Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 10 Jun 2016, 7:19 am

oh come come now Ricky, no kidding the party bosses decided on what method to have their state use. The party does not have people vote on every issue. But the party in each state decides what they want and the individuals of that party in that state listen to their members and make the decisions based on how they want to have things. Did you know that Obama and the Democrats pushed through Obamacare without the people voting for it? practically EVERY law is done by something called "representatives" it's the same way for the State parties, no kidding the higher ups decided upon the method!
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 10 Jun 2016, 7:20 am

Well, the guy who runs Laureate also runs the non-profit that saw its grant rise from 9 million to 25 million from USAID and the State Department while Hillary was at the State Department. So that's the link, Ricky. USAID appear to have given most of that money to the non-profit. From what I read, USAID works closely with the State Department (the president requests funding for the two agencies jointly for example) but it is unclear the influence the State Deparyment would have on the budget of USAID. But it is a bit odd this organization would see its grants from the government triple in 3 years.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 10 Jun 2016, 9:02 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ssnw2GA657s

Coincidence?, I think not.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 10 Jun 2016, 9:51 am

freeman 3
So how could you say Hillary "won" when the process was so distorted in her favor?

Because she got more votes?
I understand the argument that the announcement of support by so many superdelegates in advance of the process may have distorted the process. I agree it should be changed so that super delegates cannot commit until their state primary.
Actually I'd like there to be one nationwide primary all at one time. Because the current process is also distorting beyond just the early committed super delegates.
The results of the early primaries, especially those in the South, also bit into whatever momentum Sanders had developed.
Who knows what the results would have been if there was a nationwide vote in say, the end of April? I'd guess Clintons high support by blacks and Hispanics still would have made her a winner. Plus voting in caucus states might have flipped some state contests her way that Sanders won through enthusiastic campaign workers. But I think he might have pulled off a surprise in a ntionwide contest. Maybe enough that with the two other candidates taking a couiple of points, she might not have gained a majority.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 10 Jun 2016, 10:31 am

freeman3
But it is a bit odd this organization would see its grants from the government triple in 3 years.

Odd also that their grant went down the year Hillary became Secretary of State.

The IYF started in 1989 with a grant from Kellogg. It has a long history and has been supported by corporations and governments largely because it has a history of success. example:
By 2013, Starbucks™ Shared Planet™ Youth Action grants will have gone to 90 young social innovators whose work benefits 96,600 live

Microsoft, Samsung, Mastercard and many otehr corporations also provide grants.
If there is a careful examination of IYF by the media, and we learn more about what its efforts have achieved, will those grants to it be considered a pretty good investment? I think so.
Meanwhile, where's the quid quo pro in all this?
Bill already got his endorsement money from Laureate. Laureate provided funding to IYF.
Unless someone audits IYF and finds that there is all kinds of illicit compensation to managers or board members I don't know where the scandal is supposed to come from. And only 2 of the IYF come from Laureate ...

I haven't seen much on the IYF other than employee reviews..
https://www.glassdoor.ca/Reviews/Intern ... irect=true
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 10 Jun 2016, 10:44 am

Doctor Fate wrote:I don't *really* think he's that nuts. I just wish he had a modicum of decorum.


I agree, Trump is not nuts, but he is ignorant and has incredibly poor judgment, both of which springs from his narcissism. All politicians are narcissists to a degree--OK, maybe not Eisenhower-- but in politics you have to work with people, and so while you may be a narcissist, you've learned how to play in the narcissist sandbox. Trump hasn't, and his narcissism knows no bounds.

Trump scares me more than any politician ever. He could easily change our world in profound ways.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 10 Jun 2016, 10:45 am

rickyp wrote:freeman 3
So how could you say Hillary "won" when the process was so distorted in her favor?

Because she got more votes?
Given that in some states there are lots of votes in open primaries, while in others it was a much smaller number in closed caucuses (not all of which actually counted as some states have a hierarchy of delegates), total number of votes is not necessarily an accurate measure.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 10 Jun 2016, 1:35 pm

geojanes wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:I don't *really* think he's that nuts. I just wish he had a modicum of decorum.


I agree, Trump is not nuts, but he is ignorant and has incredibly poor judgment, both of which springs from his narcissism. All politicians are narcissists to a degree--OK, maybe not Eisenhower-- but in politics you have to work with people, and so while you may be a narcissist, you've learned how to play in the narcissist sandbox. Trump hasn't, and his narcissism knows no bounds.

Trump scares me more than any politician ever. He could easily change our world in profound ways.


Please. To change the world, he would have to have some sort of vision or principles. He has one principle: Trump.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 11 Jun 2016, 2:55 pm

danivon
Given that in some states there are lots of votes in open primaries, while in others it was a much smaller number in closed caucuses (not all of which actually counted as some states have a hierarchy of delegates), total number of votes is not necessarily an accurate measure.

There were two states that Bernie won most of the delegate because they were chosen in Caucus, but Hillary won the actual primary vote. washington and nebraska. The link from 538 does the hard analysis...
It clearly shows that you can win a caucus without having broad popular support. Harder to do with a primary. Unless there are many competitive candidates and a small plurality is all you need. (ala Donald)
Haillary won fair and square. Her support among super delegates came from her relationships and work in Congress and States and through the years. She earned that support. Thats what Sanders was fighting, not a rigged system.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the ... t-sanders/

Not that the primary system couldn't be enhanced to be more democratic ...
And not that Sanders hasn't actually done the more remarkable thing than Hillary. Yes she is the first woman to win a nomination of a major party. But Bernie was the first proclaimed socialist to be a major candidate for a nominartion and he's pushed Hillary way to the left.
It indicates that the young in the US have a different understanding of socialism then their parents. (Although its their parents benefitting most from Medicare and Social Security).
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 12 Jun 2016, 6:19 am

rickyp wrote: But Bernie was the first proclaimed socialist to be a major candidate for a nominartion and he's pushed Hillary way to the left.
It indicates that the young in the US have a different understanding of socialism then their parents. (Although its their parents benefitting most from Medicare and Social Security).

Not sure that Hillary will keep tacking left once the Primaries are over. She would be better advised to try to maintain centre ground and marginalise Trump.

And I don't actually think it is about "understanding" socialism so much as it is a reaction to the current political situation. Just like the Trump supporters, there is an element of rebellion, hero worship and outrage, with populist policies attracting people.

Obviously I like Sanders more than, well any of the other major party candidates. But I have been disappointed by the behaviour of his supporters and some of the unrealistic expectation of his campaign.

Still, Hillary started with a big advantage due to the super-delegate declarations, which meant she was looking like being coronated rather than having to win a tight race. The early primaries, especially in the South (In States that neither Democrat can hope to carry in November) were influenced by that.

It was not a case of being against the rules, or even necessarily "unfair" - Bernie can't demand loyalty from some of the Congressional Democrats he's been arguing against for a couple of decades, and his campaign took a while to gain momentum.

Not sure I agree with your prescription - a single primary day - but the Democrat primaries do seem "broken". Consistency would help both parties to avoid criticism of the unfairness of the process.

But in this year what the main problem has been really is a toxic political culture, with both parties split between establishment hacks and idealistic but in many ways deluded insurgents. A different system of primaries won't stop that sort of thing - if the only candidates available are subpar and the voters lap up idiocy then any system would deliver a bad outcome.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 12 Jun 2016, 7:44 am

danivon
Not sure that Hillary will keep tacking left once the Primaries are over. She would be better advised to try to maintain centre ground and marginalise Trump


That would be the standard ploy. However, since Trump isn't a standard conservative, she seems to want to fight the election on the issue of who will actual fight for the working and middle classes. His own turf.
I think she (and Warren as a running mate?) might be willing to fight over who is more likely to make gains for them and actually fight inequality. See below.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hil ... n=politics

danivon
And I don't actually think it is about "understanding" socialism so much as it is a reaction to the current political situation.

Bill Maher explained it thusly the other night.
"Older people hear socialism and they think Communist Russia or China.
Millenials hear socialism and they think naked Danes on month long beach vacations..."
Both are a little unrealistic.
Its no longer an evil. And they actually understand that Medicare and Social Security ARE socialist programs.
But its still all in the marketing.. and the basic misunderstanding. The poll attached shows 63% support for the concept of "Medicare for all".
but only 38% support for "socialized medicine."
How doesthat happen?
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi ... ns/471045/

danivon
and his campaign took a while to gain momentum.

If he had momentum, he sure lost it all last Tuesday.