[Andres]

Originally posted by YSL

I rather believe the New York Times than some internet troll.

http://www.nytimes.com/live/new-york-primary-2016/group

Right? Because 3.2 million people shouldn't be able to vote because that might mean Bernie wins. mhm so democratic

[YSL]

Originally posted by Andres

Yup and the focus of the lawsuit was?

My point still stands, the Hens want to scream at Bernie and his supporters for everything without knowing the full facts. and don't talk to me about insults when Hens do the same thing

They insinuate that Bernie supporters are just young and stupid, literally everyother page

That's not true, we know that all Bernie supporters aren't just young.

The focus of the lawsuit was to make this NY Primary an open one and even the person filing the lawsuit acknowledges it would mostly benefit Bernie. I can see why this would be great for Bernie supporters, as the man switched parties to benefit himself.

[Andres]

Originally posted by Bloo

I don't understand why people think open primaries are more democratic than closed primaries. The primary is a way to allow party members to choose who they want to run for president. I don't see why non-party members are entitled to have a say.

oh my lord

I'm sure similiar things were said when black people and women were trying to vote

[LoKoPaNdA]

Rooting for Hillary but I can see why Bernie would have so much appeal in NYC. Regardless of the outcome I hope both parties are respectful of each other (that's asking too much, apparently).

[Bloo]

Originally posted by Andres

oh my lord

I'm sure similiar things were said when black people and women were trying to vote

Not really. Anyone 18 and older can register to be a Democrat like any other party. But, I don't see why non-party members should be seen as entitled to vote for the primary of a party they don't belong to. The GE is open to everyone, regardless of party affiliation. I shouldn't really be allowed to vote the Republican primary because I'm not a registered Republican. I don't see the issue, quite frankly. If I like who the Republicans nominate more than the Democratic nominee, then I can vote for the Republican nominee in the GE. I don't see the issue at all.

[RatedG²]

Originally posted by Andres

oh my lord

I'm sure similiar things were said when black people and women were trying to vote

What kind of flop ass logic is that?

[Flare]

Originally posted by Bloo

I don't understand why people think open primaries are more democratic than closed primaries. The primary is a way to allow party members to choose who they want to run for president. I don't see why non-party members are entitled to have a say.

I was just saying this earlier to someone.

Do people even realize the logic of a open-primary? (Hint: there is none)
You're basically saying, "We're holding an internal party election to find the best candidate but we want people, not even in the party, to vote for that nominee." It's truly ironic.

If there's an open-primary for every state, then why even do primaries? Just skip to the General Election and let everyone run. It literally defeats the point of having party-specific primaries if they're going to be open anyways.

Eventually they need to either close 'em all or open 'em all and make all caucuses or regular ballot votes. There's really no reason for all this inconsistency overall on both sides.

[Retro]

Originally posted by LoKoPaNdA

Rooting for Hillary but I can see why Bernie would have so much appeal in NYC. Regardless of the outcome I hope both parties are respectful of each other (that's asking too much, apparently).

I don't think I should have to be respectful of the Republican Party, though. That's one of the core components of my personal political ideology: I can respect individual people, but I'm under no obligation to respect their values and views or their party if those things are somehow problematic. I might not be articulating the idea perfectly, but from what I see, political progress is made through making it clear that you entirely reject unacceptable, damaging views, stances, or policy.

[Andres]

Originally posted by Bloo

Not really. Anyone 18 and older can register to be a Democrat like any other party. But, I don't see why non-party members should be seen as entitled to vote for the primary of a party they don't belong to. The GE is open to everyone, regardless of party affiliation. I shouldn't really be allowed to vote the Republican primary because I'm not a registered Republican. I don't see the issue, quite frankly. If I like who the Republicans nominate more than the Democratic nominee, then I can vote for the Republican nominee in the GE. I don't see the issue at all.

I can see that by your answer you're too worried about party affiliation and labels etc etc

What it seems like you don't understand is that this is the United States of America and no matter what party I'm affliated with I should have the right to vote when I hear a candiate's message and like it, no matter what my affiliation is.

[Andres]

Originally posted by Flare

I was just saying this earlier to someone.

Do people even realize the logic of a open-primary? (Hint: there is none)
You're basically saying, "We're holding an internal party election to find the best candidate but we want people, not even in the party, to vote for that nominee." It's truly ironic.

If there's an open-primary for every state, then why even do primaries? Just skip to the General Election and let everyone run. It literally defeats the point of having party-specific primaries if they're going to be open anyways.

Eventually they need to either close 'em all or open 'em all and make all caucuses or regular ballot votes. There's really no reason for all this inconsistency overall on both sides.

Is this an outline of what's wrong with the 2 party system? Cause it sure looks like it.

[RatedG²]

Originally posted by Cupid

If you're a republican, why would you feel the need to have a say on who the democratic leader is?
Members of each party are just going to troll the opposition's votes and try to get the worst person picked.

It doesn't make any logical sense. If you want to vote, sign up for that party. If you change your mind, vote in the GE.

Serve us logic! And you're not even a US citizen

[Sasha.]

Originally posted by Cupid

If you're a republican, why would you feel the need to have a say on who the democratic leader is?
Members of each party are just going to troll the opposition's votes and try to get the worst person picked.

It doesn't make any logical sense. If you want to vote, sign up for that party. If you change your mind, vote in the GE.

Easier said than done in states like NY where the deadline to switch your affiliation was before the first debate (and before any republicans or independents could form an opinion on the candidates)

[Andres]

Yes because it's completely logical that millions of people shouldn't have a say in who is their President super logic!

We obviously disagree on this so I'll just leave it alone.

[Skywalker]

I don't have a problem with Independents having a say in the Democratic Party but I absolutely do not believe a registered Republican should have any voice or say in how the Democratic Party runs things. I would say the same for the reverse too.

[RatedG²]

Originally posted by Sasha.

Easier said than done in states like NY where the deadline to switch your affiliation was before the first debate (and before any republicans or independents could form an opinion on the candidates)

Blame the US constitution then sis

[Flare]

Originally posted by Andres

Is this an outline of what's wrong with the 2 party system? Cause it sure looks like it.

It could be used as that I guess? I was just outlining why an open-primary makes 0 sense in the context of US politics currently.

Discussing the faults of a 2 party system can intersect this but I really don't care to discuss that since it's not really relevant to me and it's a multi-layered situation protected by laws and a lot of money.

But in short...

[Retro]

Originally posted by Andres

Yes because it's completely logical that millions of people shouldn't have a say in who is their President super logic!

We obviously disagree on this so I'll just leave it alone.

Honestly, this isn't the general election and the rules and standards that govern the general really just don't apply here. The basis of your argument neglects to consider that primaries and caucuses are basically party meetings designed to choose a leader, and really should be closed to those who have no vested interest in that leader (or who would seek to manipulate that choice in the favor of their own, opposing party).

[Andres]

omg 3 hours

[RatedG²]

Everyone done clocked

[foxaylove]

Shaun King gets busted for plagiarizing work from "The Daily Beast" for a recent article he wrote for "The Daily News." What does he do? He blames his editors for not catching his stealing and blaming Chelsea Clinton, who serves as a board member for The Daily Beast, all because Shaun is a Bernie surrogate.


THE REACH.