Thread: Democrat nominee decided by super delegates?

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

Originally Posted by Rustxko78

If you want a direct election, there would have to be something.

What you call a direct election, I call mob rule, and the mob is a bunch dumbasses for the most part.

and you'll never guess what the mob says about all the country folks.....

I support the electoral college. I went to college, so I know what I'm talking about.

I don't think he was commenting on your intelligence BigDog

Originally Posted by JBMCW2010

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

Originally Posted by Rustxko78

If you want a direct election, there would have to be something.

What you call a direct election, I call mob rule, and the mob is a bunch dumbasses for the most part.

and you'll never guess what the mob says about all the country folks.....

I support the electoral college. I went to college, so I know what I'm talking about.

I don't think he was commenting on your intelligence BigDog

it wasn't meant to be mean. It was just the counter to such a point. for every time a rural person says "all the people in the cities are crazy", a city person says "all the people in the sticks are crazy".

where does bigdog live? is he city or sticks? irrelevant. Just making the point that everyone is always going to piss on the other side of the fence.

Originally Posted by FatherPriest

I think the electoral college is sufficient, as a system for electing a president. However, I don't see the same as true of the superdelegates. the ENTIRE point of citizens voting is to have them decide who will be the nominee. to have a THIRD of the delegates requried (800ish/2000ish) able to vote independently of any other considerations is ridiculous.

I think, 1. if hillary wins by the superdelegate vote, she will almost certainly lose in the general, because it will seriously piss off a lot of dems and independents (and heck, people don't like her to start out with - already, i will NEVER vote for her). and 2. we should take a good, long look at our primary system before the next elections.

I agree with your post 100%, not really to much I can say after that.

Originally Posted by JBMCW2010

boy oh boy I should shut my yap the more I talk the dumber I keep sounding huh?

Actually......you should see how hard the citizenship exam is...the kinds of questions it asks you. Dates, names, history, current laws and rules about HoR, Senate, USC, branches.....it's hard.

maybe make people take the citizenship exam....that would eliminate like 90% of all the populace from voting.

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

I went to college, so I know what I'm talking about.

I love hearing that from philosophy majors right after they hit the bong. Always cracks me up.

I'm not saying that's what you are, bigdog.

Originally Posted by FatherPriest

the ENTIRE point of citizens voting is to have them decide who will be the nominee. to have a THIRD of the delegates requried (800ish/2000ish) able to vote independently of any other considerations is ridiculous.

exactly.

the republicans have like 120 super delegates, total. Hardly a significant % of the 1100 or so it takes to win the nomination.

And let's not forget the super delegates in florida and....michigan...or is it minnesota? "disqualified" by the UNELECTED democratic national committee because the states VOTED to move up their primaries.

I wonder if their super delgates still count...but the voted delegates don't. Now that's a shit storm waiting to happen.

dammit florida.....stop fucking up elections.

you guys like my sweet ass home page banner?

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

you guys like my sweet ass home page banner?

dude, that is so pow it's not even funny.