I don't think Clinton needs to say another fucking word. Trump is doing a great job handing this election to her.
Bill Moyer posted today that he thinks they should drop that last debate. Of course neither Clinton nor Trump will want to be the first to drop out but I think it's a good idea.
Trump is making this process a fucking redneck joke.
3 "debates" isn't even enough, especially when other voices are shut out. I wonder what other countries do?
I don't disagree...except for this year. Trump has turned it into a fucking circus.
Trump has everything to gain and nothing to lose. I'm curious to know how many "debates" there were in the past?
Three... for the last several elections, certainly this century.
The electorate has to endure 800 days of campaigning and only 6 hours of "debate"? Yakoff Smirnoff
There were about 15 GOP debates and several Democratic ones. There are three debates with the finalists.
In many states voters can only vote in the party primary to which they are registered. Why bother watching a GOP primary "debate" if I have no vote since I'm registered Dem and vice versa?
Well I don't know... but it doesn't make sense to be able to vote in both primaries.
Why not?
Because that would leave it open for dirty tricks. Democrats would vote for the person they see as the easier target on the GOP side and vice versa. It would get ugly in a hurry. It happened here in Virginia in my district. Eric Cantor was our congressman (douchy). No Democrat has a chance here so there was no primary run. So Dems crossed over and voted for Dave Bratt, thinking we had a better chance at him. Bratt beat Cantor and then beat our guy. Now we're stuck with chief tea partier vs. chief douche. But anyway, this would absolutely happen if you could vote in both.
That's an exception not the rule that puts the party ahead of the electorate = not a democracy
I don't think Clinton needs to say another fucking word. Trump is doing a great job handing this election to her.
Bill Moyer posted today that he thinks they should drop that last debate. Of course neither Clinton nor Trump will want to be the first to drop out but I think it's a good idea.
Trump is making this process a fucking redneck joke.
3 "debates" isn't even enough, especially when other voices are shut out. I wonder what other countries do?
I don't disagree...except for this year. Trump has turned it into a fucking circus.
Trump has everything to gain and nothing to lose. I'm curious to know how many "debates" there were in the past?
Three... for the last several elections, certainly this century.
The electorate has to endure 800 days of campaigning and only 6 hours of "debate"? Yakoff Smirnoff
There were about 15 GOP debates and several Democratic ones. There are three debates with the finalists.
In many states voters can only vote in the party primary to which they are registered. Why bother watching a GOP primary "debate" if I have no vote since I'm registered Dem and vice versa?
Well I don't know... but it doesn't make sense to be able to vote in both primaries.
Why not?
sabotage. you'd vote for who you'd want to go against your candidate, which really doesn't make sense. in canada, the party chooses their own leader, not the voters. that would be like saying the liberals should have a say in who the conservative leader will be.
edit: I had no idea in certain states you could actually do this. how bizarre.
I don't think Clinton needs to say another fucking word. Trump is doing a great job handing this election to her.
Bill Moyer posted today that he thinks they should drop that last debate. Of course neither Clinton nor Trump will want to be the first to drop out but I think it's a good idea.
Trump is making this process a fucking redneck joke.
3 "debates" isn't even enough, especially when other voices are shut out. I wonder what other countries do?
I don't disagree...except for this year. Trump has turned it into a fucking circus.
Trump has everything to gain and nothing to lose. I'm curious to know how many "debates" there were in the past?
Three... for the last several elections, certainly this century.
The electorate has to endure 800 days of campaigning and only 6 hours of "debate"? Yakoff Smirnoff
There were about 15 GOP debates and several Democratic ones. There are three debates with the finalists.
In many states voters can only vote in the party primary to which they are registered. Why bother watching a GOP primary "debate" if I have no vote since I'm registered Dem and vice versa?
Well I don't know... but it doesn't make sense to be able to vote in both primaries.
Why not?
The primary exists for party members to select their nominee. Why would a party want others playing a role in that? It isn't meant to be a general election for all registered voters.
Sometimes, primaries mean jack shit to the parties (see Washington State Democratic primary), and it is just a formality or an appeasement to voters who think they have a voice, since the actual selection of their delegates takes place at the caucuses.
As we have learned from the leaks dirty tricks run rampant anyway so take your pick totally dirty or totally clean. Only an undemocratic democracy can have it both ways.
I don't think Clinton needs to say another fucking word. Trump is doing a great job handing this election to her.
Bill Moyer posted today that he thinks they should drop that last debate. Of course neither Clinton nor Trump will want to be the first to drop out but I think it's a good idea.
Trump is making this process a fucking redneck joke.
3 "debates" isn't even enough, especially when other voices are shut out. I wonder what other countries do?
I don't disagree...except for this year. Trump has turned it into a fucking circus.
Trump has everything to gain and nothing to lose. I'm curious to know how many "debates" there were in the past?
Three... for the last several elections, certainly this century.
The electorate has to endure 800 days of campaigning and only 6 hours of "debate"? Yakoff Smirnoff
There were about 15 GOP debates and several Democratic ones. There are three debates with the finalists.
In many states voters can only vote in the party primary to which they are registered. Why bother watching a GOP primary "debate" if I have no vote since I'm registered Dem and vice versa?
Well I don't know... but it doesn't make sense to be able to vote in both primaries.
Why not?
The primary exists for party members to select their nominee. Why would a party want others playing a role in that? It isn't meant to be a general election for all registered voters.
Sometimes, primaries mean jack shit to the parties (see Washington State Democratic primary), and it is just a formality or an appeasement to voters who think they have a voice, since the actual selection of their delegates takes place at the caucuses.
I don't know how it works... is it impossible for people to be registered for both parties?? If so, why? And how would they know? Is someone meticulously comparing party member lists?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I don't think Clinton needs to say another fucking word. Trump is doing a great job handing this election to her.
Bill Moyer posted today that he thinks they should drop that last debate. Of course neither Clinton nor Trump will want to be the first to drop out but I think it's a good idea.
Trump is making this process a fucking redneck joke.
3 "debates" isn't even enough, especially when other voices are shut out. I wonder what other countries do?
I don't disagree...except for this year. Trump has turned it into a fucking circus.
Trump has everything to gain and nothing to lose. I'm curious to know how many "debates" there were in the past?
Three... for the last several elections, certainly this century.
The electorate has to endure 800 days of campaigning and only 6 hours of "debate"? Yakoff Smirnoff
There were about 15 GOP debates and several Democratic ones. There are three debates with the finalists.
In many states voters can only vote in the party primary to which they are registered. Why bother watching a GOP primary "debate" if I have no vote since I'm registered Dem and vice versa?
Well I don't know... but it doesn't make sense to be able to vote in both primaries.
Why not?
The primary exists for party members to select their nominee. Why would a party want others playing a role in that? It isn't meant to be a general election for all registered voters.
Sometimes, primaries mean jack shit to the parties (see Washington State Democratic primary), and it is just a formality or an appeasement to voters who think they have a voice, since the actual selection of their delegates takes place at the caucuses.
As we have learned from the leaks dirty tricks run rampant anyway so take your pick totally dirty or totally clean. Only an undemocratic democracy can have it both ways.
At least the parties give the voters some say, or an illusion of influence in their selection. The party could easily just do the cigar smoking, backroom, good ol' boy deal and put up whomever they want.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I don't think Clinton needs to say another fucking word. Trump is doing a great job handing this election to her.
Bill Moyer posted today that he thinks they should drop that last debate. Of course neither Clinton nor Trump will want to be the first to drop out but I think it's a good idea.
Trump is making this process a fucking redneck joke.
3 "debates" isn't even enough, especially when other voices are shut out. I wonder what other countries do?
I don't disagree...except for this year. Trump has turned it into a fucking circus.
Trump has everything to gain and nothing to lose. I'm curious to know how many "debates" there were in the past?
Three... for the last several elections, certainly this century.
The electorate has to endure 800 days of campaigning and only 6 hours of "debate"? Yakoff Smirnoff
There were about 15 GOP debates and several Democratic ones. There are three debates with the finalists.
In many states voters can only vote in the party primary to which they are registered. Why bother watching a GOP primary "debate" if I have no vote since I'm registered Dem and vice versa?
Well I don't know... but it doesn't make sense to be able to vote in both primaries.
Why not?
The primary exists for party members to select their nominee. Why would a party want others playing a role in that? It isn't meant to be a general election for all registered voters.
Sometimes, primaries mean jack shit to the parties (see Washington State Democratic primary), and it is just a formality or an appeasement to voters who think they have a voice, since the actual selection of their delegates takes place at the caucuses.
As we have learned from the leaks dirty tricks run rampant anyway so take your pick totally dirty or totally clean. Only an undemocratic democracy can have it both ways.
At least the parties give the voters some say, or an illusion of influence in their selection. The party could easily just do the cigar smoking, backroom, good ol' boy deal and put up whomever they want.
You could have used a good old naked locker room party, just saying.
I don't think Clinton needs to say another fucking word. Trump is doing a great job handing this election to her.
Bill Moyer posted today that he thinks they should drop that last debate. Of course neither Clinton nor Trump will want to be the first to drop out but I think it's a good idea.
Trump is making this process a fucking redneck joke.
3 "debates" isn't even enough, especially when other voices are shut out. I wonder what other countries do?
I don't disagree...except for this year. Trump has turned it into a fucking circus.
Trump has everything to gain and nothing to lose. I'm curious to know how many "debates" there were in the past?
Three... for the last several elections, certainly this century.
The electorate has to endure 800 days of campaigning and only 6 hours of "debate"? Yakoff Smirnoff
There were about 15 GOP debates and several Democratic ones. There are three debates with the finalists.
In many states voters can only vote in the party primary to which they are registered. Why bother watching a GOP primary "debate" if I have no vote since I'm registered Dem and vice versa?
Well I don't know... but it doesn't make sense to be able to vote in both primaries.
Why not?
The primary exists for party members to select their nominee. Why would a party want others playing a role in that? It isn't meant to be a general election for all registered voters.
Sometimes, primaries mean jack shit to the parties (see Washington State Democratic primary), and it is just a formality or an appeasement to voters who think they have a voice, since the actual selection of their delegates takes place at the caucuses.
As we have learned from the leaks dirty tricks run rampant anyway so take your pick totally dirty or totally clean. Only an undemocratic democracy can have it both ways.
At least the parties give the voters some say, or an illusion of influence in their selection. The party could easily just do the cigar smoking, backroom, good ol' boy deal and put up whomever they want.
You could have used a good old naked locker room party, just saying.
The party leader could be selected in a Roman bath house. That's my personal favorite.
I don't think Clinton needs to say another fucking word. Trump is doing a great job handing this election to her.
Bill Moyer posted today that he thinks they should drop that last debate. Of course neither Clinton nor Trump will want to be the first to drop out but I think it's a good idea.
Trump is making this process a fucking redneck joke.
3 "debates" isn't even enough, especially when other voices are shut out. I wonder what other countries do?
I don't disagree...except for this year. Trump has turned it into a fucking circus.
Trump has everything to gain and nothing to lose. I'm curious to know how many "debates" there were in the past?
Three... for the last several elections, certainly this century.
The electorate has to endure 800 days of campaigning and only 6 hours of "debate"? Yakoff Smirnoff
There were about 15 GOP debates and several Democratic ones. There are three debates with the finalists.
In many states voters can only vote in the party primary to which they are registered. Why bother watching a GOP primary "debate" if I have no vote since I'm registered Dem and vice versa?
Well I don't know... but it doesn't make sense to be able to vote in both primaries.
Why not?
The primary exists for party members to select their nominee. Why would a party want others playing a role in that? It isn't meant to be a general election for all registered voters.
Sometimes, primaries mean jack shit to the parties (see Washington State Democratic primary), and it is just a formality or an appeasement to voters who think they have a voice, since the actual selection of their delegates takes place at the caucuses.
Does it matter that 40% of registered voters are not registered "dem" or "gop"?
—NBC/WSJ poll Oct. 8-10 *the polling company that administered this poll has received more than $350,000 from Hillary Clinton political action committees from 7/16 thru 9/16
I need to get into the polling business.
Nice coin and you only have to get illegals to work for $10 per hour every 4 years! It's like an every four year tax accountant! PM me we can set this up. Cha ching!
I don't think Clinton needs to say another fucking word. Trump is doing a great job handing this election to her.
Bill Moyer posted today that he thinks they should drop that last debate. Of course neither Clinton nor Trump will want to be the first to drop out but I think it's a good idea.
Trump is making this process a fucking redneck joke.
3 "debates" isn't even enough, especially when other voices are shut out. I wonder what other countries do?
I don't disagree...except for this year. Trump has turned it into a fucking circus.
Trump has everything to gain and nothing to lose. I'm curious to know how many "debates" there were in the past?
Three... for the last several elections, certainly this century.
The electorate has to endure 800 days of campaigning and only 6 hours of "debate"? Yakoff Smirnoff
There were about 15 GOP debates and several Democratic ones. There are three debates with the finalists.
In many states voters can only vote in the party primary to which they are registered. Why bother watching a GOP primary "debate" if I have no vote since I'm registered Dem and vice versa?
Well I don't know... but it doesn't make sense to be able to vote in both primaries.
Why not?
Because that would leave it open for dirty tricks. Democrats would vote for the person they see as the easier target on the GOP side and vice versa. It would get ugly in a hurry. It happened here in Virginia in my district. Eric Cantor was our congressman (douchy). No Democrat has a chance here so there was no primary run. So Dems crossed over and voted for Dave Bratt, thinking we had a better chance at him. Bratt beat Cantor and then beat our guy. Now we're stuck with chief tea partier vs. chief douche. But anyway, this would absolutely happen if you could vote in both.
That's an exception not the rule that puts the party ahead of the electorate = not a democracy
If there were no parties, this would make sense. The existence of parties sort of necessitates it. There were no primaries before 1900 or so. Even then, they were added state by state over time. They used to be just chosen at the conventions.
I don't think Clinton needs to say another fucking word. Trump is doing a great job handing this election to her.
Bill Moyer posted today that he thinks they should drop that last debate. Of course neither Clinton nor Trump will want to be the first to drop out but I think it's a good idea.
Trump is making this process a fucking redneck joke.
3 "debates" isn't even enough, especially when other voices are shut out. I wonder what other countries do?
I don't disagree...except for this year. Trump has turned it into a fucking circus.
Trump has everything to gain and nothing to lose. I'm curious to know how many "debates" there were in the past?
Three... for the last several elections, certainly this century.
The electorate has to endure 800 days of campaigning and only 6 hours of "debate"? Yakoff Smirnoff
There were about 15 GOP debates and several Democratic ones. There are three debates with the finalists.
In many states voters can only vote in the party primary to which they are registered. Why bother watching a GOP primary "debate" if I have no vote since I'm registered Dem and vice versa?
Well I don't know... but it doesn't make sense to be able to vote in both primaries.
Why not?
The primary exists for party members to select their nominee. Why would a party want others playing a role in that? It isn't meant to be a general election for all registered voters.
Sometimes, primaries mean jack shit to the parties (see Washington State Democratic primary), and it is just a formality or an appeasement to voters who think they have a voice, since the actual selection of their delegates takes place at the caucuses.
As we have learned from the leaks dirty tricks run rampant anyway so take your pick totally dirty or totally clean. Only an undemocratic democracy can have it both ways.
At least the parties give the voters some say, or an illusion of influence in their selection. The party could easily just do the cigar smoking, backroom, good ol' boy deal and put up whomever they want.
You could have used a good old naked locker room party, just saying.
The party leader could be selected in a Roman bath house. That's my personal favorite.
I knew I could spark that little hands sense of humor from you.
I don't think Clinton needs to say another fucking word. Trump is doing a great job handing this election to her.
Bill Moyer posted today that he thinks they should drop that last debate. Of course neither Clinton nor Trump will want to be the first to drop out but I think it's a good idea.
Trump is making this process a fucking redneck joke.
3 "debates" isn't even enough, especially when other voices are shut out. I wonder what other countries do?
I don't disagree...except for this year. Trump has turned it into a fucking circus.
Trump has everything to gain and nothing to lose. I'm curious to know how many "debates" there were in the past?
Three... for the last several elections, certainly this century.
The electorate has to endure 800 days of campaigning and only 6 hours of "debate"? Yakoff Smirnoff
There were about 15 GOP debates and several Democratic ones. There are three debates with the finalists.
In many states voters can only vote in the party primary to which they are registered. Why bother watching a GOP primary "debate" if I have no vote since I'm registered Dem and vice versa?
Well I don't know... but it doesn't make sense to be able to vote in both primaries.
Why not?
The primary exists for party members to select their nominee. Why would a party want others playing a role in that? It isn't meant to be a general election for all registered voters.
Sometimes, primaries mean jack shit to the parties (see Washington State Democratic primary), and it is just a formality or an appeasement to voters who think they have a voice, since the actual selection of their delegates takes place at the caucuses.
As we have learned from the leaks dirty tricks run rampant anyway so take your pick totally dirty or totally clean. Only an undemocratic democracy can have it both ways.
At least the parties give the voters some say, or an illusion of influence in their selection. The party could easily just do the cigar smoking, backroom, good ol' boy deal and put up whomever they want.
You could have used a good old naked locker room party, just saying.
The party leader could be selected in a Roman bath house. That's my personal favorite.
I knew I could spark that little hands sense of humor from you.
I don't think Clinton needs to say another fucking word. Trump is doing a great job handing this election to her.
Bill Moyer posted today that he thinks they should drop that last debate. Of course neither Clinton nor Trump will want to be the first to drop out but I think it's a good idea.
Trump is making this process a fucking redneck joke.
3 "debates" isn't even enough, especially when other voices are shut out. I wonder what other countries do?
I don't disagree...except for this year. Trump has turned it into a fucking circus.
Trump has everything to gain and nothing to lose. I'm curious to know how many "debates" there were in the past?
Three... for the last several elections, certainly this century.
The electorate has to endure 800 days of campaigning and only 6 hours of "debate"? Yakoff Smirnoff
There were about 15 GOP debates and several Democratic ones. There are three debates with the finalists.
In many states voters can only vote in the party primary to which they are registered. Why bother watching a GOP primary "debate" if I have no vote since I'm registered Dem and vice versa?
Well I don't know... but it doesn't make sense to be able to vote in both primaries.
Why not?
The primary exists for party members to select their nominee. Why would a party want others playing a role in that? It isn't meant to be a general election for all registered voters.
Sometimes, primaries mean jack shit to the parties (see Washington State Democratic primary), and it is just a formality or an appeasement to voters who think they have a voice, since the actual selection of their delegates takes place at the caucuses.
I don't know how it works... is it impossible for people to be registered for both parties?? If so, why? And how would they know? Is someone meticulously comparing party member lists?
It varies state by state. So in my state we don't have to declare party. We can just select one of the nominees. So I could either vote FOR a candidate from my party (if I had one), or vote AGAINST a candidate from the other party. In other states you are required to declare your party preference, and you receive a ballot specifically for that party.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I don't think Clinton needs to say another fucking word. Trump is doing a great job handing this election to her.
Bill Moyer posted today that he thinks they should drop that last debate. Of course neither Clinton nor Trump will want to be the first to drop out but I think it's a good idea.
Trump is making this process a fucking redneck joke.
3 "debates" isn't even enough, especially when other voices are shut out. I wonder what other countries do?
I don't disagree...except for this year. Trump has turned it into a fucking circus.
Trump has everything to gain and nothing to lose. I'm curious to know how many "debates" there were in the past?
Three... for the last several elections, certainly this century.
The electorate has to endure 800 days of campaigning and only 6 hours of "debate"? Yakoff Smirnoff
There were about 15 GOP debates and several Democratic ones. There are three debates with the finalists.
In many states voters can only vote in the party primary to which they are registered. Why bother watching a GOP primary "debate" if I have no vote since I'm registered Dem and vice versa?
Well I don't know... but it doesn't make sense to be able to vote in both primaries.
Why not?
Because that would leave it open for dirty tricks. Democrats would vote for the person they see as the easier target on the GOP side and vice versa. It would get ugly in a hurry. It happened here in Virginia in my district. Eric Cantor was our congressman (douchy). No Democrat has a chance here so there was no primary run. So Dems crossed over and voted for Dave Bratt, thinking we had a better chance at him. Bratt beat Cantor and then beat our guy. Now we're stuck with chief tea partier vs. chief douche. But anyway, this would absolutely happen if you could vote in both.
That's an exception not the rule that puts the party ahead of the electorate = not a democracy
If there were no parties, this would make sense. The existence of parties sort of necessitates it. There were no primaries before 1900 or so. Even then, they were added state by state over time. They used to be just chosen at the conventions.
Only bec the duopoly were wise to having limited participation. Dinosaurs:Ross Perot and the league of women's voters
I don't think Clinton needs to say another fucking word. Trump is doing a great job handing this election to her.
Bill Moyer posted today that he thinks they should drop that last debate. Of course neither Clinton nor Trump will want to be the first to drop out but I think it's a good idea.
Trump is making this process a fucking redneck joke.
3 "debates" isn't even enough, especially when other voices are shut out. I wonder what other countries do?
I don't disagree...except for this year. Trump has turned it into a fucking circus.
Trump has everything to gain and nothing to lose. I'm curious to know how many "debates" there were in the past?
Three... for the last several elections, certainly this century.
The electorate has to endure 800 days of campaigning and only 6 hours of "debate"? Yakoff Smirnoff
There were about 15 GOP debates and several Democratic ones. There are three debates with the finalists.
In many states voters can only vote in the party primary to which they are registered. Why bother watching a GOP primary "debate" if I have no vote since I'm registered Dem and vice versa?
Well I don't know... but it doesn't make sense to be able to vote in both primaries.
Why not?
The primary exists for party members to select their nominee. Why would a party want others playing a role in that? It isn't meant to be a general election for all registered voters.
Sometimes, primaries mean jack shit to the parties (see Washington State Democratic primary), and it is just a formality or an appeasement to voters who think they have a voice, since the actual selection of their delegates takes place at the caucuses.
I don't know how it works... is it impossible for people to be registered for both parties?? If so, why? And how would they know? Is someone meticulously comparing party member lists?
It varies state by state. So in my state we don't have to declare party. We can just select one of the nominees. So I could either vote FOR a candidate from my party (if I had one), or vote AGAINST a candidate from the other party. In other states you are required to declare your party preference, and you receive a ballot specifically for that party.
I don't think Clinton needs to say another fucking word. Trump is doing a great job handing this election to her.
Bill Moyer posted today that he thinks they should drop that last debate. Of course neither Clinton nor Trump will want to be the first to drop out but I think it's a good idea.
Trump is making this process a fucking redneck joke.
3 "debates" isn't even enough, especially when other voices are shut out. I wonder what other countries do?
I don't disagree...except for this year. Trump has turned it into a fucking circus.
Trump has everything to gain and nothing to lose. I'm curious to know how many "debates" there were in the past?
Three... for the last several elections, certainly this century.
The electorate has to endure 800 days of campaigning and only 6 hours of "debate"? Yakoff Smirnoff
There were about 15 GOP debates and several Democratic ones. There are three debates with the finalists.
In many states voters can only vote in the party primary to which they are registered. Why bother watching a GOP primary "debate" if I have no vote since I'm registered Dem and vice versa?
Well I don't know... but it doesn't make sense to be able to vote in both primaries.
Why not?
The primary exists for party members to select their nominee. Why would a party want others playing a role in that? It isn't meant to be a general election for all registered voters.
Sometimes, primaries mean jack shit to the parties (see Washington State Democratic primary), and it is just a formality or an appeasement to voters who think they have a voice, since the actual selection of their delegates takes place at the caucuses.
I don't know how it works... is it impossible for people to be registered for both parties?? If so, why? And how would they know? Is someone meticulously comparing party member lists?
It varies state by state. So in my state we don't have to declare party. We can just select one of the nominees. So I could either vote FOR a candidate from my party (if I had one), or vote AGAINST a candidate from the other party. In other states you are required to declare your party preference, and you receive a ballot specifically for that party.
I don't think Clinton needs to say another fucking word. Trump is doing a great job handing this election to her.
Bill Moyer posted today that he thinks they should drop that last debate. Of course neither Clinton nor Trump will want to be the first to drop out but I think it's a good idea.
Trump is making this process a fucking redneck joke.
3 "debates" isn't even enough, especially when other voices are shut out. I wonder what other countries do?
I don't disagree...except for this year. Trump has turned it into a fucking circus.
Trump has everything to gain and nothing to lose. I'm curious to know how many "debates" there were in the past?
Three... for the last several elections, certainly this century.
The electorate has to endure 800 days of campaigning and only 6 hours of "debate"? Yakoff Smirnoff
There were about 15 GOP debates and several Democratic ones. There are three debates with the finalists.
In many states voters can only vote in the party primary to which they are registered. Why bother watching a GOP primary "debate" if I have no vote since I'm registered Dem and vice versa?
Well I don't know... but it doesn't make sense to be able to vote in both primaries.
Why not?
The primary exists for party members to select their nominee. Why would a party want others playing a role in that? It isn't meant to be a general election for all registered voters.
Sometimes, primaries mean jack shit to the parties (see Washington State Democratic primary), and it is just a formality or an appeasement to voters who think they have a voice, since the actual selection of their delegates takes place at the caucuses.
Does it matter that 40% of registered voters are not registered "dem" or "gop"?
Yeah it matters, they ought to get over themselves and register with the party that most closely represents their beliefs when important elections come along. Perhaps if those 40% were less concerned with a cuddlebear candidate that makes them feel warm and snuggly inside we would be looking at a Sanders vs Kasich election and the country would be a hell of alot better off!
I don't think Clinton needs to say another fucking word. Trump is doing a great job handing this election to her.
Bill Moyer posted today that he thinks they should drop that last debate. Of course neither Clinton nor Trump will want to be the first to drop out but I think it's a good idea.
Trump is making this process a fucking redneck joke.
3 "debates" isn't even enough, especially when other voices are shut out. I wonder what other countries do?
I don't disagree...except for this year. Trump has turned it into a fucking circus.
Trump has everything to gain and nothing to lose. I'm curious to know how many "debates" there were in the past?
Three... for the last several elections, certainly this century.
The electorate has to endure 800 days of campaigning and only 6 hours of "debate"? Yakoff Smirnoff
There were about 15 GOP debates and several Democratic ones. There are three debates with the finalists.
In many states voters can only vote in the party primary to which they are registered. Why bother watching a GOP primary "debate" if I have no vote since I'm registered Dem and vice versa?
Well I don't know... but it doesn't make sense to be able to vote in both primaries.
Why not?
sabotage. you'd vote for who you'd want to go against your candidate, which really doesn't make sense. in canada, the party chooses their own leader, not the voters. that would be like saying the liberals should have a say in who the conservative leader will be.
edit: I had no idea in certain states you could actually do this. how bizarre.
Doesn't this contribute to the us vs them, winner vs loser mentality that is destroying politics today? Let's say you're not a registered party member; you are undecided, independent, whatever. These undecided voters go to the primaries and are able to vote for the best R and D that they think will do the best job. Then politicians would actually tack towards the middle in the primary, instead of catering to the far extremes of their base. We might actually get some elected officials who understand they represent all their constituents. People who are able to listen and compromise. Instead, it's become winner take all. Politics is not a sports contest.
I don't think Clinton needs to say another fucking word. Trump is doing a great job handing this election to her.
Bill Moyer posted today that he thinks they should drop that last debate. Of course neither Clinton nor Trump will want to be the first to drop out but I think it's a good idea.
Trump is making this process a fucking redneck joke.
3 "debates" isn't even enough, especially when other voices are shut out. I wonder what other countries do?
I don't disagree...except for this year. Trump has turned it into a fucking circus.
Trump has everything to gain and nothing to lose. I'm curious to know how many "debates" there were in the past?
Three... for the last several elections, certainly this century.
The electorate has to endure 800 days of campaigning and only 6 hours of "debate"? Yakoff Smirnoff
There were about 15 GOP debates and several Democratic ones. There are three debates with the finalists.
In many states voters can only vote in the party primary to which they are registered. Why bother watching a GOP primary "debate" if I have no vote since I'm registered Dem and vice versa?
Well I don't know... but it doesn't make sense to be able to vote in both primaries.
Why not?
sabotage. you'd vote for who you'd want to go against your candidate, which really doesn't make sense. in canada, the party chooses their own leader, not the voters. that would be like saying the liberals should have a say in who the conservative leader will be.
edit: I had no idea in certain states you could actually do this. how bizarre.
Doesn't this contribute to the us vs them, winner vs loser mentality that is destroying politics today? Let's say you're not a registered party member; you are undecided, independent, whatever. These undecided voters go to the primaries and are able to vote for the best R and D that they think will do the best job. Then politicians would actually tack towards the middle in the primary, instead of catering to the far extremes of their base. We might actually get some elected officials who understand they represent all their constituents. People who are able to listen and compromise. Instead, it's become winner take all. Politics is not a sports contest.
I just don't think it would work out that way. I think they'd still pander to their base and hope that not enough people from the other party come out to vote agains them in the primary. But who knows.
again, I think it would work better if you weren't registered with any party whatsoever. there's none of that shit in Canada. of course, if you are part of a union, then that generally means you vote NDP, but other than that, there is no official party membership unless you work for them.
parties choose their own leaders internally. no 2 year primary/election bullshit. 6 week election cycle and you're done. Canadians were so sick and tired of this last one, as pjsoul said, it was longer than any other election cycle in history. 2 months plus.
I don't think Clinton needs to say another fucking word. Trump is doing a great job handing this election to her.
Bill Moyer posted today that he thinks they should drop that last debate. Of course neither Clinton nor Trump will want to be the first to drop out but I think it's a good idea.
Trump is making this process a fucking redneck joke.
3 "debates" isn't even enough, especially when other voices are shut out. I wonder what other countries do?
I don't disagree...except for this year. Trump has turned it into a fucking circus.
Trump has everything to gain and nothing to lose. I'm curious to know how many "debates" there were in the past?
Three... for the last several elections, certainly this century.
The electorate has to endure 800 days of campaigning and only 6 hours of "debate"? Yakoff Smirnoff
There were about 15 GOP debates and several Democratic ones. There are three debates with the finalists.
In many states voters can only vote in the party primary to which they are registered. Why bother watching a GOP primary "debate" if I have no vote since I'm registered Dem and vice versa?
Well I don't know... but it doesn't make sense to be able to vote in both primaries.
Why not?
The primary exists for party members to select their nominee. Why would a party want others playing a role in that? It isn't meant to be a general election for all registered voters.
Sometimes, primaries mean jack shit to the parties (see Washington State Democratic primary), and it is just a formality or an appeasement to voters who think they have a voice, since the actual selection of their delegates takes place at the caucuses.
Does it matter that 40% of registered voters are not registered "dem" or "gop"?
Yeah it matters, they ought to get over themselves and register with the party that most closely represents their beliefs when important elections come along. Perhaps if those 40% were less concerned with a cuddlebear candidate that makes them feel warm and snuggly inside we would be looking at a Sanders vs Kasich election and the country would be a hell of alot better off!
please list the unimportant elections since 1950? So Indy voters have some reference.
I don't think Clinton needs to say another fucking word. Trump is doing a great job handing this election to her.
Bill Moyer posted today that he thinks they should drop that last debate. Of course neither Clinton nor Trump will want to be the first to drop out but I think it's a good idea.
Trump is making this process a fucking redneck joke.
3 "debates" isn't even enough, especially when other voices are shut out. I wonder what other countries do?
I don't disagree...except for this year. Trump has turned it into a fucking circus.
Trump has everything to gain and nothing to lose. I'm curious to know how many "debates" there were in the past?
Three... for the last several elections, certainly this century.
The electorate has to endure 800 days of campaigning and only 6 hours of "debate"? Yakoff Smirnoff
There were about 15 GOP debates and several Democratic ones. There are three debates with the finalists.
In many states voters can only vote in the party primary to which they are registered. Why bother watching a GOP primary "debate" if I have no vote since I'm registered Dem and vice versa?
Well I don't know... but it doesn't make sense to be able to vote in both primaries.
Why not?
The primary exists for party members to select their nominee. Why would a party want others playing a role in that? It isn't meant to be a general election for all registered voters.
Sometimes, primaries mean jack shit to the parties (see Washington State Democratic primary), and it is just a formality or an appeasement to voters who think they have a voice, since the actual selection of their delegates takes place at the caucuses.
Does it matter that 40% of registered voters are not registered "dem" or "gop"?
Yeah it matters, they ought to get over themselves and register with the party that most closely represents their beliefs when important elections come along. Perhaps if those 40% were less concerned with a cuddlebear candidate that makes them feel warm and snuggly inside we would be looking at a Sanders vs Kasich election and the country would be a hell of alot better off!
please list the unimportant elections since 1950? So Indy voters have some reference.
Hillary and Bill are a team. Whatever Bill did she was fine with it.
Really? How do you know that? Source? I honestly have no idea what her real feelings are about Bill, what the deal is with their relationship, or what she thinks he did or didn't do. And frankly, I don't really care. I don't feel like it has an impact on her ability (or lackthereof) to be POTUS. Now of evidence came along telling us that she actively supported him raping someone or actively knows about it and doesn't care, that would be meaningful. But I have seen no evidence of that. Have you?
Well, I choose to believe the woman that accused Bill of assault, including the one Bill paid off in a settlement. I believe the victims' accounts that Hillary pressured them to not say anything. When Bill is caught having sex with an intern it isn't unrealistic to believe all the other stories. Hillary decided it was okay to stay with Bill and have her daughter continue to live in the same house (White House) where her dad was banging interns a few rooms away. If that doesn't say something about her character than I don't know what else to tell you. It is a political marriage. Ends justify the means.
Does Clinton's stealing $37k worth of white house furniture and wall decor speak to character? They actually stole more then returned most later.
Reading this whole thing, looks like there was no mal-intent at all. Funny that you use the verb 'stole' while Politifact specifically repudiated the use of that word.
Your doing it again!
no he's not. I read the article too, and was surprised at your mini-summary before the link. it wasn't accurate at all.
Question wasn't posed to him?
So your saying Clinton's didn't leave with stuff that weren't theirs? Okay I'll correct it...Clinton's borrowed some stuff from the white house, some they returned some they are still b borrowing.
If you want a personal Q&A or to quiz people, send them a PM.
How about if I wanted your input I'll ask with your quoted text, as I have done in the past.
I think you're starting to get under the skin of certain individuals. The details of the discussions are starting to get real and you're proving basic points, which doesn't appear to sit well with some.
Moderator friendly and informative. Those voters who are the fence should read what JC is posting.
I think you are misreading it quite badly. I didn't tell him not to reply to my messages. He's more than welcome to. Same with Free, same with you. I'll argue with anyone. I'll even take the other side for shits and giggles, so it doesn't bother me in the least. But I won't let ridiculous-ass conclusions, hyperbole, false equivalencies, ad-hominem attacks and strawmen arguments go unchecked. And if my arguments put people in a box and they get mad, so be it.
The Indians are going to get their asses kicked! How about that attack!
Hillary and Bill are a team. Whatever Bill did she was fine with it.
Really? How do you know that? Source? I honestly have no idea what her real feelings are about Bill, what the deal is with their relationship, or what she thinks he did or didn't do. And frankly, I don't really care. I don't feel like it has an impact on her ability (or lackthereof) to be POTUS. Now of evidence came along telling us that she actively supported him raping someone or actively knows about it and doesn't care, that would be meaningful. But I have seen no evidence of that. Have you?
Well, I choose to believe the woman that accused Bill of assault, including the one Bill paid off in a settlement. I believe the victims' accounts that Hillary pressured them to not say anything. When Bill is caught having sex with an intern it isn't unrealistic to believe all the other stories. Hillary decided it was okay to stay with Bill and have her daughter continue to live in the same house (White House) where her dad was banging interns a few rooms away. If that doesn't say something about her character than I don't know what else to tell you. It is a political marriage. Ends justify the means.
Does Clinton's stealing $37k worth of white house furniture and wall decor speak to character? They actually stole more then returned most later.
Reading this whole thing, looks like there was no mal-intent at all. Funny that you use the verb 'stole' while Politifact specifically repudiated the use of that word.
Your doing it again!
no he's not. I read the article too, and was surprised at your mini-summary before the link. it wasn't accurate at all.
Question wasn't posed to him?
So your saying Clinton's didn't leave with stuff that weren't theirs? Okay I'll correct it...Clinton's borrowed some stuff from the white house, some they returned some they are still b borrowing.
If you want a personal Q&A or to quiz people, send them a PM.
How about if I wanted your input I'll ask with your quoted text, as I have done in the past.
I think you're starting to get under the skin of certain individuals. The details of the discussions are starting to get real and you're proving basic points, which doesn't appear to sit well with some.
Moderator friendly and informative. Those voters who are the fence should read what JC is posting.
I think you are misreading it quite badly. I didn't tell him not to reply to my messages. He's more than welcome to. Same with Free, same with you. I'll argue with anyone. I'll even take the other side for shits and giggles, so it doesn't bother me in the least. But I won't let ridiculous-ass conclusions, hyperbole, false equivalencies, ad-hominem attacks and strawmen arguments go unchecked. And if my arguments put people in a box and they get mad, so be it.
The Indians are going to get their asses kicked! How about that attack!
Them's fightin' words. If we can handle the Sox, we can handle your bats... although the Sox went cold and the Jays have heated up. I was talking to Hillary and she told me that she thinks that being able to throw Kluber games 1, 4 and 7 will be a real advantage for the Tribe. She thinks we just need a quality start from one other guy and we can win it. I'm just repeating what she says.
I don't think Clinton needs to say another fucking word. Trump is doing a great job handing this election to her.
Bill Moyer posted today that he thinks they should drop that last debate. Of course neither Clinton nor Trump will want to be the first to drop out but I think it's a good idea.
Trump is making this process a fucking redneck joke.
3 "debates" isn't even enough, especially when other voices are shut out. I wonder what other countries do?
I don't disagree...except for this year. Trump has turned it into a fucking circus.
Trump has everything to gain and nothing to lose. I'm curious to know how many "debates" there were in the past?
Three... for the last several elections, certainly this century.
The electorate has to endure 800 days of campaigning and only 6 hours of "debate"? Yakoff Smirnoff
There were about 15 GOP debates and several Democratic ones. There are three debates with the finalists.
In many states voters can only vote in the party primary to which they are registered. Why bother watching a GOP primary "debate" if I have no vote since I'm registered Dem and vice versa?
Well I don't know... but it doesn't make sense to be able to vote in both primaries.
Why not?
The primary exists for party members to select their nominee. Why would a party want others playing a role in that? It isn't meant to be a general election for all registered voters.
Sometimes, primaries mean jack shit to the parties (see Washington State Democratic primary), and it is just a formality or an appeasement to voters who think they have a voice, since the actual selection of their delegates takes place at the caucuses.
Does it matter that 40% of registered voters are not registered "dem" or "gop"?
Yeah it matters, they ought to get over themselves and register with the party that most closely represents their beliefs when important elections come along. Perhaps if those 40% were less concerned with a cuddlebear candidate that makes them feel warm and snuggly inside we would be looking at a Sanders vs Kasich election and the country would be a hell of alot better off!
please list the unimportant elections since 1950? So Indy voters have some reference.
I don't think Clinton needs to say another fucking word. Trump is doing a great job handing this election to her.
Bill Moyer posted today that he thinks they should drop that last debate. Of course neither Clinton nor Trump will want to be the first to drop out but I think it's a good idea.
Trump is making this process a fucking redneck joke.
3 "debates" isn't even enough, especially when other voices are shut out. I wonder what other countries do?
I don't disagree...except for this year. Trump has turned it into a fucking circus.
Trump has everything to gain and nothing to lose. I'm curious to know how many "debates" there were in the past?
Three... for the last several elections, certainly this century.
The electorate has to endure 800 days of campaigning and only 6 hours of "debate"? Yakoff Smirnoff
There were about 15 GOP debates and several Democratic ones. There are three debates with the finalists.
In many states voters can only vote in the party primary to which they are registered. Why bother watching a GOP primary "debate" if I have no vote since I'm registered Dem and vice versa?
Well I don't know... but it doesn't make sense to be able to vote in both primaries.
Why not?
The primary exists for party members to select their nominee. Why would a party want others playing a role in that? It isn't meant to be a general election for all registered voters.
Sometimes, primaries mean jack shit to the parties (see Washington State Democratic primary), and it is just a formality or an appeasement to voters who think they have a voice, since the actual selection of their delegates takes place at the caucuses.
Does it matter that 40% of registered voters are not registered "dem" or "gop"?
Yeah it matters, they ought to get over themselves and register with the party that most closely represents their beliefs when important elections come along. Perhaps if those 40% were less concerned with a cuddlebear candidate that makes them feel warm and snuggly inside we would be looking at a Sanders vs Kasich election and the country would be a hell of alot better off!
please list the unimportant elections since 1950? So Indy voters have some reference.
I don't think Clinton needs to say another fucking word. Trump is doing a great job handing this election to her.
Bill Moyer posted today that he thinks they should drop that last debate. Of course neither Clinton nor Trump will want to be the first to drop out but I think it's a good idea.
Trump is making this process a fucking redneck joke.
3 "debates" isn't even enough, especially when other voices are shut out. I wonder what other countries do?
I don't disagree...except for this year. Trump has turned it into a fucking circus.
Trump has everything to gain and nothing to lose. I'm curious to know how many "debates" there were in the past?
Three... for the last several elections, certainly this century.
The electorate has to endure 800 days of campaigning and only 6 hours of "debate"? Yakoff Smirnoff
There were about 15 GOP debates and several Democratic ones. There are three debates with the finalists.
In many states voters can only vote in the party primary to which they are registered. Why bother watching a GOP primary "debate" if I have no vote since I'm registered Dem and vice versa?
Well I don't know... but it doesn't make sense to be able to vote in both primaries.
Why not?
The primary exists for party members to select their nominee. Why would a party want others playing a role in that? It isn't meant to be a general election for all registered voters.
Sometimes, primaries mean jack shit to the parties (see Washington State Democratic primary), and it is just a formality or an appeasement to voters who think they have a voice, since the actual selection of their delegates takes place at the caucuses.
Does it matter that 40% of registered voters are not registered "dem" or "gop"?
Yeah it matters, they ought to get over themselves and register with the party that most closely represents their beliefs when important elections come along. Perhaps if those 40% were less concerned with a cuddlebear candidate that makes them feel warm and snuggly inside we would be looking at a Sanders vs Kasich election and the country would be a hell of alot better off!
please list the unimportant elections since 1950? So Indy voters have some reference.
That's for them to decide, but then again, I don't think it is them who is doing the complaining, I think it's Democrats with sour grapes that Bernie lost.
Hillary and Bill are a team. Whatever Bill did she was fine with it.
Really? How do you know that? Source? I honestly have no idea what her real feelings are about Bill, what the deal is with their relationship, or what she thinks he did or didn't do. And frankly, I don't really care. I don't feel like it has an impact on her ability (or lackthereof) to be POTUS. Now of evidence came along telling us that she actively supported him raping someone or actively knows about it and doesn't care, that would be meaningful. But I have seen no evidence of that. Have you?
Well, I choose to believe the woman that accused Bill of assault, including the one Bill paid off in a settlement. I believe the victims' accounts that Hillary pressured them to not say anything. When Bill is caught having sex with an intern it isn't unrealistic to believe all the other stories. Hillary decided it was okay to stay with Bill and have her daughter continue to live in the same house (White House) where her dad was banging interns a few rooms away. If that doesn't say something about her character than I don't know what else to tell you. It is a political marriage. Ends justify the means.
Does Clinton's stealing $37k worth of white house furniture and wall decor speak to character? They actually stole more then returned most later.
Reading this whole thing, looks like there was no mal-intent at all. Funny that you use the verb 'stole' while Politifact specifically repudiated the use of that word.
Your doing it again!
no he's not. I read the article too, and was surprised at your mini-summary before the link. it wasn't accurate at all.
Question wasn't posed to him?
So your saying Clinton's didn't leave with stuff that weren't theirs? Okay I'll correct it...Clinton's borrowed some stuff from the white house, some they returned some they are still b borrowing.
If you want a personal Q&A or to quiz people, send them a PM.
How about if I wanted your input I'll ask with your quoted text, as I have done in the past.
I think you're starting to get under the skin of certain individuals. The details of the discussions are starting to get real and you're proving basic points, which doesn't appear to sit well with some.
Moderator friendly and informative. Those voters who are the fence should read what JC is posting.
I think you are misreading it quite badly. I didn't tell him not to reply to my messages. He's more than welcome to. Same with Free, same with you. I'll argue with anyone. I'll even take the other side for shits and giggles, so it doesn't bother me in the least. But I won't let ridiculous-ass conclusions, hyperbole, false equivalencies, ad-hominem attacks and strawmen arguments go unchecked. And if my arguments put people in a box and they get mad, so be it.
The Indians are going to get their asses kicked! How about that attack!
Oh yeah, the other big news is the Tribe just signed Doyle Alexander. You're fucked.
Comments
edit: I had no idea in certain states you could actually do this. how bizarre.
www.headstonesband.com
angry sarah
Dinosaurs:Ross Perot and the league of women's voters
www.headstonesband.com
Perhaps if those 40% were less concerned with a cuddlebear candidate that makes them feel warm and snuggly inside we would be looking at a Sanders vs Kasich election and the country would be a hell of alot better off!
again, I think it would work better if you weren't registered with any party whatsoever. there's none of that shit in Canada. of course, if you are part of a union, then that generally means you vote NDP, but other than that, there is no official party membership unless you work for them.
parties choose their own leaders internally. no 2 year primary/election bullshit. 6 week election cycle and you're done. Canadians were so sick and tired of this last one, as pjsoul said, it was longer than any other election cycle in history. 2 months plus.
www.headstonesband.com
It's an inside job today
I know this one thing well
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/emails-donna-brazile-gave-town-hall-question-to-clinton-camp-in-advance/ar-BBxiOOr?li=BBmkt5R