After N.H. and Iowa, Bernie's only behind by 352 delegates.

[VivaRevolution]

Do you actually know what you are saying? So you think that literally the entire elected Democratic population is corrupt and owned by corporations? Dude that is nuts and whatever you are smoking must be some good stuff just be careful because opinions like that can get one fired.

Peace bro

Again SOA, with the veiled threats to people.

Apparently I am going to jail, and BVG is going to lose his job for our political opinions.

Wow, just wow!!

 

[BVG]

So because a guy you are really into (Bernie) is not liked by many other elected leaders on the very ticket he is running on (Democratic party). You now claim that the entire system is f#cked? Even though Bernie Sanders (your hero) supports this system?

You are now literally arguing against a system that Bernie Sanders deeply loves. Campaign finance is one thing but you are entering another realm with these theories that Senator Sanders would be probably disappointed.

Straight out of bernies mouth he proclaims that the system might be too corrupt for any one person to create change.

 

[BVG]

Maybe their votes just got redistributed.

Trickle down votes? Hur hur!

 

[silicavaginitis]

What an odd pairing....one guy that wants to raise taxes and one guy that doesn't pay taxes.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

Again SOA, with the veiled threats to people.

Apparently I am going to jail, and BVG is going to lose his job for our political opinions.

Wow, just wow!!

I never said you are going to jail personally. I did however say that in some countries (Germany for example) if you spread blatant conspiracy theories and lies you can be jailed it's the same in France. I know in Germany holocaust denial can get you in big trouble and rightfully so. All I was saying was that some of the more progressive countries have taken a further step towards eliminating hate. My point was that some Sanders fans and ex RON Paul lovers are actively engaging in the promotion of conspiracy theories and radical hate or wacko messages which could be illegal in much more progressive countries than our own.

Straight out of bernies mouth he proclaims that the system might be too corrupt for any one person to create change.

Yeah but Bernie doesn't actually believe everyone is corrupt. You are taking a line from a charged speech and using it to falsely claim that he is against the American government or the balance of powers.

 

[Cid]

Campaign finance is a huge issue I agree. My last post may not have given that impression since I spent so little on it. In any case I don't see how a system in which members of parliament elect and dismiss the heads of government is somehow "more democratic" than a presidential system that we have. In fact, most countries don't have the checks and balances and separation of powers that we have. The U.S. constitution is quite an amazing piece of work.

The reason so many fools gang up on the United States is because their own small countries are largely irrelevant and governed like a college fraternity (poorly). The Democracy index I also place little weight on because it does not address the inefficiencies of the system of governments.

But yeah to all the "democracy drones" they would be far less happy in a dang Parliamentary system were your popular vote doesn't even matter! In any case we are not a full Democracy and few places are.

I'm from a country that is undoubtedly the prime example of elected officials changing leaders with 3 overthrown in the last 6 years.

While I agree that electing the official to lead is democratically superior i certainly would not trade it for first past the post and the American campaign financing model. They traded a couple of PM's that were interchangeable and got rid of one that was universally hated. While nothing to be proud of I'm not convinced it's worse than the American campaign financing and the inherent two party system secured tightly by first past the post.

Not to mention super delegates, caucuses and the history of voter suppression America has had over the last decade and your infamously long queues.

We are forced to vote which I don't agree with but from my best attempt at an objective point of view being someone from a country which is basically your prime example I still wouldn't swap our system even with its flaws for yours.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

I'm from a country that is undoubtedly the prime example of elected officials changing leaders with 3 overthrown in the last 6 years.

While I agree that electing the official to lead is democratically superior i certainly would not trade it for first past the post and the American campaign financing model. They traded a couple of PM's that were interchangeable and got rid of one that was universally hated. While nothing to be proud of I'm not convinced it's worse than the American campaign financing and the inherent two party system secured tightly by first past the post.

Not to mention super delegates, caucuses and the history of voter suppression America has had over the last decade and your infamously long queues.

We are forced to vote which I don't agree with but from my best attempt at an objective point of view being someone from a country which is basically your prime example I still wouldn't swap our system even with its flaws for yours.

What's the county? Brazil, Argentina, Australia, Greece?

And yeah it says a lot. Who knows though many are willing to make that trade and risk their lives to get over here. Another thing rarely mentioned is how elitist, white, and aristocratic the leaders are in many Nordic countries or even the UK. So many when I do wikipedia searched of them all have the same backgrounds and so many seem to stick around forever. America is unique in that we had presidents from all backgrounds and no aristocracy.

It's interesting.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I never said you are going to jail personally. I did however say that in some countries (Germany for example) if you spread blatant conspiracy theories and lies you can be jailed it's the same in France. I know in Germany holocaust denial can get you in big trouble and rightfully so. All I was saying was that some of the more progressive countries have taken a further step towards eliminating hate. My point was that some Sanders fans and ex RON Paul lovers are actively engaging in the promotion of conspiracy theories and radical hate or wacko messages which could be illegal in much more progressive countries than our own.

Still sounds like a veiled threat to me.

Perhaps we are having a problem with the definition of the word veiled?

 

[m52nickerson]

So your reasoning here is that the hope is that the larger states are able to "absorb" the imbalance created by the super delegates?

That sounds like it's avoiding the problem super delegates pose.

It's not hope, or really a problem. It's math.

 

[BVG]

It's not hope, or really a problem. It's math.

So we acknowledge that a small group of people have power over close to 30 percent of the delegates required.

That's not democracy at all.

 

[fightfan2355]

So because a guy you are really into (Bernie) is not liked by many other elected leaders on the very ticket he is running on (Democratic party). You now claim that the entire system is f#cked? Even though Bernie Sanders (your hero) supports this system?

You are now literally arguing against a system that Bernie Sanders deeply loves. Campaign finance is one thing but you are entering another realm with these theories that Senator Sanders would be probably disappointed.

Does he really support or love the system (lmao) if he goes around saying, "the system is rigged" at every other speech? I know you're a troll but come on....

You like throwing around the conspiracy theory label A LOT and in reality that label is often used simply to discourage institutional analysis.

 

[BruceLeeOnTRT]

Cecil Peoples scored it 394-42 Hilary.

 

[UpaLoompa]

In any case I don't see how a system in which members of parliament elect and dismiss the heads of government is somehow "more democratic" than a presidential system that we have. In fact, most countries don't have the checks and balances and separation of powers that we have. The U.S. constitution is quite an amazing piece of work.

The reason so many fools gang up on the United States is because their own small countries are largely irrelevant and governed like a college fraternity (poorly). The Democracy index I also place little weight on because it does not address the inefficiencies of the system of governments.

But yeah to all the "democracy drones" they would be far less happy in a dang Parliamentary system were your popular vote doesn't even matter! In any case we are not a full Democracy and few places are.

Your popular vote doesn't count in a parliamentary system? You realize it is a representative system like ours, right? Sure you don't vote for the head of state but that doesn't mean your popular vote doesn't count. You'll note that I didn't claim such a system is "more democratic", a useless an uninformative phrase, I argued that such a system has advantages over ours; namely the possibility of more parties and (potentially) greater stability--political theorists have argued that presidential systems tip towards imbalance with the US being the only exception. You've not even bothered to address those two points, which suggests that your opinion that our system is "better" is uninformed and naive. Personally I don't know which system is "better" but, unlike you, I can understand the arguments.

Proof is in the pudding. Sanders declared he was running in April of last year! Most Super-delegates followed way later. So there is no game to play of claiming that somehow Sanders has even close to the support Obama had or that party leaders, and other elected members of Sanders own party somehow "like him".Last I checked not supporting someone or even wanting to work with them says a lot. But hey the war room is a place where up is down and down is up so to some people.

100+ of Clintons delegates pledged in March of last year. Regardless, those delegates and endorsements don't demonstrate that "The vast majority of elected officials in our nation ... do not like Bernie Sanders or even want to freaking wok (sic) with him. That is saying a lot". With that comment you demonstrate a lack of honesty. Preferring Clinton* doesn't show that lawmakers don't like Sanders and don't want to work with him, they demonstrate a preference.


*Frankly I'm not even sure they demonstrate a preference. The superdelegate count could simply reflect the backing of Clinton by the party establishment for her/their role in the party over the last 20+ years.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

He beat Hillary by 22.4 points in New Hampshire....and all the un-democratic delegates are still assigned to Clinton.

See the article that WorkPlay linked.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/23/uselections2008.barackobama

That's one state, as the election goes on and if Sanders continues to get support in the other primary states, then some of those will flip like they did with Obama. Plus there are still around 400 super delegates that haven't declared at all.

 

[m52nickerson]

So we acknowledge that a small group of people have power over close to 30 percent of the delegates required.

That's not democracy at all.

Your right it's not democracy, it is party politics. Political parties get to make their own rules on how they nominate people for elections. Both parties have the power to simple nominate a person without any primary votes. In most democratic countries in the world that is how political parties work, their are no primaries.

Now, the thing is the super delegates are not going to go against what the party voters decide as it would create a lot of ill will and hurt more then having a candidate they don't like. When Clinton was running against Obama, she at one point had a huge lead in super delegates as well. It was not until the end they switched.

 

[BVG]

Your right it's not democracy, it is party politics. Political parties get to make their own rules on how they nominate people for elections. Both parties have the power to simple nominate a person without any primary votes. In most democratic countries in the world that is how political parties work, their are no primaries.

Now, the thing is the super delegates are not going to go against what the party voters decide as it would create a lot of ill will and hurt more then having a candidate they don't like. When Clinton was running against Obama, she at one point had a huge lead in super delegates as well. It was not until the end they switched.

Right. I get that. We will see where this goes. Things are going to get pretty interesting should Bernie win the popular vote, yet lose because of super delegates.

 

[m52nickerson]

Right. I get that. We will see where this goes. Things are going to get pretty interesting should Bernie win the popular vote, yet lose because of super delegates.

That would be interesting, but I don't see that happening. If Bernie does get more votes I think the party will come behind him. If for no other reason it would show Hillary is much weaker then expected.

 

[BVG]

That would be interesting, but I don't see that happening. If Bernie does get more votes I think the party will come behind him. If for no other reason it would show Hillary is much weaker then expected.

If it's close enough...I think they will stand with her.

 

[silicavaginitis]

 

[silicavaginitis]