Jump to content
Tygo

United States Presidential Election

Candidates  

142 members have voted

  1. 1. Who do you think SHOULD win?

  2. 2. Who do you think WILL win?

    • Bernie Sanders
    • Hillary Clinton
    • Donald Trump
    • Ted Cruz
    • Marco Rubio
    • Ben Carson
      0
    • John Kasich
      0


Recommended Posts

+Paraliel+    8010

Everyone should have the same chance to go through the process of college and get a degree which most jobs require. If this happening devalued the degree, then the only barrier to entry was money, which isn't a barrier that should ever be there for people to get a job. It also essentially means your degree never meant anything to begin with.

 

We know these aren't true, and that getting a degree is a slog and a grind that proves you know how to slog and grind through things and have some basic understanding of many different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Facebook    70

Inequal oppurtunity is intrinsic to capitalism. The proliferation of college will not put everyone on a level playing field because different colleges offer different oppurtunities. Facebook and Google recruit out of Stanford, not CalState. Elite education is largely dominated by the wealthy and this does nothing to minimize that. The comparative advantage for higher-level education still heavily favors toward the rich. What's the point? Why spend all of this tax money when we can be using it more effectively?

 

I think we should open education up to state and local governments and allow them to design trade/technical/whatever schools that help people specialize in a skill tailored for the area in which they live. Sure, this does not provide “equal” opportunity but it does provide more opportunity for those that need it most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Urthor    10182

Education is open to state and local governments and they can construct a system that copies Germany's meister schools whenever they want, and follow Korea's similar program of "fuck our college system is bonkers lets invest in technical training for those who don't want a 4 year liberal arts degree" which they're implemented.  

 

Albeit the Koreans weren't super successful because prying Asian families who remember starvation during the Korean war in their lifetime away from tertiary education is up there with nuclear disarmament and getting Republicans to cut military spending, but the Germans certainly were.

 

Realistically tertiary education reform in the United States should probably be a third tier issue behind tax reform/military spending/health care spending/tax reform probably deserves to be mentioned twice though.  The suggested investment in technical colleges doesn't work for two reasons, #1 there is in no way shape or form a shortage of skilled blue collar/medium trained labour in the united states, the labour that technical colleges are meant to churn out.  Issue with the US jobs market is that it's a competitive bitch because there's way too much legal immigration which suits the corporations, because population growth is an increase in gross consumption.  #2 community colleges already do that and it's pretty fucking alright, not perfect but alright.  And #3 have you seen the United States government?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Facebook    70

Everyone should have the same chance to go through the process of college and get a degree which most jobs require. If this happening devalued the degree, then the only barrier to entry was money, which isn't a barrier that should ever be there for people to get a job. It also essentially means your degree never meant anything to begin with.

 

We know these aren't true, and that getting a degree is a slog and a grind that proves you know how to slog and grind through things and have some basic understanding of many different things.

 

The only barrier to entry to college is NOT money. I would wager that time plays an equally large (if not larger) as a deterrent. The right criticizes people supporting their families with “skill-less labor” for not going to college and getting the skills required to earn more than the minimum wage. How are they expected to do that when they are working all day earning minimum wage to support their family?! We need development in online education that can TRULY make college more accessible. Given its history with websites, I do not think the Obama administration can effectively accomplish this.

 

And again, not all colleges are equal. Let's say that most local and state schooling is classified as X schooling. An increase in X degrees only serves to decrease the value of all other X degrees. Whereas elite education, trade schools, or any else that is meaningfully different (Y) does not see this decrease in value. What kinds of people are more likely to currently have an X degree? What kinds of people are more likely to currently have a Y degree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+rei+    34422

The idea is to remove financial status or shitty parents as a gatekeeper - the USA might be a third world shithole where you need to be rich to go to the best schools but most countries have stricter tuition regulations that institutions are forced to comply with. 

 

Of course regulation is some big scary word in the US because corporations are given preferrential treatment under hilariously incorrect trickle down bullshit but whatever

 

 

Only trickle down theory that was likely correct was joseph cumming in Mary's ass and it tricklin' down 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Facebook    70

The idea is to remove financial status or shitty parents as a gatekeeper - the USA might be a third world shithole where you need to be rich to go to the best schools but most countries have stricter tuition regulations that institutions are forced to comply with.

How will commoditizing public college degrees do that? It does not change the fact that the "elite" colleges (& the "best" degrees) are only available to the best students (even with affirmative action). Unfortunately, people born into elite families are most likely to be the best students and thus attend the elite universities with the best degrees. The proliferation of college does not change this either. It does, however, change the comparative advantage (and thus the value) these “regular” college degrees offer. Although a  college subsidy might make college more accessible to more people, it also effectively hurts the regular people that would receive a non “elite” education regardless. This redistributes wealth from middle class Americans to their peer. That seems a bit counterproductive.

I think the problem with education in America is a fundamental one. It’s easy to point to the successes of other regions but none of them (barring the UK perhaps?) have this level and amount of “elite” education. It's an unfair comparison because the extremes are much more pronounced here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
website is bad    2170

Inequal oppurtunity is intrinsic to capitalism. The proliferation of college will not put everyone on a level playing field because different colleges offer different oppurtunities. Facebook and Google recruit out of Stanford, not CalState. Elite education is largely dominated by the wealthy and this does nothing to minimize that. The comparative advantage for higher-level education still heavily favors toward the rich. What's the point? Why spend all of this tax money when we can be using it more effectively?

 

I think we should open education up to state and local governments and allow them to design trade/technical/whatever schools that help people specialize in a skill tailored for the area in which they live. Sure, this does not provide “equal” opportunity but it does provide more opportunity for those that need it most.

 

Then maybe the problem is capitalism!

 

I really don't think that with all the capability we have to lift each other up in this day and age that the go to excuse should be that it's easier to leave the downtrodden where they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Facebook    70

 

Inequal oppurtunity is intrinsic to capitalism. The proliferation of college will not put everyone on a level playing field because different colleges offer different oppurtunities. Facebook and Google recruit out of Stanford, not CalState. Elite education is largely dominated by the wealthy and this does nothing to minimize that. The comparative advantage for higher-level education still heavily favors toward the rich. What's the point? Why spend all of this tax money when we can be using it more effectively?

 

I think we should open education up to state and local governments and allow them to design trade/technical/whatever schools that help people specialize in a skill tailored for the area in which they live. Sure, this does not provide “equal” opportunity but it does provide more opportunity for those that need it most.

 

Then maybe the problem is capitalism!

 

I really don't think that with all the capability we have to lift each other up in this day and age that the go to excuse should be that it's easier to leave the downtrodden where they are.

 

Capitalism is not perfect. Neither is socialism nor communism for that matter. Nothing is perfect. Capitalism will always have inequal oppurtunity by virtue of having inequal outcome. I'm not sure where I said we should leave the downtrodden where they are. Conservatives and liberals both want to minimize income inequality. The difference is how each side wants to go about accomplishing this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chaos_Blaze    72

slightly off topic but can anyone confirm this real lol

 

12985431_1697867343789242_52009782747241

Yep, they're real. There are 12-pack boxes at WalMart for $20 and there are 24-count boxes somewhere as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+rei+    34422

The idea is to remove financial status or shitty parents as a gatekeeper - the USA might be a third world shithole where you need to be rich to go to the best schools but most countries have stricter tuition regulations that institutions are forced to comply with.

How will commoditizing public college degrees do that? It does not change the fact that the "elite" colleges (& the "best" degrees) are only available to the best students (even with affirmative action). Unfortunately, people born into elite families are most likely to be the best students and thus attend the elite universities with the best degrees. The proliferation of college does not change this either. It does, however, change the comparative advantage (and thus the value) these “regular” college degrees offer. Although a  college subsidy might make college more accessible to more people, it also effectively hurts the regular people that would receive a non “elite” education regardless. This redistributes wealth from middle class Americans to their peer. That seems a bit counterproductive.

If lower-income families are granted the same opportunities and quality of education as more successful ones this is less likely to remain true - especially if the rest of the system is tweaked to better support the concept of "everyone gets a shot"
You're moving the goalposts and missing the point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Facebook    70

 

 

The idea is to remove financial status or shitty parents as a gatekeeper - the USA might be a third world shithole where you need to be rich to go to the best schools but most countries have stricter tuition regulations that institutions are forced to comply with.

How will commoditizing public college degrees do that? It does not change the fact that the "elite" colleges (& the "best" degrees) are only available to the best students (even with affirmative action). Unfortunately, people born into elite families are most likely to be the best students and thus attend the elite universities with the best degrees. The proliferation of college does not change this either. It does, however, change the comparative advantage (and thus the value) these “regular” college degrees offer. Although a  college subsidy might make college more accessible to more people, it also effectively hurts the regular people that would receive a non “elite” education regardless. This redistributes wealth from middle class Americans to their peer. That seems a bit counterproductive.

 

If lower-income families are granted the same opportunities and quality of education as more successful ones this is less likely to remain true - especially if the rest of the system is tweaked to better support the concept of "everyone gets a shot"
You're moving the goalposts and missing the point

 

How can you offer these opportunities to lower-income families? How can we offer equivalent lower-level education? The top two prep schools in America are Phillips Exeter Academy and Phillips Andover Academy. They are the feed schools for Harvard and Yale respectively. Most Americans go through their lives without ever hearing these names. Yet, the 100+ students that  graduate from these institutions are granted opportunities that would have otherwise been inaccessible to them. Their college prospects increase dramatically by virtue of the name of the high school they attended. They gain access to an alumni network where names like Bush and Zuckerberg are commonplace. Many parents will always go out of their way to give their children whatever advantage possible. Is this wrong? Can we effectively prevent this from happening? Should we? This is just one example of the type of opportunities a wealthy family can offer their child that makes entrance into elite colleges easier.

The pathway to these prep schools and to a HYPSM university is one that intrinsically favors people with opportunity. Here's another example on a smaller scale: let's say your father can get you a competitive summer internship to put on your college application. Technically, that is an “unfair” advantage. But is the father wrong? If so, how do we effectively stop things like this from occuring?

Affirmative action can only do so much and has already proven to be an imperfect solution to this problem (separating students by race and not financial background is stupid IMHO). The sad fact of the matter is that elite education has and will favor people with more money and more opportunities. How do you suggest we stop this? I am genuinely curious.

If there is no solution to solving elite education’s intrinsic bias towards the wealthy, then the proliferation of public college degrees will inevitably hurt the working-class people that would receive such degrees regardless of this proliferation. Consider that for a moment.

IMO your last quip is unnecessary. Two people can have a reasonable disagreement about something without being disrespectful. I agree that I am moving the goalpost though. I disagreed with your goalpost to begin with. I do not think “equal opportunity” for everyone is attainable or even desirable. What is wrong with my trade school suggestion? Schooling that focuses on specialized skills can offer a comparative advantage to those that are unable to access elite education.

 

Edit: To be clear, I'm not saying that granting more access to higher level education is something we should not do; I am saying that it is something we should do AFTER we systematically reform the education system itself. Giving more people the oppurtunity to better themselves is always worthy in my book but I think Bernie Sanders is absolutely going about this the wrong way. I'm not sure if I mentioned this earlier but the cost of education includes **time** as well as money. Shouting campaign rhetoric about making college “free” sounds good in a stump speech. However, removing the cost for admission does not make college accessible to working men and women that simply do not have the time to raise and support their families while also attending college classes. These people deserve a chance to better themselves as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Pharaoh Atem    15757
If you want to suggest an alternative to the welfare state, I feel you need to have some sort of substantive rhetoric about what it means to actually better one's self, and if you choose to do that, I must warn you that old chestnuts about salt-of-the-earth people bettering themselves by working with their hands are not convincing, nor sincere.

If working people don't have time to raise and support families while attending class, that means that either they have to give up work, or give up bettering themselves on any reasonable timetable, given how both of those pursuits demand full-time for most lifestyles. If you insist they need to keep working, you're not really all that interested in a sincere solution on the front of them bettering themselves except when it suits the interests of capital.

The fact is that capital isn't interested in workers bettering themselves: capital doesn't serve the interests of workers.

It could be said that the very notion of freedom of any sense is a joke when the only thing you're free from is unwarranted governmental intrusion: being free from government and enslaved to capital just means you're a slave to something that never even promised to give a damn about you (whereas at least governments at least pretend to do so via lip service).


In a sense, it could be said that notions of self-betterment that agree with capitalist sensibilities are naive out of how not a single one of those notions is really at root about betterment of self, as much as further refining the individual human pieces of capitalist economies FOR THE SAKE OF more powerful persons who stand to benefit more from the flourishing of capital and its interests.


So, when ya say you feel Bernie's goin' about it the wrong way, I understand that there are some things wrong with it, like how it might be overselling college qualifications as the only path to betterment - but your earlier lines about "driving down the value of a degree" makes me think that your critique aiming at "it doesn't help poor people" is insincere. It comes across as a classical "fuck helping the poors to have shit we rich niggas have" argument, with an "I love poor people" curtain tacked on quickly.

If you actually give a fuck about poor people, you have to be willing to say that the very notion of a degree "having value just because fewer people have it" is an ancient case of ignoring what the work done to obtain the degree consists of.

That way of viewing degrees is, frankly, disadvantageous to poor people no matter how many or few possess degrees: but this doesn't make "fuck plans of making everyone smart enough and lucky enough to earn these degrees" bad plans. What it means is that this value-obsessed way of looking at things in and of itself is the source of the problem, because that way of looking at things at some point views making the citizenry wiser and more intelligent as having no value except as means to capitalist socioeconomic ends.

If we can't think about QoL except solely in capitalistic socioeconomic terms, we have no real interest in "helping" the poor except in piecemeal ways.

So, Bernie's love of college may not be the best thing for people who don't want a college-accredited career track, but we need to ask a more fundamental question about what it means in terms of sociopolitical health for us to say "yeah, fuck helping people go to college, let's be concerned with the subjective value of a degree in terms of degree rarity."

Lord knows High School is an inadequate education for most folks to end up properly informed citizens these days: the world is a complex motherfucker, and good government needs good representatives and good voters alike, and an ignorant voter/representative isn't a good one.

More education for the sake of more education can, at least, have value in a sociopolitical sense outside of capitalist sensibilities. It is at least an attempt to make people better, even if it doesn't solve the problem. I'd rather be poor, debtless, and smart than poor, debtless, and less smart - and this is why there's so much damned focus on making it debtless or nearly so.
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»victor    6398

I do think that in some fields, say Computer Science, sheer enthusiasm and ability can often outweigh your schooling (although certainly good CS programs, e.g. CMU, you learn in your first year, what others learn in their 3rd or 4th, specifically your "Computer Organization" class teaches what others would teach in Computer Architecture or Compilers), but if you know how to code from a young age (have a Github profile with open-source as a freshman), you're golden.

 

Obviously, there is a major distinction between "programming" and "research", and state-schools can't compete with the big names. But if you are a coder, and you can show you code in your spare time, then that's what Google and Facebook look for.  

 

I mean their HR has figured out that if you take care of the distractions like food (free), transportation (free), sleep-pods, even laundry, and you find out the folks who would be coding anyway, you make them that much more productive and motivated.

 

Obviously, it's a niche (and not everybody wants to be the guy doing hackathons), but it's certainly possible without elite education, you just need to go beyond your regular school coursework.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Facebook    70

If you want to suggest an alternative to the welfare state, I feel you need to have some sort of substantive rhetoric about what it means to actually better one's self, and if you choose to do that, I must warn you that old chestnuts about salt-of-the-earth people bettering themselves by working with their hands are not convincing, nor sincere. [/quote]

Please read the edit on my post. I want more college accessibility than even Bernie Sanders. I merely want education reform to accompany that.

If working people don't have time to raise and support families while attending class, that means that either they have to give up work, or give up bettering themselves on any reasonable timetable, given how both of those pursuits demand full-time for most lifestyles.[/quote]

And why is that? You support Bernie Sanders, right? Bernie Sanders wants to make education more accessible to more people. Why shouldnt that include working parents that want to educate themselves in free time? Going onto a computer and taking a class is much less time consuming than driving to a campus and committing a block of 8 hours.

If you insist they need to keep working, you're not really all that interested in a sincere solution on the front of them bettering themselves except when it suits the interests of capital.[/quote]

What evidence do you have to support this? Frankly, it seems rather condescending for you to tell me what I am sincerely interested in. If you want to make education accessible to all people, I believe you should consider all of the ways college is currently inaccessible to people. Please tell me why a poor 18 year old is more entitled to receiving an education than a working, single mother. If either of them chooses to pursue an education to better themselves, they should be allowed to.

The fact is that capital isn't interested in workers bettering themselves: capital doesn't serve the interests of workers.[/quote]

Ok, I guess. Prove it.

It could be said that the very notion of freedom of any sense is a joke when the only thing you're free from is unwarranted governmental intrusion: being free from government and enslaved to capital just means you're a slave to something that never even promised to give a damn about you (whereas at least governments at least pretend to do so via lip service).[/quote]

This is a non sequitur. Im not really sure why you wrote this.

In a sense, it could be said that notions of self-betterment that agree with capitalist sensibilities are naive out of how not a single one of those notions is really at root about betterment of self, as much as further refining the individual human pieces of capitalist economies FOR THE SAKE OF more powerful persons who stand to benefit more from the flourishing of capital and its interests.[/quote]

I dont want to argue semantics with you (or frankly, philosophy). You dont have to call it betterment if you want. Its not like we would be forcing any one to do anything. We are merely offering them more opportunities.

So, when ya say you feel Bernie's goin' about it the wrong way, I understand that there are some things wrong with it, like how it might be overselling college qualifications as the only path to betterment - [/quote]

I am not selling college qualifications as the only path to betterment. I am sorry if that is how you interpreted my posts. I think it is a rather straightforward path to betterment that can be reformed to become more effective and more accessible.

but your earlier lines about "driving down the value of a degree" makes me think that your critique aiming at "it doesn't help poor people" is insincere. It comes across as a classical "fuck helping the poors to have shit we rich niggas have" argument, with an "I love poor people" curtain tacked on quickly.[/quote]

Sure. You are free to interpret my post however you want. Can you prove that my statements about the decrease in values of these degrees are incorrect? If not, then my opposition to this is something that is in the best interest of the poor. I have offered what I believe to be a reasonable solution. Please tell me how that solution hurts the poor.

If you actually give a fuck about poor people, you have to be willing to say that the very notion of a degree "having value just because fewer people have it" is an ancient case of ignoring what the work done to obtain the degree consists of.[/quote]

I am talking about comparative advantage, not value. If everyone has a Y degree, the comparative advantage one derives from having Y degree decreases as opposed to a situation where only some people have Y degree. That is unequivocally true. If an employer is actively seeking out people with Y degree, they suddenly have a larger pool to select from. This is why I have pushed for the introduction of trade and specialty schools that can offer a comparative advantage to more people. I have stated that multiple times.

That way of viewing degrees is, frankly, disadvantageous to poor people no matter how many or few possess degrees: but this doesn't make "fuck plans of making everyone smart enough and lucky enough to earn these degrees" bad plans. What it means is that this value-obsessed way of looking at things in and of itself is the source of the problem, because that way of looking at things at some point views making the citizenry wiser and more intelligent as having no value except as means to capitalist socioeconomic ends.[/quote]

Read my edit. You are arguing against something I did not say.

If we can't think about QoL except solely in capitalistic socioeconomic terms, we have no real interest in "helping" the poor except in piecemeal ways.[/quote]

So, Bernie's love of college may not be the best thing for people who don't want a college-accredited career track, but we need to ask a more fundamental question about what it means in terms of sociopolitical health for us to say "yeah, fuck helping people go to college, let's be concerned with the subjective value of a degree in terms of degree rarity."[/quote]

I am saying that the higher level education system is fundamentally flawed. Also, you keep on suggesting that I dont want to help people go to college when Im pushing to make it more accessible than even Bernie Sanders by considering all factors of constraint.

Lord knows High School is an inadequate education for most folks to end up properly informed citizens these days: the world is a complex motherfucker, and good government needs good representatives and good voters alike, and an ignorant voter/representative isn't a good one.[/quote]

More education for the sake of more education can, at least, have value in a sociopolitical sense outside of capitalist sensibilities. It is at least an attempt to make people better, even if it doesn't solve the problem. I'd rather be poor, debtless, and smart than poor, debtless, and less smart - and this is why there's so much damned focus on making it debtless or nearly so.
[/quote]

I dont think this is addressed to me. If it is, I dont see how its relevant to my argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Facebook    70

I know the formatting messed up. Sorry. IPboards threading is obnoxious.

 

I do think that in some fields, say Computer Science, sheer enthusiasm and ability can often outweigh your schooling (although certainly good CS programs, e.g. CMU, you learn in your first year, what others learn in their 3rd or 4th, specifically your "Computer Organization" class teaches what others would teach in Computer Architecture or Compilers), but if you know how to code from a young age (have a Github profile with open-source as a freshman), you're golden.

 

Obviously, there is a major distinction between "programming" and "research", and state-schools can't compete with the big names. But if you are a coder, and you can show you code in your spare time, then that's what Google and Facebook look for.  

 

I mean their HR has figured out that if you take care of the distractions like food (free), transportation (free), sleep-pods, even laundry, and you find out the folks who would be coding anyway, you make them that much more productive and motivated.

 

Obviously, it's a niche (and not everybody wants to be the guy doing hackathons), but it's certainly possible without elite education, you just need to go beyond your regular school coursework.

I'm really glad you said this. I think we should reward people that are able to learn things on their own. Testing into certifications for certain specialities is absolutely something I support. Also, CMU definitely rocks.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myth    95

Ted Cruz and Kasich being mathematically eliminated while still running shows how insanely corrupt the GOP are. I don't have much to add to the current discussion but holy shit is that pissing me off. Same on the left with the super delegates.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Urthor    10182

I don't see how running for a brokered convention is in any way immoral.

 

In the old days you didn't even have pledged delegates, you simply tried to turn up with as many delegates who like you as possible and they sorted shit out.  It's actually designed to create a candidate that can appeal to all of America, no matter how folksy and dated that concept is, which is not something you see from a racist with a rug on his head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Facebook    70

Ted Cruz and Kasich being mathematically eliminated while still running shows how insanely corrupt the GOP are. I don't have much to add to the current discussion but holy shit is that pissing me off. Same on the left with the super delegates.

Please tell me how their campaigns demonstrate corruption. The majority of Republicans do not hold a favorable opinion of Donald Trump. Ted Cruz and John Kasich are merely providing an outlet for people that do not support a Trump nomination. What is wrong with this? They have not coordinated their campaigns in any meaningful way (i.e. Cruz did not solely target north NY and leave the urban areas for Kasich). What is wrong with running a campaign when you think you have a clear path to the nomination? Bernie is effectively eliminated as well. His campaign manager admits that his only shot at taking the nomination is at a contested Democratic convention. Is that corrupt? Frankly, claiming that the Kasich and Cruz campaigns are corrupt by virtue of them existing is quite insulting to everyone that supports them (including myself).

If Donald Trump can not earn a majority of the delegates, he should not be the presumptive nominee. These are the rules every Republican nominee has adhered to. Eliminating his competition is giving him an exception to the RNC rules. Trump is not entitled to an exception.

Here’s an interesting parallel:

Donald Trump loves talking about immigration. He does not support any direct path to amnesty because he does not want to “reward” people for breaking US immigration laws. Apparently, Trump believes that these rules serve a purpose. In the world according to “The Donald”, an organization can not exist without structure and rules. “You either have a country or you don’t have a country!”

The RNC situation is eerily similar. If you want to be the nominee, you must have 1237 delegates. That is the rule. Donald Trump claims to be a Republican and therefore, he must adhere to these rules. You either have a party or you don’t have a party.

Want to see corruption? Consider Hillary Clinton:

Travelgate, Whitewater, Filegate, the Clinton Legal Defense Fund, Benghazi, Pardongate, IRS abuse, Cattlegate*, private email servers, laundering foreign contributions through the Clinton foundation, etc. I’m sure there is plenty that I do not remember off the top of my head.

I truly believe corruption does NOT have a political ideology. HOWEVER, if there is any current presidential candidate that has a history of corruption, that person is certainly Hillary Clinton

*honestly, I think this one is pretty stupid lol but she has been unable to adequately address this so I will include it

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myth    95

You misunderstood me. I'm not saying that Ted Cruz and Kasich's campaign's are corrupt (Although I have a LOT of negative things to say about Ted Cruz), I'm saying a system that allows the popular vote to not matter in the end if Trump doesn't hit his 1,237 delegates, or that Bernie being put at a massive disadvantage from the start because of Clinton's super-delegates, is bullshit. "Corrupt" maybe have been the wrong word.

 

By Cruz and Kasich staying in they want to take as many delegates as they can away from Trump to try and push a brokered convention at Cleveland in July.  Trump has millions more votes than Cruz and Kasich. 

 

 

Ted Cruz and Kasich being mathematically eliminated while still running shows how insanely corrupt the GOP are. I don't have much to add to the current discussion but holy shit is that pissing me off. Same on the left with the super delegates.


If Donald Trump can not earn a majority of the delegates, he should not be the presumptive nominee. These are the rules every Republican nominee has adhered to. Eliminating his competition is giving him an exception to the RNC rules. Trump is not entitled to an exception.




 

 

I know, I just don't like the way the system is ran. What the RNC pulled in Colorado with Cruz was crooked, even if it is still the rules. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Gemstone Mine    2583

I firmly believe that our political leaders ought to be able to, within reason, make a decision that actively goes against the popular opinion if they legitimately feel like it is in their constituents best interest to do so. Donald Trump is very much against the rnc's constituent's best interests.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myth    95

I mean, you say that, but bernie is still losing to clinton even without superdelagates.

 

I know, but Trump is not losing to Cruz and has overwhelming support from the people, as where Ted Cruz is getting it from the establishment because all of their golden boys have dropped out after getting destroyed by Trump and the silent majority.

 

Obviously, I am a Trump supporter, so take that as you wish as far as my bias goes. There's a difference between losing the popular vote on top of starting with a handicap like Sanders and winning the popular vote and the system you're aligned with telling you and millions of people that their opinion and vote does not matter because the "RNC knows what is best" via a brokered convention.

 

The RNC can change it's rules at any given time, it has done it in the past with Ron Paul, and there's nothing to stop them from changing something again if they really don't want Trump as the nominee, despite the will of the people.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eoin-higgins/rnc-rules-to-stifle-ron-p_b_8941816.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×