TakeYouToTasker Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 I fail to see how we agree about anything you said. Please explain. I apologize. I gave you too much credit. I won't let it happen again. The Democratic and Republican Parties are not beholden to the citizens of the United States, end of story. They are private organizations, which serve their own interests, and membership is voluntary. The entire reason that political parties exist is to consolidate power and direct policy in the way that is best for the majority of the power elite within that party; and the rules of the party for nominating their candidate are constructed towards those ends. You'll notice the highlighted word "nominating". That's a very different word than "electing". "Electing" implies a somewhat democratic process, and "nominating" does not. The simple truth is that private organizations can tap their leaders any way they want to. Neither major party even needs to have a primary or caucus. Both could amend their rules, and simply advance whomever the party leaders felt was their best candidate after some internal deliberations. Don't like it? Too bad. You don't have a say, nor do you deserve a say in the internal workings of a private organization beyond what they themselves decide to offer you, or not, in the way of a vote. You always have the option of disaffiliating.
B-Man Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 In the Wall Street Journal op-ed entitled Trump’s Plan to Win Conservative Support, http://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-plan-to-win-conservative-support-1460501876 Fred Barnes says Trump will soon deliver “a series of formal speeches on policy issues, set pieces drafted by speechwriters and delivered from prepared texts.” If this is all it takes to get a conservative on board with Trump, they’re the cheapest of cheap dates. Trump speaks off the cuff and offers liberal progressive views, time and again. He supported the stimulus, TARP, and the auto bailout. When he criticized Scott Walker, Trump said, “instead of raising taxes, he cut back on schools, he cut back on highways, he cut back on a lot of things.” He’s defending Planned Parenthood at length, supported affirmative action, and said the impeachment of George W. Bush would have been “a wonderful thing.” He said his sister, a judge who believes the Constitution guarantees the right to a partial-birth abortion, would make a phenomenal Supreme Court judge. Until recently, Trump supported higher taxes on the wealthy, the Assault Weapons ban and longer waiting times for gun purchases. And now conservatives are supposed to put aside their doubts because Trump manages to stick to the script for one speech? What do you think more accurately reflects Trump’s true perspective, his off-the-cuff comments or delivering a speech written by someone else?Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner
Tiberius Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 I apologize. I gave you too much credit. I won't let it happen again. The Democratic and Republican Parties are not beholden to the citizens of the United States, end of story. They are private organizations, which serve their own interests, and membership is voluntary. The entire reason that political parties exist is to consolidate power and direct policy in the way that is best for the majority of the power elite within that party; and the rules of the party for nominating their candidate are constructed towards those ends. You'll notice the highlighted word "nominating". That's a very different word than "electing". "Electing" implies a somewhat democratic process, and "nominating" does not. The simple truth is that private organizations can tap their leaders any way they want to. Neither major party even needs to have a primary or caucus. Both could amend their rules, and simply advance whomever the party leaders felt was their best candidate after some internal deliberations. Don't like it? Too bad. You don't have a say, nor do you deserve a say in the internal workings of a private organization beyond what they themselves decide to offer you, or not, in the way of a vote. You always have the option of disaffiliating. Oh please, that's like saying a candy store is only there to make money and if the candy sucks, too bad. But that's not how it works, if the candy sucks, the business doesn't make money. So if the political parties don't represent the people honorably, people won't support them. So the parties are beholden to the people, if indirectly, in that they are suppose to represent their interests.
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 Oh please, that's like saying a candy store is only there to make money and if the candy sucks, too bad. But that's not how it works, if the candy sucks, the business doesn't make money. So if the political parties don't represent the people honorably, people won't support them. So the parties are beholden to the people, if indirectly, in that they are suppose to represent their interests. 228 years of electoral history says you're an idiot.
Tiberius Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 228 years of electoral history says you're an idiot. You don't make any sense. You need to get a grip. What's with the insults? You are such a bad poster here
Chef Jim Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 Oh please, that's like saying a candy store is only there to make money and if the candy sucks, too bad. But that's not how it works, if the candy sucks, the business doesn't make money. So if the political parties don't represent the people honorably, people won't support them. So the parties are beholden to the people, if indirectly, in that they are suppose to represent their interests. In another tread on OTW we're talking about airlines and how they all suck but they still make money. Our political parties operate very much like the airlines. There is a very limited number to choose from to you have to take what little is available and they laugh at us. You don't make any sense. You need to get a grip. What's with the insults? You are such a bad poster here So you don't like people that throw out insults?
Tiberius Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 In another tread on OTW we're talking about airlines and how they all suck but they still make money. Our political parties operate very much like the airlines. There is a very limited number to choose from to you have to take what little is available and they laugh at us. Try flying Allegheny Airlines then So you don't like people that throw out insults? It's ok, just don't like the "libertarian" hypocrites that want others banned for it
Chef Jim Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 Try flying Allegheny Airlines then Great solution. It's ok, just don't like the "libertarian" hypocrites that want others banned for it He's not suggesting banning you due to your insults.
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 He's not suggesting banning you due to your insults. Exactly. I could care less about the occasional insult, and am more than OK with people expressing poorly reasoned, bad, or dissenting opinions. What I do care about are posters whose sole mission is to drag down the quality of the board with douche-baggery.
GG Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 Exactly. I could care less about the occasional insult, and am more than OK with people expressing poorly reasoned, bad, or dissenting opinions. What I do care about are posters whose sole mission is to drag down the quality of the board with douche-baggery. +1
Tiberius Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 Exactly. I could care less about the occasional insult, and am more than OK with people expressing poorly reasoned, bad, or dissenting opinions. What I do care about are posters whose sole mission is to drag down the quality of the board with douche-baggery. That makes sense! Not. You just made yourself a hypocrite again. You don't like my arguments so you want me banned, pure and simple. That totally violates your own creed of libertarianism +1 I call you out on your total partisan BS and you don't like it +2 Whatever
Chef Jim Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 That makes sense! Not. You just made yourself a hypocrite again. You don't like my arguments so you want me banned, pure and simple. That totally violates your own creed of libertarianism I call you out on your total partisan BS and you don't like it Whatever How is TYTT being a hypocrite?
Tiberius Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 Great solution. You missed the point. AA went out of business How is TYTT being a hypocrite? Several ways. He was being a d-bag (not making a serious argument and throwing around insults) and saying I need to be banned because I was one. Should he self ban himself? And a libertarian shouldn't be running around screaming that someone should be silenced and still call himself a libertarian
FireChan Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 +5. You missed the point. AA went out of business Several ways. He was being a d-bag (not making a serious argument and throwing around insults) and saying I need to be banned because I was one. Should he self ban himself? And a libertarian shouldn't be running around screaming that someone should be silenced and still call himself a libertarian You realize this an admission you don't make serious arguments? I'm sure that's your plan and I just fell for it, !@#$.
IDBillzFan Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 +10 My add jumps four spots because based on the number of posts I've got, it makes me a superdelegate.
Tiberius Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 +10 My add jumps four spots because based on the number of posts I've got, it makes me a superdelegate. If they ban me you should be banned first. Oh wait, you are a Conservative, never mind....
Recommended Posts