Bernie Sanders for President

EarlWelsh

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Free said:

You guys are too focused in pointing fingers. Yes, there is a difference between Trump inciting his supporters vs. Sanders condemning it.

But FFS, we have a huge suppression of democratic rights in this country right now, and all you can think about is "It must be HIS fault!" Get your heads out of the sand and look at what's being done to the entire democratic process. Everyone should be angry, but not at the scapegoat. The system is fucked and by contributing to the division of the people rather than uniting and demanding better from our government!

I totally agree with you on this. As usual, Americans are being distracted from what really matters.

Free said:

You guys are too focused in pointing fingers. Yes, there is a difference between Trump inciting his supporters vs. Sanders condemning it.

But FFS, we have a huge suppression of democratic rights in this country right now, and all you can think about is "It must be HIS fault!" Get your heads out of the sand and look at what's being done to the entire democratic process. Everyone should be angry, but not at the scapegoat. The system is fucked and by contributing to the division of the people rather than uniting and demanding better from our government!

Negative. You are misunderstanding the words corrupt and suppression. Were you suppressed from voting in the general election? Do you think your vote wasn't tallied? Were you strong armed into who to vote for? Were you told that if you don't vote for X that you wouldn't have a job?

You mistakenly believe that party rules are somehow governed by the Constitution or they are part of your inalienable rights. They are not. They are created by the party, ratified by the party, according to the party rules. There was no miscarriage of justice in Nevada. There was no law to miscarry. BrianLux said what happened was 'akin to criminal'. Not even close. There were only convention rules, created by the party, for the party.

I believe there at least was a miscarriage of party rules. It seems the voice vote was improperly carried out and, when a standing vote of separation should have been conducted, it was not.

mrussel1

EarlWelsh said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Free said:

You guys are too focused in pointing fingers. Yes, there is a difference between Trump inciting his supporters vs. Sanders condemning it.

But FFS, we have a huge suppression of democratic rights in this country right now, and all you can think about is "It must be HIS fault!" Get your heads out of the sand and look at what's being done to the entire democratic process. Everyone should be angry, but not at the scapegoat. The system is fucked and by contributing to the division of the people rather than uniting and demanding better from our government!

I totally agree with you on this. As usual, Americans are being distracted from what really matters.

Free said:

You guys are too focused in pointing fingers. Yes, there is a difference between Trump inciting his supporters vs. Sanders condemning it.

But FFS, we have a huge suppression of democratic rights in this country right now, and all you can think about is "It must be HIS fault!" Get your heads out of the sand and look at what's being done to the entire democratic process. Everyone should be angry, but not at the scapegoat. The system is fucked and by contributing to the division of the people rather than uniting and demanding better from our government!

Negative. You are misunderstanding the words corrupt and suppression. Were you suppressed from voting in the general election? Do you think your vote wasn't tallied? Were you strong armed into who to vote for? Were you told that if you don't vote for X that you wouldn't have a job?

You mistakenly believe that party rules are somehow governed by the Constitution or they are part of your inalienable rights. They are not. They are created by the party, ratified by the party, according to the party rules. There was no miscarriage of justice in Nevada. There was no law to miscarry. BrianLux said what happened was 'akin to criminal'. Not even close. There were only convention rules, created by the party, for the party.

I believe there at least was a miscarriage of party rules. It seems the voice vote was improperly carried out and, when a standing vote of separation should have been conducted, it was not.

That's fair. Voice votes are ineffective when that sort of shouting is going on. The more practical problem is that 2/3 would be needed to change the procedure. Considering the at least equal number of Hillary supporters, that likely would not have happened. But she should have run the process better. I'm sure she was totally unprepared for this type of situation.

Kat

Closed for review = Now reopened.
No more personal comments at each other...posts have been removed...stick to the topic.

PJ_Soul

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I thought Free was talking more generally than that.... a LOT of things fall under "a huge suppression of democratic rights". The ridiculous election process and voting reforms are just two of many problems.

Secretaries of State in a few states (they generally control the election process) have already declared that they would make reforms and improvements to increase ballot access, purge rolls earlier, etc. Reforms are necessary. But there's a big leap from ineffective or incompetent all the way to suppression and corrupt. Some people need to gain some perspective.

Again, I was talking more generally. But I don't think that people are overreacting.

benjs

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Free said:

You guys are too focused in pointing fingers. Yes, there is a difference between Trump inciting his supporters vs. Sanders condemning it.

But FFS, we have a huge suppression of democratic rights in this country right now, and all you can think about is "It must be HIS fault!" Get your heads out of the sand and look at what's being done to the entire democratic process. Everyone should be angry, but not at the scapegoat. The system is fucked and by contributing to the division of the people rather than uniting and demanding better from our government!

I totally agree with you on this. As usual, Americans are being distracted from what really matters.

Free said:

You guys are too focused in pointing fingers. Yes, there is a difference between Trump inciting his supporters vs. Sanders condemning it.

But FFS, we have a huge suppression of democratic rights in this country right now, and all you can think about is "It must be HIS fault!" Get your heads out of the sand and look at what's being done to the entire democratic process. Everyone should be angry, but not at the scapegoat. The system is fucked and by contributing to the division of the people rather than uniting and demanding better from our government!

Negative. You are misunderstanding the words corrupt and suppression. Were you suppressed from voting in the general election? Do you think your vote wasn't tallied? Were you strong armed into who to vote for? Were you told that if you don't vote for X that you wouldn't have a job?

You mistakenly believe that party rules are somehow governed by the Constitution or they are part of your inalienable rights. They are not. They are created by the party, ratified by the party, according to the party rules. There was no miscarriage of justice in Nevada. There was no law to miscarry. BrianLux said what happened was 'akin to criminal'. Not even close. There were only convention rules, created by the party, for the party.

I understand that convention rules are created for the party, by the party, however are primaries not funded and run by the state-level governments (at least partially)? That being the case, doesn't the federal government have an obligation to ensure that state-level primary election policies are fair, equitable, and consistent from state to state?

mrussel1

benjs said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Free said:

You guys are too focused in pointing fingers. Yes, there is a difference between Trump inciting his supporters vs. Sanders condemning it.

But FFS, we have a huge suppression of democratic rights in this country right now, and all you can think about is "It must be HIS fault!" Get your heads out of the sand and look at what's being done to the entire democratic process. Everyone should be angry, but not at the scapegoat. The system is fucked and by contributing to the division of the people rather than uniting and demanding better from our government!

I totally agree with you on this. As usual, Americans are being distracted from what really matters.

Free said:

You guys are too focused in pointing fingers. Yes, there is a difference between Trump inciting his supporters vs. Sanders condemning it.

But FFS, we have a huge suppression of democratic rights in this country right now, and all you can think about is "It must be HIS fault!" Get your heads out of the sand and look at what's being done to the entire democratic process. Everyone should be angry, but not at the scapegoat. The system is fucked and by contributing to the division of the people rather than uniting and demanding better from our government!

Negative. You are misunderstanding the words corrupt and suppression. Were you suppressed from voting in the general election? Do you think your vote wasn't tallied? Were you strong armed into who to vote for? Were you told that if you don't vote for X that you wouldn't have a job?

You mistakenly believe that party rules are somehow governed by the Constitution or they are part of your inalienable rights. They are not. They are created by the party, ratified by the party, according to the party rules. There was no miscarriage of justice in Nevada. There was no law to miscarry. BrianLux said what happened was 'akin to criminal'. Not even close. There were only convention rules, created by the party, for the party.

I understand that convention rules are created for the party, by the party, however are primaries not funded and run by the state-level governments (at least partially)? That being the case, doesn't the federal government have an obligation to ensure that state-level primary election policies are fair, equitable, and consistent from state to state?

No, they absolutely do not have that obligation. In fact, it would likely be challenged as a violation of the 10th Amendment. Any powers not delegated to the Federal government are reserved for the states. There is nothing about primaries in the Constitution. The one obligation that would be held for the Fed is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which protects against poll taxes and other discriminatory practices to suppress voting by race, creed, sex, origin.

Now the argument about the obligation of the state, based on funding, is a better argument. That plays into what I was saying about reforms for access, hours, etc. The elections are generally funded by the state so the Secretary does have that obligation.

PJ_Soul

I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.

It's not a federal election. It's an election to choose delegates that represent a state at the national convention for a private party. It's not even an election to select a state official.

HughFreakingDillon

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.

It's not a federal election. It's an election to choose delegates that represent a state at the national convention for a private party. It's not even an election to select a state official.

it's choosing the national candidate. you know that's what pjsoul means.

PJ_Soul

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.

It's not a federal election. It's an election to choose delegates that represent a state at the national convention for a private party. It's not even an election to select a state official.

Oh, duh really?? Yeah, I know that. Obviously I am saying that all states should conform when it comes to the national political parties and how the party leaders are chosen. As HFD said, I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant.

mrussel1

^^ I wasn't trying to be a smart ass, just wasn't sure how immersed you were in US politics. But it would likely be unconstitutional to try to regulate these state level elections for the reasons I detailed earlier. No matter how much 'common' sense it may seem, that doesn't necessary make it legal for us.

mrussel1

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.

It's not a federal election. It's an election to choose delegates that represent a state at the national convention for a private party. It's not even an election to select a state official.

it's choosing the national candidate. you know that's what pjsoul means.

You don't need state primaries to choose national candidates. I think people are missing how very detailed our Constitution is on what powers are enumerated to the states, which powers are implied, etc. Primaries barely existed a hundred years ago. Before that, party bosses, insiders, elites, etc. were the ones that voted and chose candidates. Like I've said 20x here, we've never had a more fully functioning democracy than the one we have today.

PJ_Soul

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.

It's not a federal election. It's an election to choose delegates that represent a state at the national convention for a private party. It's not even an election to select a state official.

it's choosing the national candidate. you know that's what pjsoul means.

You don't need state primaries to choose national candidates. I think people are missing how very detailed our Constitution is on what powers are enumerated to the states, which powers are implied, etc. Primaries barely existed a hundred years ago. Before that, party bosses, insiders, elites, etc. were the ones that voted and chose candidates. Like I've said 20x here, we've never had a more fully functioning democracy than the one we have today.

I'm not even sure what point you're making in the context of what I said now, but your first sentence there highlights my point pretty well: the state-by-state primary system is really stupid and unnecessary.

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.

It's not a federal election. It's an election to choose delegates that represent a state at the national convention for a private party. It's not even an election to select a state official.

it's choosing the national candidate. you know that's what pjsoul means.

You don't need state primaries to choose national candidates. I think people are missing how very detailed our Constitution is on what powers are enumerated to the states, which powers are implied, etc. Primaries barely existed a hundred years ago. Before that, party bosses, insiders, elites, etc. were the ones that voted and chose candidates. Like I've said 20x here, we've never had a more fully functioning democracy than the one we have today.

I'm not even sure what point you're making in the context of what I said now, but your first sentence there highlights my point pretty well: the state-by-state primary system is really stupid and unnecessary.

What would you suggest, other than state by state primary? Keep in mind, whatever you suggest, the federal government would have absolutely zero power to implement it. It could not be done by executive order or congressional law. Only the parties could do it.

PJ_Soul

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.

It's not a federal election. It's an election to choose delegates that represent a state at the national convention for a private party. It's not even an election to select a state official.

it's choosing the national candidate. you know that's what pjsoul means.

You don't need state primaries to choose national candidates. I think people are missing how very detailed our Constitution is on what powers are enumerated to the states, which powers are implied, etc. Primaries barely existed a hundred years ago. Before that, party bosses, insiders, elites, etc. were the ones that voted and chose candidates. Like I've said 20x here, we've never had a more fully functioning democracy than the one we have today.

I'm not even sure what point you're making in the context of what I said now, but your first sentence there highlights my point pretty well: the state-by-state primary system is really stupid and unnecessary.

What would you suggest, other than state by state primary? Keep in mind, whatever you suggest, the federal government would have absolutely zero power to implement it. It could not be done by executive order or congressional law. Only the parties could do it.

Well my first suggestion would be for the parties to just nominate and vote for their leaders themselves. No need to drag the public into it, especially when the current system basically makes their votes irrelevant anyhow.
My second suggestion, if everyone is completely married to the idea that you have to drag a fucking nomination through the citizenry for a year or more (ugh!), at least have each state doing so in the same way so that the nomination process is clear and transparent.
Third (more creative) suggestion is to just have one big election for nominees, all on the same day. Say all citizens could vote for their choice for leader for BOTH parties (two choices per ballot, ballot choices determined internally by parties), and let the whole country decide who the party nominee winners for the federal election will be, without all this bullshit political wrangling caused by this superdelegate crap. THAT would be true democracy.

Free

benjs said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Free said:

You guys are too focused in pointing fingers. Yes, there is a difference between Trump inciting his supporters vs. Sanders condemning it.

But FFS, we have a huge suppression of democratic rights in this country right now, and all you can think about is "It must be HIS fault!" Get your heads out of the sand and look at what's being done to the entire democratic process. Everyone should be angry, but not at the scapegoat. The system is fucked and by contributing to the division of the people rather than uniting and demanding better from our government!

I totally agree with you on this. As usual, Americans are being distracted from what really matters.

Free said:

You guys are too focused in pointing fingers. Yes, there is a difference between Trump inciting his supporters vs. Sanders condemning it.

But FFS, we have a huge suppression of democratic rights in this country right now, and all you can think about is "It must be HIS fault!" Get your heads out of the sand and look at what's being done to the entire democratic process. Everyone should be angry, but not at the scapegoat. The system is fucked and by contributing to the division of the people rather than uniting and demanding better from our government!

Negative. You are misunderstanding the words corrupt and suppression. Were you suppressed from voting in the general election? Do you think your vote wasn't tallied? Were you strong armed into who to vote for? Were you told that if you don't vote for X that you wouldn't have a job?

You mistakenly believe that party rules are somehow governed by the Constitution or they are part of your inalienable rights. They are not. They are created by the party, ratified by the party, according to the party rules. There was no miscarriage of justice in Nevada. There was no law to miscarry. BrianLux said what happened was 'akin to criminal'. Not even close. There were only convention rules, created by the party, for the party.

I understand that convention rules are created for the party, by the party, however are primaries not funded and run by the state-level governments (at least partially)? That being the case, doesn't the federal government have an obligation to ensure that state-level primary election policies are fair, equitable, and consistent from state to state?

That's the Democratic National committee's job (DNC) just like the Republican National committee has their job to run a primary for each state.

https://votesmart.org/education/presidential-primary#.Vz49YPT3bCQ

However, while the republican party is self-imploding w/ the GOP fully resisting having to get behind Donald Trump, the Democratic Party is self-destructing as well, w/ Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC chair and former Clinton campaign chair for the 2008 election, changing rules (rolling back Obama ban on contributions from federal lobbyists to candidates is one), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-allowing-donations-from-federal-lobbyists-and-pacs/2016/02/12/22b1c38c-d196-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html admitting that the use of super-delegates are to prevent grassroots candidates from winning and enabling establishment candidates to win, buying & paying Superdelegates upfront before primaries, along with several other tactics used in ensuring a Clinton win.

Because the DNC is in charge, they can change rules at their discretion, even during a convention vote like in Nevada, paying no attention to the delegates' overwhelming anger towards their cheating. Not because of Sanders not because of Clinton. Because of the DNC and the election process cheating. And boy, is the DNC angry that Bernie is not stepping down.

Free

mrussel1 said:

Like I've said 20x here, we've never had a more fully functioning democracy than the one we have today.

That couldn't be farther from the truth. Maybe in your dreams, maybe in my dreams, but it's so far from reality it's not funny.

Not to mention, we're not even a democracy, we are a Democratic Republic. Our elections are far far far from being Democratic. Forget about The electoral college Russell?

Let's look back at past elections. How did George W. Bush win?
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121016055104AAWLK0A

Free

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.

It's not a federal election. It's an election to choose delegates that represent a state at the national convention for a private party. It's not even an election to select a state official.

it's choosing the national candidate. you know that's what pjsoul means.

You don't need state primaries to choose national candidates. I think people are missing how very detailed our Constitution is on what powers are enumerated to the states, which powers are implied, etc. Primaries barely existed a hundred years ago. Before that, party bosses, insiders, elites, etc. were the ones that voted and chose candidates. Like I've said 20x here, we've never had a more fully functioning democracy than the one we have today.

I'm not even sure what point you're making in the context of what I said now, but your first sentence there highlights my point pretty well: the state-by-state primary system is really stupid and unnecessary.

What would you suggest, other than state by state primary? Keep in mind, whatever you suggest, the federal government would have absolutely zero power to implement it. It could not be done by executive order or congressional law. Only the parties could do it.

Well my first suggestion would be for the parties to just nominate and vote for their leaders themselves. No need to drag the public into it, especially when the current system basically makes their votes irrelevant anyhow.
My second suggestion, if everyone is completely married to the idea that you have to drag a fucking nomination through the citizenry for a year or more (ugh!), at least have each state doing so in the same way so that the nomination process is clear and transparent.
Third (more creative) suggestion is to just have one big election for nominees, all on the same day. Say all citizens could vote for their choice for leader for BOTH parties (two choices per ballot, ballot choices determined internally by parties), and let the whole country decide who the party nominee winners for the federal election will be, without all this bullshit political wrangling caused by this superdelegate crap. THAT would be true democracy.

True democracy would not involve a two-party system. It would allow Independents, A party that's growing due to despondance of the two party system, all third-party candidates and voters to participate AND BE COUNTED. The current system has closed state primaries in most states which means only Democrats and Republicans can vote. How is this fair? In New York State, you have to register and claim one of the 2 parties six months before the primary date. 6 MONTHS. This state rule excluded thousands of voters. Granted, it is the rules and I knew it about it, changing my party status in time. Many last-minute third-party supporters wanted to change theirs and couldn't. Hardly Democratic.

PJ_Soul

Free said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.

It's not a federal election. It's an election to choose delegates that represent a state at the national convention for a private party. It's not even an election to select a state official.

it's choosing the national candidate. you know that's what pjsoul means.

You don't need state primaries to choose national candidates. I think people are missing how very detailed our Constitution is on what powers are enumerated to the states, which powers are implied, etc. Primaries barely existed a hundred years ago. Before that, party bosses, insiders, elites, etc. were the ones that voted and chose candidates. Like I've said 20x here, we've never had a more fully functioning democracy than the one we have today.

I'm not even sure what point you're making in the context of what I said now, but your first sentence there highlights my point pretty well: the state-by-state primary system is really stupid and unnecessary.

What would you suggest, other than state by state primary? Keep in mind, whatever you suggest, the federal government would have absolutely zero power to implement it. It could not be done by executive order or congressional law. Only the parties could do it.

Well my first suggestion would be for the parties to just nominate and vote for their leaders themselves. No need to drag the public into it, especially when the current system basically makes their votes irrelevant anyhow.
My second suggestion, if everyone is completely married to the idea that you have to drag a fucking nomination through the citizenry for a year or more (ugh!), at least have each state doing so in the same way so that the nomination process is clear and transparent.
Third (more creative) suggestion is to just have one big election for nominees, all on the same day. Say all citizens could vote for their choice for leader for BOTH parties (two choices per ballot, ballot choices determined internally by parties), and let the whole country decide who the party nominee winners for the federal election will be, without all this bullshit political wrangling caused by this superdelegate crap. THAT would be true democracy.

True democracy would not involve a two-party system. It would allow Independents, A party that's growing due to despondance of the two party system, all third-party candidates and voters to participate AND BE COUNTED. The current system has closed state primaries in most states which means only Democrats and Republicans can vote. How is this fair? In New York State, you have to register and claim one of the 2 parties six months before the primary date. 6 MONTHS. This state rule excluded thousands of voters. Granted, it is the rules and I knew it about it, changing my party status in time. Many last-minute third-party supporters wanted to change theirs and couldn't. Hardly Democratic.

Yes, sorry, I didn't mean to say "both" parties as though that would be the ideal. Just going with what's happening now, pretty much. What I said would apply to as many parties that there were.

mrussel1

Free said:

mrussel1 said:

Like I've said 20x here, we've never had a more fully functioning democracy than the one we have today.

That couldn't be farther from the truth. Maybe in your dreams, maybe in my dreams, but it's so far from reality it's not funny.

Not to mention, we're not even a democracy, we are a Democratic Republic. Our elections are far far far from being Democratic. Forget about The electoral college Russell?

Let's look back at past elections. How did George W. Bush win?
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121016055104AAWLK0A

Go ahead and call a Constitutional Convention to remove the Electoral College. Until then, I'll focus on the reality that we have today.

Give me a time period in American history where we had a more inclusive, full functioning democracy. Feel free to describe it in terms of general election or time period (Age of Jackson, Gilded Age, Reconstruction, post War, post-modern, etc.). Please back up your statement with some knowledge of our history.