Reddy

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 11:19 AM) This is just as apt as calling anyone who votes for Bernie Sanders a communist. OK, but do you have a response? Who pays for public services without taxes?

Hawk Hawk Hawk Hawk Hawk. Hawk Hawk. Hawk. Are my thoughts.

Y'all voting Libertarian like bridges and roads, right? I've never quite understood the logistical realities of the Libertarian movement, and as such always just attributed it to being supported by easily manipulated young people who loved Ron Paul, and "get off my lawn" old people.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Apr 24, 2016 -> 06:04 PM) If the general is Trump vs Hillary, I would bet money on Johnson (if he is indeed the Libertarian nominee) gets at least 5%. I'd take that bet. 5% is a lot.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 24, 2016 -> 10:55 AM) In the general election, I am almost certainly voting Libertarian. Because you like the platform or you just hate your other options?

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Apr 24, 2016 -> 03:41 AM) Gary Johnson has 0% at 5%. Thank you.

Nope. The Dem side is pretty standard, but that GOP side is just s***balls crazy.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Apr 22, 2016 -> 11:47 AM) It's just so weird that three different entities play a major role in the process. The parties' national committees determine how many regular delegates and super delegates each state gets. The state governments determine when voting will occur, and the state party committees determine how to award the delegates within each state. That's what seems so messed up to me. On another note, Bernie has started running TV commercials in my market (Louisville/S. Indiana). None of the other candidates yet. He's gotta blow all those poor peoples' money somehow.

QUOTE (Alexeihyeess @ Apr 20, 2016 -> 11:18 PM) This is with John Danks being a gas can, Sale having an inauspicious start and Rodon getting RAVAGED by the Angels that one game. I dont think Latos finishes with an ERA The Mets are pitching better than the Sox so far (3.4 WAR) AND they have an unreasonably high .340 BABIP... so they're only going to get BETTER. We're not as good as the Mets pitching-wise.

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 20, 2016 -> 09:30 PM) How the individual party decides to select their candidate should be their choice. You are making the choice to disenfranchise yourself by not following the rules the party voluntarily put in place. There are no constitutional requirements for primaries. You can continue to deny seeing the logic, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. This.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 20, 2016 -> 05:12 PM) they want to attract voters, though, and stuff like this pushes them away. Nah. 6 months from now the independents who care will still vote. And the ones who liked Bernie won't vote Trump.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Apr 20, 2016 -> 05:07 PM) Because only two political parties' nominees matter when it comes to deciding the most important office in the country. Restricting access to voting in either of the two primaries because I don't identify as D or R is undemocratic and specifically leads to the fringes of parties nominating candidates. Again, I don't have to pay dues to the Democrats or Republicans to participate. I don't have to pledge fealty to that party, so even if I identify myself as an R in NY 6 months in advance of the election, I can still vote D in the general. There is no logic in saying "independent voter, you don't have a say in either the nominee from the Republican party or the Democratic party because you didn't check a box. I'm not advocating a system where people get to vote in both primaries. But restricting access to either party is a bad system. Give me a system where I show up on primary day and pick D or R for my ballot. Don't give me a system where I'm disenfranchised from the pick. You want that system, start your own party! The Democratic and Republican parties have no obligation to you as a voter.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Apr 20, 2016 -> 03:53 PM) But there's nothing stopping that now. Granted each state does primaries differently, but if I'm registered as an R, I can vote for Kasich in my primary because I feel like he's the best choice for President. Then Trump gets the nomination, and I decide that Clinton suits my interests better. I can still cross parties and vote for Clinton. So other than the fact that the Rs and Ds are private entities (which in a Presidential context is silly because they are the only two real choices for President), what is the logical basis for restricting access to the primaries? um. only let the people who are invested in/care about your party having a say in who the candidate is? Makes sense to me.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Apr 20, 2016 -> 03:47 PM) Again. I have no problem not allowing people not in the party to vote. The problem is that people shouldn't have to decide 6 f***ing months in advance if they what to be in that party. It's ridiculous. that we can agree on.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Apr 20, 2016 -> 03:09 PM) I don't follow that logic. When I check the box as "Democrat" when I register to vote, I am not estopped from voting for Republicans in elections. I can still be an Independent and be a part of the primary. Basically, you are disenfranchising people who don't check a box... No... those people get to vote in November, which is what they signed up for when they refused to check a box. Personal responsibility and all that.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Apr 20, 2016 -> 02:38 PM) That doesn't make it any better. You are still forcing an independent voter to decide 6 months before the election. At that point in October there had only been a couple debates and there were still 15 or so Republican candidates and a half dozen Democratic candidates running. Independents shouldn't have any right to vote for a party's nominee. I echo all the previous sentiments posted by Tex/SS2K etc

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 20, 2016 -> 09:22 AM) I have to imagine that is counting every registered independent in the state of New York, many of whom had no interest in voting in the primary at all, but it deceptively implies that they wanted to vote but were blocked. NY's 6 month registration deadline is ridiculous, but these types of complaints aren't really very helpful. guys. If you weren't previous registered, you had until March 25 to register to vote in NY. 6 months is only for SWITCHING parties.

totes. I don't hate him. Seems like a good guy, works hard, and I'd love to see him do better. But... he is what he is at this point as a pitcher.

QUOTE (SouthSideSale @ Apr 16, 2016 -> 12:36 PM) LMAO why? He sucks. greg's MO is to idolize every universally disliked Sox player/manager

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Apr 16, 2016 -> 07:56 AM) I think the Nationals clinched their division last night. 10 games in. #mets

QUOTE (greg775 @ Apr 16, 2016 -> 03:02 AM) I love Danks. I may be his biggest fan. I'm shocked.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Apr 14, 2016 -> 05:14 PM) And now you get it. Congrats Reddy. Thanks. Those two things are in no way related.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Apr 14, 2016 -> 04:05 PM) Kind of like how everyone should pull themselves up by their bootstraps. false equivalency is a fallacy.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Apr 14, 2016 -> 03:33 PM) Fair enough, I shouldn't have put the liberal tag on it; probably better to say corrupt and inept then anything else. Voting should not be rocket science and yet this 6 month rule is screwy as hell. People should just vote these hoops are just trying to make things more complicated than a blind man putting on make up. I don't think forcing people to register ahead of time is a big deal. And I think voting is something people should have to put effort into. The easier you make it, the dumber the electorate, and the more Trumps you end up with.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Apr 14, 2016 -> 02:17 PM) What inconsistencies? That was my first comment about NY being screwed up. Criticizing a state's liberal leanings for why it suppresses voting is...... inconsistent with reality.