Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

That's nice.  Notice the part how it happened to people who aren't exactly demographically likely to be Bernie supporters?

[i2amroy]

That's nice.  Notice the part how it happened to people who aren't exactly demographically likely to be Bernie supporters?

It also happened to two friends of mine I know who registered just this year and are demographically likely to be Bernie supporters.

At this point all we can really say is that something went horribly wrong and it's impossible to know who was affected and whether it was on purpose or just a horrible database error. Since there's no way we're ever going to get a "revote day" here in Arizona, and there's no way to go back in time and check what the data actually is, any calls you might be making about it beyond "in general, democrats were the ones affected the most" are nothing but unsupported opinions and nothing more.

[mainiac]

It's the same old two step.  Throw around the word "voter suppression".  Heavily imply wrong doing.  Then say "oh all I'm saying there were problems."

[i2amroy]

It's the same old two step.  Throw around the word "voter suppression".  Heavily imply wrong doing.  Then say "oh all I'm saying there were problems."

If you'll note I never actually used the phrase "voter suppression" anywhere at all in my posts, or even meant to imply it if it seemed that way. My statement simply said that people were screwed out of their right to vote by showing as being listed in the wrong party (and actually by far the most likely reason why that happened was a database error).

In fact the current "voter suppression" suit being tossed around in Arizona has nothing to do with the fact that people showed up as listed for the wrong parties, but instead is more focused around the fact that the vast majority of "cut" polling centers from last election were removed from low income areas instead of being removed evenly.

Edit Small Note: Though there have also been a couple of petitions to the government asking them to investigate the several issues with the primary that managed to acquire over 100,000 signatures, and in a few cases over 200,000 signatures.

[mainiac]

If you'll note I never actually used the phrase "voter suppression" anywhere at all in my posts, or even meant to imply it if it seemed that way.

No, you simply provided an affirmative responses to a post that did.

[Criptfeind]

Man Mainiac, slow down, you're spinning so fast I'm getting a headache.

[mainiac]

Yeah because it's "spinning" to call people out on their cynical bullshit.

[i2amroy]

My post was intended as a funny/sad comparison between claims from someone that people were having trouble voting in their state (due to a problem that is identical to one of the many that we faced in Arizona on our Primary voting day) and the problems that we had in Arizona. Again, my statements have made no assumptions about the reasons why, or who they were aimed at, and honestly I'm not sure why you are reacting so hostilely to the comparison. Heck, the problems that I stated are something that both the Hillary and Bernie campaigns are suing the state over, and Hillary even won Arizona by a ton!

So I'm going to echo Criptfeind here and ask you to please take a deep breath and slow down a bit.

The Clinton campaign will join the lawsuit after it is filed on Friday, according to Democratic officials. Sanders, the senator from Vermont who is running against Clinton for the party’s presidential nomination, is also joining the lawsuit, according to one of his senior aides.

[Sheb]

Yeah because it's "spinning" to call people out on their cynical bullshit.

Yeah, calm down mainiac.

[Criptfeind]

I meant the part where you first leapt onto it just being lazy sore loosers, and when someone said "actually it happened to a Hillary supporter as well" you immediately did a 180 to "See it being not based on party lines" followed by someone just giving an anecdotal about it maybe actually being that causing you to immediately spin into a bizarre strawman/accusation/calling the person who's points you were previously trying to use in your argument on 'bullshit'. You seem to be changing what you think on a post by post basis so long as it can use or discredit the previous post to try to 'prove' it wasn't some intentional conspiracy which you seem more worried about then most other people here.

Just saying if we strapped magnets to ye we could power all the polling stations for a revote by your rotation alone.

[mainiac]

Well what I'm looking at is someone says a cynical thing and you guys dont question but as soon as there is push back you start looking for flaws.

being that causing you to immediately spin into a bizarre strawman/accusation/calling

I think it's pretty simple:

1) Some people fucked up their registration and said OMG VOTE SUPRESSION
2) Some people actually got lost in the bureaucracy

Put them together and you get exactly what we see.  Alternatively you can act like the second is validation of the first.  That is not what we see.

[Shadowlord]

I'm going to nope out of this "conversation" because it looks like it's on a fast train to banville...

[Solifuge]

If peeps can't find consensus on the nature of the vote troubles here, can we still agree that the whole primary delegate/superdelegate system is generally as stupid, inefficient, unnecessary, and complicated as the electoral college?

[Wolfhunter107]

If peeps can't find consensus on the nature of the vote troubles here, can we still agree that the whole primary delegate/superdelegate system is generally as stupid, inefficient, unnecessary, and complicated as the electoral college?

Yeah. Better than having them selected by the party leaders, but it could be a bell of a lot better.

[TheBiggerFish]

If peeps can't find consensus on the nature of the vote troubles here, can we still agree that the whole primary delegate/superdelegate system is generally as stupid, inefficient, unnecessary, and complicated as the electoral college?

Yeah. Better than having them selected by the party leaders, but it could be a bell of a lot better.

I think California has something like, you have a vote, and then the top two candidates from that vote run against eachother no matter what parties they are?

I wouldn't know, I'm on the other side of the country, but I heard something to that effect...