|
So it looks like Trump will come up short in delegates after June 7th by anywhere between 40-80 delegates. Assuming he wins over some unpledged delegates, how many votes would he have to fall short for chaos to completely ensue in the following rounds when he gets hosed out of the nomination and watches his delegates flip to Cruz?
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:38 |
|
|
zoux posted:Poll/stats goons, what happened here? Dude running the poll made bad assumptions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
zoux posted:Poll/stats goons, what happened here? Do you have a link to the poll? I did a bit of googling and I only found references to the exit poll, but not the source.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
The Real Foogla posted:this is interesting, doesn't that mean the state should somehow regulate undue coverage? This is often the issue, and the reason why people like me get so irrate. Whatever the courts currently think, as soon as you start defining things by the highest most incontrovertible law of the land as the reason things are the way they are, you lose flexibility. Ironically embracing the view CU sets forth makes the law less flexible and human because it has a definition now with no counter examples in precedent. You'll note that it has been brought up repeatedly that things have been effectively this way for years and CU is nothing new. In my opinion that is a conservative justification for bad case law, and we should be working to set clearly defined laws and regulations that apply specifically to legal entities and not persons, because like many things the subtle differentials can make all the difference over time as to how people interpret a situation. What do I mean by this exactly? I'll give an example of how a subtle regulation can completely change the starting point of a conversation. Sales taxes in WA for example average around 8.9% depending on what jurisdiction you're in. When you go to the shelf and see the price of an item on the shelf, that price does not reflect the money someone is taking out of their wallet or bank account because the retailer is not required to do so. This means our taxpayer and/or consumer is immediately forced into the thought process of "oh so what does this REALLY cost? Thanks government!". However that tax is the cost of society, its going to get charged one way or another as its the primary way that particular government structure funds itself. Why are we introducing this mental irritant into consumers lives just to give people a reason to be annoyed at their own elected government? I guarantee you the first people who will speak up against doing things in the sensible way ( of making prices include their sales tax or GMT as implemented in countries like Australia) will be the local chamber of commerce under the pretension that it somehow distorts the actual cost of goods or something like that. Its much better customer service and consumer friendly to include the prices but there is a quiet multifaceted war against civic responsibility. To bring this home to CU and corporations, it matters where corporate rights actually come from and it doesn't matter that as by law the court at that time came to the " correct" decision that continues the status quo. The status quo is wrong and I freely admit that as currently written and interpreted I am incorrect. But I am not arguing for what the law says, I am arguing for what it should be because when our children inherit the earth, I want their voice and words to be worth just the same as everyone else's and not drowned out by those who have more dispensable income to have regulatory capture with. Corporations should have rights to act without government interferences when it makes sense for the public good, they should not receive this right from the Constitution because this also has subtle implications that we will not like later. I've gone on long enough about my dumb ideas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:crossposting from another thread since youth vote turnout came up. In NY at least it looks like the guesstimate of 17% was off considerably What is this source for this? I can't find voter turnout by age anywhere broken down like this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
Boon posted:So it looks like Trump will come up short in delegates after June 7th by anywhere between 40-80 delegates. If Trump fails to get the nom on the first ballot, Cruz's chances improve significantly because of his well-oiled control of the delegate selection mechanism. It won't be a 100% lock for Cruz but a Cruz nomination is considerably more likely than not at that point. Personally, for maximum chaos, I want Trump to narrowly win pledged delegates by one or two votes and lose the nomination because a couple of faithless pro-Cruz moles refuse to vote for him despite being bound to do so.  Also remember that, thanks to Cruz's gaming of the delegate selection, this year's GOP platform will probably make 2012's look like it was written by Lenin regardless of who gets the nom. And if Trump thinks he's going to be able to pick his veep, well... That might be difficult. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Apr 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
SavageBastard posted:What is this source for this? I can't find voter turnout by age anywhere broken down like this. CNN's exit polls have similar numbers although not in that format.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
Cspan is running a hearing on fetal tissue stuff right now. This lady right here is on some next level stuff.  She just described the practice as "back-alley" selling of baby parts and "big abortion" with politicians in their pockets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:Which video game antagonist is Hillary? The president from Vanquish .
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah I don't get the reasoning. It seems to admit that money is different from speech if thanking someone in exchange for a bill isn't corrupting but giving them a billion dollars is. It's all potentially corrupting, but in order to make it manageable (and still protect the potentially non-corrupting political speech which is a core 1A value) we've decided that continuations under 2700 aren't potentially corrupting enough and contributions over 2700 are. Money isn't speech. Spending money to speak is speech. Donating money to support a candidate you like is speech
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
There's so much money in big-abortion and talking about climate change that you'd think more big name capitalists would be all in that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:I'm a total shill for
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:27
|
|
but yeah that's an apt comparison.
|
zoux posted:Poll/stats goons, what happened here? Probably bad sampling. They didn't pick the right group of voters to ask so their results were off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Is Hillary also being influenced by malevolent fire aliens from the Bajoran Wormhole? An odd but fitting way of describing our Corporate Overlords.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:To try to get past point-scoring and making sick burns, what aspects of corporate personhood are objectionable, really? It's easy to say free speech shouldn't apply but what that means is that the speech a corporate entity makes is subject to government censorship, which seems like an outrageously bad idea. Seriously, granting a corporate charter with special privileges and demanding that the corporate person so created be given all the rights of an ordinary human, creates an entity with privileged status over and above that of anything made of flesh and blood.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:How is it outrageously bad? Or even kind-of bad? Keep in mind that a corporation is a collection of people who have applied for and obtained special legal treatment, generally protection from certain liabilities and from each other, as they pool their resources to run a business. It is entirely proper for a government to impose certain conditions on that, like "don't use proceeds, gained while doing business under this extra level of legal protection, to influence the political process". Anyone who doesn't like that, is free not to incorporate. Or, they can influence the political process using their own god-damned money. It's almost like corporations shouldn't be allowed to donate to candidates! Oh... They're not? Well hell. (Expenditures being prohibited would pretty much result in government ability to censor media sooooo no thanks.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Someone Periscoped a live rape a few days ago. This is Periscope's response. https://twitter.com/stuartmillar159/status/722809434167189504 That last sentence, though...
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
Yeah I'm aware that corporations aren't actually protected by the first amendment, etc. Just responding a poster that either mistakenly thinks they are, or maybe believes they should be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Seriously, granting a corporate charter with special privileges and demanding that the corporate person so created be given all the rights of an ordinary human, creates an entity with privileged status over and above that of anything made of flesh and blood. That's nice and all, but I don't understand why you're complaining about something that not only does not happen, it also has never been seriously proposed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
computer parts posted:CNN's exit polls have similar numbers although not in that format. It appears that 7% of the democratic electorate was age 18-24, not that 7% of 18-24 year olds turned out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Kalman posted:It's almost like corporations shouldn't be allowed to donate to candidates! No it wouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Kro-Bar posted:Someone Periscoped a live rape a few days ago. This is Periscope's response. Is BuzzFeed being dumb, since rape and sexual assault generally count as serious physical injury to a person. "Being hit in the head with a hammer is not listed as a priority!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
fishmech posted:That's nice and all, but I don't understand why you're complaining about something that not only does not happen, it also has never been seriously proposed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:No it wouldn't. Yes, it really would. The second you can control expenditures any editorial speech is barred, any reporting that has even the slightest tinge of editorial content is barred, etc. Seriously: how do you distinguish between the NYT paying to print their endorsement of a candidate and TrumpPAC doing the same thing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
The assumption about the lovely CNN exit poll is that they oversampled Buffalo which is a bad way to predict how much Hillary overperformed in NYC.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Seriously: how do you distinguish between the NYT paying to print their endorsement of a candidate and TrumpPAC doing the same thing? Or to put it more concretely with a hypothetical example, "Sure, Hillary wouldn't enforce limits on editorial speech under such a ruling, but how can courts protect it if Trump tries to do so?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Diana DeGette dropping elbows off the top rope on the republican witnesses in this panel. Cspan is on fire right now
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Is BuzzFeed being dumb Is this really something you need answered?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Yeah I'm aware that corporations aren't actually protected by the first amendment, etc. Just responding a poster that either mistakenly thinks they are, or maybe believes they should be. New York Times v. United States was wrongly decided - a Bernie supporter, probably
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
smg77 posted:Is this really something you need answered? It was a declarative statement, not a question.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
SavageBastard posted:It appears that 7% of the democratic electorate was age 18-24, not that 7% of 18-24 year olds turned out. Correct; however that % was the smallest percentage of all of the age groups, which indicates they turned out in much lower numbers; and given the larger demographic size, that translates to a relatively poor turnout.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Yes, it really would. The second you can control expenditures any editorial speech is barred, any reporting that has even the slightest tinge of editorial content is barred, etc. hell, it's not even just editorial content. how do you separate a NYT article on Bernie Sanders attacking Clinton over, say, TPP from a Sanders press release attacking Clinton over TPP?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Diana DeGette dropping elbows off the top rope on the republican witnesses in this panel. Cspan is on fire right now is there a stream for nonamericans?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
SavageBastard posted:It appears that 7% of the democratic electorate was age 18-24, not that 7% of 18-24 year olds turned out. That's pretty good, really.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Charges were just filed in the Flint water case:quote:Warrants filed in court show Mike Glasgow was charged with tampering with evidence and willful neglect while Steven Busch and Michael Prysby are charged with misconduct, evidence tampering and violations of the Safe Water Drinking Act.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:So since the Morons in Utah want to ban porn statewide, will it cause other states to want to do so, hoping to create a boring world where dirty jokes don't exist. Oh Utah, did you really think we wouldn't find out that you have the highest percentage of porn subscribers in the US? http://people.hbs.edu/bedelman/papers/redlightstates.pdf p. 217
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:New York Times v. United States was wrongly decided - a Bernie supporter, probably
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Awesome, the Treasury made the right call for once! https://twitter.com/morningmoneyben/status/722815970033553408
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
The Real Foogla posted:is there a stream for nonamericans? Cspan.org. Not sure if it's limited to us users.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:38 |
|
|
Eschers Basement posted:Correct; however that % was the smallest percentage of all of the age groups, which indicates they turned out in much lower numbers; and given the larger demographic size, that translates to a relatively poor turnout. Is there turnout percentage by age somewhere easily accessible then?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 17:11
|
|
