• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can I hear your thoughts on this?

T

Turin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
1,479
Reaction score
813
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Last night during a political discussion a friend conveyed that parties decide who will win the primary. He was not saying party leaders influence or support a specific candidate yet that in the primaries the party makes a decision and it is not decided by the voting public.

He is not partisan and his example was the primary between Hilary and Obama --- yet he would have the same comment on the republicans so keep party different out or voter fraud out as he was talking about powerful committeess that make the choice in primaries.

He said the Democratic party power brokers met at some point and decided Obama would be selected to win the primary and that was decided before the primary election. he wa snot saying they supported one over the other he wa saying they decide and that it what it is regardless of the vote.

While I have no doubt both parities and their funders try to pull strings, influence etc … that was a very close primary race running almost 50/50. I felt the people voting in that primary supporting Obama came out in larger numbers and voted.

Mind you he was not talking about voter fraud yet powerful party meetings and dynamics that control the outcome regardless of the vote count.

Do you agree with him this is the method of both parities and that counting votes is not the outcome of each of the republican and democratic parties yet powerful power brokers pre decide in meetings and select the winner regardless of voter outcome?

He said before we cast our vote and regardless of votes counted they had pre selected Obama?

He did not vote and was not for either candidate.
 
I don't think it is that clear cut. I do think that the parties have a lot of sway in who runs and certainly can affect where the money goes, which DOES have a big affect on who the voters vote for, but I don't think they always get their way. Just usually.
 
Who knows at what age that process begins;

Bill Clinton ran with high school pictures of himself on a school trip to Washington, standing beside John F Kennedy. John Kerry ran with lots of videos of himself running around the Vietnam jungles when he was in his twenties, like he was in the infantry, got three questionable Silver Stars in three months and then came home. Barack Obama was given a free great education, virtually concealed his entire life, quit voting and taking stands on anything when he got elected to the Illinois state house, then ran without a record to dog him.

What strange coincidences. Who chooses them and at what age.

This time with Hillary is a little different, but it was pretty obvious from the last debate that she's the candidate. The others were all afraid to attack her and Bernie Sanders virtually surrendered with his faux email rage.
 
Last edited:
Dion said:
Last night during a political discussion a friend conveyed that parties decide who will win the primary. He was not saying party leaders influence or support a specific candidate yet that in the primaries the party makes a decision and it is not decided by the voting public.

He is not partisan and his example was the primary between Hilary and Obama --- yet he would have the same comment on the republicans so keep party different out or voter fraud out as he was talking about powerful committeess that make the choice in primaries.

He said the Democratic party power brokers met at some point and decided Obama would be selected to win the primary and that was decided before the primary election. he wa snot saying they supported one over the other he wa saying they decide and that it what it is regardless of the vote.

While I have no doubt both parities and their funders try to pull strings, influence etc … that was a very close primary race running almost 50/50. I felt the people voting in that primary supporting Obama came out in larger numbers and voted.

Mind you he was not talking about voter fraud yet powerful party meetings and dynamics that control the outcome regardless of the vote count.

Do you agree with him this is the method of both parities and that counting votes is not the outcome of each of the republican and democratic parties yet powerful power brokers pre decide in meetings and select the winner regardless of voter outcome?

He said before we cast our vote and regardless of votes counted they had pre selected Obama?

He did not vote and was not for either candidate.
Click to expand...

There's a kernel of truth there, but not all of it. The party heads do make a choice and eventually convince the faithful to do as they're told.

However, the GOP leaders seem to be running dangerously close to losing control. Look at the problems with selecting a new Speaker. Courting the TP could turn out to be dangerous to them. They could grow away this election (which should be an easy win for them). 2012 should have been an easy win too, but between the "47 percent" and the TP dislike for Romney...Their choice is not Trump. Soon enough, they will try to derail him, but I don't know that they can succeed this time

The Democrats right now are fine from that perspective. The faithful will come behind Hillary in the end. Sanders is just getting the Kucinich factor right now.
 
Ray410 said:
Who knows at what age that process begins;

Bill Clinton ran with high school pictures of himself on a school trip to Washington, standing beside John F Kennedy. John Kerry ran with lots of videos himself running around the Vietnam jungles when he was in his twenties, like he was in the infantry, got three questionable Silver Stars in three months and then came home. Barack Obama was given a free great education, virtually concealed his entire life, quit voting and taking stands on anything when he got elected to the Illinois state house, then ran without a record to dog him.

What strange coincidences. Who chooses them and at what age.

This time with Hillary is a little different, but it was pretty obvious from the last debate that she's the candidate. The others were all afraid to attack her and Bernie Sanders virtually surrendered with his faux email rage.
Click to expand...

W was pre-anointed as well. At some point. Jeb? Maybe not.
 
Dion said:
Last night during a political discussion a friend conveyed that parties decide who will win the primary. He was not saying party leaders influence or support a specific candidate yet that in the primaries the party makes a decision and it is not decided by the voting public.

He is not partisan and his example was the primary between Hilary and Obama --- yet he would have the same comment on the republicans so keep party different out or voter fraud out as he was talking about powerful committeess that make the choice in primaries.

He said the Democratic party power brokers met at some point and decided Obama would be selected to win the primary and that was decided before the primary election. he wa snot saying they supported one over the other he wa saying they decide and that it what it is regardless of the vote.

While I have no doubt both parities and their funders try to pull strings, influence etc … that was a very close primary race running almost 50/50. I felt the people voting in that primary supporting Obama came out in larger numbers and voted.

Mind you he was not talking about voter fraud yet powerful party meetings and dynamics that control the outcome regardless of the vote count.

Do you agree with him this is the method of both parities and that counting votes is not the outcome of each of the republican and democratic parties yet powerful power brokers pre decide in meetings and select the winner regardless of voter outcome?

He said before we cast our vote and regardless of votes counted they had pre selected Obama?

He did not vote and was not for either candidate.
Click to expand...

Does he think that votes don't matter, and the party bosses get together, throw out the ballots, and decide who the candidate is on their own?

Or does he think that the party bosses decide who gets the most money to campaign with?

The first one is nonsense.
There may be a kernel of truth to the second.

But, the rank and file of the party votes on who the candidates are going to be. Money might influence them, but the voters still get to decide.
 
Dion said:
Last night during a political discussion a friend conveyed that parties decide who will win the primary. He was not saying party leaders influence or support a specific candidate yet that in the primaries the party makes a decision and it is not decided by the voting public.

He is not partisan and his example was the primary between Hilary and Obama --- yet he would have the same comment on the republicans so keep party different out or voter fraud out as he was talking about powerful committeess that make the choice in primaries.

He said the Democratic party power brokers met at some point and decided Obama would be selected to win the primary and that was decided before the primary election. he wa snot saying they supported one over the other he wa saying they decide and that it what it is regardless of the vote.

While I have no doubt both parities and their funders try to pull strings, influence etc … that was a very close primary race running almost 50/50. I felt the people voting in that primary supporting Obama came out in larger numbers and voted.

Mind you he was not talking about voter fraud yet powerful party meetings and dynamics that control the outcome regardless of the vote count.

Do you agree with him this is the method of both parities and that counting votes is not the outcome of each of the republican and democratic parties yet powerful power brokers pre decide in meetings and select the winner regardless of voter outcome?

He said before we cast our vote and regardless of votes counted they had pre selected Obama?

He did not vote and was not for either candidate.
Click to expand...

No, I don't agree with him at all. The power brokers can't determine outcomes of polls, much less elections. Yes, they can to some extent influence the polls and the votes through things like mainstream media, social media, and religious circles - and these means do indeed have a significant degree of influence...but beyond that, the polls and elections are not determined by some shadowy set of power brokers.
 
Dion said:
Last night during a political discussion a friend conveyed that parties decide who will win the primary. He was not saying party leaders influence or support a specific candidate yet that in the primaries the party makes a decision and it is not decided by the voting public.

He is not partisan and his example was the primary between Hilary and Obama --- yet he would have the same comment on the republicans so keep party different out or voter fraud out as he was talking about powerful committeess that make the choice in primaries.

He said the Democratic party power brokers met at some point and decided Obama would be selected to win the primary and that was decided before the primary election. he wa snot saying they supported one over the other he wa saying they decide and that it what it is regardless of the vote.

While I have no doubt both parities and their funders try to pull strings, influence etc … that was a very close primary race running almost 50/50. I felt the people voting in that primary supporting Obama came out in larger numbers and voted.

Mind you he was not talking about voter fraud yet powerful party meetings and dynamics that control the outcome regardless of the vote count.

Do you agree with him this is the method of both parities and that counting votes is not the outcome of each of the republican and democratic parties yet powerful power brokers pre decide in meetings and select the winner regardless of voter outcome?

He said before we cast our vote and regardless of votes counted they had pre selected Obama?

He did not vote and was not for either candidate.
Click to expand...

The corporate mainstream media consensus has a lot of influence. They have killed off some candidates for insignificant reasons, for example Howard Dean's scream.

The party elites consider the media coverage and opinion polls as well as primary results to decide who should run in November. They want a candidate that can win against a Republican and one that is loyal to the party. The party and the media elites decided several years ago that 2016 was Clinton's time to run. It will take a huge grassroots rebellion or the discovery of murdered bodies in Clinton's basement to overturn that decision.
 
Last edited:
Dion said:
Last night during a political discussion a friend conveyed that parties decide who will win the primary. He was not saying party leaders influence or support a specific candidate yet that in the primaries the party makes a decision and it is not decided by the voting public.

He is not partisan and his example was the primary between Hilary and Obama --- yet he would have the same comment on the republicans so keep party different out or voter fraud out as he was talking about powerful committeess that make the choice in primaries.

He said the Democratic party power brokers met at some point and decided Obama would be selected to win the primary and that was decided before the primary election. he wa snot saying they supported one over the other he wa saying they decide and that it what it is regardless of the vote.

While I have no doubt both parities and their funders try to pull strings, influence etc … that was a very close primary race running almost 50/50. I felt the people voting in that primary supporting Obama came out in larger numbers and voted.

Mind you he was not talking about voter fraud yet powerful party meetings and dynamics that control the outcome regardless of the vote count.

Do you agree with him this is the method of both parities and that counting votes is not the outcome of each of the republican and democratic parties yet powerful power brokers pre decide in meetings and select the winner regardless of voter outcome?

He said before we cast our vote and regardless of votes counted they had pre selected Obama?

He did not vote and was not for either candidate.
Click to expand...

That's a conspiracy theory. Through and through. Just try explaining to them about the primary process and all the delegates. It will go right over their heads. Why am I not surprised. He is what we in politics likes to call a disenfranchised. I can't say voter because he doesn't vote lol. That being said the DNC wanted Hillary in 2016 and the RNC wanted Bush in 2016. We'll see how that plays out but it's not looking good.
 
The state primaries in a sense represent a test run with generally a very poor voter turnout, yet if it appears those voters overwhelming favor one candidate over the other, the party will likely cast support with that candidate, forcing all others to either withdraw or run independently. Some states do not hold primaries, others hold their primaries earlier than others, thus forcing candidates from the race early. And again since a low voter turnout is possible, perhaps only five percent of those eligible, it is possible that as few as five percent could ultimately determine who those party candidates are.

In 2008 it was discovered that Hillary had been accepting campaign contributions from the Chinese and I personally believe this was a key deciding factor. And so Obama was their man and Obama won the election. (But who knows; I certainly do not.) And in 2012, I think the Republican turnout was very low, less than 20% of those eligible to vote in the primaries. But the point is, there is a huge gap between primaries which may determine candidates and the general election, thus relatively few actually determine the election. So your friend is right.

One thing is for certain: We will either elect a Democrat or a Republican and neither party is in a very good position right now.
 
Last edited:
Dion said:
Last night during a political discussion a friend conveyed that parties decide who will win the primary. He was not saying party leaders influence or support a specific candidate yet that in the primaries the party makes a decision and it is not decided by the voting public.

He is not partisan and his example was the primary between Hilary and Obama --- yet he would have the same comment on the republicans so keep party different out or voter fraud out as he was talking about powerful committeess that make the choice in primaries.

He said the Democratic party power brokers met at some point and decided Obama would be selected to win the primary and that was decided before the primary election. he wa snot saying they supported one over the other he wa saying they decide and that it what it is regardless of the vote.

While I have no doubt both parities and their funders try to pull strings, influence etc … that was a very close primary race running almost 50/50. I felt the people voting in that primary supporting Obama came out in larger numbers and voted.

Mind you he was not talking about voter fraud yet powerful party meetings and dynamics that control the outcome regardless of the vote count.

Do you agree with him this is the method of both parities and that counting votes is not the outcome of each of the republican and democratic parties yet powerful power brokers pre decide in meetings and select the winner regardless of voter outcome?

He said before we cast our vote and regardless of votes counted they had pre selected Obama?

He did not vote and was not for either candidate.
Click to expand...

Your friend is incorrect. The Party Apparatus was almost as in the tank for Hillary in 2008 as it is for her now. Obama made a lot of headway by A) leading a "movement", rather than a political campaign and B) leveraging that to steal institutional support in bits and pieces from Hillary.

Even to the end, Hillary retained more formal DNC support - remember the back-and-forth about "superdelegates", and how Obama might be winning the primaries, but Hillary might have enough party veterans with votes to counteract him?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Does he think that votes don't matter, and the party bosses get together, throw out the ballots, and decide who the candidate is on their own?

Or does he think that the party bosses decide who gets the most money to campaign with?

The first one is nonsense.
There may be a kernel of truth to the second.

But, the rank and file of the party votes on who the candidates are going to be. Money might influence them, but the voters still get to decide.
Click to expand...

That is exactly my analysis.
 
Ray410 said:
Who knows at what age that process begins;

Bill Clinton ran with high school pictures of himself on a school trip to Washington, standing beside John F Kennedy. John Kerry ran with lots of videos of himself running around the Vietnam jungles when he was in his twenties, like he was in the infantry, got three questionable Silver Stars in three months and then came home. Barack Obama was given a free great education, virtually concealed his entire life, quit voting and taking stands on anything when he got elected to the Illinois state house, then ran without a record to dog him.

What strange coincidences. Who chooses them and at what age.

This time with Hillary is a little different, but it was pretty obvious from the last debate that she's the candidate. The others were all afraid to attack her and Bernie Sanders virtually surrendered with his faux email rage.
Click to expand...

Kerry got three band aid purple hearts which he used to get out of a dangerous job (swift boats) that he had not intended to be put into (SB duty was fairly safe when he volunteered) He did not get THREE silver stars
 
cpwill said:
Your friend is incorrect. The Party Apparatus was almost as in the tank for Hillary in 2008 as it is for her now. Obama made a lot of headway by A) leading a "movement", rather than a political campaign and B) leveraging that to steal institutional support in bits and pieces from Hillary.

Even to the end, Hillary retained more formal DNC support - remember the back-and-forth about "superdelegates", and how Obama might be winning the primaries, but Hillary might have enough party veterans with votes to counteract him?
Click to expand...

That was what I recalled as I followed that closely.

I do not believe his theory yet if it were true I think the secret committee would have gone for Hilary. I think they were so close and Obama pulled ahead with a non traditional campaign and young voters. it was the delegates and the primary voters.

Again I do know and believe power people in the RNC and DNC are heavy weights with enormous influence --- just not the "decision committee theory" that will trump all with ultimate decision before the primary votes/delegates.
 
Dion said:
That was what I recalled as I followed that closely.

I do not believe his theory yet if it were true I think the secret committee would have gone for Hilary. I think they were so close and Obama pulled ahead with a non traditional campaign and young voters. it was the delegates and the primary voters.

Again I do know and believe power people in the RNC and DNC are heavy weights with enormous influence --- just not the "decision committee theory" that will trump all with ultimate decision before the primary votes/delegates.
Click to expand...

the establishment was behind Hillary in 2008. Obama won because the media was more convincing to the Dem voters than the Party was
 
Hard Truth said:
The corporate mainstream media consensus has a lot of influence. They have killed off some candidates for insignificant reasons, for example Howard Dean's scream.

The party elites consider the media coverage and opinion polls as well as primary results to decide who should run in November. They want a candidate that can win against a Republican and one that is loyal to the party. The party and the media elites decided several years ago that 2016 was Clinton's time to run. It will take a huge grassroots rebellion or the discovery of murdered bodies in Clinton's basement to overturn that decision.
Click to expand...

Yeah look at how well that worked in 2007 when they decided that it was Clinton's turn. Anyway there is no proof to your claim and lesser candidates usually implode their own campaigns without needing any help from the media. Once a candidate starts talking about media bias and how they are not being reported on with the same coverage as the front runners then it's really time to throw in the towel and stop following them.
 
TurtleDude said:
Kerry got three band aid purple hearts which he used to get out of a dangerous job (swift boats) that he had not intended to be put into (SB duty was fairly safe when he volunteered) He did not get THREE silver stars
Click to expand...

You're right, I stand corrected.
 
Ray410 said:
You're right, I stand corrected.
Click to expand...

Kerry joined the SB fleet because it counted as combat duty but when he joined was fairly safe since the NVA didn't really have an ocean going navy. Then the SBs were ordered to patrol VC infested rivers and that job became a real bitch. And Kerry whined that he was forced to do something he didn't bargain for so once his resume had that combat service, he did everything possible to get out of that duty
 
TurtleDude said:
Kerry joined the SB fleet because it counted as combat duty but when he joined was fairly safe since the NVA didn't really have an ocean going navy. Then the SBs were ordered to patrol VC infested rivers and that job became a real bitch. And Kerry whined that he was forced to do something he didn't bargain for so once his resume had that combat service, he did everything possible to get out of that duty
Click to expand...

And when he returned home, he made up vicious lies before Congress to attack those who stayed and fought. He's a contemptible human being.
 
Ray410 said:
And when he returned home, he made up vicious lies before Congress to attack those who stayed and fought. He's a contemptible human being.
Click to expand...

Mr Therese Heinz is scumbag
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom