Cruz/Trump won't get any democrat voters.

[QUOTE=Noah Gibbs;49998843]He has appeal to both people who consider themselves democrats or republicans, Hillary won't get any republican voters, Cruz/Trump won't get any democrat voters.[/QUOTE] That has nothing to do with how moderate a candidate is

[QUOTE=Duck M.;49998863]That has nothing to do with how moderate a candidate is[/QUOTE] Why not?

[QUOTE=Noah Gibbs;49998867]Why not?[/QUOTE] He's still far left on a lot of issues, the issues he has bipartisan appeal on are hardly partisan issues in the first place.

[QUOTE=Altimor;49998877]He's still far left on a lot of issues, the issues he has bipartisan appeal on are hardly partisan issues in the first place.[/QUOTE] Why do we have to apply a scale to every issue?

[QUOTE=Noah Gibbs;49998886]Why do we have to apply a scale to every issue?[/QUOTE] Because you just brought it up.

He's to the right of her on some issues (gun control, foreign policy etc), about the same in civil rights (well, at least about the same as Hillary's newly expressed views) and then left of her on breaking up banks that are too big to fail. Also against money in politics, but both left and right are heavily sold out so I'm not sure you can claim that's a left wing or right wing policy. I wouldn't necessarily call Bernie a moderate Democrat because he doesn't line up very closely with the party (that's why I said Biden as first choice for a moderate Democrat), but overall Bernie is probably averaging a bit left of Hillary. A lot more electable than her though (especially against Trump or Cruz) as he'd pull the democrat vote, the independent vote and even sizable chunks of the moderate Republican vote. Just has to get past the DNC (who don't want him because he's not corporate). DNC are ofc banking on Trump being even more unelectable than Hilary as winning by being the least worst is a perfectly viable strategy.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;49997644]We The People petitions are not "call-to-actions" — they are inquiries meant to evoke a response from the Administration explaining their current policy, that's it. They also bring up how in the past they might have done something relevant to the current petition— not— something they plan to do in the future [I]in response[/I] to the petition. Further on why I wont sign it— on August 13, 2013, the Washington Post published an article on about 30 petitions that had been left unanswered for an average of 240 days despite each having met the signature goals. The Arizona Election crisis is not something that could be held for 240 days. It has to be rectified immediately— which is not something We The People is catered for. To further demonstrate the laughable nature of We The People: when the marijuana legalization petition reached the required threshold, they enlisted Gil Kerlikowske, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy to craft a response. According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998, "the Director must oppose all attempts to legalize the use of illicit drugs in any form" further demonstrating the nature of how it is primarily a website of "explaining our current policy" — as opposed to the misconception— of [I]changing[/I] policy. With the exception of the cell phone unlocking bill, I challenge you to find me one petition that actually resulted in meaningful and tangible action. Only then, I will sign the Arizona petition.[/QUOTE] you're a goose if you think that petitions do nothing, like you've been painfully expressing with posts along the lines of "NOTHING WILL HAPPEN". you should stop seeing shit as black and white. all your posts are like this and it's starting to get stale. if a petition reaches 100,000 signatures in such a short amount of time, then that sends the white house a message. This petition helps when [URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-phoenix-probe-idUSKCN0WQ04V"]Government officials are calling for an investigation[/URL].

[QUOTE=AlexConnor;49998965]He's to the right of her on some issues (gun control, foreign policy etc)[/QUOTE] Aren't they both in favor of strong gun control? I recall Hillary being pro weapon bans, and Sanders wanting to prosecute manufacturers if their weapons are used in a crime. Both of these are completely absurd.