Time will tell
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

said the guy holding the ticking time bomb

here's proof that the economy will surely take a tumble

White House forecasts fastest economic growth in a decade

Published: Feb 9, 2016 :rotflmao:

I looked it up, you are right, because there are 8 "super delegates" who can go with whoever they want, regardless of the voting turnout.

Nebe, how do you like that? Sanders crushes her in New Hampshire, yet he falls further behind her in terms of getting the nomination.

How democratic.

Why bother with the primaries?

Listen to this, from the article..."In the overall delegate count, Clinton holds a commanding lead after a razor-thin victory in Iowa and a shellacking in New Hampshire. Clinton has 394 delegates, both super and electorally assigned, to only 42 for Sanders"

She has almost 10 times as many delegates as he does, despite the fact that it was a virtual tie in Iowa, and the fact that he destroyed her in NH.

Spence? Your opinion on the matter?


http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/10/hi...rs-after-loss/

Wow. A lot like NFL refs :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is silly, but super delegates are not new to 2016....

How about the practice of undermining the democtratic process, is that new? Has a demeocratic candidate ever gotten this screwed before?

this is how Sanders explains the current economic situation in this country...

There's some truth to that cartoon, but it's highly exaggerated.

Take the favorite liberal target of corporate greed, WalMart.

Accordsing to this abcnews link, the CEO recenly had annual compensation of $35 million.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/walma...ry?id=11067470

From this article, Wal-mart employees 1.4 million people in the US.

http://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-employees-pay

So, how much is the CEO "stealing" from the working stiff? Well, if we assume that the CEO worked for free, and divided his $35 million compensation evenly among all 1.4 million employees, each one would get an extra $25 a year. Exactly $25 a year.

Whoop-dee-doo.

Nebe, I would never argue it's "fair" that a CEO makes $35 million, because it's not "fair". But it's also demonstrably false to suggest that CEO compensation is the reason why the wages of regular folks are not increasing. For most large companies, CEO compensation is a very small drop in the bucket.

The math is, what the math is.

I have worked for huge companies. I'd happily sacrfice $25 a year to have a good CEO who could run the company with skill.

Right on point Jim ,$25 each employee for a $35 million CEO salary about says it all.
If he is a good CEO and increases revenue that will increase
the employees IRA, many times over, including the increase
$$$ for outside stock holders who will spend more.

In addition the $35 million doesn't leave the economy,
but a large part goes back in the economy creating increased sales
for other companies, charities and taxes.
The libs would have you believe the guy keeps it out of the
economy and walks around with it as a big roll in his pocket. LOL
A big pseudo play on creating jealousy.

It's beyond silly, it is corrupt to the core. When Hillary wins the nomination ,by the votes of corrupt super-delegates , there should be an uproar in your party .
But the silence will be deafening.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Most CEOs, who's compensation is reported in the multi millions, have a large portion of that paid in company stock .
The same people that complain about their pay , think nothing of buying a $125 ticket to a game to watch their 30 million a year stud quarterback throw a pass .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have done zero research into this but the CEO of Walmart runs he company. He doesn't own it. Look into how much money the family that owns it sucked from the company. Then look at how many employees are payed so little that they have to use government assistance and food stamps, which you and I pay for.

Not everything is black and white.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:rollem:

Probably, you may see the same thing happen to Trump....
The system has aspects that suck, but it is the system we have.. Go back to the Popular Vote? Good evening President Gore....

Probably not. The Democrats have their own special system .
It is pretty ironic though isn't it? Bernie worked so hard for something only to have it taken away and given to somebody that doesn't deserve it 😂😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bam

http://walmart1percent.org/family/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe, the owners of the company are entitled to the profits. They own the company. That's what "ownership" means. Do you hold onto the things you own? Or do you give it all away?

In the electoral college, within a state, it is by popular vote.

She has NINE TIMES the delegates he has. One state was a tie, in one state she got clobbered. And she has nine times the delegates.

That doesn't come close to resembling democracy, I dare you to make that wrong. You can't.

A small number of people controlling that party, will decide who the nominee is. The people have no say. If Trump wins the states with the most delegates, it would piss me off if a small number of GOP kingmakers took that from him.

Who said anything about giving it all away? If I had employees I would pay them fairly. That would mean enough to live on their own..

Apartment, food, a car payment, etc.

If you look at personal income growth it was awesome from ww2 until the 70's and then it slowed way down. And suddenly, poof! CEO's started making tons of money. What started that change ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But to say someone is entitled to pay employees a starvation wage and encourage them to take government assistance while pocketing billions is so mortally currupt. But I can see why you support that from your posting history.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe, no one has to work there, no one has to shop there. The Waltons figured out how to do retail better than anyone on the planet.

"But I can see why you support that from your posting history."

I want everyone to succeed and be comfortable, I genuinely do. If I had billions, I would happily give 99% of it away. But you can't take it by force.

You, and liberals, have this idea that the wealthy are stealing from everyone else. Not so. Wealth is not finite. Neither the Waltons, nor the CEO of Walmart, are responsible for the fact that so many kids don't do homework in high school, and this are stuck in dead-end jobs. The solution isn't to punish the wealthy, the better solution is to incentivize people to acquire the skills to get a better job than stocking shelves at Walmart.

Liberalism: gimme, gimme, gimme.

White cops are to blame for violence against blacks. The wealthy are to blame for poverty.

Yawn.

In many cases, people do have to work there. A walmart moves into town and poof. small mom and pop business start going out of business. The double whammy for so many small towns is a home depot and a walmart. You will loose your hardware store, your whole main street of shops could close.. Im talking about very rural towns by the way. Add a Panera Bread and a Chipotle to the mix and you will loose family owned restaurants. Im not saying this is illegal or is immoral, etc, but this is the root problem.

this is funny...you see a large organization that pays it's bills and meets it's obligations as the root of the problem....I see a large government that can't pay it's current bills and obligations and in fact, is so indebted that it's current track is widely termed unsustainable in numbers unfathomable... as the root of the problem.....you apparently think reducing the salary of the person successfully running an organization as well as reducing the "pillaging" by the owners of that organization which is paying it's bills and meeting it's obligations as part of the solution to the root of the problem.....I think reducing the size and expense and obligations of an organization multi trillions in debt, whose obligations are riddled with fraud, waste and abuse, patronage, cronyism....and whose actors are so entrenched and beholden at the trough that they cannot make decisions in the best interest of the organization as the root of the problem...


your guy, bernie, wants to expand the scope of the federal government funneling trillions more $$$ through it if he is elected....how is that going to improve "the root" of the problem for the federal government? Isn't that like showing up at an alcoholics convention with more booze?

:lama: Giddayup....redistribution of delegates!

wake up Eben....http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...nhappy-workers

....understand the "actual" cost of having employees :hihi:

Seems you got your outrage Email right on time .. Watch out there are some beyonce controversy email in the pipe line

Some one has already made the point just like Iowa's Coin flip and now Super delegates.. this isn't new .. Just another example have Facts seem not to matter its Just another Conspiracy undiscovered By Conservatives

http://www.pastemagazine.com/article...tablishme.html

She has 9 times as many delegates. She barely won Iowa, and got creamed in NH. And the guy who wrote your article, says we shouldn't care about that, because up until now, superdelegates have never decided anything.

Here's my question - why do they exist at all? For what purpose? Please answer.

Bernie won NH by the largest margin ever, I believe. And after that primary, he fell further behind Hilary. If that's democracy, I fail to see how, and you can never explain that away.

"CEO's started making tons of money"

But that doesn't mean that everyone else makes a lot less, as I showed with the Walmart math. Nebe, you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.

"If I had employees I would pay them fairly. That would mean enough to live on their own..

Apartment, food, a car payment, etc"

Right. If you owned a small restaurant, you would pay your cashiers and busboys enough to pay rent, a car payment, etc?? The economy doesn't work that way, Nebe. There are unskilled, entry-level jobs that are not designed to be sufficient to raise a family on. If we paid everyone $50k a year for every job, prices at every department store would skyrocket, and you'd be complaining about the new high prices.

The problem isn't CEO pay. You now know that.

The problem is we have too many kids whose parents don't encourage them to do schoolwork. If you get C's and D's in high school (and for most kids who do, it's a choice on their part), you are going to struggle. There's nothing unfair about that. There are a small number of people who don't have the ability to rise above menial work at Walmart, and we have an obligation to help those people. People who chose to slack off? Different story. They can work harder and get promoted at Walmart, they can go to school at night, etc.

Gimme, gimme, gimme.

I see you got your, be a condescending ass memo
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is the Buckman attempt at civil discourse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No , I just get sick of the left being so dismissive of facts
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wait what? That Clinton would get more super delegates? That was known all along, it's how the system works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it's the essential ingredient for membership:bgi:

The Democrats have super delegates because they know the people who vote for Democrats cannot be trusted to vote for the right Democratic candidate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's how your system works
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pathetic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

These delegates and super delegates voted are not set in stone and history has shown us that they will follow the popular vote. However it sure does seem like it is a trigger for a suppression of democracy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I would like to see the actual vote from Iowa but I suspect Hillary wasn't all that popular.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Please explain how that system of yours is consistent with the principles of "democracy".

Spence, how can you get behind a candidate who claims to be opposed to how "rigged" the system supposedly is, when she is perfectly willing to reap for herself the benefits of being an insider?

How can anyone take this woman seroiusly?