Comments by RandomMember (page 39)

I think the new super-delegate rules strike a good balance. If super-delegates are abolished completely, a candidate like Sanders will take the majority of delegates based on his popularity in urban, coastal, areas. Then, in the general election, he's more likely to lose in battleground states in the midwest that has more weight due to quirks in the electoral college. Also, it's not like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh can become Democratic super-delegates. Super-delegates are Democratic governors, members of Congress, or insiders who care about party goals and winning the general election. So most super-delegates are elected officials who represent Democratic voters indirectly. The GOP is becoming one monolithic block of voters who represent white, aging, Christian, men. As a group, they're less likely to fracture into competing groups and therefore have less need for super-delegates.

*you

Juice - Are you familiar with a question-and-answer site called Quora.com? Join and search for "education at age 40" and you'll get lots of thoughtful discussion from people who have gone back to school later in life. For STEM or business areas, edX or Coursera have great online classes from the best schools in the country. You can audit for free to explore what interests your and study at your own pace.

Yes, in your paranoid world, it's theoretically possible for multiple candidates to stay in the race to force a second round. That didn't seem to stop the two-dozen or so candidates that have dropped out so far. But you started a thread and failed to mention the single biggest change since 2016: Under the old rules, candidates were forced to woo both ordinary voters and super-delegates because super-delegates could vote in the first round. As things stand, if a candidate like Sanders gets 51% of the delegates, then it's all over and super-delegates don't get to vote at all. It's an important change to make the process (more?) fair and super-delegates play a smaller role.

Rules were changed due to the perceived unfairness of the 2008 and 2016 elections. In any case, this is no ordinary election and I'm hoping Sanders doesn't get the nod.

"Imagine how the electrified youth of that leftward lurching state will feel if 4+ candidates ride this out all the way to the convention without anyone gaining a clear majority." ___________________ Rules have changed since 2016, super-delegates can't vote on the first round anymore, and it's not clear whether anyone will feel "cheated." As I write this, the 538 simulation has a brokered convention as the most likely result and slightly more likely than Sanders taking a majority: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo Imagine how the "leftward lurching state" will feel if we re-elect a mental-ill, incompetent, autocrat-wanna-be.

^^^ ditto

We'll see. Seems to me any repeal needs to go through Congress and the House is controlled by the Dems

??

I've had the same SB for 1.5 years. She now 22.

Just another rant, @Skibum. Do you understand the lawsuit? How do you think it will play out next year?

@Mark wrote: "About the same probability as Elizabeth Warren being a full blooded Cherokee." ----------------- I'm listening. Why are you so confident? So you're sure the lawsuit challenge will be defeated next year?

@Prim0 wrote: "The ACA didn't and doesn't work in any manner." __________________ That's simply false and something like 20M people gained coverage since the ACA was passed (mostly from Medicaid expansion). Google the polling data and you'll find that the ACA is popular. The ACA keeps the best features of the private insurance market alive and doesn't hurt innovation and does not push MDs into the middle-class. Maybe you were thinking about single-payer Medicaire-for-all. The ACA needs improvement but there really isn't a better solution. If you have a better solution, I'm all ears. Notice that @Skibum disappeared when confronted with the facts.

I've had the same gorgeous, (now) 22-yr-old, blonde, SB for almost 1.5yrs now. This is the Instagram model I've been posting about. She was over last night and I'm having some of the best sex of my life. This is my longest arrangement and, ironically, she stood me up at the first meet&greet. I haven't had any hint of drama from her and we're good friends. The Denver strip clubs are ordinary, the sugaring scene here is vibrant, but I'm planning to spend time at the downtown clubs this year. Keeping an open mind, but I doubt the clubs can compete with the sugaring scene for what I'm looking for.

@FLF -- The lawsuit doesn't make any sense. Obviously the GOP is using the courts to overturn a decision made by congress. Here's where things stand: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/21/supreme-court-wont-review-obamacare-lawsuit-before-the-election-101356

Instead of your usual trolling, @Skibum, try to answer the main topic: It's simple, the lawsuit states that the entire ACA is unconstitutional because of the mandate which was set to zero. Yes or no? Explain why that makes sense?

@Skibum: "The fraudulent ACA was upheld by the frauds who passed it? " _____________ Correct me if I'm wrong: the ACA upheld by the Supreme Court in a decision led by Republican John Roberts

Thanks, @Skibum, for Googling who filed the lawsuit. For those of you who are listening: (1) The ACA came within one vote of repeal because of John McCain's vote. (2) The individual mandate was eliminated as part of the 2017 tax cut. (3) A group of GOP governors filed a lawsuit stating that the entire ACA is unconstitutional because the mandate was eliminated. By that reasoning, the ACA should be rescued if the mandate is $1 instead of zero. The lawsuit makes no sense and amounts to judicial overreach, using the courts the overturn the decision made by congress. (4) The lawsuit could have been killed by now, but it's been pushed off until after the election. (5) There's a real possibility that 20M on Medicaid and 50M with pre-existing conditions will lose their health coverage.

Do you actually know anything, @Skibum, about the ACA lawsuit filed by a federal judge in Texas? Go read about it and come back when you've invested even a microsecond into understanding what's going on. The ACA was upheld by Congress and it's being challenged in the courts with a bogus lawsuit. It's life-and-death to 20M on Medicaid and 50M with pre-existing conditions. Repeat this 50 times until it sinks in: it's up to Congress to pass or repeal legislation. That was YOUR point above.

"Only an ignorant douchebag would use the term "cock" brothers. " ________ ....pretty sure that was an auto-correct error.

@SkiBum: "As President you wouldn't have the power to even introduce legislation..." -------------- Well, that's true, and in the case of the ACA Congress voted to eliminate the individual mandate and retain the rest of the ACA. But the *entire* ACA is being challenged in the courts with a nonsense lawsuit that everyone agrees is judicial overreach. If the ACA is killed it has enormous consequences for 20M who got Medicaid expansion and another 50M who have pre-existing conditions and can't buy health insurance under the old system. And @Max has a point that some government programs promote capitalism. Having access to healthcare means that some workers can leave their job to start their own business. To @Mark's point, the UK provides far cheaper and better healthcare on a per-capita basis than we do. Yes, it sometimes means rationing and the government dictates what doctors can charge. I like the Swedish model better which is similar to the ACA.

Not sure I understand the point of this thread? Are you complaining about Citizens United and the need for campaign finance reform? I've been here five years and you've never complained once about the Cock Brothers -- so I guess the real issue is that a rich guy like Bloomberg is challenging your hero. Yes, of course, big money distorts our democracy. And water is wet and the sun rises in the east. At least, in this case, Bloomberg's money is being used to get rid of a mentally ill and hopelessly incompetent president.

I was an adjunct (i.e, fake professor at minimum wage) after work for 15 years teaching in the hard-core physical sciences, not engineering like the pervert in the article. I would be interested to know what subjects Nidan and Gawker were teaching.

Probably because Bloomberg is courting black voters, and he appears to be succeeding.

There are some good lawyers. Honestly what I've observed over the years is that, outside of the top 20 or so law schools, just about anyone with a pulse can get in.