|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The 2016 United States Presidential Election | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
ThinAirdesigns writes: I'm not too sure what you mean. Is your argument that Republicans couldn't vote in the Republican Primaries because Democrats stopped them from voting and then Democrats voted in the Republican Primaries instead of Republicans? Damn Democrats also rigged it in a great many states so that not only the Independents couldn't vote in their primaries, but also the Republicans. Don't forget that little bit of last minute surprise, behind the scenes, not covered by the media shenanigans. Yet, Mr Trump won the Republican Primaries even after he accused those primaries as being rigged. You and Mr Trump really don't make any sense. Please explain. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
I think you botched on your "detect sarcasm" roll, Pressie.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The US has what must seem very strange election laws. This is yet another of those examples.
In the US how someone can vote varies by location; some states have what is called open primaries where you can vote for anyone in any combination. A Republican can vote for a Democrat in one race, an Independent in another race and Republicans in yet other races. In many cases this meant if one party was not running opposed then that parties members could decide which of the other parties candidates won the primary. But in other states you can only vote in the primary of your registered party, Republicans cannot vote in the Democratic Primary and independents can't vote in any primary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
jar writes: The US has what must seem very strange election laws. This is yet another of those examples. Party nominations are not US elections. If a political party wanted to, it could choose one person to be the sole elector of their party's nomination. There are no laws that say a party's nominee must be chosen by a vote of the people. A party can do whatever it wants when it comes to choosing their nominee.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
But in other states you can only vote in the primary of your registered party, Republicans cannot vote in the Democratic Primary and independents can't vote in any primary.
Illinois doesn't quite fit your descriptions. It is usually described as an open primary state. So you can show up to vote for the primary, and request either the Republican ballot or the Democratic ballot. But you cannot mix and match. Either you only vote for Republicans (if you use the Republican ballot) or you only vote for Democrats (if you use that ballot). Oh, whichever ballot you use, you are then considered to be a member of that party until the next primary.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1045 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
The US has what must seem very strange election laws. This is yet another of those examples. The whole idea of primaries has always seemed odd to me. Over here parties pick their leaders and their candidates for different posts (including President) by a variety of internal processes. The idea of a big public vote where some people who aren't even members of the party can get involved seems an odd approach. They have very recently started doing it in France. The Socialists introduced a primary for the the last Presidential elections, and this year the Republicans will have one as well. The US system still seems odd though. The Republican primary in France will be held on 20th November. If no one gets 50% of the vote they will have a runoff the week after. Only in the US do you think it necessary for this process to take a year.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
The US system still seems odd though. The Republican primary in France will be held on 20th November. If no one gets 50% of the vote they will have a runoff the week after. Only in the US do you think it necessary for this process to take a year. I suppose the primary process could be completed in a just a day or two even with the country divided up into 50 states. In the US, the presidential primaries are 'primarily' dog and pony shows to allow the public to meet the candidates and to drum up nationwide interest in their nominee. A year is perhaps way too long for that, but a month would be way too short, in my opinion. That said, the election process in the US does seem to be taking longer and longer each cycle. It seems like this time around the process has taken 2 years, which is just plain ridiculous. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
NoNukes writes: That said, the election process in the US does seem to be taking longer and longer each cycle. It takes the same amount of time every other year--just one day, the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
With that one exception, the Federal Governments powers to adversely effect the average citizen is fortunately limited. True. However the power of individual states to inflict harm on the average citizen has historically been shown to be immense. The federal judiciary has been a powerful check on such power and I will get my lazy butt up early tomorrow to cast a vote for president based on a single question; what do I want the federal judiciary to look like over the next decade or so. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
NoNukes writes: However the power of individual states to inflict harm on the average citizen has historically been shown to be immense. Absodamnlutely. The power to inflict harm on people is far greater at the state and local level than any harm the Federal Government can impose beyond that exception I mentioned. State and local governments can directly kill individuals but not en masse. And a Federal Government can and does help people en masse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
And that is why you should be suspicious of any call for "States Rights"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Absodamnlutely two.
But this does show echos of an earlier election. Il Donald last night would not say that he would except the outcome of the election. Back in 1860 the first Republican President was elected and at that time his election was also not accepted. Yet history shows that President served his full term and was even reelected four years later. Edited by jar, : hit wrong key
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I live in a RED state. So I feel very disenfranchised every election. I've lived in Mississippi, where the democrats were to the right of Massachusetts republicans ... and still lost. And I've lived in Indiana and Michigan (west coast evangelical michigan). Now I am in RI and am constantly amazed at the level of democrat control ... but we have a lot of DINOs and republicans that ran as democrats to get elected (after all the state chose to adopt the ALEC voter ID law), but the political battles are now fought in the primaries, not the general.
But I do still vote. I am hoping if Hillary does win she turns out to be a great president, maybe she will surprise us. Maybe it will be her calling. I will say I do not envy her if she does as Congress is already sharpening their knives. I would say "be careful what you wish for" ... my fear is that she will embrace militarization of police and the NSA and Homeland Security to advance the corporate police state. Certainly if she cannot help win a simple majority in the Senate (4 seats needed) then the DNC will have picked a loser, and we can expect another 4 years of do nothing politics embroiled in one investigation after another. If her coattails do help win a simple majority in the Senate then she better get cracking on appointment approvals, because she will likely lose it in 2018. Again, the DNC would have made a bad decision and will likely fail again to back issues that would bring voters to the polls, just like they did in 2014. Snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. IF by some miracle (Donald Trump sinks the GOP across the ballot) dems take the house and get a supermajority in the senate, then she better work on reinstating the Voter Rights Act as priority #1. The problem is that she is SO HATED by republicans that they will vote against her, downticket, even if they don't vote for Trump. They will come out of the woodwork to do this.
Ok, Ok, but tell us how you really feel. Those who are comfortable with this election are free to feel so, I have no more energy (in whatever form) to spend on it, but I think it is a new low for the US regardless. Hillary is a 'Nixon Republican' (she has said she considers herself an 'Eisenhower Republican' but got the wrong administration ), she is not a democrat and I don't vote for republicans. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
jar writes: Back in 1860 the first Republican President was elected and at that time his election was also not accepted. Yet history shows that President served his full term and was even reelected four years later. Not sure if that is sarcasm or not, but history also shows that 11 states seceded from the union following that same election.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1525 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hi RAZD,
You paint a very dim picture of the future if Hillary wins. In you opinion we will either have our civil liberties trounced on or have a do nothing administration gridlocked once again by congress. I will admit I do not know where her true political allegiance stands, but I feel she is someone who genuinely loves America and who has a grasp of the challenges we are facing. Anyone will be better than Trump imo."You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024