Do you think he will become present? I personally don't, I think the establishment is too powerful and the powers that be will drag him down. However, he will probably get the Republican ticket and lose to Hilary. What do you guys think though?
Guys I hate to say it but TRUMP WILL BE OUR NEXT PRESIDENT. Sanders has no juice outside of his ridiculous fanbase, and America still isn't quite ready for a woman president. Trump is the type of guy who will get shit done though, so don't get sad yet guys. This years election fucking rocks.
Yeah, and there already is a HUGE thread going about all things Trump. Many pages deep. Give it read. You'll be sick of Trump in no time. United States presidential election 2016 - This Donald Trump character
I hope he does get the nomination, but if he doesn't get the nomination the people will definitely believe the system is rigged.
I know they don't live here, but I wonder what the folks in Aberdeen, Scotland think about ol' Donald Trump... Ep. 229 Full Segment: Trumped
The system is rigged due to delegate concept for nomination within a political party. The mere concept of a representative democracy is being violated on the premise that the people elect their nominations and the delegates are suppose to reflect the popular vote, but it seems to be a consistent illusion to the American People. These delegates seems to be persuaded through backdoor deals and the media call these deals "political tactics" nonsense if any delegate vote against a popular vote it's corruption and undermines democracy The entire concepts of the electoral college was designed on the premise that many Americans at the time were illiterate, giving the modern times things do change it's time to do away with this antiquated system. To give examples of such a tragedy on a General Election : Bush v Gore Jackson v Adams Cleveland v Harrison How is the system rigged? Anytime the delegates vote against the popular vote.
The RNC and DNC are private organizations. People don't seem to realize that they can do whatever they want and put forth whomever they want as their party's nomination. These party delegates are not government elected officials (some may be, but not in the capacity we are discussing), they merely act on behalf of the RNC and DNC respectively to determine a party nominee. People are under no obligation to vote democrat or republican, their are other candidates. The American people continue to vote republican or democrat out of their own free will. There are other parties and other candidates. I don't completely disagree that the "system" is flawed...it's all controlled by the media. They give all of the attention to the two super-parties and ignore the rest. Because of this, it makes it nearly impossible that any candidate be elected running as independent. However, at the end of the day it's the American people that continue to vote republican or democrat and ignore the rest. Really who is to blame? The PRIVATE parties (RNC/DNC), or the sheep that continue to allow them all the power? Also, Delegates are not the same as the electoral college. Two different animals.
I'm an independent. Yes, I'm aware of the difference between the two hence the two separate paragraph and in addition I did labeled it "General Election" I assume we were on the same intellectual level and I didn't have to specified trivial things. I'm aware that both the RNC and DNC are private entities, however you asked a general question "How is "the system rigged" ?? You never specified the Political Party nor the General Election Cycle. So i provided you with both answers. You're quote: "These party delegates are not government elected officials (some may be, but not in the capacity we are discussing), they merely act on behalf of the RNC and DNC respectively to determine a party nominee." If it's only one delegate that is a government elected official and voted against the popular vote, that justifies the claim that the system is rigged. If you disagree with such a claim, perhaps we may never see eye to eye on this particular subject. My opinion, If it's merely one delegate regardless public official or not, that votes against the popular vote, that to me is a sign of corruption. If the argument is simply "capacity", well to me that's doesn't mean nothing for one delegate that vote against the populous that's one too many. I believe the blame is not entirely on the American people, I blame a conglomerate of special interest to propagate support for their endeavors, the media, and the lack of campaign finance laws creating career politicians. I think laying blame on "sheeple" is a egotistic view of our society and negating certain elements that should be discuss in our dialogue if we ever want to ratify our election process. However, yes the system is in fact rigged regardless of private/public in the minds of the populous. Given once the delegate votes does not reflect the popular vote, that undermines our democracy.
The delegate vote is not used in the general election. On one hand it does make sense for a party to use. Basically if you have three candidates and no one has a consensus of more then 50% of the popular vote. The party wants to unify under one candidate that can best represent the majority in a general election. In theory, cool; subject to bastardization, not so cool.
The Initial question is vague it simply asked: "How is "the system rigged" ??" What System? The Political Party or the General Election. So, I answered both question in my response. Therefore your quote at this time: "The delegate vote is not used in the general election." is not applicable because it's known to myself and the other party involved in this dialogue. My opinion much like many americans, remains simple: "If the delegates vote against the populous it's a rigged system" I don't see any controversy within stating the obvious, perhaps from the party elite and those that vehemently defend the establishment.
Yes I asked how the system was rigged and most of your reply was dedicated to bashing the delegate system, so I responded accordingly. I assumed we were on the same intellectual level as well, and that I wouldn't have to specify trivial things. The problem with what you're arguing is that you are trying to treat the RNC and DNC as if they were a branch of government and they are not. They are a private organization, and as such have no obligation to put forth a nominee for their party that the American people do not choose. During a presidential election, citizens get to vote. Everything before that is just a business. They "allow" us to vote by holding these straw polls to appoint delegates that should adequately represent their county's interests, but at the end of the day it is just that...a "poll." Given that these delegates (elected officials or not) act in a completely unofficial capacity, whether or not even one of them - or all of them for that matter - votes against the populous is irrelevant. I also disagree that the electoral college is antiquated. People in this country get less intelligent by the second. It's embarrassing actually. Most other (relevant) countries blow the US out of the water when it comes to education. It would be unconstitutional to take away someone's right to vote simply because they are dumb. This is why we have this system in place; To save us from being stuck with four years of misery under someone like Trump.
For the record I will agree that system for a general election is not perfect. However I cannot accept a blanket statement condemning the entire process to be true.
I'm not trying to treat the RNC and DNC as a branch of government that's an assumption that you're making on my position which isn't true at all, but if it makes you feel superior, you're entitled to feel as such lol. The premise of our country is founded on a representative democracy. Given the mutual understanding of democracy and understanding states rights where they hold open primaries the delegates vote against the populous is clearly a sign that the system is rigged in said open primaries. If those private institutions want to select their candidates then they should not have an open primary at all. Given your argument why should they even have people vote to select a canidate? The determine factor is the people, the establishment is well aware that they need the populous for their canidate to win. So if the people feel the system is rigged, because their votes aren't being heard then that party in question will feel the same ramification of the 1964 election Johnson v Goldwater. In the the populous is the determine factor. Given the people during those times had highly favored Rockfeller, but Senior Bush and other leading members in the RNC did not like Gov. Rockfeller they lost the white house Due exactly to a rigged system where a few elites within a party's attempt to control the dynamic of the canidate. I still believe the System is RIgged and on the premise of the Electoral College, I believe it's not needed considering the tragedy of Gore v. Bush. Like I said this is contested debate, but were not going to see eye to eye on this.