Bernie!

[JackLuis]

Hillary Clinton’s spokesman just accused Bernie Sanders of ‘rigging the system’

A spokesman for Hillary Clinton defended the former Secretary of State from accusations that the election system is rigged in her favor, saying instead that it’s her rival Bernie Sanders who is rigging it instead.

Brian Fallon, press secretary for Democratic candidate Clinton told CNN that Clinton actually has more votes, despite the fact the Vermont senator has picked up heavy-duty momentum lately with a string of wins.

“Really, I think when you talk about rigging the system, that’s what Sen. Sanders is trying to do now,” Fallon told CNN’s New Day. “Hillary Clinton has won in the popular vote by a wide margin. She’s got more than 2 million votes over Sen. Sanders in all of the contests when you add them all up.”

Ah Spring in Election season, desperation filling the air. Hillary got beat by a black man last time, now it's an old white man kicking her butt.

 

[Hypoxia]

Hillary Clinton’s spokesman just accused Bernie Sanders of ‘rigging the system’

Ah Spring in Election season, desperation filling the air. Hillary got beat by a black man last time, now it's an old white man kicking her butt.

Given: In a democracy, whoever gets the most votes, wins.

In many primaries and caucuses, whoever names the delegates, wins.
In many states, a party winning 40% of popular votes gains 60% of seats.
In USA primary campaigns, the only meaningful voters are (super)delegates.
In presidential elections, the only meaningful voters are electors and SCOTUS.

Thus, USA is a very limited democracy. Sort of like ancient Athens, including (wage) slavery and corrupt sports. Up the republic!

Okay, back to Hillary. She got her bribes er I mean speaking honoraria from Goldman-Sachs just in time -- they've agreed to pay a US$5 billion fine. Can she find enough other solvent moneybags to finance her further campaign?

 

[sr71plt]

Going back to your "democracy" thing: So far Hillary's also gotten 2.5 million more individual votes in primaries than Bernie has.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Going back to your "democracy" thing: So far Hillary's also gotten 2.5 million more individual votes in primaries than Bernie has.

But if Bernie had 2.5 million more votes than Hillary he'd still be losing! I mean I have no way of knowing that sans a time machine n shit but hey!

 

[sr71plt]

But if Bernie had 2.5 million more votes than Hillary he'd still be losing! I mean I have no way of knowing that sans a time machine n shit but hey!

That's irrelevant to the argument that was being made. Also, I have no sympathy for that whining. If Bernie wanted to have super delegates leaning toward him at this point (they can always go his way if/when he convinces them to), he should have been in the Democratic Party pulling his weight with the Democratic Party workers who have been given those votes because of the work they've done in the Democratic Party. He wasn't. He wasn't a member of the Democratic Party until he pushed his Easy Button and decided he wanted to run for president in a party he'd paid no dues to. If he wants super delegate votes, let him do the work now to win them over. They are the ones who have to carry most of the brunt of the campaign work. And that they are the ones who do most of the "bring out the vote" work, I also have no sympathy for the whiners about them having a say in who they are going to work for.

Oh, by the way, it isn't just the Democratic Party that has these super delegates that bother you folks so much--you know the people who actually have to do most of the work to get someone elected, the folks that Trump forgot he needed to have. The Republican Party has them too. Just not as many as the Democratic Party. 15 percent of the delegate votes in the DNC are super delegate votes. 7 percent of them are in the GOP. (http://www.bustle.com/articles/1416...rtys-nomination-rules-are-different-this-year)

 

[sr71plt]

Sanders is trying to do the same thing to the Democratic Party that Trump is trying to do to the Republicans. Rather than creating a campaign apparatus of his own, he, like Trump, is trying to steal that apparatus from a party he wasn't even a member of before the campaigns started up (but in Trump's case it's a party that he doesn't really share any values with). Both are pointing to new people they are bringing into the parities, but these are folks devoted to the man, not the party. It's likely they won't be there for the party if their man doesn't win through. Will Bernie and his supporters support Clinton if she wins the nomination? No assurance there; doubtful about many of his supporters. Will Hillary support Bernie and continue to work for the party? You betcha. She's done it before. As a party official, who would you lean to?

And both interloper candidates (and some posters to these forums) are whining about the party procedures and rules they come into simply because those rules and procedures don't mean that the interloper gets everything he wants out of the system he's trying to steal. If Bernie can steal the party, more power to him. If he can't, tough shit, I'm not a bit sympathetic to the whining about that.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The world really needs a sarcasm font.

 

[sr71plt]

The world really needs a sarcasm font.

It needs a grow up and acquire common sense font as well. (At least it does have the "rolleyes" emoticon.)

I guess Sean's comment is the type you get when the point can't be argued but you don't want to be a good sport about conceding the point.

OK, Sean, say you were a someone who barely won a congressional district in a Midwest state (that's typically who a super delegate is), and you did it with a lot of help from on-the-ground party workers. Say, maybe, even party faithful leader Hillary Clinton or maybe her husband, Bill, who is still plugging away for Democrats on at the grassroots, came and gave a support speech at a rally for you. Then, say, you didn't even know who Bernie Sanders was six months ago. He wasn't a Democrat. To anyone's knowledge, he'd never even shown up in your state. He was an independent, representing a postage-stamp-size state up in New England. As a party worker, who would you be inclined to give your super delegate vote to at this point--especially in view of the delegate count (sans super delegates) and popular vote totals currently running?

Yeah, I didn't think you'd use common sense on that one. I'm sure you'd be thinking Bernie was robbed of something.

 

[phrodeau]

The world really needs a sarcasm font.

http://www.1001freefonts.com/sarcastic.font

 

[Sean Renaud]

It needs a grow up and acquire common sense font as well. (At least it does have the "rolleyes" emoticon.)

I guess Sean's comment is the type you get when the point can't be argued but you don't want to be a good sport about conceding the point.

OK, Sean, say you were a someone who barely won a congressional district in a Midwest state (that's typically who a super delegate is), and you did it with a lot of help from on-the-ground party workers. Say, maybe, even party faithful leader Hillary Clinton or maybe her husband, Bill, who is still plugging away for Democrats on at the grassroots, came and gave a support speech at a rally for you. Then, say, you didn't even know who Bernie Sanders was six months ago. He wasn't a Democrat. To anyone's knowledge, he'd never even shown up in your state. He was an independent, representing a postage-stamp-size state up in New England. As a party worker, who would you be inclined to give your super delegate vote to at this point--especially in view of the delegate count (sans super delegates) and popular vote totals currently running?

Yeah, I didn't think you'd use common sense on that one. I'm sure you'd be thinking Bernie was robbed of something.

My point is I was agreeing with you and making a jab at the other Bernie supporters. I thought the part where I said I couldn't prove it without a time machine was sufficient to drive home the joke part but admittedly with guys like Bot floating around it's kinda impossible to satire.

 

[sr71plt]

My point is I was agreeing with you and making a jab at the other Bernie supporters. I thought the part where I said I couldn't prove it without a time machine was sufficient to drive home the joke part but admittedly with guys like Bot floating around it's kinda impossible to satire.

Sorry. I didn't catch your previous posts on this.

I'll point out that Sanders isn't registering himself as a Democrat even now. He's still registered as an independent in the U.S. Senate on its official Web site (http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=party). He could have changed that designation if he was committing to the party. Chances are great he'll go right back to being an independent with zero Democratic Party commitment or work if he doesn't get the nomination (and he'll take most of his supporters with him). Thus, how much loyalty does the working party owe to him, especially when he isn't winning either the regular delegate count or the individual primary vote yet? Whining about super delegates shouldn't even be in the "he's being robbed" picture yet.

 

[lovecraft68]

My point is I was agreeing with you and making a jab at the other Bernie supporters. I thought the part where I said I couldn't prove it without a time machine was sufficient to drive home the joke part but admittedly with guys like Bot floating around it's kinda impossible to satire.

Sean, Pilot is like Drax from Guardians of the Galaxy, he is a literal being, sarcasm, humor and metaphors are lost upon him

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svtLfoGH19c

 

[sr71plt]

I don't think that's true, but I do think it's amusing that Lovecraft68 follows me around on the boards with his nose up my ass. Especially after all his efforts to exhibit himself as macho hetero on the forum.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Sorry. I didn't catch your previous posts on this.

I'll point out that Sanders isn't registering himself as a Democrat even now. He's still registered as an independent in the U.S. Senate on its official Web site (http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=party). He could have changed that designation if he was committing to the party. Chances are great he'll go right back to being an independent with zero Democratic Party commitment or work if he doesn't get the nomination (and he'll take most of his supporters with him). Thus, how much loyalty does the working party owe to him, especially when he isn't winning either the regular delegate count or the individual primary vote yet? Whining about super delegates shouldn't even be in the "he's being robbed" picture yet.

Preaching to the choir on that one. I mean the party is in a position to rob him if they so choose but he's losing fair and square anyway.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

It is useful to get the party regulars' point of view, that is true. To them, Bernie is an outsider hijacking the party, I get it. To me, that's a lesser issue than the two major parties hijacking the political process of this Republic. If Bernie was able to do this as an independent, don't you think that he would?

As for Trump, well, he's really going after the Lou Dobbs/Ross Perot voters, and I think that should be obvious by now. People disgusted with the major parties, but for the wrong reasons, seeking the wrong culprits to national issues about which they haven't bothered to inform and educate themselves. I know why they haven't, of course.....nothing is surer to make one willfully ignorant than the conviction that one already knows all of the facts. I was guilty of that at times myself in my Rothbardite days (in fact, much of what I wrote back in that Ron Paul phase is embarrassing to me now). But that's the reality of it. Perception is often reality these days.

Still, they're right about one thing: the Republic is being failed by the governing class. They're just wrong about the nature of that failure and the causes of it. The major parties, both through voter repression, gerrymandering (do you hear me, GOP state legislatures), closed primaries (never mind that they are paid for by the taxpayers), partisan news networks (Fox, MSNBC, though the latter is more on point than the former), soft money, and allegiance to contributors, become political machines worse than Tammany Hall in some ways, and at the expense of a truly representative form of government. The Constitutional obligation to ensure a republican (little R) form of government needs to be invoked and measures need to be taken to redress these very real grievances.

On balance, Sanders is more right on the issues than Trump, but both are there for a reason....politics, like nature, abhors vacuum....they fill the void. They are providing a badly needed shake-up to the political country club that is DC. Even Cruz is performing that function to a degree as well, as he is often the pick of Teabaggers unhappy with the "RINOs" in the RNC and Congress (how they are such, when they've caved to the Tea Party entirely, is beyond me).

Kasich and Clinton are the past. They represent party loyalty, machine politics, elitism, regulars, etc. Cruz straddles that line between Establishment and insurgent, of course, because he operates like a regular, but he appeals to radicals in the base.

Brace yourselves, folks. There is a revolution happening. The only question is what kind and will it save the Republic (Sanders) or destroy it (Cruz, Trump)? If the insurgents are stronger in the GOP, it's because that party is out of the White House and has more discontent because of this fact.....and because a popular incumbent in President Obama helps to unify the party at least behind himself, if not behind Clinton or Sanders.

I should add that, in my opinion, if Lou Dobbs ran for President as a Republican or independent right now, he could very well get elected, as he is less blatant about his xenophobia than Trump, though still a xenophobe, and let's be frank here, a bit of a racist.

 

[lovecraft68]

I don't think that's true, but I do think it's amusing that Lovecraft68 follows me around on the boards with his nose up my ass. Especially after all his efforts to exhibit himself as macho hetero on the forum.

As you prove my point.

And yes, much to your dismay Pilot I am hetero. So you can dream all you want, but its just never going to happen.

 

[sr71plt]

If the revolutionaries were anywhere near in the majority (or even if they could voice a believable program), yes, an independent campaign run would have traction. That you're not claiming it could now shows that you think they'd still be grabbing at something from a minority view. Maybe next time around (or even later, this time) they will show belief in having the traction needed--and then we'll see if you're right.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Going back to your "democracy" thing: So far Hillary's also gotten 2.5 million more individual votes in primaries than Bernie has.

You keep failing to realize or refusing to acknowledge that that isn't the end score and could very quickly change especially considering blue state voting trends of Sanders crushing Clinton.

Other than the fact that she owns all the supers and Sanders will never get them under any conditions it's not done and over with, Sanders could still come out a winner.

Actually I hope he doesn't. America doesn't deserve any better than the same ol' shit.

If Bernie wanted to have super delegates leaning toward him at this point (they can always go his way if/when he convinces them to), he should have been in the Democratic Party pulling his weight sucking off Wall St. and helping the 1% fuck the rest of us up the ass for the past 30 years like Clinton!

FYP!

 

[sr71plt]

You keep failing to realize or refusing to acknowledge that that isn't the end score and could very quickly change especially considering blue state voting trends of Sanders crushing Clinton.

Until it actually means anything and is more than pathetic smoke and mirrors, what I do realize is that you're just dealing in pitiful wishful thinking. Which does amuse me and makes me look forward to June. I don't care all that much, but you stand a good chance of being crushed and having looked like a clown here for a bunch of months--not that that seems to be anything new.

On my not caring all that much, I'm sure you've purposely not absorbed what I've been posting. I'm not, as you charge, a Hillary groupie. I'm just realistic about who is actually winning and who put the work in with the Democrats to take the nomination. To one charge you made, I flatly said I'm an Eleanor Roosevelt Democrat (I've said as much for a decade on these boards). That means I'm personally to the left of Bernie. I'm also a realist on who could get what done toward a progressive program as president. It isn't Bernie. At least to a small extent it's Hillary. On the Democratic side, thems our choices.

I'm not moved by the bad press on Clinton. Much of it is reactionary swiftboating and much of what is true in it becomes an advantage when you have a job that means you have to scheme and knock heads together to get any of your program done (Obama failed at this; Bernie would be miserable at it). I want a president who gets a program I support done--or at least a good portion of it. LBJ was a crude, scheming bastard, but he got a program done that I supported (and the JFK wasn't getting done).

As having worked with classified material and communications, I've also consistently said that Hillary might be indicted. I won't slit my wrists if she is, and I'll vote for Bernie if he's the last one standing. I won't expect him to do much other than maybe die of old age in office, though. At least he'd be keeping a reactionary or a blowhard out of that office. He damn well won't be able to get his pie-in-the-sky-under-present-circumstances program passed. And if he dismantles where we've gotten with Obamacare, as he says he would, he'll actually be taking us in the wrong direction in my opinion.

I can survive any of the Republicans as I have survived a good many Republicans in the past as one of their employees. I think I might enjoy watching Trump's dismay at how many times a day he'll lose on some point or other--and dismay of the fallout on that that his supporters will have to live with. Cruz is the biggest evil I see, but I'm old enough and wealthy enough to just turn him off. I'm not one who would suffer from his administration; I'll just be irritated as hell and probably stop giving a big chunk of cash to the church every year that I probably should have stopped giving years ago.

 

[sr71plt]

As you prove my point.

And yes, much to your dismay Pilot I am hetero. So you can dream all you want, but its just never going to happen.

And yet this obsession with me you don't seem to have been able to shake for years and years is a classic example of a closet something or other (as are a lot of your "me Tarzan" macho posts).

Lets not pretend you didn't troll me on this thread.

 

[Hypoxia]

You keep failing to realize or refusing to acknowledge that that isn't the end score and could very quickly change especially considering blue state voting trends of Sanders crushing Clinton.

The biggies have not yet spoken. New York and California can certainly tip the popular vote in somebody's favor. Hillary is 2.5 mil ahead of Bernie? Pshaw. Strong Sanders support in Los Angeles County alone could reverse that. Bernie taking the Bay Area alone could reverse that. Bernie's home borough of Brooklyn alone would make a major dent. And with delegates, only the in-state votes matter. Delegate counts are not good measures of popular support in general elections -- enthusiasts dominate primaries, which is how bagheads have knocked-off mainstream GOPs. Bernie can still hijack the Dem machine if enough superdelegates sniff the winds of change.

And yes, two private parties incorporated in Delaware dominate USA national politics. Is that in the constitution? Are such corporations sacred? Are they subject to hostile takeovers, like any other corporations? If their mainliners can't retain control, should we all go boo-hoo? Party infrastructures can be taken. Leaders only lead those who follow. Parties only persuade the willing. Can 1% donors buy-off the 99% followers? We shall see...

 

[BotanyBoy]

Until it actually means anything and is more than pathetic smoke and mirroros, what I do realize is that you're just dealing in pitiful wishful thinking.

It is pitiful wishful thinking that America would have the wherewithal to quit putting a Goldman Sachs employee in the WH.

Which does amuse me and makes me look forward to June. I don't care all that much, but you stand a good chance of being crushed and having looked like a clown here for a bunch of months--not that that seems to be anything new.

Crushed? LOL I've already said he's lost and I don't really care that much.

It's just exciting to think America might want to do something good for itself, hopefully this election spurs on that idealism and one day we might have the wherewithal to vote for a better USA instead of the Senior Scum bag.

But I'm not holding my breath, my shit's paid for and I got money so if Sanders doesn't get it I'll just be voting my wallet just like everyone else. Fuck who am I kidding I won't even vote at that point. Not worth my time.

 

[sr71plt]

The biggies have not yet spoken. New York and California can certainly tip the popular vote in somebody's favor. Hillary is 2.5 mil ahead of Bernie? Pshaw. Strong Sanders support in Los Angeles County alone could reverse that. Bernie taking the Bay Area alone could reverse that. Bernie's home borough of Brooklyn alone would make a major dent. And with delegates, only the in-state votes matter. Delegate counts are not good measures of popular support in general elections -- enthusiasts dominate primaries, which is how bagheads have knocked-off mainstream GOPs. Bernie can still hijack the Dem machine if enough superdelegates sniff the winds of change.

And yes, two private parties incorporated in Delaware dominate USA national politics. Is that in the constitution? Are such corporations sacred? Are they subject to hostile takeovers, like any other corporations? If their mainliners can't retain control, should we all go boo-hoo? Party infrastructures can be taken. Leaders only lead those who follow. Parties only persuade the willing. Can 1% donors buy-off the 99% followers? We shall see...

Same response to you. You aren't half as scary as you seem to think you are:

Until it actually means anything and is more than pathetic smoke and mirrors, what I do realize is that you're just dealing in pitiful wishful thinking.

And it's fun to see how you guys just ignore comment on my take on the super delegates and the part workers who hold them, not to mention that they have no effect on anything yet--Clinton is still leading in elected delegates and the total vote. Doesn't serve your fantasy, does it?

 

[sr71plt]

I

It's just exciting to think America might want to do something good for itself,

It's fun, though, how you and others completely ignore considering who could actually be president and have a prayer of doing "something good."

 

[JackLuis]

It's fun, though, how you and others completely ignore considering who could actually be president and have a prayer of doing "something good."

If the electorate doesn't deal with the Senate and the House, nobody's going to get anything good for a long time.