|
.... glbt? Is there a historical reason for that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 00:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 00:38 |
|
|
Watermelon Daiquiri posted:.... glbt? Is there a historical reason for that? GLBT and LGBT were both fairly common ways to use the letters when folks started switching over to using them. Since before that such groups often had names like “Gay and Lesbian Association/Alliance/etc” putting the G first seemed fairly normal. But eventually the better-sounding option won out (or, as a comic friend of mine once put it: the Lesbians were so much more organized that they just took over).
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 01:39
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:https://twitter.com/jaspscherer/status/1224468512518868993 She won by 2 votes in her hometown. If Christina Tzutzin Ramirez even attempted to try ahe could have won since the caucus was very much in anti establishment mood (Amanda beat MJ Hegar by 2) They endorsed Audia for DA and Christian Meneffee (who may or may not be actually progressive no loving clue but his website has one of the weirdest things I've ever seen with some weird phrase about how his brother got cancer soon after 9/11) against incumbent Democrats. Was a good use of uh...9 hours of my time tho. Sab0921 fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Feb 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 04:35
|
|
|
Marxalot posted:Literally never seen a door knocker in my life lmao i got my literal first one ever today, for travis county constable! they were letting me know that the current constable is the real democrat in the primary and the single opponent was the republican that lost last time also boots n' suits are good and cool, sorry y'all are lame
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 07:21
|
|
|
Hey guys, we're not Iowa
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 17:29
|
|
|
Man I'm so glad we're not an early primary state, how many political ads do you think the average Iowan has seen in the last six months? Anyway, I guess they won't have to ever again. What's the rationale for not just like, having all the primaries on the same day
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 17:31
|
|
|
zoux posted:Man I'm so glad we're not an early primary state, how many political ads do you think the average Iowan has seen in the last six months? Anyway, I guess they won't have to ever again. Tradition
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 17:35
|
|
|
zoux posted:Man I'm so glad we're not an early primary state, how many political ads do you think the average Iowan has seen in the last six months? Anyway, I guess they won't have to ever again. In theory if you had one big nationwide primary only the best funded candidates would have any chance. But now that the internet and small donors exist idk if that’s a real problem. I think Bernie has the most money of anyone besides Bloomberg and Steyer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 17:53
|
|
|
zoux posted:What's the rationale for not just like, having all the primaries on the same day LanceHunter posted:Do you want President Bloombergs? 'Cause that's how you get President Bloombergs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 18:11
|
|
|
Completely loving up Iowa after hundreds of millions of dollars in spending from every other campaign while Bloomberg "wisely" skips it to the consternation of the punditry is also how you get those. Because the whole point of Iowa going first isn't the number of delegates, it's supposed to give momentum (though only three Iowa caucus winners ever became president) but mostly it's for the cable news shows to have narratives and if it isn't doing that, the 36 or whatever delgates aren't that important. So, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they never get awarded. Didn't a couple of states get their delegates voided for jumping up in the primary schedule against DNC wishes some years back? But the biggest winners of all are us, the future American people who will never have to worry about how some corn farmer in Ames has 100x the political influence that you or I do because of his dumbass state.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 19:09
|
|
|
I was under the impression that it was the Republican party's security in keeping keeping the state under its dominion that kept political ads at bay. Although lately I started seeing some ads from plano's foreign mayor about how she's a great choice to vote for in a district I don't live in because of how racist against immigrants she is. I get the idea behind doing the primaries one state at a time, doing a national vote all at once is hard and it's not like internal party leadership has any guaranteed democratic protections anyways, but there's no reason for the same idiot pigfuckers to go first every time and have consistently disproportionate influence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 19:14
|
|
|
i thought the states are the ones who decide when their primaries are. like iowa has a law that their election will be first no matter what
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
TropicalCoke posted:i thought the states are the ones who decide when their primaries are. like iowa has a law that their election will be first no matter what it's an undecided flex on either side. in a past primary i think '16, the DNC penalized michigan and florida for moving up their dates. I think by the time of the convention they had been restored or the penalty lessened
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 21:29
|
|
|
but really, randomly draw ten states apiece into five groups; have those vote once a week for five weeks until there's a nominee. bing bong simple
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 21:30
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:but really, randomly draw ten states apiece into five groups; have those vote once a week for five weeks until there's a nominee. bing bong simple Okay, and then when New Hampshire says they are required by their local laws to have the very first primary what do you do? Like, you could strip them of all delegates so that it “doesn’t matter”, but since it only actually matters for publicity anyways trying to convince candidates not to run gets into a really weird prisoner’s dilemma.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 21:41
|
|
|
In order to avoid giving flyover states disproportionate influence, they should give the power to decide the primaries to all the non-state entities that normally don't get a vote like Puerto Rico, Guam, and American Samoa. Make all the candidates jet set around the Pacific making promises about the Jones Act.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 21:51
|
|
|
LanceHunter posted:Okay, and then when New Hampshire says they are required by their local laws to have the very first primary what do you do? Like, you could strip them of all delegates so that it “doesn’t matter”, but since it only actually matters for publicity anyways trying to convince candidates not to run gets into a really weird prisoner’s dilemma. Tell them that's not their decision to make and to eat your balls.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 21:57
|
|
|
LanceHunter posted:Okay, and then when New Hampshire says they are required by their local laws to have the very first primary what do you do? Like, you could strip them of all delegates so that it “doesn’t matter”, but since it only actually matters for publicity anyways trying to convince candidates not to run gets into a really weird prisoner’s dilemma. Laws don't matter
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 22:04
|
|
|
You yank those delegates the laws get repealed
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 22:05
|
|
|
I'm p sure American samoa and Guam have R delegates?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 22:06
|
|
|
LanceHunter posted:Okay, and then when New Hampshire says they are required by their local laws to have the very first primary what do you do? Like, you could strip them of all delegates so that it “doesn’t matter”, but since it only actually matters for publicity anyways trying to convince candidates not to run gets into a really weird prisoner’s dilemma. It's a federal election and it's controlled by the party. State legislators can get hosed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 00:54
|
|
|
TropicalCoke posted:I'm p sure American samoa and Guam have R delegates? the final democratic primary is the US virgin islands on june 6 i think, and yes the territories award delegates
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 03:23
|
|
|
I was thinking about the actual election where votes from non-states don't count. DC actually gets some electors, but there was at least one time where their electors abstained in protest of DC having a vote.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 03:52
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JeremySWallace/status/1225059087030898688 I knew traffic was bad on 35 but folks
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 15:30
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/JeremySWallace/status/1225059087030898688 In a few decades I-35 will just be one ultraplex stretching from San Antonio to Oklahoma City.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 16:00
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/JeremySWallace/status/1225059087030898688 What else are you going to do there?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 16:01
|
|
|
saintonan posted:It's a federal election and it's controlled by the party. State legislators can get hosed. Sadly, it’s a series of state elections controlled by the state party, for the delegates that will eventually vote in actual convention/federal election controlled by the national party. The absolute worst the national parties can do is take away those electors/bar that state from the convention. And the very fact that these states are so small makes that a weak punishment. Oh, New Hampshire or Iowa won’t have any delegates? They barely have any delegates anyways. Nothing short of the federal party completely taking over the state party and replacing every single party official (who are all elected at the local level) would work. (There was a really interesting series of Reply All episodes about trying to fix the state Democratic Party in Alabama.) Bringing this back to Texas, I highly recommend listening to those episodes, as there are some really strong parallels to the state Democratic Party in Texas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 16:58
|
|
|
Pulcinella posted:In a few decades I-35 will just be one ultraplex stretching from San Antonio to Oklahoma City. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 18:17
|
|
|
I don't know why Cornyn even bothered to have this poo poo put together but he's put out an official (long) statement on the impeachment: https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/content/news/impeachment-trial-donald-john-trump It's mostly rehashing the arguments of the WH team, and repeats the same irrelevant points that they do as well as asserting points of view that are completely incongruent with the entire point of having the legislative branch as a check on the executive. As expected of course.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 00:16
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/evanasmith/status/1225128970082975744?s=20 Trying to make Texas Iowa for some reason. Embarrassing!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 01:42
|
|
|
Really that's only a problem for the news mediar who want to be the first to establish a narrative. Like, ultimately, all the votes cast in Iowa will be rigorously checked by tons of people from all the campaigns. So, is there a legit problem to non-immediate reporting in an electoral sense? I get no one trusts the votes in Iowa right now, and they loving shouldn’t, but in say, two weeks - barring actual ratfucking like “losing” ballot boxes and poo poo - we'll know who won. The most delegates. Out of 36. In this non winner take all contest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 05:04
|
|
|
zoux posted:Really that's only a problem for the news mediar who want to be the first to establish a narrative. Like, ultimately, all the votes cast in Iowa will be rigorously checked by tons of people from all the campaigns. So, is there a legit problem to non-immediate reporting in an electoral sense? I get no one trusts the votes in Iowa right now, and they loving shouldn’t, but in say, two weeks - barring actual ratfucking like “losing” ballot boxes and poo poo - we'll know who won. The most delegates. Out of 36. In this non winner take all contest. The big problem with Iowa is they were transparently releasing the results piecemeal in a way to favor certain candidates in order to try and get a certain media narrative.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 07:44
|
|
|
Well it's the Democrats so I tend to assume just incompetence, but even if it was a coordinated plan to anoint Pete via Iowa, that's backfired spectacularly, which also indicates it could be a Democratic plot. But I don't foresee similar problems with a delay in Texas' reporting, as we're going to be one of many Super Tuesday states and I think California took a month to count their primary ballots in '16 so that'll be the delay that causes the media problems.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 15:26
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1225482727438372865 Help the President is personally trolling me
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 19:20
|
|
|
If Trump had any sense whatsoever I'd assume he was trolling Louie as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 19:39
|
|
|
zoux posted:Well it's the Democrats so I tend to assume just incompetence, but even if it was a coordinated plan to anoint Pete via Iowa, that's backfired spectacularly, which also indicates it could be a Democratic plot. But I don't foresee similar problems with a delay in Texas' reporting, as we're going to be one of many Super Tuesday states and I think California took a month to count their primary ballots in '16 so that'll be the delay that causes the media problems. Yeah, incompetence is usually a better explanation. The piecemeal poo poo was ridiculous, but that's usually how you normally get results released to the public. They just did it so late in the process when it was anticipated to be earlier, that it aroused suspicion. It should have just been done all at once at that point. I still don't buy, when you know the Sanders campaign maintains strongly that 2016 was rigged (agree or not), you'd clumsily do this poo poo to rig it for Pete. I didn't know until this election that Texas used to have a caucus until it blew up. So glad we don't now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 23:23
|
|
|
Yeah my question was more, setting the media narrative stuff aside, is there an actual practical supressive electoral effect from taking a couple of days to get the results right instead of delivering a verdict the night of. I get why this is of outsized importance in Iowa, since the only reason anyone gives a poo poo is because they're first and it creates a narrative, but I don't see that applying to Texas. I mean, whatever the results there will absolutely be some narrative, but whether we get the Texas results on the night of 3/3 or on 3/8, is there an impact on voting rights and participation issues?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 23:32
|
|
|
Mistaken Frisbee posted:I didn't know until this election that Texas used to have a caucus until it blew up. So glad we don't now. If I recall correctly the Clinton campaign straight up forgot about the caucus part of the old Texas Two-Step, so while Clinton won the primary here Sanders won the caucus by dint of having his people actually show up, so he got more Texas delegates at the convention. Dropping the caucus was pretty much inevitable after that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 01:42
|
|
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:If I recall correctly the Clinton campaign straight up forgot about the caucus part of the old Texas Two-Step, so while Clinton won the primary here Sanders won the caucus by dint of having his people actually show up, so he got more Texas delegates at the convention. Are you sure that was 2016? The story I was hearing was that it was 2008 where the caucus suddenly became a deciding factor in the primaries and Obama ended up winning most of the delegates while losing the primary due to the caucus. Apparently it was abolished in 2015 due to the DNC not wanting Texas to have both processes anymore. https://www.texastribune.org/2015/07/07/texplainer-whats-texas-two-step-and-why-it-gone/
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 03:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 00:38 |
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/PatrickSvitek/status/1225603399703506944 What party is this guy in again
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 03:19
|
|