One would be a fool to believe what the news is saying right now. The almighty race to be the first media station to report the false news!! And ahead of 5 state primaries!
Note to Americans:
superdelegates do not vote until july 25 superdelegates do not vote until july 25 superdelegates do not vote until july 25 superdelegates do not vote until july 25 superdelegates do not vote until july 25
Comments like these only reach about five Americans, and we already know when super delegates vote. Perhaps you need a different pulpit if you really are intent on educating the unenlightened masses. Do you ever attend meetings at your local Democratic party precinct? I'm sure they're looking for volunteers. You might make a bigger difference there. You seem to be looking to make a difference.
Attempting to deflect the issue here and getting personal when things don't work in your favor proves nothing and goes nowhere.
I don't understand why you keep getting defensive when someone suggests that you actually do something with your enthusiasm for Bernie. You take it as an insult for some reason. You did the same with me when I suggested that you volunteer for Bernie's campaign. Why does this offend you??? If anything, it's a compliment to your dedication to a nominee, and you think it's a personal attack. It's kind of bizarre.
Ya know, we should rename this thread the "Attack Free" thread because again, most of you feel that I am the topic and that is just not so. If you have nothing to add to the topic then move on.
I'm not attacking you. I am making an observation for you to consider so that you can perhaps rethink how you are communicating with people on these boards. I WANT to have a decent conversation with you. You have consistently made this impossible for me and pretty much everyone else. I'm saying this in the hopes that you understand why good dialogue isn't happening between you and everyone else.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
It's so strange to me that out of everyone I know, there has been at least one supporter of all the major candidates. This includes Sanders, Trump, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, O'Malley, and even some of the losers in the back. It includes all but one....Clinton.
AP shouldn't have made that call, however presumptive it may have been, on the eve of such a big primary day. They knew the effect it would have. It's bullshit voter suppression. Legal, of course, but still a total bullshit move.
She only needs to win 31% of the delegates today to reach the magic number of pledged delegates, so unless you somehow thought that Sanders was going to crush her in the remaining primaries and caucuses, this is already a fait accompli. It's not like he's had a big momentum swing and is on a roll. Add superdelegates to the equation and the fat lady has sung. This isn't voter suppression. If everyone who was registered came out to vote, Sanders still wouldn't have a prayer today.
That's not the point. Let the people vote today without influencing their decision by declaring a winner. It is a form of voter suppression.
Let the people vote and let the chips fall as they may.
It's not suppression. No one is stopping them. Could it influence? Sure but you are misusing the word.
Btw, I support HRC. There's also 13.5 million voters that have done the same.
Call it what you may. I call it a form of suppression.
And, I don't know you, so the fact that you voted for HRC really has nothing to do with my point.
Just because you call it that doesn't make it so.
Fair enough, you don't know me. I know lots of HRC supporters. Don't know any Trump or Cruz supporters. None of that is relevant at all.
I was making an observation based on those in my life whose political viewpoints run the gamut. Interesting to me that none support her. That's all. Wasn't trying to make some grand statement.
Fuck's sake. I do see why Free, who at times may be passionate to a fault, gets so worked up going back and forth with you.
I'm more concerned with people throwing around words like fraud, corruption, suppression, etc., when there is no evidence any of that happened. So for fuck's sake, use the English language properly. If people did that, I wouldn't feel the need to argue with them.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. You're beyond condescending and, for the sake of following board rules, I'll stop there.
I'm aware of the meaning of these words, and sure, we're technically only speaking of influence here. To me, however, it's deeper than that and it's dirtier than that. It isn't fraud but it isn't merely suggesting or persuading someone to vote one way or another. This is telling people that it has been decided and that there's no need to show up and vote for your candidate. Perfect timing, too.
So that is why I call it a type of suppression.
Okay I'll ratchet it down a bit. I'm taking out my ongoing irritation with Free, on you.
The reason I have a problem with these words is they are used to de-legitimize completely legitimate election results. They are power words that are used to stoke fear and anger. That's wrong to me. If someone wants to argue for improvement in the process, good. I'm all for it. Increase early voting, allow same day registration, allow released felons to vote again, improve staffing at polling places. I'm all for those types of things. But that doesn't mean that HRC hasn't earned the win. Yet Bernie's hard core supporters seek to question EVERY SINGLE victory. It's beyond the pale frankly.
One would be a fool to believe what the news is saying right now. The almighty race to be the first media station to report the false news!! And ahead of 5 state primaries!
Note to Americans:
superdelegates do not vote until july 25 superdelegates do not vote until july 25 superdelegates do not vote until july 25 superdelegates do not vote until july 25 superdelegates do not vote until july 25
Comments like these only reach about five Americans, and we already know when super delegates vote. Perhaps you need a different pulpit if you really are intent on educating the unenlightened masses. Do you ever attend meetings at your local Democratic party precinct? I'm sure they're looking for volunteers. You might make a bigger difference there. You seem to be looking to make a difference.
Attempting to deflect the issue here and getting personal when things don't work in your favor proves nothing and goes nowhere.
I don't understand why you keep getting defensive when someone suggests that you actually do something with your enthusiasm for Bernie. You take it as an insult for some reason. You did the same with me when I suggested that you volunteer for Bernie's campaign. Why does this offend you??? If anything, it's a compliment to your dedication to a nominee, and you think it's a personal attack. It's kind of bizarre.
Ya know, we should rename this thread the "Attack Free" thread because again, most of you feel that I am the topic and that is just not so. If you have nothing to add to the topic then move on.
I'm not attacking you. I am making an observation for you to consider so that you can perhaps rethink how you are communicating with people on these boards. I WANT to have a decent conversation with you. You have consistently made this impossible for me and pretty much everyone else. I'm saying this in the hopes that you understand why good dialogue isn't happening between you and everyone else.
Senator Sanders is going to need a little space to come to a decision regarding when he turns his efforts to helping to defeat Donald Trump but I found this interesting. It'll all work out in the end though; no doubts here.
"Why was this the right standard in 2008, but the wrong standard in 2016? Rachel asked Michael Briggs, a Sanders campaign spokesperson, about this on the show last night. For those who can’t watch clips online, here’s the transcript (with various “umms” removed):
MADDOW: I have to ask you about when you would consider it to be over because in 2008 Senator Sanders stayed out of the race, stayed out of the primary between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama until the very end. He told the Free Press in Burlington in 2008 that he had held off supporting either of the Democratic candidates because he had made it a custom not to support any Democrat for the presidential nomination until the party had chosen its nominee. But then he endorsed Barack Obama when Barack Obama was at the position that Hillary Clinton is right now. Not when he had secured the nomination with pledged delegates alone, not even actually, Senator Sanders didn’t wait for Hillary Clinton to get out of the race in 2008. He endorsed Barack Obama saying the race was over between Obama and Clinton once Obama had the right number of delegates with both pledged delegates and super delegates combined. So if that standard ended the race for him fair and square in 2008 why wouldn’t that end the race for him fair and square tonight?
BRIGGS: Well, it’s because, there are differences between then and now, he’s led a dramatic revolutionary insurgency in the party and we are trying our darndest to give those people the voice that they have earned and deserved in the Democratic Party process.
It’s clearly an awkward defense, and I don’t blame Briggs for not being sure how best to handle this. Sanders publicly declared what he considered clinching the nomination – pledged delegates plus commitments from super-delegates – and now he doesn’t want this standard applied to his own campaign."
One would be a fool to believe what the news is saying right now. The almighty race to be the first media station to report the false news!! And ahead of 5 state primaries!
Note to Americans:
superdelegates do not vote until july 25 superdelegates do not vote until july 25 superdelegates do not vote until july 25 superdelegates do not vote until july 25 superdelegates do not vote until july 25
Comments like these only reach about five Americans, and we already know when super delegates vote. Perhaps you need a different pulpit if you really are intent on educating the unenlightened masses. Do you ever attend meetings at your local Democratic party precinct? I'm sure they're looking for volunteers. You might make a bigger difference there. You seem to be looking to make a difference.
Attempting to deflect the issue here and getting personal when things don't work in your favor proves nothing and goes nowhere.
I don't understand why you keep getting defensive when someone suggests that you actually do something with your enthusiasm for Bernie. You take it as an insult for some reason. You did the same with me when I suggested that you volunteer for Bernie's campaign. Why does this offend you??? If anything, it's a compliment to your dedication to a nominee, and you think it's a personal attack. It's kind of bizarre.
Ya know, we should rename this thread the "Attack Free" thread because again, most of you feel that I am the topic and that is just not so. If you have nothing to add to the topic then move on.
I'm not attacking you. I am making an observation for you to consider so that you can perhaps rethink how you are communicating with people on these boards. I WANT to have a decent conversation with you. You have consistently made this impossible for me and pretty much everyone else. I'm saying this in the hopes that you understand why good dialogue isn't happening between you and everyone else.
When you choose to get personal?
I'm not being personal dude. I'm talking about this discussion and how your participation in it appears to be affecting others. That involves all of us. We're all part of this thread. How can we discuss the issue when you refuse to engage with people??? That's all I'm saying.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
One would be a fool to believe what the news is saying right now. The almighty race to be the first media station to report the false news!! And ahead of 5 state primaries!
Note to Americans:
superdelegates do not vote until july 25 superdelegates do not vote until july 25 superdelegates do not vote until july 25 superdelegates do not vote until july 25 superdelegates do not vote until july 25
Why do you want super delegates to overturn the will of the voters? That seems contrary to Bernie's core message. It's all very confusing.
Comments like these emphasize how little you know about who and how Superdelegates work. Or is it what you want to believe?
You are ignoring the point that Clinton has more votes from the people.
And you are ignoring the point that it is fraud and voter suppression to call the race the night before 5 states vote, as well as counting SDs before they vote.
I'm not ignoring that it is voter suppression at all.
Please point out where you talk about voter suppression, then.
This isn't about who will win the nom, this is about a fair and just election process. Which Americans are being robbed of.
I haven't felt the need to whine about it because it's nothing new and it's just reality.
And THAT sort of 'asleep at the wheel' attitude is why the media and the system get away with it, pushing it further and further away from a democratic process every election cycle. Give yourself a pat on the back. NOT.
Hahaha do you think pissing and moaning about how it is unfair is doing anything? The media doesn't effect me, 3 gigs of data/month is the only connection I have to the world outside my farm. They aren't swaying me at all, and the sheep will continue to bah and bleat at their TV's even with your petulant child's attitude flooding the Pearl Jam forum. Come down off your high horse.
Good god, please. Check yourself!
Free, if you have a problem with the election process, use your democratic right to free speech and propose something better. Highlighting problems can only take you so far in a reasonable debate; at a certain point, empathy really does run dry when complaints are constant but solutions aren't even put on the table.
It's very interesting Benjs. Exactly how do you propose throwing actual solutions on the table when everyone here, including yourself, choose to attack the poster bringing up the electoral corruption problems rather than debate the topic itself? Does "shoot the messenger" have a nice ring to it?
Have you guys noticed Brian Lux gone, who left for this exact reason? Continually, you guys prefer to let loose on the messenger and NOT actually discuss the topic of election corruption. When we actually have a decent discussion without need to personally attack, that's when solutions can be proposed. But that can't Doesn't happen here.
FWIW, I agree that this call by the media is really inappropriate, given that pledges aren't votes. Superdelegates can actually change their minds, so the media should just shut the fuck up until the ballots are counted.
Right on. I agree. I appreciate you discussing the issue, btw.
It's so strange to me that out of everyone I know, there has been at least one supporter of all the major candidates. This includes Sanders, Trump, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, O'Malley, and even some of the losers in the back. It includes all but one....Clinton.
AP shouldn't have made that call, however presumptive it may have been, on the eve of such a big primary day. They knew the effect it would have. It's bullshit voter suppression. Legal, of course, but still a total bullshit move.
She only needs to win 31% of the delegates today to reach the magic number of pledged delegates, so unless you somehow thought that Sanders was going to crush her in the remaining primaries and caucuses, this is already a fait accompli. It's not like he's had a big momentum swing and is on a roll. Add superdelegates to the equation and the fat lady has sung. This isn't voter suppression. If everyone who was registered came out to vote, Sanders still wouldn't have a prayer today.
That's not the point. Let the people vote today without influencing their decision by declaring a winner. It is a form of voter suppression.
Let the people vote and let the chips fall as they may.
It's not suppression. No one is stopping them. Could it influence? Sure but you are misusing the word.
Btw, I support HRC. There's also 13.5 million voters that have done the same.
Call it what you may. I call it a form of suppression.
And, I don't know you, so the fact that you voted for HRC really has nothing to do with my point.
Just because you call it that doesn't make it so.
Fair enough, you don't know me. I know lots of HRC supporters. Don't know any Trump or Cruz supporters. None of that is relevant at all.
I was making an observation based on those in my life whose political viewpoints run the gamut. Interesting to me that none support her. That's all. Wasn't trying to make some grand statement.
Fuck's sake. I do see why Free, who at times may be passionate to a fault, gets so worked up going back and forth with you.
I'm more concerned with people throwing around words like fraud, corruption, suppression, etc., when there is no evidence any of that happened. So for fuck's sake, use the English language properly. If people did that, I wouldn't feel the need to argue with them.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. You're beyond condescending and, for the sake of following board rules, I'll stop there.
I'm aware of the meaning of these words, and sure, we're technically only speaking of influence here. To me, however, it's deeper than that and it's dirtier than that. It isn't fraud but it isn't merely suggesting or persuading someone to vote one way or another. This is telling people that it has been decided and that there's no need to show up and vote for your candidate. Perfect timing, too.
So that is why I call it a type of suppression.
Okay I'll ratchet it down a bit. I'm taking out my ongoing irritation with Free, on you.
The reason I have a problem with these words is they are used to de-legitimize completely legitimate election results. They are power words that are used to stoke fear and anger. That's wrong to me. If someone wants to argue for improvement in the process, good. I'm all for it. Increase early voting, allow same day registration, allow released felons to vote again, improve staffing at polling places. I'm all for those types of things. But that doesn't mean that HRC hasn't earned the win. Yet Bernie's hard core supporters seek to question EVERY SINGLE victory. It's beyond the pale frankly.
Thanks.
I just feel, as PJ_Soul has said, the report was inappropriate. As true as it is that Hillary will *most likely* get the nom (I'm not happy about it, the thought of it is actually quite terrible to me....but I can accept it's inevitability), it shouldn't be stated as such until she actually does.
It's so strange to me that out of everyone I know, there has been at least one supporter of all the major candidates. This includes Sanders, Trump, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, O'Malley, and even some of the losers in the back. It includes all but one....Clinton.
AP shouldn't have made that call, however presumptive it may have been, on the eve of such a big primary day. They knew the effect it would have. It's bullshit voter suppression. Legal, of course, but still a total bullshit move.
She only needs to win 31% of the delegates today to reach the magic number of pledged delegates, so unless you somehow thought that Sanders was going to crush her in the remaining primaries and caucuses, this is already a fait accompli. It's not like he's had a big momentum swing and is on a roll. Add superdelegates to the equation and the fat lady has sung. This isn't voter suppression. If everyone who was registered came out to vote, Sanders still wouldn't have a prayer today.
That's not the point. Let the people vote today without influencing their decision by declaring a winner. It is a form of voter suppression.
Let the people vote and let the chips fall as they may.
It's not suppression. No one is stopping them. Could it influence? Sure but you are misusing the word.
Btw, I support HRC. There's also 13.5 million voters that have done the same.
Call it what you may. I call it a form of suppression.
And, I don't know you, so the fact that you voted for HRC really has nothing to do with my point.
Just because you call it that doesn't make it so.
Fair enough, you don't know me. I know lots of HRC supporters. Don't know any Trump or Cruz supporters. None of that is relevant at all.
I was making an observation based on those in my life whose political viewpoints run the gamut. Interesting to me that none support her. That's all. Wasn't trying to make some grand statement.
Fuck's sake. I do see why Free, who at times may be passionate to a fault, gets so worked up going back and forth with you.
I'm more concerned with people throwing around words like fraud, corruption, suppression, etc., when there is no evidence any of that happened. So for fuck's sake, use the English language properly. If people did that, I wouldn't feel the need to argue with them.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. You're beyond condescending and, for the sake of following board rules, I'll stop there.
I'm aware of the meaning of these words, and sure, we're technically only speaking of influence here. To me, however, it's deeper than that and it's dirtier than that. It isn't fraud but it isn't merely suggesting or persuading someone to vote one way or another. This is telling people that it has been decided and that there's no need to show up and vote for your candidate. Perfect timing, too.
So that is why I call it a type of suppression.
Okay I'll ratchet it down a bit. I'm taking out my ongoing irritation with Free, on you.
The reason I have a problem with these words is they are used to de-legitimize completely legitimate election results. They are power words that are used to stoke fear and anger. That's wrong to me. If someone wants to argue for improvement in the process, good. I'm all for it. Increase early voting, allow same day registration, allow released felons to vote again, improve staffing at polling places. I'm all for those types of things. But that doesn't mean that HRC hasn't earned the win. Yet Bernie's hard core supporters seek to question EVERY SINGLE victory. It's beyond the pale frankly.
Thanks.
I just feel, as PJ_Soul has said, the report was inappropriate. As true as it is that Hillary will *most likely* get the nom (I'm not happy about it, the thought of it is actually quite terrible to me....but I can accept it's inevitability), it shouldn't be stated as such until she actually does.
I agree. I'm not defending the media. The Clinton team was upset about it last night too. It will likely reduce turnout on both sides. Not sure if it helps or hurts anyone specifically.
Senator Sanders is going to need a little space to come to a decision regarding when he turns his efforts to helping to defeat Donald Trump but I found this interesting. It'll all work out in the end though; no doubts here.
"Why was this the right standard in 2008, but the wrong standard in 2016? Rachel asked Michael Briggs, a Sanders campaign spokesperson, about this on the show last night. For those who can’t watch clips online, here’s the transcript (with various “umms” removed):
MADDOW: I have to ask you about when you would consider it to be over because in 2008 Senator Sanders stayed out of the race, stayed out of the primary between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama until the very end. He told the Free Press in Burlington in 2008 that he had held off supporting either of the Democratic candidates because he had made it a custom not to support any Democrat for the presidential nomination until the party had chosen its nominee. But then he endorsed Barack Obama when Barack Obama was at the position that Hillary Clinton is right now. Not when he had secured the nomination with pledged delegates alone, not even actually, Senator Sanders didn’t wait for Hillary Clinton to get out of the race in 2008. He endorsed Barack Obama saying the race was over between Obama and Clinton once Obama had the right number of delegates with both pledged delegates and super delegates combined. So if that standard ended the race for him fair and square in 2008 why wouldn’t that end the race for him fair and square tonight?
BRIGGS: Well, it’s because, there are differences between then and now, he’s led a dramatic revolutionary insurgency in the party and we are trying our darndest to give those people the voice that they have earned and deserved in the Democratic Party process.
It’s clearly an awkward defense, and I don’t blame Briggs for not being sure how best to handle this. Sanders publicly declared what he considered clinching the nomination – pledged delegates plus commitments from super-delegates – and now he doesn’t want this standard applied to his own campaign."
Interesting...
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
^^^ Yeah, and I'd say the real reason for the difference between 2008 and now is that Bernie is the nominee in 2016, lol. Minds and attitudes almost always change one way or another once a person is personally invested!
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
One would be a fool to believe what the news is saying right now. The almighty race to be the first media station to report the false news!! And ahead of 5 state primaries!
Note to Americans:
superdelegates do not vote until july 25 superdelegates do not vote until july 25 superdelegates do not vote until july 25 superdelegates do not vote until july 25 superdelegates do not vote until july 25
Why do you want super delegates to overturn the will of the voters? That seems contrary to Bernie's core message. It's all very confusing.
Comments like these emphasize how little you know about who and how Superdelegates work. Or is it what you want to believe?
You are ignoring the point that Clinton has more votes from the people.
And you are ignoring the point that it is fraud and voter suppression to call the race the night before 5 states vote, as well as counting SDs before they vote.
I'm not ignoring that it is voter suppression at all.
Please point out where you talk about voter suppression, then.
This isn't about who will win the nom, this is about a fair and just election process. Which Americans are being robbed of.
I haven't felt the need to whine about it because it's nothing new and it's just reality.
And THAT sort of 'asleep at the wheel' attitude is why the media and the system get away with it, pushing it further and further away from a democratic process every election cycle. Give yourself a pat on the back. NOT.
Hahaha do you think pissing and moaning about how it is unfair is doing anything? The media doesn't effect me, 3 gigs of data/month is the only connection I have to the world outside my farm. They aren't swaying me at all, and the sheep will continue to bah and bleat at their TV's even with your petulant child's attitude flooding the Pearl Jam forum. Come down off your high horse.
Good god, please. Check yourself!
Free, if you have a problem with the election process, use your democratic right to free speech and propose something better. Highlighting problems can only take you so far in a reasonable debate; at a certain point, empathy really does run dry when complaints are constant but solutions aren't even put on the table.
It's very interesting Benjs. Exactly how do you propose throwing actual solutions on the table when everyone here, including yourself, choose to attack the poster bringing up the electoral corruption problems rather than debate the topic itself? Does "shoot the messenger" have a nice ring to it?
Have you guys noticed Brian Lux gone, who left for this exact reason? Continually, you guys prefer to let loose on the messenger and NOT actually discuss the topic of election corruption. When we actually have a decent discussion without need to personally attack, that's when solutions can be proposed. But that can't Doesn't happen here.
Excuse me? You haven't proposed a single solution. Had you brought up an electoral corruption solution, I'd have happily engaged you in debate - surely sometimes agreeing with you, other times not, and sometimes playing devil's advocate. You are not engaging in reasonable debate when you refuse to read linked statements accurately, be criticized with valid arguments, or provide your own evidence when asked to. And by the way - I'm saying this as a Bernie Sanders supporter...
And for the record - I've long felt this way about the way debates are held on here: too much focusing on problems, not enough on discussing solutions. I don't think it's just you, and I'm sure I've been guilty of it too.
Stop the need to shoot the messenger and I would gladly discuss solutions. The ball is in your court.
How does one actively combat electoral corruption, and/or how does a vote for Sanders contribute towards that? Now the ball's back in your court.
Not once have I suppressed a discussion about electoral corruption - I just feel that the cycle for solving a problem involves identifying a problem, providing sufficient evidence, seeking alternatives, logically exploring said alternatives (or providing situational evidence if applicable). You've done the first part, to some degree you've done the second - but change doesn't come from exposing issues exclusively: at a certain point, solutions must be discussed.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
One would be a fool to believe what the news is saying right now. The almighty race to be the first media station to report the false news!! And ahead of 5 state primaries!
Note to Americans:
superdelegates do not vote until july 25 superdelegates do not vote until july 25 superdelegates do not vote until july 25 superdelegates do not vote until july 25 superdelegates do not vote until july 25
Why do you want super delegates to overturn the will of the voters? That seems contrary to Bernie's core message. It's all very confusing.
Comments like these emphasize how little you know about who and how Superdelegates work. Or is it what you want to believe?
You are ignoring the point that Clinton has more votes from the people.
And you are ignoring the point that it is fraud and voter suppression to call the race the night before 5 states vote, as well as counting SDs before they vote.
I'm not ignoring that it is voter suppression at all.
Please point out where you talk about voter suppression, then.
This isn't about who will win the nom, this is about a fair and just election process. Which Americans are being robbed of.
I haven't felt the need to whine about it because it's nothing new and it's just reality.
And THAT sort of 'asleep at the wheel' attitude is why the media and the system get away with it, pushing it further and further away from a democratic process every election cycle. Give yourself a pat on the back. NOT.
Hahaha do you think pissing and moaning about how it is unfair is doing anything? The media doesn't effect me, 3 gigs of data/month is the only connection I have to the world outside my farm. They aren't swaying me at all, and the sheep will continue to bah and bleat at their TV's even with your petulant child's attitude flooding the Pearl Jam forum. Come down off your high horse.
Good god, please. Check yourself!
Free, if you have a problem with the election process, use your democratic right to free speech and propose something better. Highlighting problems can only take you so far in a reasonable debate; at a certain point, empathy really does run dry when complaints are constant but solutions aren't even put on the table.
It's very interesting Benjs. Exactly how do you propose throwing actual solutions on the table when everyone here, including yourself, choose to attack the poster bringing up the electoral corruption problems rather than debate the topic itself? Does "shoot the messenger" have a nice ring to it?
Have you guys noticed Brian Lux gone, who left for this exact reason? Continually, you guys prefer to let loose on the messenger and NOT actually discuss the topic of election corruption. When we actually have a decent discussion without need to personally attack, that's when solutions can be proposed. But that can't Doesn't happen here.
Excuse me? You haven't proposed a single solution. Had you brought up an electoral corruption solution, I'd have happily engaged you in debate - surely sometimes agreeing with you, other times not, and sometimes playing devil's advocate. You are not engaging in reasonable debate when you refuse to read linked statements accurately, be criticized with valid arguments, or provide your own evidence when asked to. And by the way - I'm saying this as a Bernie Sanders supporter...
And for the record - I've long felt this way about the way debates are held on here: too much focusing on problems, not enough on discussing solutions. I don't think it's just you, and I'm sure I've been guilty of it too.
Stop the need to shoot the messenger and I would gladly discuss solutions. The ball is in your court.
How does one actively combat electoral corruption, and/or how does a vote for Sanders contribute towards that? Now the ball's back in your court.
Not once have I suppressed a discussion about electoral corruption - I just feel that the cycle for solving a problem involves identifying a problem, providing sufficient evidence, seeking alternatives, logically exploring said alternatives (or providing situational evidence if applicable). You've done the first part, to some degree you've done the second - but change doesn't come from exposing issues exclusively: at a certain point, solutions must be discussed.
1st question: By spreading awareness, taking a stand against corrupt and anti-voter, anti-democratic practices by speaking out, form a group, contact representatives, sign petitions, attending rallies. Voting for Sanders is voting against the very establishment promoting voter suppression by announcing falsely that Clinton is the nominee the night before 5 state primaries, inadvertenty attempting to get voters to stay home and not vote.
We know establishment media has never given Sanders fair time, and with his growing numbers in California, establishment certainly doesn't want him to win, they've been wanting him to go away. The least, the very least this country owes all voters is a chance to vote and vote fairly. We know it's rigged, but in no way is the entire country going to let what the media pulled last night off the hook. And it brings to mind as to how Hillary's going to win over Bernie supporters, it's looking pretty dismal right now with the shenanigans she's pulling. She has to count on our vote.
The media got away with it in 2000 by calling Bush the winner preemptively. There is still controversy and debate about that election. There's no way were going to let them get away with it now. Not when you have an entire movement behind an anti-establishment candidate.
Benjs, You haven't suppressed any discussion, but when you address me personally instead of the issue, I will not bite.
Before Californians even woke up this morning, the national media had declared Hillary Clinton the presumptive Democratic nominee – based on a so-called “survey” of superdelegates by the Associated Press, that promptly became headline news in the New York Times (see below).
Hello? May I remind the media that:
1. Superdelegates don’t even vote until July 25, so a “survey” of their current intentions, while perhaps interesting, is not any more newsworthy today than it might be tomorrow. Why make this the headline story today -- the same day as the last major primaries?
2. Naming Hillary Clinton the “presumptive” Democratic nominee just before polls open in California, New Mexico, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and New Jersey could very well discourage some people in these states from voting. This is particularly unfortunate given how close Hillary and Bernie are in the polls in California, and also given the size and demographic importance of California.
3. One of the biggest issues in this election is the rigging of the American political and economic system in favor of insiders – exemplified in the Democratic Party by “superdelegates” (Party officials and congressional Democrats), as well as shenanigans by the New York Times (such as rewriting a story that initially was favorably-disposed to Bernie, to make it be less favorable). For the Times and other mainstream media to anoint Hillary just before today’s voting only heightens the suspicion and distrust of the establishment -- and for no good reason (see item #1 above).
4. If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination she will have to win over Bernie supporters. Today's preemptive move – almost certainly encouraged by Democratic Party insiders -- will not help.
"Sanders publicly declared what he considered clinching the nomination – pledged delegates plus commitments from super-delegates – and now he doesn’t want this standard applied to his own campaign."
I can't speak for Sanders, but certainly the stakes have changed.
In 2008 both of the democrats running were deeply in bed with the status quo. There was barely any difference between Hillary and Obama.
Now in 2016 you have one candidate who will keep things the way they are and continue the rise of the wealthy and the eroding of the middle class, and Bernie who actually would make an effort to help the people, and not just the rich masters.
It looks like the rich masters have won again. But on the principle of something better, I think Bernie is hanging in there because he still has a revolution to promote.
When Hillary backed out in 2008 it was just a wink wink, "you're next" type of bought and sold situation. Cushy job in Barack's Cabinet and the entire DNC (war) machine behind her with a promise of an unopposed coronation.
Yes the stakes have changed. I imagine Bernie realizes this and thus the change in strategy?
how does it work if Bernie tries to run as an independent if he loses the democratic nom? is that allowed? although, that might just seal President Trump for the next 3 years.
how does it work if Bernie tries to run as an independent if he loses the democratic nom? is that allowed? although, that might just seal President Trump for the next 3 years.
not 4. nuclear war in 3.
Bernie's not going to run as an independent. He probably made too much progress within the party now, and therefore and can make greater change being within the party.
"Sanders publicly declared what he considered clinching the nomination – pledged delegates plus commitments from super-delegates – and now he doesn’t want this standard applied to his own campaign."
I can't speak for Sanders, but certainly the stakes have changed.
In 2008 both of the democrats running were deeply in bed with the status quo. There was barely any difference between Hillary and Obama.
Now in 2016 you have one candidate who will keep things the way they are and continue the rise of the wealthy and the eroding of the middle class, and Bernie who actually would make an effort to help the people, and not just the rich masters.
It looks like the rich masters have won again. But on the principle of something better, I think Bernie is hanging in there because he still has a revolution to promote.
When Hillary backed out in 2008 it was just a wink wink, "you're next" type of bought and sold situation. Cushy job in Barack's Cabinet and the entire DNC (war) machine behind her with a promise of an unopposed coronation.
Yes the stakes have changed. I imagine Bernie realizes this and thus the change in strategy?
Now this is the discussion I'm looking for. And I agree, comparing 2008 to 2016 is like comparing apples to oranges. Feelings between candidates right now are rife with division throwing any comparison to the feelings in'08 out of the ballpark.
Clinton thinking she will get votes from Sanders supporters right now is a delusional thought.
"Sanders publicly declared what he considered clinching the nomination – pledged delegates plus commitments from super-delegates – and now he doesn’t want this standard applied to his own campaign."
I can't speak for Sanders, but certainly the stakes have changed.
In 2008 both of the democrats running were deeply in bed with the status quo. There was barely any difference between Hillary and Obama.
Now in 2016 you have one candidate who will keep things the way they are and continue the rise of the wealthy and the eroding of the middle class, and Bernie who actually would make an effort to help the people, and not just the rich masters.
It looks like the rich masters have won again. But on the principle of something better, I think Bernie is hanging in there because he still has a revolution to promote.
When Hillary backed out in 2008 it was just a wink wink, "you're next" type of bought and sold situation. Cushy job in Barack's Cabinet and the entire DNC (war) machine behind her with a promise of an unopposed coronation.
Yes the stakes have changed. I imagine Bernie realizes this and thus the change in strategy?
Now this is the discussion I'm looking for. And I agree, comparing 2008 to 2016 is like comparing apples to oranges. Feelings between candidates right now are rife with division throwing any comparison to the feelings in'08 out of the ballpark.
Clinton thinking she will get votes from Sanders supporters right now is a delusional thought.
It's delusional for you to think she won't...when Bernie asks his supporters to support her will you ignore him?
Post edited by Kat on
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
how does it work if Bernie tries to run as an independent if he loses the democratic nom? is that allowed? although, that might just seal President Trump for the next 3 years.
not 4. nuclear war in 3.
Not sure how it works, but I don't think he could even get on many state ballots as an independent at this late stage.
I can't imagine Trump has a shot at winning. He will become much more exposed in a national election. He might not be smart enough to move towards the middle. His latest racist rant is getting the scrutiny it deserves.
Sanders publicly declared what he considered clinching the nomination – pledged delegates plus commitments from super-delegates – and now he doesn’t want this standard applied to his own campaign."
I can't speak for Sanders, but certainly the stakes have changed.
In 2008 both of the democrats running were deeply in bed with the status quo. There was barely any difference between Hillary and Obama.
Now in 2016 you have one candidate who will keep things the way they are and continue the rise of the wealthy and the eroding of the middle class, and Bernie who actually would make an effort to help the people, and not just the rich masters.
It looks like the rich masters have won again. But on the principle of something better, I think Bernie is hanging in there because he still has a revolution to promote.
When Hillary backed out in 2008 it was just a wink wink, "you're next" type of bought and sold situation. Cushy job in Barack's Cabinet and the entire DNC (war) machine behind her with a promise of an unopposed coronation.
Yes the stakes have changed. I imagine Bernie realizes this and thus the change in strategy?
Now this is the discussion I'm looking for. And I agree, comparing 2008 to 2016 is like comparing apples to oranges. Feelings between candidates right now are rife with division throwing any comparison to the feelings in'08 out of the ballpark.
Clinton thinking she will get votes from Sanders supporters right now is a delusional thought.
It's delusional for you to think she won't...when Bernie asks his supporters to support her will you ignore him?
The real question is Will he?
After last night, you've got 5 states of angry voters attempted to be marginalized. Obviously you not affected. Sanders supporters will not join Clinton after all of this tyrannical bullshit she and the DNC and establishment media are pulling. And it's not the first time I've said that. Wake up. Don't expect blind militant obeying behavior.
Sanders publicly declared what he considered clinching the nomination – pledged delegates plus commitments from super-delegates – and now he doesn’t want this standard applied to his own campaign."
I can't speak for Sanders, but certainly the stakes have changed.
In 2008 both of the democrats running were deeply in bed with the status quo. There was barely any difference between Hillary and Obama.
Now in 2016 you have one candidate who will keep things the way they are and continue the rise of the wealthy and the eroding of the middle class, and Bernie who actually would make an effort to help the people, and not just the rich masters.
It looks like the rich masters have won again. But on the principle of something better, I think Bernie is hanging in there because he still has a revolution to promote.
When Hillary backed out in 2008 it was just a wink wink, "you're next" type of bought and sold situation. Cushy job in Barack's Cabinet and the entire DNC (war) machine behind her with a promise of an unopposed coronation.
Yes the stakes have changed. I imagine Bernie realizes this and thus the change in strategy?
Now this is the discussion I'm looking for. And I agree, comparing 2008 to 2016 is like comparing apples to oranges. Feelings between candidates right now are rife with division throwing any comparison to the feelings in'08 out of the ballpark.
Clinton thinking she will get votes from Sanders supporters right now is a delusional thought.
It's delusional for you to think she won't...when Bernie asks his supporters to support her will you ignore him?
Polls already show that 80 percent of supporters will vote for HRC. There's no reason to think that after Obama, Warren and Sanders endorse, that number won't get to 95.
Sanders publicly declared what he considered clinching the nomination – pledged delegates plus commitments from super-delegates – and now he doesn’t want this standard applied to his own campaign."
I can't speak for Sanders, but certainly the stakes have changed.
In 2008 both of the democrats running were deeply in bed with the status quo. There was barely any difference between Hillary and Obama.
Now in 2016 you have one candidate who will keep things the way they are and continue the rise of the wealthy and the eroding of the middle class, and Bernie who actually would make an effort to help the people, and not just the rich masters.
It looks like the rich masters have won again. But on the principle of something better, I think Bernie is hanging in there because he still has a revolution to promote.
When Hillary backed out in 2008 it was just a wink wink, "you're next" type of bought and sold situation. Cushy job in Barack's Cabinet and the entire DNC (war) machine behind her with a promise of an unopposed coronation.
Yes the stakes have changed. I imagine Bernie realizes this and thus the change in strategy?
Now this is the discussion I'm looking for. And I agree, comparing 2008 to 2016 is like comparing apples to oranges. Feelings between candidates right now are rife with division throwing any comparison to the feelings in'08 out of the ballpark.
Clinton thinking she will get votes from Sanders supporters right now is a delusional thought.
It's delusional for you to think she won't...when Bernie asks his supporters to support her will you ignore him?
The real question is Will he?
After last night, you've got 5 states of angry voters attempted to be marginalized. Obviously you not affected. Sanders supporters will not join Clinton after all of this tyrannical bullshit she and the DNC and establishment media are pulling. And it's not the first time I've said that. Wake up. Don't expect blind militant obeying behavior.
We'll see I guess...
My prediction is that Sanders will bow out and strongly endorse Clinton. He will make appearances with her and be a strong vocal supporter.
Your prediction is that he won't.
The question remains though...if he endorses her and urges you to vote for her will you ignore him?
Post edited by Gern Blansten on
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Isn't Bernie's campaign relying on polls to say they would do better in the general? Isn't that the crux of the argument for SDs to switch?
So which is it?
Exactly. It's people like this that make me pissed I voted for Bernie because I then have to be associated/grouped in with these claw scratchers, tin foil hats. First, their bitching that superdelegates are unfair and want them eliminated, but then they're bitching that it's not over yet because the SD's have the opportunity to change their vote, then that's all on the precedent that "the people" want change....yet, Hillary has 3 million more voters in the popular vote. As a whole, it's the fucking 16 year old rebellious kid yelling just to fucking yell. Please. Just stop already.
Sanders publicly declared what he considered clinching the nomination – pledged delegates plus commitments from super-delegates – and now he doesn’t want this standard applied to his own campaign."
I can't speak for Sanders, but certainly the stakes have changed.
In 2008 both of the democrats running were deeply in bed with the status quo. There was barely any difference between Hillary and Obama.
Now in 2016 you have one candidate who will keep things the way they are and continue the rise of the wealthy and the eroding of the middle class, and Bernie who actually would make an effort to help the people, and not just the rich masters.
It looks like the rich masters have won again. But on the principle of something better, I think Bernie is hanging in there because he still has a revolution to promote.
When Hillary backed out in 2008 it was just a wink wink, "you're next" type of bought and sold situation. Cushy job in Barack's Cabinet and the entire DNC (war) machine behind her with a promise of an unopposed coronation.
Yes the stakes have changed. I imagine Bernie realizes this and thus the change in strategy?
Now this is the discussion I'm looking for. And I agree, comparing 2008 to 2016 is like comparing apples to oranges. Feelings between candidates right now are rife with division throwing any comparison to the feelings in'08 out of the ballpark.
Clinton thinking she will get votes from Sanders supporters right now is a delusional thought.
It's delusional for you to think she won't...when Bernie asks his supporters to support her will you ignore him?
The real question is Will he?
After last night, you've got 5 states of angry voters attempted to be marginalized. Obviously you not affected. Sanders supporters will not join Clinton after all of this tyrannical bullshit she and the DNC and establishment media are pulling. And it's not the first time I've said that. Wake up. Don't expect blind militant obeying behavior.
We'll see I guess...
My prediction is that Sanders will bow out and strongly endorse Clinton. He will make appearances with her and be a strong vocal supporter.
Your prediction is that he won't.
The question remains though...if he endorses her and urges you to vote for her will you ignore him?
Regardless what Sanders does, neither he nor any leader can deliver the votes of his supporters. That challenge is Clinton’s.
Sanders publicly declared what he considered clinching the nomination – pledged delegates plus commitments from super-delegates – and now he doesn’t want this standard applied to his own campaign."
I can't speak for Sanders, but certainly the stakes have changed.
In 2008 both of the democrats running were deeply in bed with the status quo. There was barely any difference between Hillary and Obama.
Now in 2016 you have one candidate who will keep things the way they are and continue the rise of the wealthy and the eroding of the middle class, and Bernie who actually would make an effort to help the people, and not just the rich masters.
It looks like the rich masters have won again. But on the principle of something better, I think Bernie is hanging in there because he still has a revolution to promote.
When Hillary backed out in 2008 it was just a wink wink, "you're next" type of bought and sold situation. Cushy job in Barack's Cabinet and the entire DNC (war) machine behind her with a promise of an unopposed coronation.
Yes the stakes have changed. I imagine Bernie realizes this and thus the change in strategy?
Now this is the discussion I'm looking for. And I agree, comparing 2008 to 2016 is like comparing apples to oranges. Feelings between candidates right now are rife with division throwing any comparison to the feelings in'08 out of the ballpark.
Clinton thinking she will get votes from Sanders supporters right now is a delusional thought.
It's delusional for you to think she won't...when Bernie asks his supporters to support her will you ignore him?
The real question is Will he?
After last night, you've got 5 states of angry voters attempted to be marginalized. Obviously you not affected. Sanders supporters will not join Clinton after all of this tyrannical bullshit she and the DNC and establishment media are pulling. And it's not the first time I've said that. Wake up. Don't expect blind militant obeying behavior.
We'll see I guess...
My prediction is that Sanders will bow out and strongly endorse Clinton. He will make appearances with her and be a strong vocal supporter.
Your prediction is that he won't.
The question remains though...if he endorses her and urges you to vote for her will you ignore him?
Regardless what Sanders does, neither he nor any leader can deliver the votes of his supporters. That challenge is Clinton’s.
actually he'll deliver about 90% of them
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Isn't Bernie's campaign relying on polls to say they would do better in the general? Isn't that the crux of the argument for SDs to switch?
So which is it?
Exactly. It's people like this that make me pissed I voted for Bernie because I then have to be associated/grouped in with these claw scratchers, tin foil hats. First, their bitching that superdelegates are unfair and want them eliminated, but then they're bitching that it's not over yet because the SD's have the opportunity to change their vote, then that's all on the precedent that "the people" want change....yet, Hillary has 3 million more voters in the popular vote. As a whole, it's the fucking 16 year old rebellious kid yelling just to fucking yell. Please. Just stop already.
Isn't Bernie's campaign relying on polls to say they would do better in the general? Isn't that the crux of the argument for SDs to switch?
So which is it?
Exactly. It's people like this that make me pissed I voted for Bernie because I then have to be associated/grouped in with these claw scratchers, tin foil hats. First, their bitching that superdelegates are unfair and want them eliminated, but then they're bitching that it's not over yet because the SD's have the opportunity to change their vote, then that's all on the precedent that "the people" want change....yet, Hillary has 3 million more voters in the popular vote. As a whole, it's the fucking 16 year old rebellious kid yelling just to fucking yell. Please. Just stop already.
You heard it folks, just stop complaining about crooked elections and just bend over, take it like an animal and obey obey obey. Because oligarchies and corruption are where it's at.
Comments
The reason I have a problem with these words is they are used to de-legitimize completely legitimate election results. They are power words that are used to stoke fear and anger. That's wrong to me. If someone wants to argue for improvement in the process, good. I'm all for it. Increase early voting, allow same day registration, allow released felons to vote again, improve staffing at polling places. I'm all for those types of things. But that doesn't mean that HRC hasn't earned the win. Yet Bernie's hard core supporters seek to question EVERY SINGLE victory. It's beyond the pale frankly.
"Why was this the right standard in 2008, but the wrong standard in 2016? Rachel asked Michael Briggs, a Sanders campaign spokesperson, about this on the show last night. For those who can’t watch clips online, here’s the transcript (with various “umms” removed):
MADDOW: I have to ask you about when you would consider it to be over because in 2008 Senator Sanders stayed out of the race, stayed out of the primary between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama until the very end. He told the Free Press in Burlington in 2008 that he had held off supporting either of the Democratic candidates because he had made it a custom not to support any Democrat for the presidential nomination until the party had chosen its nominee. But then he endorsed Barack Obama when Barack Obama was at the position that Hillary Clinton is right now. Not when he had secured the nomination with pledged delegates alone, not even actually, Senator Sanders didn’t wait for Hillary Clinton to get out of the race in 2008. He endorsed Barack Obama saying the race was over between Obama and Clinton once Obama had the right number of delegates with both pledged delegates and super delegates combined. So if that standard ended the race for him fair and square in 2008 why wouldn’t that end the race for him fair and square tonight?
BRIGGS: Well, it’s because, there are differences between then and now, he’s led a dramatic revolutionary insurgency in the party and we are trying our darndest to give those people the voice that they have earned and deserved in the Democratic Party process.
It’s clearly an awkward defense, and I don’t blame Briggs for not being sure how best to handle this. Sanders publicly declared what he considered clinching the nomination – pledged delegates plus commitments from super-delegates – and now he doesn’t want this standard applied to his own campaign."
This place cracks me up. No wonder solutions aren't even thought of, you guys only want to kill the messenger.
I just feel, as PJ_Soul has said, the report was inappropriate. As true as it is that Hillary will *most likely* get the nom (I'm not happy about it, the thought of it is actually quite terrible to me....but I can accept it's inevitability), it shouldn't be stated as such until she actually does.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Not once have I suppressed a discussion about electoral corruption - I just feel that the cycle for solving a problem involves identifying a problem, providing sufficient evidence, seeking alternatives, logically exploring said alternatives (or providing situational evidence if applicable). You've done the first part, to some degree you've done the second - but change doesn't come from exposing issues exclusively: at a certain point, solutions must be discussed.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
We know establishment media has never given Sanders fair time, and with his growing numbers in California, establishment certainly doesn't want him to win, they've been wanting him to go away. The least, the very least this country owes all voters is a chance to vote and vote fairly. We know it's rigged, but in no way is the entire country going to let what the media pulled last night off the hook. And it brings to mind as to how Hillary's going to win over Bernie supporters, it's looking pretty dismal right now with the shenanigans she's pulling. She has to count on our vote.
The media got away with it in 2000 by calling Bush the winner preemptively. There is still controversy and debate about that election. There's no way were going to let them get away with it now. Not when you have an entire movement behind an anti-establishment candidate.
Benjs, You haven't suppressed any discussion, but when you address me personally instead of the issue, I will not bite.
In 2008 both of the democrats running were deeply in bed with the status quo. There was barely any difference between Hillary and Obama.
Now in 2016 you have one candidate who will keep things the way they are and continue the rise of the wealthy and the eroding of the middle class, and Bernie who actually would make an effort to help the people, and not just the rich masters.
It looks like the rich masters have won again. But on the principle of something better, I think Bernie is hanging in there because he still has a revolution to promote.
When Hillary backed out in 2008 it was just a wink wink, "you're next" type of bought and sold situation. Cushy job in Barack's Cabinet and the entire DNC (war) machine behind her with a promise of an unopposed coronation.
Yes the stakes have changed. I imagine Bernie realizes this and thus the change in strategy?
not 4. nuclear war in 3.
www.headstonesband.com
Clinton thinking she will get votes from Sanders supporters right now is a delusional thought.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
I can't imagine Trump has a shot at winning. He will become much more exposed in a national election. He might not be smart enough to move towards the middle. His latest racist rant is getting the scrutiny it deserves.
There will be more to come.
After last night, you've got 5 states of angry voters attempted to be marginalized. Obviously you not affected. Sanders supporters will not join Clinton after all of this tyrannical bullshit she and the DNC and establishment media are pulling. And it's not the first time I've said that. Wake up. Don't expect blind militant obeying behavior.
My prediction is that Sanders will bow out and strongly endorse Clinton. He will make appearances with her and be a strong vocal supporter.
Your prediction is that he won't.
The question remains though...if he endorses her and urges you to vote for her will you ignore him?
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
So which is it?
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana