Letters to the Editor
-
Watching me operate
"Renegade iconoclast" wrote:
I've been watching you operate for a while droogoy, and you are either completely a Hillary shill, or a right wing troll, or both.
Oh, woo, hoo! He's been watching me "operate". What, do you consciously seek out being a dick, or does it just come naturally, Evidently, from all your observing me you haven't picked up much. Such as the fact I have voted D since the 1960s. (Though I did change my registration to Independent in 1996).
Oh, and did you also see me "operate" for four years in the Peace Corps? Did you see all those poor kids that I helped, following the lead of JFK to "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for younr country".
Did you see me getting dengue fever while there? How about the other illnesses? No, didn't think so. NOW - tell me about how you fulfilled JFK's challenge, asshole.
Proportional representation is the most Democratic way to settle things, making it right choice for the Democratic party.
Proportional representation is a joke that is only roughly tabbed to the real proportions reflected in the popular vote. It's absurd and merely intended to give people the impression of fairness, as E.J. Dionne noted. Ultimately, it will only lead to a bare-knuckled brawl to no one's advantage - and splinter the party so bad that no one will be able to beat the Reeps come November.
Oh, and btw, just so you know - this nation is not a true democracy but a REPUBLIC. Big difference there, sonny.
Your argument is so transparently ad-hoc and ex-post-facto, I'm surprised you aren't ashamed to publish it.
Ad hoc, my ass. My argument is spot-on and only a blind doofus overpowered by the illusion of "fairness" (and political PR) in that proportional representation poop wouldn't see it. Even E. J. Dionne sees it. As he noted, it carries a false fairness too far, to the detriment of the party.
Your counter arguments, by contrast, are so replete with subjective nonsense, I'm surprised you'd take ownership for them - but not surprised you'd employ a handle like "renegade iconoclast".
-
droogy plops a greasy steamer
What a remarkable vocabulary you possess, oh droogster devine. How many anal and fecal references can you stuff into one post? Your postulate, your rhetorical suppository, is that all the super delegatees will vote for Hillary and save the day. You do start your drinking early in droogyville, don't you? Bottoms up. Grab your ankles. Feel the surge. love heywood
-
@hey droogoy
Hey man, chill out. That is so uncalled for. I know things can get heated around here but geez! Come on.
-
Piece Core
Hey, give the Droogster some slack. He saved the world, or tried, and now he's old and pissed off. How those correlate escapes me, but so does much of what excrete from ol' droogy. Just stay upwind.
-
Add ad-hominem to the mix
NOW - tell me about how you fulfilled JFK's challenge, asshole.
They taught you to talk to people like that in the Peace Corps, did they?
I was born 13 years after JFK died. I really don't have much connection to that challenge. I can't say I've done a lot really, other than give money to charities and political candidates. I guess I comfort myself by saying that's more than most other people do. Thanks for the guilt trip.
Proportional representation is a joke that is only roughly tabbed to the real proportions reflected in the popular vote. It's absurd and merely intended to give people the impression of fairness, as E.J. Dionne noted.
So... let me get this straight. Since proportional representation is only a rough tabulation, it's better to just ditch it altogether in favor of something far less accurate?
Ultimately, it will only lead to a bare-knuckled brawl to no one's advantage - and splinter the party so bad that no one will be able to beat the Reeps come November.
Only if the electorate is very closely divided, which probably means you have very good candidates to choose from. I repeat my example of a one vote majority (which I note you did not address). Is it fair that a margin of one vote should render voiceless millions of voters?
Oh, and btw, just so you know - this nation is not a true democracy but a REPUBLIC. Big difference there, sonny.
Here is your biggest red-herring so far. If by republic, you mean a representative Democracy (as most do), a proportional method of electing your representative does not change us suddenly into a direct democracy. In fact, you are electing representatives to elect your representatives. There's two layers inbetween the electorate and the representative.
Even if we elected our representative by popular vote, we would remain a Republic. The difference between a representative Democracy and a direct Democracy is that elected representatives make/enforce the laws, rather than the public at large. California has a direct Democratic government, where citizens may enact any law through popular referendum. That frankly scares me, but is is completely separate from the issue of how the representatives of the Republic are chosen.
But what do I know, I'm just a dickish asshole.
-
Ditching or not?
Renegade iconoclast wrote:
So... let me get this straight. Since proportional representation is only a rough tabulation, it's better to just ditch it altogether in favor of something far less accurate?
Nooooooooo......... Ditch it for something absolutely binary (1 or 0, win all or get nada) like winner take all. No halfsies or quartsies, or thirdsies muddying up the waters in the interest of this ....errr... "fairness". Whoever wins 'X' state takes ALL X's delegates, no sharing.
Not "democratic", well....last time I checked this was how the Ds tabulated their primaries in the 60s, and 70s. Why not go back to the old standard?
Also, last I checked that's how the November election will unfold. There won't be any splitting of electoral votes by "proportion" or rough proportion. It'll be winner-take -all so better get used to it earlier than later.
Re: my lingo, yes, I apologize to all for getting carried away- happens each political season and even wifey (an affirmed Obie supporter) has taken me to task for becoming "politically obsessed".
As for Peace Corps, and laying the guilt trip on you - that was a knee-jerk reaction to you calling me a "Hillary shill" or worse, a reep. Or freep. I wanted you to know up front I have Dem bona fides that probably predated your birth, and I also served them via action, not merely writing on a blog or forum.
Anyway, I vow not to let myself get ballistic henceforth.
Obie is a good guy, and if he is the last man (candidate) standing, so be it. I will vote for him.
I would hope that all Obie supporters are also sensible enough to do that for HRC if she is the last candidate standing - even if her winning means getting the super vote behind her.