Both parties clearly pine for the old days where the party bigwigs gathered in a smoke-filled room and decided who the nominee was going to be.

Sometimes it seems like that system resulted in higher-quality candidates. Or at least candidates who were better able to hide their sleazy politician auras behind a screen of charisma.

But shit like this makes it very clear how and why that system was shady and corrupt.

Unfortunately, I don't think this story will be big enough news to change anything. The likelihood of the GOP going to a contested convention and foisting some candidate on voters that hasn't even been running (Drudge Report suggests Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan are likely choices of the party) is much more likely to cause a big enough splash to change things.

There should be a Donald Trump impersonator convention. It would he heeewwwge.

Now, under this video on YT, the description reads-

Christine Kramar has been removed as Clark County's chair of credentials committee after an Emergency meeting by Hillary Clinton supporters on the executive board.

At the convention, she was removed from the convention center and is currently being arrested.

Clinton Campaign Orders Clark County Chairperson Removal has been added as a related post - related requested by Mordhaus.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Nevada-Democratic-Convention-Corruption

I agree with most of what he says.

Get rid of the electoral college? YES PLEASE. I was amazed that there was pretty close to zero push to scrap the system after Gore "lost" to Bush. Not even from Democrats. And it (popular vote winner not winning the electoral college) has happened FOUR times! Why wasn't there HUGE blowback in each of those instances, especially in 2000? Hell, why isn't there consistent resistance to this indefensible "system" ALL THE TIME? Instead, people periodically get reminded about it and say "wow, that's pretty fucked up ... meh".

Have primaries settled by actual VOTES instead of weird-ass caucuses / conventions / delegates / "super"delegates, etc.? Undoubtedly better than what goes on now.

Get rid of the senate? Nah. The house is good for being a reasonably-accurate division based on population, which is a good thing. But, there are some issues where regional concerns are better addressed by equal representation per state (farming, manufacturing, business, tourism, etc.). It has the unfortunate side-effect of making a "rogue" senator that does things against what their constituents want worse than in the house, but I think that is a good argument for term limits (possibly *term* limit, as in one and only one) but not scrapping the senate entirely.

Interesting.
That's not how it goes here.
Our system is just plain ridiculous...I'll TRY to explain a little as I understand it.

We start with primaries to choose 'nominees'. Each candidate must either declare a party affiliation (not JUST republican or democrat, but mostly) or run as independent. Each party decides how their primary is set up....so now it gets nutty because the democratic primary in one state may have different rules from the republican primary in that same state, or different from other democratic primaries in other states! WOW.

The idea is for one candidate in each party to 'win' enough delegates (as determined by the primary votes in all states) to elect them the NOMINEE in the party convention this summer, which then puts them on the ballot in November. If no one wins a majority, the whole thing goes insane again and the convention (in differing ways for different parties) decides who their candidate will be. The votes don't just transfer, but they CAN....if say a candidate drops out and tells his delegates to vote for someone else...but they don't HAVE to! They can vote for whomever they like if their candidate has dropped out, but usually follow orders.
All this is just to figure out who will be on the ballot in November! Then we get to do the electoral college thing that's also impossible to comprehend.
I hope that helps and didn't just make it more confusing.
Newt

*lies

God is real

IF you don't believe then vote Democrat. They gave up God at teh 2012 party convention.

She gets more delegates because most of the superdelegates had already said they would vote for her before the primary even happened. This is the game that is primary season in the US. She is actually very smart since the popular vote means nothing, it all comes down to how many delegates a candidate has at the convention. While Bernie has been railing against Wall St., Clinton has been quietly getting superdelegates to promise to vote for her. There are 2436 total delegates at the DNC of which 714 are "superdelegates". In September, Clinton already had the votes of over 400 superdelegates. Check out http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2015/Pres/Phone/Sep02.html for more on how this process works.

The first thing you need to understand is the suspension doesn't use springs or shock absorbers. The whole thing is linear electric motors on each control arm. (Great huge solenoids) The suspension moves up and down independent of weight or inertia. It works fast enough that it starts to compensate for bumps BEFORE the tires hit the bump.

This system has more in common with a 1965 Impala with hydraulic rams bouncing in a parking lot than a conventional car suspension.

For the most part, it scans the road ahead.
See a dip down? Extend the wheel.
See a bump up? Retract the wheel.

I'm fairly certain the ollie was manually instigated by the driver.
Much like hitting the turbo boost on K.I.T.T. it's just a button and the computer does the jump.

Press button:
Retract the wheels, starting with the front. (to maximize suspension travel)
Push down hard on front, then rear wheels. (Launch car up)
Retract front then rear wheels. (tuck the wheels up)
*car passes over 2x4*
Push down on front, then rear wheels.(ready for touchdown)
*tires hit pavement*
Retract front, then rear, wheels slowly to absorb impact.

I found Colbert's question about "unknown knowns" the most interesting, but here's the thing:

Bush was the Commander in Chief. He didn't present their "intelligence evidence" of Iraq's WMDs to the American people because he *had* to. He tells the military what to do, they do it; the people don't get "veto rights". The only reason he presented it to the American people (I still remember watching Colin Powell show satellite photos etc.) was to shore up votes for his re-election. Which is exactly what any politician would do in that situation -- make a decision, and present that decision in the best possible light to the voters.

In other words, when Bush et al. were presenting that stuff to us, they weren't selling the actual invasion itself to us. They were selling us an image of their own legitimacy and competence. Viewed like that, of course they aren't going to inform us of those "unknown knowns"; it would shatter the image of them confidently and capably doing what they knew they had to do -- which was the actual point of it (selling that image to us, I mean).


I was sold, at the time. As were most (but not all) Americans, including many many people much older and wiser than I was (and am). I now agree that the invasion was a colossal mistake and that Bush's presidency in general was rather disastrous. BUT, that being said, I think it is problematic to hold these kinds of decisions against a president beyond a certain point.

FDR decided to drop two atom bombs on Japan rather than continuing with conventional warfare and risking many more American (and Japanese) lives with an invasion. Many people have questioned (and continue to question) that decision. But FDR was there. He was the Commander in Chief, he had some facts and plenty of unverifiable information and suggestions from his cabinet and intelligence sources of the time, and he made the decision.

I don't envy people in power who have to make weighty decisions like that based on incomplete information, only to have people question those decisions by citing information that they didn't have at the time. For the rest of their lives.

The media is covering Trump for ratings. end of story. Capitalism Trumps all.


Trump has a far better chance to when than Bernie.

However I don't think the GOP will give Trump or Cruz the keys to the party at the convention.


I could see Trump going 3rd party and pulling Cruz as VP and proclaim the Republican party dead and win the election.

Scary shit if that went down.

Are you a Bernie boy or just leaning towards him?

You mean where they wear bunny and fox suits and get it on?

I'm pretty sure those movies already exist. They have conventions for people with that sort of fetish.

gets my vote. I remember getting home very drunk on beers and inflating a conventional mattress for my brother. when i deflated it the next day the room was filled with the delightful scent of stale beer breath.

[author flagged as a spammer - redacted]