Democratic Nomination?

I was fully correct, though. Yours was an addition that kept it correct. But everything I said was correct. Besides, you were moaning about how my posts didn't make sense, because a "to" missed. My, my...the fact remains we were talking about different issues. I am not "nit picking" either. Just correcting what you said, when I know it is not correct. Obviously I did not argue what you said about the election it was true, it just didn't contradict what I said, but supported it.

I am sure you like to appear as a great schemer who plans all responses ahead, I am sure it works for yourself, too, but most people here just think you are an idiot. Can we go back to the topic at hand now?

I wonder if Edwards will get a surge from the South and make him a contender. Barrack's base in the Midwest isn't enoughy but he should get a large turnout from the South if people actually vote for who they say they are going to vote for.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I was fully correct, though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yours was an addition that kept it correct.

No, my post about the situation was a complete perspective. You seem to have missed that too.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But everything I said was correct.

That does not matter in this situation because it isn't about how correct one point is. You started the little nit pick game, you should have nit picked a little bit smarter, now shouldn't you have?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Besides, you were moaning about how my posts didn't make sense, because a "to" missed.

There you go again with the weird ass sentences. Even with a to, those sentences I referred to are still vague at best. Why can't it be that you really suck at conveying your thoughts sometimes?

Originally posted by Bardock42
My, my...the fact remains we were talking about different issues.

WTF. Great. Thanks for being specific about these "facts". You just missed something from my previous posts, again.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am not "nit picking" either. Just correcting what you said, when I know it is not correct..

I have already explained the logic behind my "nit pick", and you obviously are missing that. You are always like this and I don't suspect that you will ever admit that your point was a lame nit pick that wasn't even a complete nitpick on a post from a poster whose goal was not to make a perfect statement, but rather to convey a general thought about the reason why Hilary won the primary in Michigan.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Obviously I did not argue what you said about the election it was true, it just didn't contradict what I said, but supported it.

Aaaaaannnd you missed my obvious and blatant point again. Congratulations, you have been selected to win two free iPods. Try to pay attention to my posts before you reply; you'll end up looking like an idiot if you don't. 😉

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am sure you like to appear as a great schemer who plans all responses ahead, I am sure it works for yourself, too, but most people here just think you are an idiot.

Actually, no. I only try to plan my posts ahead when I am talking with you, mainly. (I've done it to others, but only just for fun...but to be honest, this is all for my fun anyway.) You don't always respond the way I would like you to which breaks up what I had planned but sometimes, you play into what I had planned even better than I had planned. (The times that you don't play into my "plans" is usually because I give you too much intellectual credit...seriously.)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Can we go back to the topic at hand now?

Absolutely.

II

Originally posted by dadudemon
No you weren't. You were partially correct at your correcting. You seem to have missed that.

No, my post about the situation was a complete perspective. You seem to have missed that too.

That does not matter in this situation because it isn't about how correct one point is. You started the little nit pick game, you should have nit picked a little bit smarter, now shouldn't you have?

There you go again with the weird ass sentences. Even with a to, those sentences I referred to are still vague at best. Why can't it be that you really suck at conveying your thoughts sometimes?

WTF. Great. Thanks for being specific about these "facts". You just missed something from my previous posts, again.

I have already explained the logic behind my "nit pick", and you obviously are missing that. You are always like this and I don't suspect that you will ever admit that your point was a lame nit pick that wasn't even a complete nitpick on a post from a poster whose goal was not to make a perfect statement, but rather to convey a general thought about the reason why Hilary won the primary in Michigan.

Aaaaaannnd you missed my obvious and blatant point again. Congratulations, you have been selected to win two free iPods. Try to pay attention to my posts before you reply; you'll end up looking like an idiot if you don't. 😉

Actually, no. I only try to plan my posts ahead when I am talking with you, mainly. (I've done it to others, but only just for fun...but to be honest, this is all for my fun anyway.) You don't always respond the way I would like you to which breaks up what I had planned but sometimes, you play into what I had planned even better than I had planned. (The times that you don't play into my "plans" is usually because I give you too much intellectual credit...seriously.)

Absolutely.

II

Just because you constantly say that I miss something and that you couldn't understand because I was vague doesn't make it true. Please just stop stroking your ego and discuss things properly.

Again. The way you elect people (the president in specific) in the US sucks. The supreme court sucks. And the possibility for someone to be in office with millions of votes less...sucks. You can either reply to those or ignore them, but please don't go on a dodging mission again that just embarrasses your and my intelligence.

How does Canada do things?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Lots of nonsense.

Just because you constantly say that I miss something and that you couldn't understand because I was vague doesn't make it true. Please just stop stroking your ego and discuss things properly.

Again. The way you elect people (the president in specific) in the US sucks. The supreme court sucks. And the possibility for someone to be in office with millions of votes less...sucks. You can either reply to those or ignore them, but please don't go on a dodging mission again that just embarrasses your and my intelligence.

That's it? That is all you have to say? You really did miss a lot of stuff. It went right over your head. I am not saying I said utterly profound stuff, either. You just straight up missed it. Well, the only thing you can do is explain why you missed it, admit you missed it, or disregard it as to not draw attention to yourself. I am thankful that you at least finally responded.

I don't like the way our president is elected currently, either. I would like it if electoral votes were cast by percentage. For instance, Maryland gets 10 electoral votes. If 20% vote for Candidate "B" then 2 electoral votes should be applied to candidate "B"...even though candidate "A" got 80% of the votes. (I chose maryland because 10 is easier to work with. If you care to discuss this further with math and votes...let's stick with Maryland.)

The supreme court doesn't suck. They are a necessary portion of our United States government. The SCOTUS is also provided for in the Constitution! All lower courts were made by congress but even then, those are mentioned in the Constitution. There are so many things the SCOTUS is necessary for: Checks and Balances, original jurisdiction, and appellate jurisdiction.

So many good things have come down from supreme court decisions.

If you said that supreme court sucks because you don't like the members...then of course, you are entitled to your opinion...and therein lies another "ambiguous" statement from Bardock42.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's it? That is all you have to say? You really did miss a lot of stuff. It went right over your head. I am not saying I said utterly profound stuff, either. You just straight up missed it. Well, the only thing you can do is explain why you missed it, admit you missed it, or disregard it as to not draw attention to yourself. I am thankful that you at least finally responded.

I don't like the way our president is elected currently, either. I would like it if electoral votes were cast by percentage. For instance, Maryland gets 10 electoral votes. If 20% vote for Candidate "B" then 2 electoral votes should be applied to candidate "B"...even though candidate "A" got 80% of the votes. (I chose maryland because 10 is easier to work with. If you care to discuss this further with math and votes...let's stick with Maryland.)

The supreme court doesn't suck. They are a necessary portion of our United States government. The SCOTUS is also provided for in the Constitution! All lower courts were made by congress but even then, those are mentioned in the Constitution. There are so many things the SCOTUS is necessary for: Checks and Balances, original jurisdiction, and appellate jurisdiction.

So many good things have come down from supreme court decisions.

If you said that supreme court sucks because you don't like the members...then of course, you are entitled to your opinion...and therein lies another "ambiguous" statement from Bardock42.

Yeah, it's all I have to say. Pointless accusations and make-self-feel-good bullshit.

I agree with your Maryland example, though I would say electoral votes are pointless. You just go by percentage I'd say.

I was maybe to fast with it. The Supreme Court does indeed not suck, it is, though, by far not the best option ever. The thing I dislike is that the personal opinion of the Supreme Court judges makes all the difference, it should not. That's contrary to what Courts are for.

Originally posted by Quark_666
How does Canada do things?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Lots of nonsense.

Just because you constantly say that I miss something and that you couldn't understand because I was vague doesn't make it true. Please just stop stroking your ego and discuss things properly.

Again. The way you elect people (the president in specific) in the US sucks. The supreme court sucks. And the possibility for someone to be in office with millions of votes less...sucks. You can either reply to those or ignore them, but please don't go on a dodging mission again that just embarrasses your and my intelligence.

Originally posted by lord xyz
So much for being pro-American, eh Bardock?

Hey, there's shit in every country. I think the US is pretty good actually.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, it's all I have to say. Pointless accusations and make-self-feel-good bullshit.

Well, it went as I planned. Remember this?

Originally posted by dadudemon
...II

Do you now know what it was for?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree with your Maryland example, though I would say electoral votes are pointless. You just go by percentage I'd say.

We can't go by just a straight up percentage, though. Each state has to have its say so as an individual state. The electoral college was designed to give a more individualistic vote for each state. This representative vote is based off of 2 senate votes and the number of the states U.S. representatives. (Basically, the latter is based off of population.)

The Unites States is run on a federal, state, municipal governing system with each level having their own power to govern and represent the people in a different way. We are called the United States because each state has its own set of laws and programs. Of course, each part of the governing structure is essential. This all goes back the founding fathers recognizing that the people want a say so for each state. This setup hearkens to an age when monarchies and oligarchies ruled...so the founding fathers wanted a system that would ensure that each state had a say so in its government.

Of course, I can't think of how it would be possible, under my Maryland example, for a President to be elected with the electoral vote but not by the popular vote. I really don't think it would be possible.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I was maybe to fast with it. The Supreme Court does indeed not suck, it is, though, by far not the best option ever. The thing I dislike is that the personal opinion of the Supreme Court judges makes all the difference, it should not. That's contrary to what Courts are for.

I don't understand. What other options would there be other than a judicial branch that interprets the law when a problem arises? Would it be a good idea to leave the interpretation of the law in the hands of the same branch that makes the laws? (That is rhetorical...sort of.)

Originally posted by Bardock42
YeahVery homosexually?

lol...This is why I can never hate you.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, it went as I planned. Remember this?

Do you now know what it was for?

Don't care.

Originally posted by dadudemon
We can't go by just a straight up percentage, though. Each state has to have its say so as an individual state. The electoral college was designed to give a more individualistic vote for each state. This representative vote is based off of 2 senate votes and the number of the states U.S. representatives. (Basically, the latter is based off of population.)

Which I personally think is slightly ridiculous. I understand it is a safety measure, but it is only necessary with big government. And even then it takes away from the true democratic ideals.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Of course, I can't think of how it would be possible, under my Maryland example, for a President to be elected with the electoral vote but not by the popular vote. I really don't think it would be possible.

The electors wouldn't be necessary in your example though. You could still have the Senate and

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't understand. What other options would there be other than a judicial branch that interprets the law when a problem arises? Would it be a good idea to leave the interpretation of the law in the hands of the same branch that makes the laws? (That is rhetorical...sort of.)

One that is more bound by other branches to be controlled. Obviously a branch system is a rather good idea. To leave ultimate power in the hands of 9 people, assigned by the president seems unsafe. Especially since their rulings can be so fundamental.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hey, there's shit in every country. I think the US is pretty good actually.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I prefer the UK.

I like the taste of some cheese.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I like the taste of some cheese.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Don't care.

Of course you don't care. Why would anyone want to talk about how they were being manipulated? I am telling you anyway. Are you ready? I was marking how many posts it would take before you threw in the towel. You may have seen those mysterious marks in my posts before. A simple debate/argument isn't enough to be entertaining for me.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Which I personally think is slightly ridiculous. I understand it is a safety measure, but it is only necessary with big government. And even then it takes away from the true democratic ideals..

I agree. That was what I was getting at with my statements. If it was run that way, then there is no need for an electoral college. (Other than for ceremony and tradition.)

Originally posted by Bardock42
The electors wouldn't be necessary in your example though. You could still have the Senate and

Only two states try to come close to what I was describing: Maine and Nebraska. But the way they do it is a horrible bastardized pollution of how it should really be done. They do congressional districts. bleh 😘 . However, it would be an improvement over the current system. But it takes a little away from the point of a "state" vote.

Originally posted by Bardock42
One that is more bound by other branches to be controlled. Obviously a branch system is a rather good idea. To leave ultimate power in the hands of 9 people, assigned by the president seems unsafe. Especially since their rulings can be so fundamental.

OH!! okay. I understand what you meant, now. I agree. I think that the supreme court members should be elected by the people and NOT appointed by a president and voted into place by congress. They do hold great great power and as such, the people should have more of a direct ability to affect who gets put into the SCOTUS. Their rulings can also be very biased and the President electing who is put into office can cause very opinionated rulings to come from the Supreme court. (For example, we are a little bit liberal, based on political analysis of the incumbent Supreme Court Justices.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Of course you don't care. Why would anyone want to talk about how they were being manipulated? I am telling you anyway. Are you ready? I was marking how many posts it would take before you threw in the towel. You may have seen those mysterious marks in my posts before. A simple debate/argument isn't enough to be entertaining for me.

Throwing in the towel and disregarding nonsense are two different things. If they weren't though you would have been off by 1. So, nothing special really. Close is just not good enough.

Also, to convince me that you can predict and manipulate me you need to do some more. What you did so far is hardly impressive. But please continue, it would be interesting to see what I would do if someone could predict nuances in my answers...obviously the general idea will be the same. I am pretty consistent in my views.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree. That was what I was getting at with my statements. If it was run that way, then there is no need for an electoral college. (Other than for ceremony and tradition.)

Right. Should have said that. I agree.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Only two states try to come close to what I was describing: Maine and Nebraska. But the way they do it is a horrible bastardized pollution of how it should really be done. They do congressional districts. bleh 😘 . However, it would be an improvement over the current system. But it takes a little away from the point of a "state" vote.

There isn't really much point of a state vote for a federal leader I believe.

Originally posted by dadudemon
OH!! okay. I understand what you meant, now. I agree. I think that the supreme court members should be elected by the people and NOT appointed by a president and voted into place by congress. They do hold great great power and as such, the people should have more of a direct ability to affect who gets put into the SCOTUS. Their rulings can also be very biased and the President electing who is put into office can cause very opinionated rulings to come from the Supreme court. (For example, we are a little bit liberal, based on political analysis of the incumbent Supreme Court Justices.)

Good. Something like that would already be an improvement.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Throwing in the towel and disregarding nonsense are two different things. If they weren't though you would have been off by 1. So, nothing special really. Close is just not good enough.

Also, to convince me that you can predict and manipulate me you need to do some more. What you did so far is hardly impressive. But please continue, it would be interesting to see what I would do if someone could predict nuances in my answers...obviously the general idea will be the same. I am pretty consistent in my views.

I only count two of your posts? Where are you getting three? Since this was a "game" I played with myself, it is prerequisite on my conditions. You met those conditions. It took two replies until you gave up. You didn't lose that game because you weren't a player. And no, you are not consistent. Sometimes, I have setup traps for you that you didn't fall for. Other times, I have setup similar traps that you fell for. You can be moody in your response...that's because you are human.

Also, if I told you what I was doing before I started, that would change the results. I also thought about putting something up that couldn't be read unless I gave you the cypher so you could see what I plan out. I don't do this all the time. I just do it when I am bored and want to be entertained.

Originally posted by Bardock42
There isn't really much point of a state vote for a federal leader I believe.

It is more about representing the population from each state so that each state's people have as much say so about who is their president as possible. It can be argued that I just said the same thing you did in a different way...and therein lies political strategy. (If I was wanting to hold my interests in the electoral college, I then would attack your position by saying things like "You want to dismantle a program that our founding fathers conceived in righteousness because of corruption. You want to take away each states right to best represent its people and put the smaller populated states at the mercy of larger populated states with richer citizens. WHAT CORRUPTION YOU WANT TO EMPLOY!!!)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Good. Something like that would already be an improvement.

It sounded like you had some other ideas, though.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I only count two of your posts? Where are you getting three? Since this was a "game" I played with myself, it is prerequisite on my conditions. You met those conditions. It took two replies until you gave up. You didn't lose that game because you weren't a player. And no, you are not consistent. Sometimes, I have setup traps for you that you didn't fall for. Other times, I have setup similar traps that you fell for. You can be moody in your response...that's because you are human.

Also, if I told you what I was doing before I started, that would change the results. I also thought about putting something up that couldn't be read unless I gave you the cypher so you could see what I plan out. I don't do this all the time. I just do it when I am bored and want to be entertained.

In the words of the great Bob Dylan ... I don't believe you.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It is more about representing the population from each state so that each state's people have as much say so about who is their president as possible. It can be argued that I just said the same thing you did in a different way...and therein lies political strategy. (If I was wanting to hold my interests in the electoral college, I then would attack your position by saying things like "You want to dismantle a program that our founding fathers conceived in righteousness because of corruption. You want to take away each states right to best represent its people and put the smaller populated states at the mercy of larger populated states with richer citizens. WHAT CORRUPTION YOU WANT TO EMPLOY!!!)

It sounded like you had some other ideas, though.

I am not sure why I am talking to you. You don't say anything new or insightful. It is odd.

I don't have a system ready to replace things with. And I don't really care for what you think political strategy is all about. The system I am presented with is messed up beyond trivial manners as to who votes the ruler in. I just believe that it is undemocratic and would have to go in a system I could support.

So would the absolute power of the judges. There would need to be checks and balances. Little they can decide about. And specific texts they have to follow as closely as possible, though those would always be up for interpretation, which is not that great.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am not sure why I am talking to you.

Neither is anyone else.

Originally posted by Bardock42
In the words of the great Bob Dylan ... I don't believe you.

I don't believe that you don't believe me. 😐

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am not sure why I am talking to you. You don't say anything new or insightful. It is odd.

I don't have a system ready to replace things with. And I don't really care for what you think political strategy is all about. The system I am presented with is messed up beyond trivial manners as to who votes the ruler in. I just believe that it is undemocratic and would have to go in a system I could support.

So would the absolute power of the judges. There would need to be checks and balances. Little they can decide about. And specific texts they have to follow as closely as possible, though those would always be up for interpretation, which is not that great.

Is anyone else here discussing how our US government is run? I thought we made progress in our discussion. I am also learning your thoughts on subjects that I do not discuss very often. People that I know do not know nearly as much as I do about how the government works so I am always hard pressed for actual political discussion.

This is the democratic nomination thread so I thought that I would throw out an example of political strategy because I was getting bored with the current topic.

You said that the Supreme court is not the best option, as though you had thought of better options and I wanted to hear those. If you were just full of hot gas and didn't really have anything, there is no harm in admitting that.

As for your other statements...yes, things like the elastic clause has kept the Supreme court busy. Slowly but surely, we are getting closer to where there isn't really big decisions to be made about the laws we have in place. We do have cases that go to the supreme court that do sometimes change how the law is fundamentally enforced or interpreted...but not too often.

On another note:

Clinton won the popular vote in the Nevada Caucus but Obama won the majority of delagates.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120077137909103115.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Most places reported that Hilary had won but the vote that really counted was the delagate vote and Obama won that.