2016: The Year the Americans Found out Our Elections Are Rigged

a reply to: 0zzymand0s
I think you're liberal, so coming from a conservative, here's an interesting question: Is there another way to affect fairness in deciding the candidates other than making your brand of sausage? Is there a different product people could produce to affect the platform? If so, what is it?

a reply to: UKTruth

Ozzy is focusing on the Democratic party, I believe. But I'm with you in that if it happens on one side of the world, there's nothing keeping it from happening on the other side, and it's happening to Bernie, too. Based on rules.

The rules define a game and the game is not played the way that people think.

The point is though that the arbiters generally like to assume the audience knows the rules, and most definitely the players. When people watch Chess and don't understand the rules, it would seem odd if someone got emotional over any move.

But even some regional players still get angry about en passant, so...

Point being, though, that the arbiters in these elections have capitalized on the rules of the game when the livelihood of the country is at stake. People should differentiate between a game and real life.

That's touching back on what you said, bigfatfurrytexan. The tech revolution only blurred the lines between fantasy and reality, I think.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: UKTruth

You can't possibly be this dense. They didn't change the rules. These are the rules, and yes -- they are messed up! If you want to change the rules, you need to wash up and get ready to make sausage, because that is how the rules get changed. Not by posting rants at ATS.

They (they being a group of 24 individuals who have nothing to do with staffing precincts by the way) did indeed change the rules on Friday 21st August 2015 - as I said, 2 months after the Trump entered the race and 10 days after Steve House had publicly attacked Trump.

Stop lying.

Denver Post

Not sure what kind of sausages they were trying to make - but they sure don't taste very nice to the disenfranchised voters.

Colorado is just one example of a much bigger problem as the OP points out.

Eight months ago sounds like premeditation and foreknowledge to me. So, let's say the GOP knew, in August, that they would need to help push a brokered convention into being.

Ok, now let's hypothesize that actually happens (and it's looking more and more likely), and let's say it is the impetus for Trump splitting from the GOP to run as an independent, in the general election, against Cruz. Democrats will certainly win and by a large margin if that happens -- they would win with a mandate.

At what point is it time to consider that Trump is actually in on this plan?

No one can ever convince me that Trump's campaign advising team is not aware of every rule in every flipping state, at all times. Of course they are. Any 'slip ups' with rules cannot be explained by Trump simply not knowing. I don't believe it.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: UKTruth

You can't possibly be this dense. They didn't change the rules. These are the rules, and yes -- they are messed up! If you want to change the rules, you need to wash up and get ready to make sausage, because that is how the rules get changed. Not by posting rants at ATS.

They (they being a group of 24 individuals who have nothing to do with staffing precincts by the way) did indeed change the rules on Friday 21st August 2015 - as I said, 2 months after the Trump entered the race and 10 days after Steve House had publicly attacked Trump.

Stop lying.

Denver Post

Not sure what kind of sausages they were trying to make - but they sure don't taste very nice to the disenfranchised voters.

Colorado is just one example of a much bigger problem as the OP points out.

Eight months ago sounds like premeditation and foreknowledge to me. So, let's say the GOP knew, in August, that they would need to help push a brokered convention into being.

Ok, now let's hypothesize that actually happens (and it's looking more and more likely), and let's say it is the impetus for Trump splitting from the GOP to run as an independent, in the general election, against Cruz. Democrats will certainly win and by a large margin if that happens -- they would win with a mandate.

At what point is it time to consider that Trump is actually in on this plan?

No one can ever convince me that Trump's campaign advising team is not aware of every rule in every flipping state, at all times. Of course they are. Any 'slip ups' with rules cannot be explained by Trump simply not knowing. I don't believe it.

It's certainly a possibility he did know, but I suspect there were a few other factors at play in the 34-0 result. The dirty tricks by the Cruz team have already been alluded to and discussed on another thread. I am starting to worry that he keeps deflecting on Hillary attacks though - just seems to avoid doing it and deflected Hannity when asked too.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Where you're wrong is that you don't understand that Trump will fight a lost battle to spite the enemy. His campaign strategy is "Let Trump Be Trump".

He's not worried about rules and doesnt want to get any one else in. A cursory examination of his entire last 35 years of interviews alone proves that.

He does actually want to make America great again.

It remains to be seen what actually happens.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

There are probably dozens of better ways to decide candidates, outside of the ridiculous sausage factory we find ourselves in today. It honestly depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Do you want to make your party more effective, fair and representative of the people it purports to work for? You have to get involved at the local level, talk to your party delegates and leaders, and get good at drafting platform changes that stand a chance of passing vote at the county and state level.

If you are talking about a viable third (or even fourth) party option (which I am all for by the way!) you need to coordinate with others to create a platform that can get the signatures required to either 1) put your candidates on the ballot, locally, or 2) get the state board of elections to hear your proposal as to why they should change their rules, with regard to the number of votes a party needs to be considered viable (normally from the previous election year or cycle), and worthy of inclusion on the ballot

Either way -- you are going to want to look very closely at the rules as they are right now, and see if they can be turned to your advantage. If, as in the case of Trump or even Bernie for that matter, you are relying on outsider or new voters to a greater extent than your opponents, you will want to make sure you have an organization in place that can get vital information about changing party / time registration deadlines to the people of each state, county or precinct, in time to maximize their vote come primary / caucus.

I think Trump got a raw deal here. But the GOP decided their primary strategy back at the beginning of the campaign, when there were 17 candidates on the stage, and no one could agree to the binding of delegates chosen by straw poll in early state voting. This is particularly true in Colorado, where it was announced how delegates would be chosen (no straw poll) late last year.

It's a garbage system, in many respects, but its the system we build. I encourage you to help build it in whatever capacity you feel comfortable, regardless of party, label, or affiliation.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: UKTruth

Ozzy is focusing on the Democratic party, I believe. But I'm with you in that if it happens on one side of the world, there's nothing keeping it from happening on the other side, and it's happening to Bernie, too. Based on rules.

The rules define a game and the game is not played the way that people think.

The point is though that the arbiters generally like to assume the audience knows the rules, and most definitely the players. When people watch Chess and don't understand the rules, it would seem odd if someone got emotional over any move.

But even some regional players still get angry about en passant, so...

Point being, though, that the arbiters in these elections have capitalized on the rules of the game when the livelihood of the country is at stake. People should differentiate between a game and real life.

That's touching back on what you said, bigfatfurrytexan. The tech revolution only blurred the lines between fantasy and reality, I think.

Well, with the DEMS its even less about what happens on the ground. So many super delegates, the voting is pretty pointless.
I find it hard to believe that they would remove those super delegates based on a bottom up decision making process.

originally posted by: reddragon2015
a reply to: 727Sky

Incorrect: Only a small % of Americans know the election is a sham. The masses will believe what Fox news and the Kardashians tell them.

What???

a reply to: UKTruth

Now THAT I agree with, entirely.

I hate the superdelegate factor, to be honest. But I actually know why it was created, and implemented. There is a real fear that an outsider will come in (Bernie, Trump) and run as a Dem, but not share "core Dem values" (whatever those are). But that isn't the biggest factor either. If you read between the lines, the fear is that establishment party candidates will have to raise money for insurgent non-party independents, and THAT is the real reason we (the Dems) have so many superdelegates. In my opinion, naturally.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Where you're wrong is that you don't understand that Trump will fight a lost battle to spite the enemy. His campaign strategy is "Let Trump Be Trump".

He's not worried about rules and doesnt want to get any one else in. A cursory examination of his entire last 35 years of interviews alone proves that.

He does actually want to make America great again.

It remains to be seen what actually happens.

What?

WHAT?

Even if he doesn't care about rules, his handlers do and they get paid to advise him. Aside from that he has been complaining about the rules all week. Evidently, he claims he cares about the rules.

And I understand very well that Trump would DARE to run as an independent (even if he is only a write-in candidate on some state's ballots) and everyone will easily explain it the way you just did -- he would fight a losing battle to spite the GOP.

I just consider his record as a socialist and democrat and happen to believe he would do it solely to help democrats win.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: UKTruth

Now THAT I agree with, entirely.

I hate the superdelegate factor, to be honest. But I actually know why it was created, and implemented. There is a real fear that an outsider will come in (Bernie, Trump) and run as a Dem, but not share "core Dem values" (whatever those are). But that isn't the biggest factor either. If you read between the lines, the fear is that establishment party candidates will have to raise money for insurgent non-party independents, and THAT is the real reason we (the Dems) have so many superdelegates. In my opinion, naturally.

Yep - that pretty much mirrors what the party chair said on the subject. I think, just maybe, the visibility this time round might force a change for the next cycle.

MotherMayEye

What?

WHAT?

Even if he doesn't care about rules, his handlers do and they get paid to advise him. Aside from that he has been complaining about the rules all week. Evidently, he claims he cares about the rules.

And I understand very well that Trump would DARE to run as an independent (even if he is only a write-in candidate on some state's ballots) and everyone will easily explain it the way you just did -- he would fight a losing battle to spite the GOP.

I just consider his record as a socialist and democrat and happen to believe he would do it solely to help democrats win. THIS is what I think YOU don't understand.

Its a very interesting angle and one that probably has not been explored enough - despite a few conversations on it. Trump's relationship with the Clintons has been positioned as political... i..e 'I invited a lot of people to my wedding, not just Hillary' type statements to put some distance there.

Over here in the UK, Trump developed a golf course in Scotland a few years back and there was a one hr documentary on TV about it.

In that documentary they visited one of Trump's golf courses outside New York, and got a tour from Trumps eldest son of the locker room. Bill Clinton was a member. The interviewer was told by Trump's son that Bill was a 'very good friend'. Not seen that appear anywhere in the US.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

First of all, what you fail to realise is that you have been very fortunate, because many people in the same situation have done as you have done and failed, or have wound up broke despite having owned and run businesses. Have you ever looked and found out how many businesses fail in the first few months and years?

Good GRIEF!

Get a grip on the reality that happens outside your window of experience! I am running my own business at the moment, but that does not give me the right to assume the very worst about anyone, not least because I am running a business for next to no money, just to keep the damned doors open. You can work like a dog, have all the right ideas, and make nothing, just absolutely nothing, whether you work for yourself or someone else, and all it comes down to is luck after a point.

You think there are no former business owners in the doldrums!? Do you think that it takes only a certain kind of person to live the hard way, to get caught in a hole from which no escape can be cobbled together with the scant resources available?

a reply to: TarzanBeta

You assume too much sometimes, right? I think Brits reply to your earlier post is living proof of that.

Do you want to know a secret?

I categorize people by how many labels they use when talking to others. High-labeling types generally overestimate their own effort, and knowledge, while underestimating their perceived "competition." It's a blind spot I lived with for decades before I figured it out, and I'm glad I did, because it wasn't particularly useful most of the time.

As to your "liberal" / "conservative" labeling fixation. I volunteered to be a delegate for the Dems because I am a journalism student, and I wanted to see how the sausage is made. I didn't volunteer for the GOP because I don't live in Colorado Springs, and the sausage factory is generally most lively there, as opposed to Denver.

I was chosen because almost no one else bothered to raise their hand. That was the door-charge. Crazy, right?

Why am I student now, at 46, when I should be doing something more productive? Lots of reasons, least of which is I have played the corporate game, was outsourced / downsized 3 times since 2002, and because I wanted flexibility so I can be a great single dad to my son, who was going through a very rebellious phase.

Joining the "liberals" was a means to an end. I get to network, meet the local candidates, ask them questions, offer suggestions, and learn how the sausage is made.

It truly is depressing isn't it? We have to be better than this, right?

Here's to hoping things turn themselves around

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: TarzanBeta

You assume too much sometimes, right? I think Brits reply to your earlier post is living proof of that.

Do you want to know a secret?

I categorize people by how many labels they use when talking to others. High-labeling types generally overestimate their own effort, and knowledge, while underestimating their perceived "competition." It's a blind spot I lived with for decades before I figured it out, and I'm glad I did, because it wasn't particularly useful most of the time.

As to your "liberal" / "conservative" labeling fixation. I volunteered to be a delegate for the Dems because I am a journalism student, and I wanted to see how the sausage is made. I didn't volunteer for the GOP because I don't live in Colorado Springs, and the sausage factory is generally most lively there, as opposed to Denver.

I was chosen because almost no one else bothered to raise their hand. That was the door-charge. Crazy, right?

Why am I student now, at 46, when I should be doing something more productive? Lots of reasons, least of which is I have played the corporate game, was outsourced / downsized 3 times since 2002, and because I wanted flexibility so I can be a great single dad to my son, who was going through a very rebellious phase.

Joining the "liberals" was a means to an end. I get to network, meet the local candidates, ask them questions, offer suggestions, and learn how the sausage is made.

I think you're just slinging the sausage -- not making it.

I want to know how many high-level DNC strategic planning meetings you attend.

a reply to: seaswine

In my experience, hope and prayer are both like beer. They only make you think there's a chance something will change.

Work is the best prayer there is. Something to ponder.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Oh, gotcha! I mean, does any of this stuff actually fly wherever you are from?

I studied EST. I know about foundational needs. I studied NLP, and I know that words are triggers for most humans, like in a puppet show for bio-bags.

I think the question you are trying to ask is: when did I sign on? What "level" have a reached?

I signed on during the Dem caucus, here in Denver this year. I have spoken to each of the three major candidates for Denver DA, and have them on my phone. I volunteered to be a delegate and attended the county convention last month. I was not chosen to be a delegate at state. Sausage is an ugly business. I have spent 30 minutes -- over coffee -- with two of my state reps and one of our (Colorado's) senators.

I'm an absolute beginner, but I still know quite a bit more than you, apparently. :p