|
Fullhouse posted:except there's multiple pictures of the ballot in the article you cited and all it says is "I promise I didn't vote in the other party's primary or caucus", and also it was a fake election that didn't matter, so I think you've lost your point again "I declare that I consider myself a Democrat/Republican and will not participate in the nomination of any other political party for the 2016 presidential election." u reed gud
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 16:44 |
|
|
Reason posted:"I declare that I consider myself a Democrat/Republican and will not participate in the nomination of any other political party for the 2016 presidential election." yeah that doesn't mean what you're claiming it does, how loving dumb are you
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
that means "i actually consider myself a democrat, and will not be voting in the republican primary" or vice versa it does not contain any pledge or implication of a pledge that you will support all nominees of your chosen party you unbelievable idiot
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:yeah that doesn't mean what you're claiming it does, how loving dumb are you It means exactly what it says it means. It means that if you check the Democrat box, you shouldn't vote for anyone besides a Democrat in the 2016 presidential election. Its written pretty plainly and clearly right there on the ballot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Reason posted:It means exactly what it says it means. It means that if you check the Democrat box, you shouldn't vote for anyone besides a Democrat in the 2016 presidential election. Its written pretty plainly and clearly right there on the ballot. how are you this dumb
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
the phrase "will not participate in the nomination of any other political party for the 2016 presidential election" means "i will not vote in the other party's primary or other aspect of determining who that party nominates" you get a say in the nomination of one party, not both that is what that plain and unambiguous phrase means
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Reason posted:It means exactly what it says it means. It means that if you check the Democrat box, you shouldn't vote for anyone besides a Democrat in the 2016 presidential election. Its written pretty plainly and clearly right there on the ballot. lol, beautiful I'm glad that even after the convention, this forum can still provide entertainment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
you can vote in the other party's primary in the 2020 presidential election (which includes the primary AND the general!) but not the 2016 presidential election (which also includes the primary AND the general!) I mean I was baffled earlier at you comparing a check box to a literacy test but if it's this hard for you to read I understand now
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Reason posted:"I declare that I consider myself a Democrat/Republican and will not participate in the nomination of any other political party for the 2016 presidential election."
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
I registered as a Democrat and voted Trump, and the police are after me! It's crazy since this isn't a crime! And we use a secret ballot so how did they know... And it isn't even what the signed document said...
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Eh. I'm pretty sure it means exactly what it says and you guys are wrong. It specifically says for the entire 2016 presidential election.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Reason posted:Eh. I'm pretty sure it means exactly what it says and you guys are wrong. It specifically says for the entire 2016 presidential election. It says the nomination process for the 2016 election, i.e. the primaries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Guys, Reason is clearly trolling at this point, by going the "I am so stupid I cannot read words" path.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Reason posted:Eh. I'm pretty sure it means exactly what it says and you guys are wrong. It specifically says for the entire 2016 presidential election. What was that Free Republic quote again... "I ignore your reality and substitute my own."
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Reason posted:Eh. I'm pretty sure it means exactly what it says and you guys are wrong. It specifically says for the entire 2016 presidential election.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
sarmhan posted:Guys, Reason is clearly trolling at this point, by going the "I am so stupid I cannot read words" path. Oh yeah, Reason read the words again, realized the gently caress up then decided to roll with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
I stick by my interpretation. But lets use your guys' (wrong) interpretation. Its still exclusionary and against the idea and notion of including more people into the political process, it proves my point that both democrats and republicans have no real interest in making the voting process more accessible. The notion that any significant number of people are going to vote 'tactically' in the primary enough to influence the outcome is almost as preposterous as the notion that there is enough voter fraud to pass voter ID laws. Even Washington's vote by mail ballot is an example. Its probably one of the most progressive voting laws in the country, it opens up voting for so many people that wouldn't have time to go to a polling booth. But because there are no more polling booths except in Pierce County you run into an issue where the transient and homeless population has a huge amount of trouble voting. The entire voting process was essentially designed to exclude groups of people from participating since its conception in the US. Honestly the more I think about the more I think you guys are right on that. I still think its pretty lovely to put on a ballot. Its not inconceivable for a potential third party to nominate a candidate after you've voted on this ballot, especially since the WA ballot doesn't include all potential nominees for all parties. Doorknob Slobber has issued a correction as of 22:27 on Aug 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
stop posting
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Fullhouse posted:stop posting how about you stop posting
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Mrit posted:What was that Free Republic quote again... "Your facts are interpreted as by my brain."
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Fullhouse posted:stop posting 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Just shoot at his dumb face.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
i'm not sure how this bow works. is the H part of the bow? how does that thing even launch arrows when the string is blocked by a giant H?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Just shoot at his dumb face. she does appear to be shooting at trump
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
Condiv posted:she does appear to be shooting at trump Shoot Baldy McSmuggerson there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:yeah the ypg is having a real hard time. they're always asking the west to send over softboys with zero combat training and no understanding of conditions on the ground Actually, they do. The lions of Rojava specifically request westerners, even those without combat skills to come and help them in a variety of ways. They even offer to sell houses to westerners with families who just want to move to Kurdistan and buy a house there. This is all easily accessible information.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
Reason posted:Eh. I'm pretty sure it means exactly what it says and you guys are wrong. It specifically says for the entire 2016 presidential election. it does say exactly what it says, you've just misinterpreted it
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/nine-percent-of-america-selected-trump-and-clinton.html?_r=1 In light of low voter turnout and the primaries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 09:29
|
|
|
Hillary is so skilled that she's doing a bows-only challenge run, while Republicans are doing baby's-first melee build. A good cartoon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 11:49
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/nine-percent-of-america-selected-trump-and-clinton.html?_r=1 191 million people that know better than to waste their time voting
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
Reason posted:Eh. I'm pretty sure it means exactly what it says and you guys are wrong. It specifically says for the entire 2016 presidential election. Hypothetically, what would it take for you to admit that your interpretation was wrong?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Yeah, that's the best advice. Vote Hillary, realize political engagement is more than just voting. If you're not satisfied with Hillary - great! That's a start! Channel that energy into building a movement, become a part of something better. Also, don't listen to the shrill accusations that you're destroying party unity and playing right into the Republicans' hands when you start overtaking the party elite's chosen candidate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/nine-percent-of-america-selected-trump-and-clinton.html?_r=1 Again, post the numbers for participation in the Libertarian, Green and socialist freedom party primaries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
Mr. Jive posted:Also, don't listen to the shrill accusations that you're destroying party unity and playing right into the Republicans' hands when you start overtaking the party elite's chosen candidate. When did having less votes start to mean overtaking?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
Vote for the true champion https://twitter.com/WWE/status/760879182691835904
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Keep Autism Wired posted:DR. JILL STEIN:[...] the likes of Libya, for example. There could hardly be an example of a more catastrophic war, which has been more problematic for increasing the terrorist threats. [...] I can think of a couple
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Keep Autism Wired posted:Wasn't it the Bush Presidency that allowed for the Democratic takeover of congress and the election of the first black president in US history? The Bush Presidency allowed for the destruction of Iraq and the dramatic destabilization of the Middle East, and thus the explosion of Islamic terrorism (and fearmongering thereof) which has given the capitalist class the ideological means to channel the inevitable backlash against its predatory neoliberal regime into an overt ethno-nationalism over which it has lost control. The dialectical movement of history is a crock of poo poo; the more truly Marxist philosophy is to reject Marx's superstitious teleological historicism and realize that the struggle for universal justice carries no metaphysical guarantees. A Gore regime would have left us with a world where the pushback after the 2007 financial crisis could have had a decidedly more leftist and less fascist character--not to mention one where millions upon millions of men, women, and children would not be dead or maimed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Axeface posted:The dialectical movement of history is a crock of poo poo; the more truly Marxist philosophy is to reject Marx's superstitious teleological historicism and realize that the struggle for universal justice carries no metaphysical guarantees. A Gore regime would have left us with a world where the pushback after the 2007 financial crisis could have had a decidedly more leftist and less fascist character--not to mention one where millions upon millions of men, women, and children would not be dead or maimed. Historical inevitability has no necessary relationship to historical materialism or to dialectics; all of which may be crocks of poo poo but are still less lovely than using speculative alternate histories to support an argument grounded on naive political determinism and the existence of a clear distinction between fascism and leftism. American foreign policy hasn't changed in 200+ years and there's no reason to believe some demsoc Clinton clone sitting in the oval office over a Bush would have been meaningfully different.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 16:44 |
|
|
splifyphus posted:Historical inevitability has no necessary relationship to historical materialism or to dialectics; all of which may be crocks of poo poo but are still less lovely than using speculative alternate histories to support an argument grounded on naive political determinism and the existence of a clear distinction between fascism and leftism. American foreign policy hasn't changed in 200+ years and there's no reason to believe some demsoc Clinton clone sitting in the oval office over a Bush would have been meaningfully different. Given the remarkable efforts the Bush administration made to fabricate and pursue a case for the invasion of Iraq, the more extraordinary claim is that Gore--who, by the way, I have never before heard described as a democratic socialist--would have followed the same course. Or are you saying that the Iraq War (probably at least half a million dead, totally discounting the fallout for the region and the world as a whole) isn't historically "meaningful"? I think the claim that not destroying Iraq would've been better than destroying Iraq is a pretty modest one, all things considered, and speculating that things could have gone More Better if they had not gone More Worser instead feels equally safe to me. None of this, by the way, is to circle back to Autism's argument that the political blowback against the Bush administration which gave us a Democratic congress and the "first black president in US history" was somehow a greater historical good than none of this happening in the first place. Particularly given the Obama administration's own record in largely preserving the disastrous status quo established by Bush's adventurism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 06:52
|
|