Gaining traction?

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

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 how your system works
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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?

[Fly Rod]

If voting made any difference, they would not let us do it.....

It does not matter if bernie wins more democratic primaries, it is set in stone that hillary if not indited will B the nominee and that's the way it is....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by buckman

No , I just get sick of the left being so dismissive of facts(or anything that disagrees with their world view)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it's the essential ingredient for membership

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

The issue with Conservatives facts are they tend to look like icebergs only factual on the surface and the rest hidden from view .. I would rather see the whole iceberg before I conclude the game is rigged


Clinton also led in the superdelegate race in the 2008 presidential cycle and eventually lost to Barack Obama.

If sanders keeps winning states those superdelegate's Most will move over to the person winning the popular votes just like they did in 2008
and if they are arrogant enough to ignore the people's votes they will lose more than the white house

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The issue with Conservatives facts are they tend to look like icebergs only factual on the surface and the rest hidden from view .. I would rather see the whole iceberg before I conclude the game is rigged


Clinton also led in the superdelegate race in the 2008 presidential cycle and eventually lost to Barack Obama.

If sanders keeps winning states those superdelegate's Most will move over to the person winning the popular votes just like they did in 2008
and if they are arrogant enough to ignore the people's votes they will lose more than the white house

Then why haven't the NH superdelegates announced that they are supporting Bernie, in line with the will of their people?

"Most will move over to the person winning the popular votes"

They haven't yet...We'll see. You are speculating. The critics are responding to what the superdelegates are actually saying. They support Hilary, they haven't said their support is contingent upon her winning the popular vote. So it seems like you are comfortable with less-than-all-the-facts, when it suits you.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Then why haven't the NH superdelegates announced that they are supporting Bernie, in line with the will of their people?

"Most will move over to the person winning the popular votes"

They haven't yet...We'll see. You are speculating. The critics are responding to what the superdelegates are actually saying. They support Hilary, they haven't said their support is contingent upon her winning the popular vote. So it seems like you are comfortable with less-than-all-the-facts, when it suits you.

you can google superdelegates and get all the info and the history of them..

last time I checked the primarys are still going on as for comfortable with less-than-all-the-facts, when it suits you.. come see me when the point your insinuating happens.. if Sanders wins the upcoming primaries like Obama did in 2008 and gets the popular vote and the Superdelegates swing it Her Way >> I will join the voices of those outraged.. and as i said the party would destroy it's self ..

Past history suggest what I have said.. Could I be wrong Absolutely But untill it happens is just speculation

good write up http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...llary-clinton/


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

[ecduzitgood]

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

[Sea Dangles]

Pathetic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

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

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

history has shown us that they will follow the popular vote. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As long as the herd votes for the candidate preferred by the super-delegates. When the majority have a different idea than the super-delegates, we are witnessing what happens. Yet those same Democratic insiders claim to be opposed to "crony capitalism". Unbelievable. You cannot make this up.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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

This.
About half are democrats in congress and democratic governors.
The rest are mayors and other democratic party types.

represents 15% total; as of now it has never decided an election, and if Sanders starts winning other state primaries, you will see a change in how some of these initial ones get committed.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

This.
About half are democrats in congress and democratic governors.
The rest are mayors and other democratic party types.

represents 15% total; as of now it has never decided an election, and if Sanders starts winning other state primaries, you will see a change in how some of these initial ones get committed.

But what is the logic behind it? Why i sth enomination process more democratic with the super-delegates?

And there was a lot of controversy in 2008, when it came down to the wire between Hilary and Weird Harold. She won the popular vote, he had the super delegates. Then, there was this weird situation where the DNC "punished" some states for having their primaries too early, by reducing the number of regular (non-super)delegates those states represented. I doin't remember who won those states or if it turned out to matter.

But I cannot imagine what the point of them is, except to undermine the democratic process, in the admittedly unlikely event that a non-establishment candidate wins a majority of the regular delegates. The king-makers want to make sure they approve of who the herd nominates. What other possible explanation is there?

I don't think it exists on the GOP side, and for good reason. As horrified as I am at the prospect of a Trump nomination, if he wins enough states, he has earned the right to be the nominee.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

This.
About half are democrats in congress and democratic governors.
The rest are mayors and other democratic party types.

represents 15% total; as of now it has never decided an election, and if Sanders starts winning other state primaries, you will see a change in how some of these initial ones get committed.

I'm confused. So they get to vote twice or just change their vote which is the same as voting twice
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

I'm confused. So they get to vote twice or just change their vote which is the same as voting twice
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think the super delegates can declare who they support as of today. But they don't actually vote until the convention. They can declare one thing, and change their mind before the convention. Even the regular delegates in Iowa and NH don't officially vote until the convention, I think it's assumed that the regular (non-super) delegates will vote in accordance with what hapened in their state's primary.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I think the super delegates can declare who they support as of today. But they don't actually vote until the convention. They can declare one thing, and change their mind before the convention. Even the regular delegates in Iowa and NH don't officially vote until the convention, I think it's assumed that the regular (non-super) delegates will vote in accordance with what happened in their state's primary.

As of now they have stated or been quoted in the press as supporting a candidate, but they are not awarded till the convention.

The GOP has super delegates too....

[Jim in CT]

Can anyone explain the purpose for having the superdelegates? Spence, Paul, Rockhound, anyone?

[The Dad Fisherman]

The super delegates are crap, they exist simply to help those entrenched in the Democratic Party to keep control.

Before the first lever was pulled in the primary, Sanders was already behind 402 delegates based on who declared their backing for each candidate.

That is rediculous......

I'm pretty sure this is the same party that was pissed because Gore won the popular vote but still lost the election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

The super delegates are crap, they exist simply to help those entrenched in the Democratic Party to keep control.

Before the first lever was pulled in the primary, Sanders was already behind 402 delegates based on who declared their backing for each candidate.

That is rediculous......

I'm pretty sure this is the same party that was pissed because Gore won the popular vote but still lost the election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

An honest man! And he's not a right-winger, either.

And in 2008, Hilary got more nationwide votes in the primaries. Obama won, because like what happened in 2000, the states he won had more delegates. There was talk of Hilary (mostly Bill) trying to get enough superdelegates at the convention to change the outcome, but it didn't happen.

I don't think Bernie will finish close enough to her, for this to matter. But as TDF says, when he has a huge deficit before it starts (just because his opponent is an insider), that changes who people donate to, it changes turnout and enthusiasm. It hurts Bernie in many ways. And everything about it, spits in the face of what this party claims to stand for.

Good post TDF.

Had lots of pinewood derby action the last few weeks, scouting at its most fun.

[spence]

Great GOP debate last night by the way. Really nice group of candidates running for the nomination.

Hope to see some wet willies and maybe a good depantsing soon.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Seriously !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Seriously !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It was pathetic.

Spence, Hilary has 150 FBI agents doing an investoigation because of her actions. She denied that her husband cheated on her, and instead claimed that the GOP was framing him (that's REALLY having a clue). She claimed that Iraq had WMDs, and insisted we needed to invade. She claims they were broke when the left the White House. She claimed to have come under sniper fire (have you EVER addressed that one?). And she said all her deleted emails were personal, nothing related to work.

She doesn't engage in undignified wresting matches like the GOP. But if her behavior is superior by any standard, I'm not sure I see how. Grotesqueness comes in more than one form.

Collectively, we are too stupid to elect someone based just on their ideas. Because we are a Kardashian culture, there needs to be another angle (youth, attractive, minority, woman, blah, blah, blah). This is what you get. The 2008 election was the ultimate rejection of substance over style.

You plant potatoes, guess what? You get potatoes.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, Hilary has 150 FBI agents doing an investoigation because of her actions.

Not sure the 150 number is real but it looks like they're investigating the handling of information in general.

She denied that her husband cheated on her, and instead claimed that the GOP was framing him (that's REALLY having a clue).

Well, he was lying to her about the affair at first. Must be hard to have your marital issues litigated in public when there's a vast right wing conspiracy trying to destroy you.

She claimed that Iraq had WMDs, and insisted we needed to invade.

Actually that's not true.

She claims they were broke when the left the White House.

Bad choice of words but in relative terms they likely were in debt, certainly with all the legal expenses to defend attacks from the vast right wing conspiracy.

She claimed to have come under sniper fire (have you EVER addressed that one?).

Yes.

And she said all her deleted emails were personal, nothing related to work.

Has this been shown to be wrong?

She doesn't engage in undignified wresting matches like the GOP. But if her behavior is superior by any standard, I'm not sure I see how. Grotesqueness comes in more than one form.

I think if you were to put anyone under the same scrutiny that the Clintons have been subjected to you'd likely get similar results. The fact that Clinton today is well positioned to be the next POTUS may just speak loudly to the fact that your laundry list of grievances really aren't anything at all.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Not sure the 150 number is real but it looks like they're investigating the handling of information in general.


Well, he was lying to her about the affair at first. Must be hard to have your marital issues litigated in public when there's a vast right wing conspiracy trying to destroy you.


Actually that's not true.


Bad choice of words but in relative terms they likely were in debt, certainly with all the legal expenses to defend attacks from the vast right wing conspiracy.


Yes.


Has this been shown to be wrong?


I think if you were to put anyone under the same scrutiny that the Clintons have been subjected to you'd likely get similar results. The fact that Clinton today is well positioned to be the next POTUS may just speak loudly to the fact that your laundry list of grievances really aren't anything at all.

"Actually that's not true. "

Oh, it's NOT TRUE that Hilary said there were WMDs in Iraq?


Text from her speech, video attached, where not only did she say he was rebuilding his WMDs, but that he also had ties to Al Queda.




"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.

This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."

You want to reconsider your statement that what I said is 'not true', you thoughtless apologist?

What the hell are you talking about?

As to the sniper thing, what was your defense, exactly? I know you didn't criticize her, because you cannot criticize her. Did someone in the GOP hypnotize her?

No idea why my text is showing up underlined, but you get the drift.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Actually that's not true. "

Oh, it's NOT TRUE that Hilary said there were WMDs in Iraq?


Text from her speech, video attached, where not only did she say he was rebuilding his WMDs, but that he also had ties to Al Queda.

Actually you said she insisted we needed to invade. Clinton was very clear that she didn't feel the situation warranted unilateral action. As to her statements about WMD or links to al Qaeda, I'd note the obvious, that she was being briefed by the same people who misled the President because they had already decided to go to war.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Not sure the 150 number is real but it looks like they're investigating the handling of information in general.


Well, he was lying to her about the affair at first. Must be hard to have your marital issues litigated in public when there's a vast right wing conspiracy trying to destroy you.


Actually that's not true.


Bad choice of words but in relative terms they likely were in debt, certainly with all the legal expenses to defend attacks from the vast right wing conspiracy.


Yes.


Has this been shown to be wrong?


I think if you were to put anyone under the same scrutiny that the Clintons have been subjected to you'd likely get similar results. The fact that Clinton today is well positioned to be the next POTUS may just speak loudly to the fact that your laundry list of grievances really aren't anything at all.

"Not sure the 150 number is real "

Now you are.

http://conservativeintel.com/2016/01/12/35478/

"Must be hard to have your marital issues litigated in public "

Then maybe it's not a good idea to (1) marry an immoral ghoul who can't keep his fly closed for 15 seconds, and (2) living your life in the public eye.

"to defend attacks from the vast right wing conspiracy. "

So there is a vast right wing conspiracy? Do you and she buy your tin-foil hats at the same store? What's your proof of this, exactly? IS she receiving treatment that's all that different from what, say, Sarah Palin received?


"Yes (I addressed the sniper claim)".

Can you refresh our memory, please? Did the vast right wing conspiracy set her up here too?

" think if you were to put anyone under the same scrutiny that the Clintons have been subjected to you'd likely get similar results"

Ahh, everyone does it, so it's OK. Unless you are a hypocrite then, you shouldn't be making any personal attacks against any conservatives, right? If it's OK for her to do it, it's OK for them too, right? And did George Bush have so much baggage? Nope.

"The fact that Clinton today is well positioned to be the next POTUS may just speak loudly to the fact that your laundry list of grievances really aren't anything at all"

Maybe. Or maybe it speaks to the fact that at the national level, your party has become almost satanic in terms of what it believes. Not long ago, partial birth abortion was shunned by most democrats. Hilary has no such quarrel with slaughtering a baby right up until the last second. Congrats. A serial liar, a ghoul who supports infanticide, a self described "feminist" who nonetheless attacks all the women who claim to have been abused by her husband. Yuck.

[Nebe]

Jim I feel you might be a Sanders supporter soon.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Jim I feel you might be a Sanders supporter soon.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not going to happen, but the guy is honest. No deception, no word-smithing, what you see is what you get. They can all learn that from him.