https://twitter.com/Rosemar87097604/stat...0077343745

IT'S FANTASTIC

(07-13-2018 02:32 PM)green Wrote:  

https://twitter.com/Rosemar87097604/stat...0077343745

IT'S FANTASTIC

But these same idiots hate the electoral college.
Their hypocrisy knows no bounds

(07-13-2018 02:34 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 02:32 PM)green Wrote:  

https://twitter.com/Rosemar87097604/stat...0077343745

IT'S FANTASTIC

But these same idiots hate the electoral college.
Their hypocrisy knows no bounds

They hate what they can't control or anything that threatens their control.

(07-13-2018 02:34 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 02:32 PM)green Wrote:  

https://twitter.com/Rosemar87097604/stat...0077343745

IT'S FANTASTIC

But these same idiots hate the electoral college.
Their hypocrisy knows no bounds

Comparing the rules of the Federal Republic to rules for electing something in a group of people?

Using that logic, I guess everyone who supports the concept of the Electoral College should split any group (like their local PTA) into 50 some-odd sub-groups, assign weird ass numbers to each sub-group election, have each sub-groups pick delegates, then have the delegates vote for the leader?

Your argument that any private group has to adhere to their principles on the Electoral College to choose their leadership makes no sense.

If you really think your statement is reflective, then it seems that the Republicans, who love the Electoral College, should massively change their selection process as well. Are the Republicans equally as hypocritical for that?

(07-13-2018 02:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 02:34 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 02:32 PM)green Wrote:  

https://twitter.com/Rosemar87097604/stat...0077343745

IT'S FANTASTIC

But these same idiots hate the electoral college.
Their hypocrisy knows no bounds

Comparing the rules of the Federal Republic to rules for electing something in a group of people?

Using that logic, I guess everyone who supports the concept of the Electoral College should split any group (like their local PTA) into 50 some-odd sub-groups, assign weird ass numbers to each sub-group election, have each sub-groups pick delegates, then have the delegates vote for the leader?

Your argument that any private group has to adhere to their principles on the Electoral College to choose their leadership makes no sense.

If you really think your statement is reflective, then it seems that the Republicans, who love the Electoral College, should massively change their selection process as well. Are the Republicans equally as hypocritical for that?

GOP does proportional distribution of delegates just like the electoral college does with electors. So I see no hypocrisy

It is feasible to win a majority of Republican raw votes yet lose the delegate count

(07-13-2018 02:55 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 02:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 02:34 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 02:32 PM)green Wrote:  

https://twitter.com/Rosemar87097604/stat...0077343745

IT'S FANTASTIC

But these same idiots hate the electoral college.
Their hypocrisy knows no bounds

Comparing the rules of the Federal Republic to rules for electing something in a group of people?

Using that logic, I guess everyone who supports the concept of the Electoral College should split any group (like their local PTA) into 50 some-odd sub-groups, assign weird ass numbers to each sub-group election, have each sub-groups pick delegates, then have the delegates vote for the leader?

Your argument that any private group has to adhere to their principles on the Electoral College to choose their leadership makes no sense.

If you really think your statement is reflective, then it seems that the Republicans, who love the Electoral College, should massively change their selection process as well. Are the Republicans equally as hypocritical for that?

GOP does proportional distribution of delegates just like the electoral college does with electors. So I see no hypocrisy

It is feasible to win a majority of Republican raw votes yet lose the delegate count

I just find it silly to compare the internal rules of any organization to those of the Electoral College.

First, the 'proportional' distribution of allocation really isnt --- here is how they do it:

https://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/R-Alloc.phtml

Get back with us when you wade through that pile. And that is just the Cliff's notes form outline.

The only fundamental difference to the R and D allocation smorgasbord is that the D's add a passel of 'unbound delegates on top' to specific and listed 'important party members' or somefink.

The R's have their own version of the superdelegates -- i.e. the 'party leaders' from each state or territory, and each is allocated three. Instead of the larger number that that the D's add to their pie.

Its an easy stretch from Superdelegates should overrule the voters to nominate HRC to the electoral college is flawed, we the elite should be able to select HRC for president and overrule the electoral college.

Rules don't apply to these people.

Odd that they always accuse Republicans of being elitists.

(07-13-2018 02:55 PM)solohawks Wrote:  GOP does proportional distribution of delegates just like the electoral college does with electors. So I see no hypocrisy

It is feasible to win a majority of Republican raw votes yet lose the delegate count

https://twitter.com/johnaugust/status/70...7856498688

WIN BIGLY

(07-13-2018 02:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 02:34 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 02:32 PM)green Wrote:  

https://twitter.com/Rosemar87097604/stat...0077343745

IT'S FANTASTIC

But these same idiots hate the electoral college.
Their hypocrisy knows no bounds

Comparing the rules of the Federal Republic to rules for electing something in a group of people?

Using that logic, I guess everyone who supports the concept of the Electoral College should split any group (like their local PTA) into 50 some-odd sub-groups, assign weird ass numbers to each sub-group election, have each sub-groups pick delegates, then have the delegates vote for the leader?

Your argument that any private group has to adhere to their principles on the Electoral College to choose their leadership makes no sense.

If you really think your statement is reflective, then it seems that the Republicans, who love the Electoral College, should massively change their selection process as well. Are the Republicans equally as hypocritical for that?

once again you miss the point. If you don't get it you're obtuse or just being argumentative. Either way I'm not gonna hold your hand by explaining my point.

Please be more succinct expressing your convoluted reasoning.

Brevity is the soul of wit.

Sorry you dont understand.

You apparently think that any group should follow blindly its stance on the Electoral College in how they select their own candidates.

Sounds stupid to me. Apples, oranges.

Condensed enough there for you shere?

(07-13-2018 03:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Sorry you dont understand.

You apparently think that any group should follow blindly its stance on the Electoral College in how they select their own candidates.

Sounds stupid to me. Apples, oranges.

Condensed enough there for you shere?

Yes. Obtuse.

(07-13-2018 03:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its an easy stretch from Superdelegates should overrule the voters to nominate HRC to the electoral college is flawed, we the elite should be able to select HRC for president and overrule the electoral college.

Rules don't apply to these people.

Odd that they always accuse Republicans of being elitists.

I have no problem with any party selecting *any* rules they want to select their own candidates. They are by definition their own groups. Whether the rule is simple majority wins, or we should have super delegates (like BOTH parties engage with, mind you) to make sure the party can balance a populist vote, or whether it is round robin single elimination rock/paper/scissors to select a candidate. Their choice.

I find it hard to ascribe any internal selection system as 'leading to' or an easy stretch to a change in the electoral system. Aint gonna happen. There is a way to do eliminate it explicitly, and that is the only way that will ever happen. And again, aint gonna happen.

If they can get the votes to amend the Constitution to do so, more power to them. Dont see that happening in my lifetime though, so Im not too worried abut it.

To say that a superdelegate system will lead to usurping the Electoral College seems farfetched. Kind of like saying a party that has as one of its main electoral planks of an establishment of a right of open carry is an easy stretch to an armed revolt to take over the governmental functions.

(07-13-2018 03:40 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 03:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Sorry you dont understand.

You apparently think that any group should follow blindly its stance on the Electoral College in how they select their own candidates.

Sounds stupid to me. Apples, oranges.

Condensed enough there for you shere?

Yes. Obtuse.

As sharp and incisive as ever there, shere. Keep it up....

A group that advocates for a popular vote, each vote counts system has a rigged weighted super delegate system and struggles to reform it.

I can't make the hypocrisy any simpler to understand.

No more hand holding for you. Step it up.

(07-13-2018 03:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 02:55 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 02:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 02:34 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 02:32 PM)green Wrote:  

https://twitter.com/Rosemar87097604/stat...0077343745

IT'S FANTASTIC

But these same idiots hate the electoral college.
Their hypocrisy knows no bounds

Comparing the rules of the Federal Republic to rules for electing something in a group of people?

Using that logic, I guess everyone who supports the concept of the Electoral College should split any group (like their local PTA) into 50 some-odd sub-groups, assign weird ass numbers to each sub-group election, have each sub-groups pick delegates, then have the delegates vote for the leader?

Your argument that any private group has to adhere to their principles on the Electoral College to choose their leadership makes no sense.

If you really think your statement is reflective, then it seems that the Republicans, who love the Electoral College, should massively change their selection process as well. Are the Republicans equally as hypocritical for that?

GOP does proportional distribution of delegates just like the electoral college does with electors. So I see no hypocrisy

It is feasible to win a majority of Republican raw votes yet lose the delegate count

I just find it silly to compare the internal rules of any organization to those of the Electoral College.

First, the 'proportional' distribution of allocation really isnt --- here is how they do it:

https://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/R-Alloc.phtml

Get back with us when you wade through that pile. And that is just the Cliff's notes form outline.

The only fundamental difference to the R and D allocation smorgasbord is that the D's add a passel of 'unbound delegates on top' to specific and listed 'important party members' or somefink.

The R's have their own version of the superdelegates -- i.e. the 'party leaders' from each state or territory, and each is allocated three. Instead of the larger number that that the D's add to their pie.

Delegates are apportioned by state.. so a blowout win in a Montana is just as good as a close loss on a Texas.

Not all states are created equal just like the EC

(07-13-2018 03:46 PM)shere khan Wrote:  A group that advocates for a popular vote, each vote counts system has a rigged weighted super delegate system and struggles to reform it.

I can't make the hypocrisy any simpler to understand.

and my response

Quote:You apparently think that any group should follow blindly its stance on the Electoral College in how they select their own candidates.

seems spot on.

Seems stupid to me.

And yes, there is some hypocrisy. No better nor any worse than some Republican hypocrisies.

In that light, even if it is (deep booming outrage voice on)*hypocritical*(deep booming outrage voice off), so what?

Obtuse, argumentaive and verbose.

Then you begrudgingly agree.

Lulz

(07-13-2018 03:57 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 03:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 02:55 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 02:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 02:34 PM)shere khan Wrote:  But these same idiots hate the electoral college.
Their hypocrisy knows no bounds

Comparing the rules of the Federal Republic to rules for electing something in a group of people?

Using that logic, I guess everyone who supports the concept of the Electoral College should split any group (like their local PTA) into 50 some-odd sub-groups, assign weird ass numbers to each sub-group election, have each sub-groups pick delegates, then have the delegates vote for the leader?

Your argument that any private group has to adhere to their principles on the Electoral College to choose their leadership makes no sense.

If you really think your statement is reflective, then it seems that the Republicans, who love the Electoral College, should massively change their selection process as well. Are the Republicans equally as hypocritical for that?

GOP does proportional distribution of delegates just like the electoral college does with electors. So I see no hypocrisy

It is feasible to win a majority of Republican raw votes yet lose the delegate count

I just find it silly to compare the internal rules of any organization to those of the Electoral College.

First, the 'proportional' distribution of allocation really isnt --- here is how they do it:

https://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/R-Alloc.phtml

Get back with us when you wade through that pile. And that is just the Cliff's notes form outline.

The only fundamental difference to the R and D allocation smorgasbord is that the D's add a passel of 'unbound delegates on top' to specific and listed 'important party members' or somefink.

The R's have their own version of the superdelegates -- i.e. the 'party leaders' from each state or territory, and each is allocated three. Instead of the larger number that that the D's add to their pie.

Delegates are apportioned by state.. so a blowout win in a Montana is just as good as a close loss on a Texas.

Not all states are created equal just like the EC

Actually your example on Texas is really bad -- only a portion of the Texas delegates are set by the actual state vote.

Quote:the overwhelming majority of the allocation of delegates will not be determined by the statewide outcome, but by the outcomes in each of 36 congressional districts

You can literally lose the state vote and get a majority of Texas delegates because *each* of the district votes is weighted.

https://www.texasgop.org/wp-content/uplo...ention.pdf

There are varying degrees of allocation of delegates based on state voting across all states. It really is a smorgasbord of "how many each candidate gets."

(07-13-2018 04:01 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Obtuse, argumentaive and verbose.

Then you begrudgingly agree.

Lulz

I guess obtuse if you dont understand that getting bent out of shape over that "seems stupid to me."

And to be blunt, I really dont see much hypocrisy in it. Federal election process, a private group's way to pick a candidate. Apples, oranges.

(07-13-2018 04:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 04:01 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Obtuse, argumentaive and verbose.

Then you begrudgingly agree.

Lulz

I guess obtuse if you dont understand "seems stupid to me".

I have hope for you so I'm going to show you where you went off the rails.

"You apparently think that any group..."

False assumption. Let that squirrel around in your brain for a little bit and maybe I'll play this game with you again. I don't find your meltdown entertaining anymore.