It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iowa Caucus Discussion.

page: 8
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

They're decent choices. A nice thing about iowa and NH is since nothing goes on there so it's a lot bigger deal than it would be in LA or NY.

The battle is for metros 500k-1million is where it's a toss up.

Ohio is probably the ideal state for 1st to go.




posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire
Yes, it would be interesting and your questions made me seek answers too. Apparently, Iowa and New Hampshire is a culling of the candidates before they have to face the larger populace states. It would be too expensive for campaigns to reach the voters in the larger states. I found this article fascinating on the differences between Iowa and New Hampshire elections and am surprised that actually it seems voting for the republicans in Iowa is a lot easier than for Democrats!? That seems unfair! What is up with that?

Can anyone tell me why there is this difference in voting?
Source link

Edit add: I mean seriously, why can one party vote be done in secret and the other is not? That just is not right, right?
edit on 2 1 2016 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Oh thank goodness my heart can't take 3 days lol.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: DBCowboy

Well, how do you see capitalism changing? The only changes I see coming is reining in those who corrupt Capitalism. What's your take?


When the government determines salaries, institutes wage caps, taxes excessively to pay for ever increasing social programs.

That's how I see it changing.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

But it's already so, it' just hasn't caught up to the value of the dollar. If Capitalism in this country hadn't, from the start, placed 0 value on labor... there wouldn't be a need for a standard. Capitalism needs to let Labor enter the free market.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: DBCowboy

But it's already so, it' just hasn't caught up to the value of the dollar. If Capitalism in this country hadn't, from the start, placed 0 value on labor... there wouldn't be a need for a standard. Capitalism needs to let Labor enter the free market.


I don't like it now! I know I won't like it when government gets even more involved.

Look, even I admit it'll happen regardless of my feelings on the subject. It's only a matter of time.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Sorry, but employers have never placed $0 value on labor, not even during the days of slavery. You can argue that the plantation owners did not pay their slaves, but the dollar value of a slave reflected the value of his or her labor.

Similarly, you might derisively call low wages slave wages, but the very fact that wages exist at all reflects the truth that labor has value - both for those employed who do not work for nothing and for those employing who still pay something for the labor.

Now, we can disagree all we want about the proper value of labor, but it has never had $0 value.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

It's never been in the free market.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Are you inside yet? How does the crowd look?



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ketsuko

It's never been in the free market.


Neither has capitalism if you really want to go there. Btw, organized labor isn't free market.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: introvert

Are you inside yet? How does the crowd look?


I'm watching Fox, they were at a DNC center and is sits 300.

There were already over 500 and a 200 person waiting line outside.

And at this one place, it was mostly students for Bernie.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Yesssssssss! Thanks for the info.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Okay ABC is also streaming coverage @ ABC Live stream.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Thanks, Kali!!!




posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

OMG I need to find a way to calm down... I shouldn't be watching lol.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: CynConcepts

Can anyone tell me why there is this difference in voting?
Source link

Edit add: I mean seriously, why can one party vote be done in secret and the other is not? That just is not right, right?


Keep in mind that this is a private party matter. Government is not involved. A private party can make up its own rules. The Dems approach is more public, to the point you can be shamed into supporting candidate X over candidate Y because you are making a public stance. It also winnows the candidates. If your candidate does not get 15% or more, you must change candidates, i.e.: Move to the other side of the room publicly, or leave.

The GOP is a ballot approach. You walk in, cast your ballot, and leave, much more like a government-sponsored primary. Your vote is not public, and you can vote for a candidate that has a low percentage. Indeed, you don't know.

This is just Iowa as well. As I explained above, the caucus GOP vote in my state (Washington) is much more like the Dems vote in Iowa. Each precinct is separate and the precincts themselves are small. When I went there were only three people from my precinct, though there were several hundred people in the hall.

I guess the only thing you can say for certain is YMMV.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   
I can't draw myself away from the NFL SB 50 coverage since my Panthers are in the big game, but... I am following a live blog that has a live tally feature on the right handside for tonight's Iowa Caucuses...

Just sharing for those who may be interested:

www.washingtonpost.com...




posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   
How long till we know who wins the Iowa caucus tonight? I'm thinking it should not take too long to make sure ever vote is accounted for.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teddy916
How long till we know who wins the Iowa caucus tonight? I'm thinking it should not take too long to make sure ever vote is accounted for.


Don't worry. They're using a Microsoft app to tally the votes. What could possibly go wrong?



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Teddy916

I think the Dem side will report earlier than the GOP.. there are so many GOP candidates which could make for an interesting night in Iowa...

We don't have a caucus in Va where I live, but I have always respected the way Iowa handles selecting their respective presidential candidates...

Edit to add,

And I think that their is a difference in how each party handles their caucuses...

Very interesting to see how a state and the parties choose to collaborate and choose a candidate from either side...

Still learning the entire process myself, but it's certainly more interesting than just casting a ballot and letting folks count..
edit on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 19:39:54 -0600 by JacKatMtn because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join