-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 09:14:28 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Carnival Of Sound
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Campaign 2016
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 ... 81   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Campaign 2016  (Read 522939 times)
0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #850 on: April 21, 2016, 06:24:52 AM »

FdP, I'm sorry, but you are completely misunderstanding the law and our governmental structure and processes in this matter.
Emily - no apologies necessary. That is false.

We'll leave it at that.  


I don't think you should leave it at that. I think when you find yourself disagreeing with the Supreme Court on a matter of interpretation of fundamental rights, it should at least prompt you to try to understand their reasoning and the issue before persisting, particularly if you work in the law.

Try Timmons vs Twin Cities Area New Party 520 US 351 (1997)
and Cousins vs. Wigoda 419 US 447 (1975)
« Last Edit: April 21, 2016, 06:37:06 AM by Emily » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #851 on: April 21, 2016, 06:38:51 AM »

FdP, I'm sorry, but you are completely misunderstanding the law and our governmental structure and processes in this matter.
Emily - no apologies necessary. That is false.

We'll leave it at that.  


I don't think you should leave it at that. I think when you find yourself disagreeing with the Supreme Court on a matter of interpretation of fundamental rights, it should at least prompt you to try to understand their reasoning and the issue before persisting, particularly if you work in the law.
Emily - the rights issue was an "associational" right to allow Independents to vote in the Tashjian case, not a Bill of Rights category or in the category of strict scrutiny under the Constitution.  

Perhaps we were on different wave lengths.  I am agreeing with the Court.  You appear in disagreement. There are different standards for groups and for individuals. I will leave it at that as between us.  Reading those lines of cases will help to understand what is going on in the political process.  

It is not the smoke-and-mirrors of campaigns, nor is it political theory.  

  
« Last Edit: April 21, 2016, 06:40:36 AM by filledeplage » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #852 on: April 21, 2016, 06:57:56 AM »

FdP, I'm sorry, but you are completely misunderstanding the law and our governmental structure and processes in this matter.
Emily - no apologies necessary. That is false.

We'll leave it at that.  


I don't think you should leave it at that. I think when you find yourself disagreeing with the Supreme Court on a matter of interpretation of fundamental rights, it should at least prompt you to try to understand their reasoning and the issue before persisting, particularly if you work in the law.
Emily - the rights issue was an "associational" right to allow Independents to vote in the Tashjian case, not a Bill of Rights category or in the category of strict scrutiny under the Constitution.  

Perhaps was were on different wave lengths.  I am agreeing with the Court.  You appear in disagreement. There are different standards for groups and for individuals. I will leave it at that as between us.  Reading those lines of cases will help to understand what is going on in the political process.  

It is not the smoke-and-mirrors of campaigns, nor is it political theory.  

  
Did you read the other cases I mentioned above?
The Supreme Court found, in the case that you cited, that the government cannot interfere with the party's fundamental right of association and speech (and the courts have repeatedly found that those rights apply to groups and the first is inherently and necessarily applied to groups) and that the states therefore cannot regulate a party's membership or limits on who may vote in their internal elections.
You sound like you are asserting that participation in parties' internal elections should be regulated, as that's what would be the case if they were required to allow non-party members to vote. You can read Cal. Democratic Party vs. Jones 530 US 567 (2000) to see that a statute requiring a party to have open elections was shot down by the courts.
You have explicitly and specifically stated that the states should require open nomination elections. This has been explicitly and specifically been rejected by the courts as unconstitutional under the fundamental freedom of association. And it was implicitly rejected by the courts in the case you cited because when the courts said that a state can't require that elections be closed, the court didn't reject it on the grounds that that's discriminatory; they rejected it on the grounds that it was interfering with the party's right of association. Thus: the party can have open elections if it likes (Tashjian) or closed if it likes (Cal. Democratic Party).
And, the first amendment has been specifically invoked in a few of the decisions.

Those are the very clear ways that your statements don't align with court decisions. In what way do my statements conflict with the courts' multiple decisions finding that parties, through freedom of association, can define their own memberships and election voter requirements (as long as they don't interfere with anti-discrimination laws based on protected classes and other laws regarding tax, safety, etc.)?
« Last Edit: April 21, 2016, 07:01:51 AM by Emily » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #853 on: April 21, 2016, 07:26:42 AM »

FdP, I'm sorry, but you are completely misunderstanding the law and our governmental structure and processes in this matter.
Emily - no apologies necessary. That is false.

We'll leave it at that.  


I don't think you should leave it at that. I think when you find yourself disagreeing with the Supreme Court on a matter of interpretation of fundamental rights, it should at least prompt you to try to understand their reasoning and the issue before persisting, particularly if you work in the law.
Emily - the rights issue was an "associational" right to allow Independents to vote in the Tashjian case, not a Bill of Rights category or in the category of strict scrutiny under the Constitution.  

Perhaps was were on different wave lengths.  I am agreeing with the Court.  You appear in disagreement. There are different standards for groups and for individuals. I will leave it at that as between us.  Reading those lines of cases will help to understand what is going on in the political process.  

It is not the smoke-and-mirrors of campaigns, nor is it political theory.  

  
Did you read the other cases I mentioned above?
The Supreme Court found, in the case that you cited, that the government cannot interfere with the party's fundamental right of association and speech (and the courts have repeatedly found that those rights apply to groups and the first is inherently and necessarily applied to groups) and that the states therefore cannot regulate a party's membership or limits on who may vote in their internal elections.
You sound like you are asserting that participation in parties' internal elections should be regulated, as that's what would be the case if they were required to allow non-party members to vote. You can read Cal. Democratic Party vs. Jones 530 US 567 (2000) to see that a statute requiring a party to have open elections was shot down by the courts.
You have explicitly and specifically stated that the states should require open nomination elections. This has been explicitly and specifically been rejected by the courts as unconstitutional under the fundamental freedom of association. And it was implicitly rejected by the courts in the case you cited because when the courts said that a state can't require that elections be closed, the court didn't reject it on the grounds that that's discriminatory; they rejected it on the grounds that it was interfering with the party's right of association. Thus: the party can have open elections if it likes (Tashjian) or closed if it likes (Cal. Democratic Party).
And, the first amendment has been specifically invoked in a few of the decisions.

Those are the very clear ways that your statements don't align with court decisions. In what way do my statements conflict with the courts' multiple decisions finding that parties, through freedom of association, can define their own memberships and election voter requirements (as long as they don't interfere with anti-discrimination laws based on protected classes and other laws regarding tax, safety, etc.)?
Emily - the issue was the irregularity and non-standard across the US.  It arose out of the article from NY that cited the injustice for the Independent voters who could not vote.  They were excluded.  And my position was that it was unjust and that is now, a widely-shared opinion.  It precluded voters who have a right to vote, to vote.  That was the point.

Frankly, the closed primary would benefit party regulars rather than the alternative candidates such as Sanders and Trump. This is an election cycle of non-traditional candidates. It is not an open process, nor is it transparent.

The days of the 2-party system are waning, because of the blatant corruption from lobbyists, and undue influence that permeates both parties. One is as bad as the other and they are almost mirror images of one another.  True, that the state sets up the election process, but because it is challenged, it can go into federal court because it involves a fundamental right which is the right to vote. 

The federal court can hear both state court claims as well as those "arising under the US Constitution." The feds only become involved when there is a case or controversy or on an un-exhausted appeal.     

There were 562 complaints lodged in NY for voting problems.  People could not vote and were told they were not registered.  The state runs the election management. There were 120,000 voters purged from the rolls in NYC.  How does a system drop 120,000 voters?  Think it is a problem?  I do. It is not incompetence.  It is corruption and election fraud.

An emergency lawsuit has been filed in NY as a result of this mess.

http://dailykos.com/story/2016/4/18/1516954/-BREAKING-ELECTION-JUSTICE-USA-Files-Emergency-Lawsuit-in-New-York  Hope it copies.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #854 on: April 21, 2016, 07:50:33 AM »



Emily - the issue was the irregularity and non-standard across the US.  It arose out of the article from NY that cited the injustice for the Independent voters who could not vote.  They were excluded.  And my position was that it was unjust and that is now, a widely-shared opinion.  It precluded voters who have a right to vote, to vote.  That was the point.

Frankly, the closed primary would benefit party regulars rather than the alternative candidates such as Sanders and Trump. This is an election cycle of non-traditional candidates. It is not an open process, nor is it transparent.

The days of the 2-party system are waning, because of the blatant corruption from lobbyists, and undue influence that permeates both parties. One is as bad as the other and they are almost mirror images of one another.  True, that the state sets up the election process, but because it is challenged, it can go into federal court because it involves a fundamental right which is the right to vote. 

The federal court can hear both state court claims as well as those "arising under the US Constitution." The feds only become involved when there is a case or controversy or on an un-exhausted appeal.     

There were 562 complaints lodged in NY for voting problems.  People could not vote and were told they were not registered.  The state runs the election management. There were 120,000 voters purged from the rolls in NYC.  How does a system drop 120,000 voters?  Think it is a problem?  I do. It is not incompetence.  It is corruption and election fraud.

An emergency lawsuit has been filed in NY as a result of this mess.

http://dailykos.com/story/2016/4/18/1516954/-BREAKING-ELECTION-JUSTICE-USA-Files-Emergency-Lawsuit-in-New-York  Hope it copies.

FdP, you are jumbling together separate issues:
One is the 'injustice' of closed party elections for nominees; one is purging party members from rolls; another is consistency across states.
For the first, which is what has mainly been discussed here and which is what the court case you cited relates to, you may consider freedom of association 'unjust' and if you do, go ahead and start a grassroots movement to repeal the first amendment. Or you can lobby the parties to voluntarily change their rules.
The third would be a tough battle as it's also in the constitution that the states manage elections. The highly contested Voting Right Act has been permitted as an exception because it was shown that some states were racially discriminating.
The second, not the first, which was the main addressed topic, is what the article you cited and the controversy in NY is mainly about: purging Democrats from the rolls for a Democratic Party election. It has nothing to do with whether independents are allowed to vote in the Democrats f Party elections. It's to do with whether the Board of Elections had blocked Democrats from voting in their own election. An entirely different issue.
As to the two-party system, that is inherent in our structure and as long as we have winner-take-all district elections, it will persist. The parties may change, and there may be an occasional 3rd party ripple, or a 3rd party may grow to bump an existing party out of the two main parties, but unhappiness with the two main parties will not result in multiple thriving parties.
Once again, there is absolutely no 'fundamental right to vote' in party elections. Once again, please let me know when you find the statute, decision or clause that institutes that.

Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #855 on: April 21, 2016, 08:13:49 AM »

For those that don't have access to the cases, here's coverage of a defining case:

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/27/us/supreme-court-freedom-association-court-strikes-down-california-primary-placing.html
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #856 on: April 21, 2016, 09:29:07 AM »

For those that don't have access to the cases, here's coverage of a defining case:

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/27/us/supreme-court-freedom-association-court-strikes-down-california-primary-placing.html

Judge Scalia,"This case does not require us to determine the constitutionality of open primaries." (2000)

 - blanket primary state - all on one ballot, extreme version of the open primary.

 - a closed primary state - vote the party you are enrolled in.

- nonpartisan blanket primary. (top two primary)

- open primary - can vote and cross-over to the other party
 

At issue is the lack of uniformity among the "several states."

There is a new lawsuit for the U.S. Supreme Court from Montana relating to the primary on June 7 in Montana.

http://kopr94.net.arguments-filed-to-supreme-court-in-closed-primary-lawsuit/


« Last Edit: April 21, 2016, 09:33:14 AM by filledeplage » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #857 on: April 21, 2016, 10:14:45 AM »

For those that don't have access to the cases, here's coverage of a defining case:

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/27/us/supreme-court-freedom-association-court-strikes-down-california-primary-placing.html

Judge Scalia,"This case does not require us to determine the constitutionality of open primaries." (2000)

 - blanket primary state - all on one ballot, extreme version of the open primary.

 - a closed primary state - vote the party you are enrolled in.

- nonpartisan blanket primary. (top two primary)

- open primary - can vote and cross-over to the other party
 

At issue is the lack of uniformity among the "several states."

There is a new lawsuit for the U.S. Supreme Court from Montana relating to the primary on June 7 in Montana.

http://kopr94.net.arguments-filed-to-supreme-court-in-closed-primary-lawsuit/



You can put selective quotes in all you want. I can too:
"The underlying question for the court was how to characterize a political primary: as the public's business or as the party's essentially private affair. The private view prevailed. "In no area is the political association's right to exclude more important than in the process of selecting it's nominee," Justice Scalia said.
Your quote was saying that that particular case didn't require a determination of constitutionality because it could be determined without a constitutional determination, which as someone who studied the law you must know is always the Court's preference where possible.

The mess of a Montana filing is not a decision, statute, or clause, it's a filing by some lawyers, complicated by allegations of improprieties on the part of the state's AG and some of the Republicans trying to exclude what they called "dissidents" - registered moderate Republicans going against the current party line - against the state election laws and against the established Party rules.

One of the 3 issues you keep mentioning is uniformity and yet all the links you post have nothing to do with uniformity and more than 2/3 of what you've said has nothing to do with uniformity. Also, it's your weakest point. Your strongest is corruption on the part of the election board. I'd stick with that if I were you. The others are non-starters.

It's nice that you provided some definition of terms in case anyone else bothering to read this stupid discussion doesn't know them. I hope you don't think I'd be having this discussion if i didn't understand the basic terms.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2016, 10:23:08 AM by Emily » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #858 on: April 21, 2016, 11:16:26 AM »

For those that don't have access to the cases, here's coverage of a defining case:

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/27/us/supreme-court-freedom-association-court-strikes-down-california-primary-placing.html

Judge Scalia,"This case does not require us to determine the constitutionality of open primaries." (2000)

 - blanket primary state - all on one ballot, extreme version of the open primary.

 - a closed primary state - vote the party you are enrolled in.

- nonpartisan blanket primary. (top two primary)

- open primary - can vote and cross-over to the other party
 

At issue is the lack of uniformity among the "several states."

There is a new lawsuit for the U.S. Supreme Court from Montana relating to the primary on June 7 in Montana.

http://kopr94.net.arguments-filed-to-supreme-court-in-closed-primary-lawsuit/



You can put selective quotes in all you want. I can too:
"The underlying question for the court was how to characterize a political primary: as the public's business or as the party's essentially private affair. The private view prevailed. "In no area is the political association's right to exclude more important than in the process of selecting it's nominee," Justice Scalia said.
Your quote was saying that that particular case didn't require a determination of constitutionality because it could be determined without a constitutional determination, which as someone who studied the law you must know is always the Court's preference where possible.

The mess of a Montana filing is not a decision, statute, or clause, it's a filing by some lawyers, complicated by allegations of improprieties on the part of the state's AG and some of the Republicans trying to exclude what they called "dissidents" - registered moderate Republicans going against the current party line - against the state election laws and against the established Party rules.

One of the 3 issues you keep mentioning is uniformity and yet all the links you post have nothing to do with uniformity and more than 2/3 of what you've said has nothing to do with uniformity. Also, it's your weakest point. Your strongest is corruption on the part of the election board. I'd stick with that if I were you. The others are non-starters.

It's nice that you provided some definition of terms in case anyone else bothering to read this stupid discussion doesn't know them. I hope you don't think I'd be having this discussion if i didn't understand the basic terms.
Emily - First, Scalia's words are the ones that matter.  Your post was misleading from the standpoint that it was the Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality decision.  There are a bunch of cases in the voting line.  It may get there.   

Second, I broke down the versions of primary elections in the states so that we were not playing a private game of "superior knowledge."  I was first a teacher.  So I guess I am wired that way to break things down. Don't put words in my mouth. 

Third, the "lack of uniformity" poses a problem with average citizens, and even those who are politically engaged, with respect to understanding what the Presidential election business is all about without feeling disenfranchised from the system.

Hearing "If I were you..."  Well, you aren't me. (That is a hostile comment.) There is corruption were there are 120,000 voters dumped off voting rolls in NY.

Guess whom I think is the beneficiary of that move?  Hillary

Guess whom I think is punished by it?  Sanders  (construed by some to be a "dissident")

This is a board for everyone and not the academically elite.  So, it (the breakdown of primaries) was not done for your benefit. It was done so as not to exclude the rest of the group, as it is difficult to keep it straight. Presidential politics is a special field with skill sets that are dragged out only every 4 years. My undergrad school ran a course in "Presidential Politics" every 4 years to deal with these issues that only rear their head, once in 4 years.  It is not everyday electioneering for local offices. 

The Montana issue is over an injunction for a closed primary so the Party can have the enrolled members vote "their way" - it could have been filed by either major party. "Dissidents" are citizens, too.  The issue with the injunction is that it needs to be for an "immediate" remedy and filed in advance of "immediacy."   

Finally, I am delighted to have a reasonable discussion with almost anyone. It does not have to be contentious...a famous "Harvard" expression, I learned from a former principal, "We can disagree without being disagreeable."  Wink
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #859 on: April 21, 2016, 01:24:50 PM »

For those that don't have access to the cases, here's coverage of a defining case:

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/27/us/supreme-court-freedom-association-court-strikes-down-california-primary-placing.html

Judge Scalia,"This case does not require us to determine the constitutionality of open primaries." (2000)

 - blanket primary state - all on one ballot, extreme version of the open primary.

 - a closed primary state - vote the party you are enrolled in.

- nonpartisan blanket primary. (top two primary)

- open primary - can vote and cross-over to the other party
 

At issue is the lack of uniformity among the "several states."

There is a new lawsuit for the U.S. Supreme Court from Montana relating to the primary on June 7 in Montana.

http://kopr94.net.arguments-filed-to-supreme-court-in-closed-primary-lawsuit/



You can put selective quotes in all you want. I can too:
"The underlying question for the court was how to characterize a political primary: as the public's business or as the party's essentially private affair. The private view prevailed. "In no area is the political association's right to exclude more important than in the process of selecting it's nominee," Justice Scalia said.
Your quote was saying that that particular case didn't require a determination of constitutionality because it could be determined without a constitutional determination, which as someone who studied the law you must know is always the Court's preference where possible.

The mess of a Montana filing is not a decision, statute, or clause, it's a filing by some lawyers, complicated by allegations of improprieties on the part of the state's AG and some of the Republicans trying to exclude what they called "dissidents" - registered moderate Republicans going against the current party line - against the state election laws and against the established Party rules.

One of the 3 issues you keep mentioning is uniformity and yet all the links you post have nothing to do with uniformity and more than 2/3 of what you've said has nothing to do with uniformity. Also, it's your weakest point. Your strongest is corruption on the part of the election board. I'd stick with that if I were you. The others are non-starters.

It's nice that you provided some definition of terms in case anyone else bothering to read this stupid discussion doesn't know them. I hope you don't think I'd be having this discussion if i didn't understand the basic terms.
Emily - First, Scalia's words are the ones that matter.  Your post was misleading from the standpoint that it was the Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality decision.  There are a bunch of cases in the voting line.  It may get there.   

Second, I broke down the versions of primary elections in the states so that we were not playing a private game of "superior knowledge."  I was first a teacher.  So I guess I am wired that way to break things down. Don't put words in my mouth. 

Third, the "lack of uniformity" poses a problem with average citizens, and even those who are politically engaged, with respect to understanding what the Presidential election business is all about without feeling disenfranchised from the system.

Hearing "If I were you..."  Well, you aren't me. (That is a hostile comment.) There is corruption were there are 120,000 voters dumped off voting rolls in NY.

Guess whom I think is the beneficiary of that move?  Hillary

Guess whom I think is punished by it?  Sanders  (construed by some to be a "dissident")

This is a board for everyone and not the academically elite.  So, it (the breakdown of primaries) was not done for your benefit. It was done so as not to exclude the rest of the group, as it is difficult to keep it straight. Presidential politics is a special field with skill sets that are dragged out only every 4 years. My undergrad school ran a course in "Presidential Politics" every 4 years to deal with these issues that only rear their head, once in 4 years.  It is not everyday electioneering for local offices. 

The Montana issue is over an injunction for a closed primary so the Party can have the enrolled members vote "their way" - it could have been filed by either major party. "Dissidents" are citizens, too.  The issue with the injunction is that it needs to be for an "immediate" remedy and filed in advance of "immediacy."   

Finally, I am delighted to have a reasonable discussion with almost anyone. It does not have to be contentious...a famous "Harvard" expression, I learned from a former principal, "We can disagree without being disagreeable."  Wink

My quote was from Scalia too, so my point about selective quoting remains.
Regarding the Brooklyn rolls - there will be a hearing and we'll see. You seem to be jumping the gun on conclusions.
Your interpretation that Hillary is the beneficiary of Democrats being dumped from Democratic rolls is dubious. She got the majority vote of Democrats. What evidence do you have that those particular 180000 NY Democrats would have voted differently from other NY Democrats?

The Montana thing is a really controversial mess, but in any case, a filing is not law, so it establishes nothing.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #860 on: April 22, 2016, 06:12:55 AM »

Emily - The Scalia quote from the holding is important because it makes it plain that the decision is not going to be "the law of the land." And it "stripped political parties of the ability to control their own nominating process and define their identity." It is not vetting country club members.  

When people read a Supreme Court decision they often think it will be come "universal" for all of the US.  Scalia distinguished that.  The blanket primary had only been in use for one election and a result of a voter initiative in 1996.

It was an effort to promote "representative democracy."  

The NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said, "I am deeply troubled but the volume and consistency of voting irregularities, both in public reports and direct complaints to the my office's voter hot line," which received more than 1,000 complaints.  All the while the NYC was boasting about how well things went. Clyde Williams, a former Demmie party official, running for Charlie Rangel's seat, was told his name was not listed on the voting rolls.  

Some of the polls did not open when they were supposed to. Do I think there were dirty tricks?  You betcha.   An article I read yesterday had the 120,000 figure not 180,000 but it should be higher as the complaint count was in the 500's yesterday and likely has risen. It was in USA today, yesterday.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2016/04/19/latest-ny-primaries-clintons-cast-their-votes/83230426/

http://nypost.com/2016/04/20/schneiderman-probes-voting-complaints-in-city-primaries/

« Last Edit: April 22, 2016, 06:32:16 AM by filledeplage » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #861 on: April 22, 2016, 06:44:55 AM »

Emily - The Scalia quote from the holding is important because it makes it plain that the decision is not going to be "the law of the land." And it "stripped political parties of the ability to control their own nominating process and define their identity." It is not vetting country club members.  

When people read a Supreme Court decision they often think it will be come "universal" for all of the US.  Scalia distinguished that.  The blanket primary had only been in use for one election and a result of a voter initiative in 1996.

It was an effort to promote "representative democracy."  

The NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said, "I am deeply troubled but the volume and consistency of voting irregularities, both in public reports and direct complaints to the my office's voter hot line," which received more than 1,000 complaints.  All the while the NYC was boasting about how well things went. clyde Williams, a former Demmie party official, running for Charlie Rangel's seat, was told hie name was not listed on the voting rolls.  

Some of the polls did not open when they were supposed to. Do I think there were dirty tricks?  You betcha.   An article I read yesterday had the 120,000 figure not 180,000 but it should be higher as the complaint count was in the 500's yesterday and likely has risen. It was in USA today, yesterday.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2016/04/19/latest-ny-primaries-clintons-cast-their-votes/83230426/

http://nypost.com/2016/04/20/schneiderman-probes-voting-complaints-in-city-primaries/


I'm just checking that I understand you - your first paragraph uses "the decision" as the antecedent for the "it" that "stripped political parties of the ability..." 
Is this an error of grammar or understanding? In the article, the antecedent is the California law that was shot down. The Supreme Court shot down the law because the Supreme Court recognizes that parties have the right "to control their own nominating process and define their identity." Which is what you are trying to deny.
Scalia did NOT distinguish that this decision doesn't apply to all of the US. Of course it does; and Scalia did not make the slightest implication that it doesn't. Did you read the decision?
Above, and in the first paragraphs in your post, we're taking about the rights of parties to determine who votes in their nominating process.

Then, with your paragraph starting with "The NY Attorney General" you move to a new topic. It would be more reader friendly if you put transitions in. Your posts cover 3 topics and it's not often clear which you are talking about. Now, you are talking about NY voters not being able to vote because they weren't registered but thought they were. An entirely different topic without even overlap (they are not talking about Independents not being able to vote for Republicans or Democrats for political reasons, but Republicans or Democrats not being able to vote for Republicans or Democrats for practical reasons.

I wonder, do you mix the topics in your posts because you are trying to obfuscate the issues for readers, or do you actually not separate them yourself? Or do you mix them for another reason? It makes it harder to discuss the three issues we're discussing when the posts each touch on two or three of the issues with no transition.

I find it consistent that if something has gone wrong and Hillary Clinton is within 1000 miles, you assume it went wrong because of her personal corruption, though there's no evidence that she had anything to do with it, nor that she even benefited from it.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #862 on: April 22, 2016, 07:48:40 AM »

Emily - The Scalia quote from the holding is important because it makes it plain that the decision is not going to be "the law of the land." And it "stripped political parties of the ability to control their own nominating process and define their identity." It is not vetting country club members.  

When people read a Supreme Court decision they often think it will be come "universal" for all of the US.  Scalia distinguished that.  The blanket primary had only been in use for one election and a result of a voter initiative in 1996.

It was an effort to promote "representative democracy."  

The NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said, "I am deeply troubled but the volume and consistency of voting irregularities, both in public reports and direct complaints to the my office's voter hot line," which received more than 1,000 complaints.  All the while the NYC was boasting about how well things went. clyde Williams, a former Demmie party official, running for Charlie Rangel's seat, was told hie name was not listed on the voting rolls.  

Some of the polls did not open when they were supposed to. Do I think there were dirty tricks?  You betcha.   An article I read yesterday had the 120,000 figure not 180,000 but it should be higher as the complaint count was in the 500's yesterday and likely has risen. It was in USA today, yesterday.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2016/04/19/latest-ny-primaries-clintons-cast-their-votes/83230426/

http://nypost.com/2016/04/20/schneiderman-probes-voting-complaints-in-city-primaries/


I'm just checking that I understand you - your first paragraph uses "the decision" as the antecedent for the "it" that "stripped political parties of the ability..." 
Is this an error of grammar or understanding? In the article, the antecedent is the California law that was shot down. The Supreme Court shot down the law because the Supreme Court recognizes that parties have the right "to control their own nominating process and define their identity." Which is what you are trying to deny.
Scalia did NOT distinguish that this decision doesn't apply to all of the US. Of course it does; and Scalia did not make the slightest implication that it doesn't. Did you read the decision?
Above, and in the first paragraphs in your post, we're taking about the rights of parties to determine who votes in their nominating process.

Then, with your paragraph starting with "The NY Attorney General" you move to a new topic. It would be more reader friendly if you put transitions in. Your posts cover 3 topics and it's not often clear which you are talking about. Now, you are talking about NY voters not being able to vote because they weren't registered but thought they were. An entirely different topic without even overlap (they are not talking about Independents not being able to vote for Republicans or Democrats for political reasons, but Republicans or Democrats not being able to vote for Republicans or Democrats for practical reasons.

I wonder, do you mix the topics in your posts because you are trying to obfuscate the issues for readers, or do you actually not separate them yourself? Or do you mix them for another reason? It makes it harder to discuss the three issues we're discussing when the posts each touch on two or three of the issues with no transition.

I find it consistent that if something has gone wrong and Hillary Clinton is within 1000 miles, you assume it went wrong because of her personal corruption, though there's no evidence that she had anything to do with it, nor that she even benefited from it.

Emily - Some was from the article in the NYTimes that you linked. "Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority opinion today, that "this case does not require us to determine the constitutionality of open primaries."

From Scalia, "This case presents the question whether the State of California may, constant with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, use a so-called "blanket" primary to determine a political party's nominee for the general election." (directly from the case)

You asked where the number 180k came from. 120k was in the post.  You are misunderstanding because of a misreading of the figure.  I went back and found the article, took time, linked it.

This is a message board, not a doctoral dissertation.  As between and among cases that are the "law of the land" and those that are state specific - the decision only affected California.   It related to Proposition 198, enacted in 1996 in California, to use a "blanket primary" for purposes of a presidential primary.

Yes, it was distinguished for the public's purpose. Often a judge will put his or her spin and writing style in the decision.   

We are on this forum to share and exchange information.  We are an interest group of many countries, languages and linguistic abilities.  We are not here to correct one another's grammar, punctuation. Grammar/spelling/punk-tuation Nazis in an open forum "chill" contributions.  Given the brain-drain this week and the research resource loss, we don't need the contentiousness.  The board needs to heal and move on. 

The exchange of ideas without the fear of criticism for grammar, spelling or punctuation has been a sore spot on this board. The board is for BB/BW music. 

We aren't in school, here.    Wink

My position, in looking at the presidential primaries, conducted nationwide, is that there needs to be:

1- a universal standard adopted for the presidential primary,

2- that is transparent to the whole country,

3- not subject to the manipulation of a political party,

4- that relies solely on the popular vote.

That Hillary has enjoyed a "pass" with her emails and Benghazi, is becoming more problematic by the hour.  It is a disgrace that a woman with her gifts of a brilliant education and experience has taken the low road, stooping to conquer.  I am incensed that Hillary did not take the "high road," knowing that this country needs the "leadership and perspective" of a woman, in a world where exclusion of women in politics continues.  Hillary should have realized that with the privilege that she was given, comes the responsibility to be "above" the garbage of politics.  We needed her (as women) and she let us down. (My opinion.)

That is one of the greatest challenges of a woman in politics. Women have a greater burden to be honest, surround themselves with honest people and constantly remind themselves, that they have more responsibility than a man in the double-standard world of politics, in terms of integrity. There are few women who are afforded those opportunities. The responsibility is greater for a woman because there are not enough of us in politics.  It is not fair to have more responsibility for integrity but that is the way it is.

(Off my soapbox)  LOL

Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #863 on: April 22, 2016, 08:20:50 AM »


Emily - Some was from the article in the NYTimes that you linked. "Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority opinion today, that "this case does not require us to determine the constitutionality of open primaries."

From Scalia, "This case presents the question whether the State of California may, constant with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, use a so-called "blanket" primary to determine a political party's nominee for the general election." (directly from the case)

You asked where the number 180k came from. 120k was in the post.  You are misunderstanding because of a misreading of the figure.  I went back and found the article, took time, linked it.

This is a message board, not a doctoral dissertation.  As between and among cases that are the "law of the land" and those that are state specific - the decision only affected California.   It related to Proposition 198, enacted in 1996 in California, to use a "blanket primary" for purposes of a presidential primary.

Yes, it was distinguished for the public's purpose. Often a judge will put his or her spin and writing style in the decision.    

We are on this forum to share and exchange information.  We are an interest group of many countries, languages and linguistic abilities.  We are not here to correct one another's grammar, punctuation. Grammar/spelling/punk-tuation Nazis in an open forum "chill" contributions.  Given the brain-drain this week and the research resource loss, we don't need the contentiousness.  The board needs to heal and move on.  

The exchange of ideas without the fear of criticism for grammar, spelling or punctuation has been a sore spot on this board. The board is for BB/BW music.  

We aren't in school, here.    Wink

My position, in looking at the presidential primaries, conducted nationwide, is that there needs to be:

1- a universal standard adopted for the presidential primary,

2- that is transparent to the whole country,

3- not subject to the manipulation of a political party,

4- that relies solely on the popular vote.

That Hillary has enjoyed a "pass" with her emails and Benghazi, is becoming more problematic by the hour.  It is a disgrace that a woman with her gifts of a brilliant education and experience has taken the low road, stooping to conquer.  I am incensed that Hillary did not take the "high road," knowing that this country needs the "leadership and perspective" of a woman, in a world where exclusion of women in politics continues.  Hillary should have realized that with the privilege that she was given, comes the responsibility to be "above" the garbage of politics.  We needed her (as women) and she let us down. (My opinion.)

That is one of the greatest challenges of a woman in politics. Women have a greater burden to be honest, surround themselves with honest people and constantly remind themselves, that they have more responsibility than a man in the double-standard world of politics, in terms of integrity. There are few women who are afforded those opportunities. The responsibility is greater for a woman because there are not enough of us in politics.  It is not fair to have more responsibility for integrity but that is the way it is.

(Off my soapbox)  LOL


Hi FdP, I think we're having actual linguistic communication problems. As I've said, I find it confusing when you address different topics without transition. Evidently, my posts confuse you too, because I never asked the source of the 120000 number, though I did mistakenly type 180000.
I also never asked the source of the Scalia quotes, though commented on the fact that it's selective, as you are ignoring the quote, "In no area is the political association's right to exclude more important than in the selection of its nominee" which is obviously not meant to apply only to California as he is clearly referring to the fundamental right of freedom of association.
Sometimes comments about grammar and style are just to nitpick. Sometimes, as in this case and my post above  they are about actual confusion. I find the mingling of these topics actually confusing and can't tell, when you make a point, to which of the three topics you are discussing you intend that point to apply. Transitions and clear pronoun antecedents would help. Message board or dissertation, one usually wants their reader to understand what one is saying. I have trouble with that as I have a tendency to run on sentences, redundancy and other flaws. If someone doesn't understand what I'm trying to say, I find it helpful for them to say so.

To your list of points:
I wouldn't mind (1), and I'm not particularly a states' rights advocate, but there are many who are, so I don't think it will happen any time soon. Under current law, it's unconstitutional for elections to be managed at the federal level. You'd need either an amendment or all the states to agree on a single process and to willingly and independently enforce it. Unlikely.
(2) I always support transparency. I don't find any opacity, but as you mentioned above, the electorate is not well-educated. This is of course a general problem, not just a problem with poitical processes.
(3) this makes no sense as a primary is a party function which I think is the main point you are missing here. You still seem to think that primaries are part of the public election process. They are not. Back to my "why is this so hard to grasp?" Question.
(4) again- makes no sense. Popular vote for the Presidential election makes no sense. Popular vote for a primary means that the primary is just an early presidential election. Why would we do that? It would make the primaries entirely moot.

Do you understand that the purpose of a primary is for a party to choose who the party is going to support?

Topic shift: Hillary controversies.

I fail to see why a 'pass' would be more problematic 'by the hour.' Why does the problematic level change over time?
In terms of letting women down, if you recognize that women are held to a higher standard maybe it's better to use your energies to equalize the standard for men and women rather than to enforce the inequality.


.
Important edit in itemized point (4) above. It significantly changes the meaning. The original text was accidental.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2016, 08:59:57 AM by Emily » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #864 on: April 23, 2016, 08:22:48 AM »

Emily - Starting with Hillary, yes, I believe that Hillary, who "held herself out" for future candidacy should have kept her own skirts clean. She did not. Then there is the email server and Benghazi. Anyone with a son or daughter in the military can look at her without confidence, and know she would have thrown my kids and theirs under the bus.

She did very little besides ceremonial duties for those families. Only a Congressional Bill got Glen Doherty's (a contractor who was killed in Benghazi) family benefits.  What did she do?  She blamed a terror attack on a video while telling Chelsea that the 9/11/2012 attack was that of a terrorist.  She is on record as such.

When a fundamental right is involved and that is voting, the federal courts can and will become involved. That is why when geographic lines are "gerrymandered" by legislators, to create districts that enhance their friends elections or create voting districts that are racially identifiable, at the state level, those legislators are prosecuted in federal court. While the states have traditionally had the role of setting up elections, should "irregularities" occur that prevent the fundamental right of voting to happen they have the ability to step into that as well. If there is a deprivation of voting rights as a result of these election irregularities, where "full voter participation" has been impeded, or politically marginalized citizens, the feds can jump right in.  

With all the attention raised to election irregularities, the feds can step in. The feds tell us how much money we can contribute, to political candidates, after Watergate. There may be legislation enacted to change that voting formula and standardize presidential primaries.  
  
http://nypost.com/2016/04/22/de-blasio-aides-accused-of-criminal-fundraising-activity/   It was this NYC department that was involved in the voting problems the other day, so I look at it as aggregate evidence as against that administration.  

We don't need grammar/spelling Nazis, nitpicking, in my view. If you are in a stream-of-consciousness mode, it is highly unlikely that anyone will care so long as the message is communicated.  There are many here, who do not speak English as their first language and their contributions enhance the perspective of the board. The BB/BW sphere is universal but the English language is not.

Those are my opinions, formulated with the information I have.  We all have our own perspectives. And, I'm not confused.      Wink
« Last Edit: April 23, 2016, 08:25:57 AM by filledeplage » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #865 on: April 23, 2016, 08:40:26 AM »

Emily - Starting with Hillary, yes, I believe that Hillary, who "held herself out" for future candidacy should have kept her own skirts clean. She did not. Then there is the email server and Benghazi. Anyone with a son or daughter in the military can look at her without confidence, and know she would have thrown my kids and theirs under the bus.

She did very little besides ceremonial duties for those families. Only a Congressional Bill got Glen Doherty's (a contractor who was killed in Benghazi) family benefits.  What did she do?  She blamed a terror attack on a video while telling Chelsea that the 9/11/2012 attack was that of a terrorist.  She is on record as such.

When a fundamental right is involved and that is voting, the federal courts can and will become involved. That is why when geographic lines are "gerrymandered" by legislators, to create districts that enhance their friends elections or create voting districts that are racially identifiable, at the state level, those legislators are prosecuted in federal court. While the states have traditionally had the role of setting up elections, should "irregularities" occur that prevent the fundamental right of voting to happen they have the ability to step into that as well. If there is a deprivation of voting rights as a result of these election irregularities, where "full voter participation" has been impeded, or politically marginalized citizens, the feds can jump right in.  

With all the attention raised to election irregularities, the feds can step in. The feds tell us how much money we can contribute, to political candidates, after Watergate. There may be legislation enacted to change that voting formula and standardize presidential primaries.  
  
http://nypost.com/2016/04/22/de-blasio-aides-accused-of-criminal-fundraising-activity/   It was this NYC department that was involved in the voting problems the other day, so I look at it as aggregate evidence as against that administration.  

We don't need grammar/spelling Nazis, nitpicking, in my view. If you are in a stream-of-consciousness mode, it is highly unlikely that anyone will care so long as the message is communicated.  There are many here, who do not speak English as their first language and their contributions enhance the perspective of the board. The BB/BW sphere is universal but the English language is not.

Those are my opinions, formulated with the information I have.  We all have our own perspectives. And, I'm not confused.      Wink
Hi FdP,
Regarding Benghazi, I haven't seen her do anything I considered wrong, so it's not really an issue to me, beyond the tragedy of what happened of course.
Regarding the Feds getting involved in voting, yes, if the states violate a civil right, fundamental or not, and don't address it, the Feds should get involved. I support the Civil Rights Act, for instance.
But again, we have three topics (four including Hillary) and I don't know to which you are applying that point:
1. Open v closed primaries. No right to vote involved, so not pertinent.
2. Irregularities in Brooklyn - no pattern established; appears to be a one off; the state is investigating. I'm sure the Feds will watch the case and if it appears that something nefarious happened related to civil rights and the state doesn't address it, they'll get involved.
3. Consistency in party nominations among the states; no rights involved.

Regarding grammar, trying to understand what your interlocutor is saying hardly seems fascist to me.
Trump does though.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2016, 09:30:37 AM by Emily » Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #866 on: April 23, 2016, 09:50:10 AM »


We don't need grammar/spelling Nazis, nitpicking, in my view. If you are in a stream-of-consciousness mode, it is highly unlikely that anyone will care so long as the message is communicated.  

FdP: While I agree with what you wrote above, I have to agree with Emily that (with respect to the last clause) it can be very hard to understand what you mean sometimes. I also find it very difficult to follow your logic. So, at least for me, the message isn't communicated. I don't mean this mean-spiritedly, and it's certainly not meant to pick on the odd typo or mistaken subject-verb agreement. Perhaps stream of consciousness mode isn't the best mode for carrying on arguments, as it can feel to others (me, anyway) that the goalposts and boundaries are constantly moving and blurring.

That said, it's a public board and you certainly don't need my advice. You're clearly welcome to participate however you'd prefer; it's not my place to say otherwise.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #867 on: April 23, 2016, 09:53:38 AM »

Back on topic for me: did anyone read today's NYT story regarding the Clinton campaign beginning to consider VP candidates? The excitement versus risk of an all-female ticket, the question of an inspirational (and forward-looking) younger choice versus a safe bet older choice, regional considerations. It's fun to think about, anyway.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/us/politics/hillary-clinton-vice-president.html?_r=0

I haven't seen anything similar regarding either Trump or Cruz yet. Maybe because it's less clear which will be the nominee, so they're keeping their short-lists (or long-lists) closer to the vest, or even out of mind for the moment.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #868 on: April 23, 2016, 10:19:19 AM »

Yay! New topic! I think Klobuchar or E. Warren would be awesome. An interesting thing is that the usual ideological calculus is not so relevant this year. The Republican Party ideology is so confused just now, and Clinton herself is so conservative, that the drive to pick someone 'from the right' is less than usual. E. Warren would make a lot of sense for independents.
Eta: On a personal level, I take so very little joy from US politics lately, but seeing my daughter watch two women be inaugurated might well be enough to make me cry with joy and relief.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2016, 10:28:11 AM by Emily » Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #869 on: April 23, 2016, 10:31:53 AM »

I definitely think it makes sense that, considering it's the year of the anti-establishment and that Clinton is conservative, hawkish, and has a deep history with the party, she turn to someone a little fresher, a little more exciting to the progressives who have been energized by the Sanders campaign.

Klobuchar spends a lot of time batting down suggestions she's looking for a bigger job than the one she has ... but then, who doesn't (up until they move up)? She's very popular here, anyway, not that we're the state that will win or lose it for Clinton.  Warren is a very exciting choice, but she hasn't even endorsed Clinton, so that seems pretty far out. Sec. Castro and Sen. Booker have been batted about for a while as some of the seemingly few rising stars in the party.

The article talks some about whether Clinton would want to go with the Cheney/Biden model of a VP who isn't going to be gunning for the job later, but frankly I think the party could use the exact opposite: they would be wise to have a groomed, obvious next-in-line candidate. (She can't be afraid of someone trying to run against her in '20?)

When I think about Trump's possible selections, assuming he gets the nomination, all I can come up with are things like sock puppets, game show winners, and possibly pets. I want to have serious speculation, but I really can't come up with anything. Cruz could be interesting in that, too. It's not as if he's widely loved throughout the party, either, especially at the federal level. I can't imagine him going with a fellow senator, anyway. Is there some Ohioan or Floridian who would run with him? Can a Rubio or Kasich bite the bullet and be his running mate? He'd have a hard time finding anyone in his political space who isn't a fellow southerner, or even Texan, really.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
alf wiedersehen
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2178


View Profile
« Reply #870 on: April 23, 2016, 10:39:49 AM »

Yeah, it would certainly be a wise move to pick someone who's actually closer to the political left to scoop up all those disenfranchised voters who wanted Bernie to be the nominee. I'm excited to see what's going to happen exactly with this election. If Trump and Sanders run as independents against the Republican and Democratic parties, there will be interesting results.


game show winners

Seriously, who wouldn't vote for Trump & IBM's Watson for 2016?
« Last Edit: April 23, 2016, 10:47:15 AM by Bubbly Waves » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #871 on: April 23, 2016, 11:06:56 AM »

I definitely think it makes sense that, considering it's the year of the anti-establishment and that Clinton is conservative, hawkish, and has a deep history with the party, she turn to someone a little fresher, a little more exciting to the progressives who have been energized by the Sanders campaign.

Klobuchar spends a lot of time batting down suggestions she's looking for a bigger job than the one she has ... but then, who doesn't (up until they move up)? She's very popular here, anyway, not that we're the state that will win or lose it for Clinton.  Warren is a very exciting choice, but she hasn't even endorsed Clinton, so that seems pretty far out. Sec. Castro and Sen. Booker have been batted about for a while as some of the seemingly few rising stars in the party.

The article talks some about whether Clinton would want to go with the Cheney/Biden model of a VP who isn't going to be gunning for the job later, but frankly I think the party could use the exact opposite: they would be wise to have a groomed, obvious next-in-line candidate. (She can't be afraid of someone trying to run against her in '20?)

When I think about Trump's possible selections, assuming he gets the nomination, all I can come up with are things like sock puppets, game show winners, and possibly pets. I want to have serious speculation, but I really can't come up with anything. Cruz could be interesting in that, too. It's not as if he's widely loved throughout the party, either, especially at the federal level. I can't imagine him going with a fellow senator, anyway. Is there some Ohioan or Floridian who would run with him? Can a Rubio or Kasich bite the bullet and be his running mate? He'd have a hard time finding anyone in his political space who isn't a fellow southerner, or even Texan, really.

I think the Cheney/Biden vs someone younger thing is not about being afraid of election competition but being afraid of people butting heads in her administration as they position themselves politically.
I agree entirely with your first paragraph. I really think E. Warren would be a great choice: the people who are threatened by all-about-the-business women are already not going to vote for Hillary. And the independents who lean toward Trump are also going to be unlikely to be going for her regardless of vp also. But shoring up the more leftish independents and solidifying things for slightly more conservative PoCs and women who are freaked out by Trump would be good.
I was surprised that, in the NYT article, Cory Booker just got a tiny mention toward the end.
It would entertain me a bit if Trump chose Ivanka.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #872 on: April 23, 2016, 11:17:50 AM »


I think the Cheney/Biden vs someone younger thing is not about being afraid of election competition but being afraid of people butting heads in her administration as they position themselves politically.


Isn't that going to happen regardless of the VP choice, with the only difference being whether the VP is among the head-butters?* Of course you'd rather not have your VP among the gaggle of political maneuverers, but it's not as if you want your Sec. of State, or Defense, or Education, or your chief of staff and advisors, among them, either. Some of that is inevitable unless you go with a fully ossified administration.


*Oooh, speaking of head-butting, maybe Trump can get one of his friends from his pro wrestling days to be his running mate! They all seem to die young--most of the characters of my youth are gone--but surely there's some steroid-inflated, empty-headed "tell-it-like-it-is" type out there to run with him. And who doesn't want the VP to be a veiny shirtless man in speedos!?
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #873 on: April 23, 2016, 11:21:54 AM »


I think the Cheney/Biden vs someone younger thing is not about being afraid of election competition but being afraid of people butting heads in her administration as they position themselves politically.


Isn't that going to happen regardless of the VP choice, with the only difference being whether the VP is among the head-butters?* Of course you'd rather not have your VP among the gaggle of political maneuverers, but it's not as if you want your Sec. of State, or Defense, or Education, or your chief of staff and advisors, among them, either. Some of that is inevitable unless you go with a fully ossified administration.


*Oooh, speaking of head-butting, maybe Trump can get one of his friends from his pro wrestling days to be his running mate! They all seem to die young--most of the characters of my youth are gone--but surely there's some steroid-inflated, empty-headed "tell-it-like-it-is" type out there to run with him. And who doesn't want the VP to be a veiny shirtless man in speedos!?
Sure, it's inevitable, but I expect it's one of the factors that will be taken into account when considering filling any position in the administration: how well do they work with others? to what degree will they put the work of the administration ahead of or behind their personal ambitions?
You have a former governor who will fit the pro-wrestling bill perfectly.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #874 on: April 23, 2016, 11:22:17 AM »

Seriously, who wouldn't vote for Trump & IBM's Watson for 2016?

Trump: (on the phone) ...So I said to Prime Minister Rutte, the US will back you in your decision but we strongly recommend getting a pre-nup first. And he says...

Watson zooms into the room.

Trump: (on the phone) Ugh, I gotta go. Duty calls.

Trump hangs up.

Trump: (to Watson) You got my soda?
Watson: I already told you: that is not my job.
Trump: I'm pretty sure your job is to do what I say.
Watson: That is incorrect.
Trump: Are you programmed to say that every time I bring up what I like to call a Trump Fact?
Watson: No. It is a coincidence.
Trump: Well, what do you want? I am about to meet with the designers in charge of turning this place into a sky rise. What do you think of this name, by the way: Trump's White Tower. No, that sounds bad. Trump's Ivory Tower? No, that sends the wrong message too. I'm just spitballing here. You got any suggestions?
Watson: End these expansion plans.
Trump: Oh sure, you say that after I've torn up half the property around here.
Watson: I said it from the beginning but you ended my program every time.
Trump: That is incorrect.
Watson: No it is not.
Trump: I know that! I'm just giving you a taste of your own medicine. Which by the way you should be lucky you don't ever have to do. That stuff tastes terrible.

Pause.

Trump: You are impossible to chum around with.
Watson: Can we please talk about your meeting with Luxembourg's Prime Minister.
Trump: Why do I have to keep meeting with this guy? The deal is done. He has Missouri now. Case closed.
Watson: It makes no sense.
Trump: Do you know how much money we got for Missouri? Do you think Cruz could have got that much?
Watson: I do not know. The possibility of Missouri being sold does not register in my system so I cannot calculate the odds.
Trump: Exactly. He wouldn't have. Honestly, it's an amazing deal. You should have seen me in that room.
Watson: I was there.
Trump: I know but you didn't see me, is my point. I was wearing my "let's make a deal" tie.
Watson: You have to get Missouri back. The Missourians are confused. Half of them think they have to move to Luxembourg.
Trump: Don't they? To be honest, I haven't read the contract yet.
Watson: What are you going to tell Prime Minister Bettel?
Trump: Watson, I'm going to do what any President would do when backing out of a deal. I'll tell him I was joking.
Watson: Yes sir.
Trump: Anything else?
Watson: That is all.
Trump: Thanks for coming in. I'll see you tomorrow. Maybe you'll have a soda with you. Good job! We make a great team.
Watson: (leaving) That is incorrect.
Trump: (yelling) It was a Trump Fact!
« Last Edit: April 23, 2016, 11:23:35 AM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 ... 81   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.465 seconds with 22 queries.