Honest question... If Sanders is the pro-transparency and anti-corruption candidate, and he recognized the lack of transparency and abundance of corruption in the party he was representing, and he failed to increase the transparency or decrease the corruption - why did he not go independent? Surely he is intelligent enough to recognize insurmountable stacked odds, but more than that - his sticking with a corrupt and opaque Party to me seems a betrayal to his own character.
pretty simple ... see the polling numbers of stein and johnson ... or even go back to ron paul ... it's a bit of a quagmire in that the current electoral system ultimately favours this 2-party system ... and the only way to increase transparency and decrease corruption is to break free from this system ...
the reality is that more than 2/3rds of the nation's votes don't really matter in this electoral system ... if you're in texas, california, arizona, washington, etc ... your vote won't mean diddly squat ...
it's this ruse of democracy that people think they are part of - when in reality it's a system that is probably the most undemocratic short of a dictatorship ...
Got that right. I appreciate that Canadians want to learn more about our election process. But it is so hard to describe in detail without repeating how corrupt and anti-democratic and rigged it truly has become since 2000.
Benjs, Sanders HAD to get on the 2 party ticket to not repeat what Nadar did. And by doing that, he upset Hillary ("It's MY turn" Hillary), and made history by creating a massive support in numbers. I kinda wish he did go back and run on the Independent ticket. I think he would have had a good chance, simply because the 2 clowns for candidates we have are the most UNPOPULAR candidates in US history. People here aren't hopeful about this election, everyone I see and talk to are deflated and depressed that these 2 are our options.
that's correct. We have the two most unpopular candidates with some of the most negative ratings ever. Some here on the board attempt to paint a different picture, however the majority of the American people agree with this. The polls clearly show it. At this point it comes down to the lesser of two evils. That's our current reality.
Honest question... If Sanders is the pro-transparency and anti-corruption candidate, and he recognized the lack of transparency and abundance of corruption in the party he was representing, and he failed to increase the transparency or decrease the corruption - why did he not go independent? Surely he is intelligent enough to recognize insurmountable stacked odds, but more than that - his sticking with a corrupt and opaque Party to me seems a betrayal to his own character.
pretty simple ... see the polling numbers of stein and johnson ... or even go back to ron paul ... it's a bit of a quagmire in that the current electoral system ultimately favours this 2-party system ... and the only way to increase transparency and decrease corruption is to break free from this system ...
the reality is that more than 2/3rds of the nation's votes don't really matter in this electoral system ... if you're in texas, california, arizona, washington, etc ... your vote won't mean diddly squat ...
it's this ruse of democracy that people think they are part of - when in reality it's a system that is probably the most undemocratic short of a dictatorship ...
Got that right. I appreciate that Canadians want to learn more about our election process. But it is so hard to describe in detail without repeating how corrupt and anti-democratic and rigged it truly has become since 2000.
Benjs, Sanders HAD to get on the 2 party ticket to not repeat what Nadar did. And by doing that, he upset Hillary ("It's MY turn" Hillary), and made history by creating a massive support in numbers. I kinda wish he did go back and run on the Independent ticket. I think he would have had a good chance, simply because the 2 clowns for candidates we have are the most UNPOPULAR candidates in US history. People here aren't hopeful about this election, everyone I see and talk to are deflated and depressed that these 2 are our options.
huh? he couldn't beat Hillary in a primary how the hell could he beat both Hillary and Trump in a general election. that's just absurd.
Honest question... If Sanders is the pro-transparency and anti-corruption candidate, and he recognized the lack of transparency and abundance of corruption in the party he was representing, and he failed to increase the transparency or decrease the corruption - why did he not go independent? Surely he is intelligent enough to recognize insurmountable stacked odds, but more than that - his sticking with a corrupt and opaque Party to me seems a betrayal to his own character.
pretty simple ... see the polling numbers of stein and johnson ... or even go back to ron paul ... it's a bit of a quagmire in that the current electoral system ultimately favours this 2-party system ... and the only way to increase transparency and decrease corruption is to break free from this system ...
the reality is that more than 2/3rds of the nation's votes don't really matter in this electoral system ... if you're in texas, california, arizona, washington, etc ... your vote won't mean diddly squat ...
it's this ruse of democracy that people think they are part of - when in reality it's a system that is probably the most undemocratic short of a dictatorship ...
Got that right. I appreciate that Canadians want to learn more about our election process. But it is so hard to describe in detail without repeating how corrupt and anti-democratic and rigged it truly has become since 2000.
Benjs, Sanders HAD to get on the 2 party ticket to not repeat what Nadar did. And by doing that, he upset Hillary ("It's MY turn" Hillary), and made history by creating a massive support in numbers. I kinda wish he did go back and run on the Independent ticket. I think he would have had a good chance, simply because the 2 clowns for candidates we have are the most UNPOPULAR candidates in US history. People here aren't hopeful about this election, everyone I see and talk to are deflated and depressed that these 2 are our options.
huh? he couldn't beat Hillary in a primary how the hell could he beat both Hillary and Trump in a general election. that's just absurd.
Don't let details like that get in the way of the Revolution. The overwhelmingly likely scenario is that Trump would win such a three way state level horse race. The second scenario is that no one wins 270 electoral votes which sends the decision to the GOP controlled House. In both cases, Trump is POTUS. Sanders was smarter than that. He showed me a lot this week with his ability to understand the greater game at play. I just wish he would have imparted that message throughout the primary season.
Honest question... If Sanders is the pro-transparency and anti-corruption candidate, and he recognized the lack of transparency and abundance of corruption in the party he was representing, and he failed to increase the transparency or decrease the corruption - why did he not go independent? Surely he is intelligent enough to recognize insurmountable stacked odds, but more than that - his sticking with a corrupt and opaque Party to me seems a betrayal to his own character.
pretty simple ... see the polling numbers of stein and johnson ... or even go back to ron paul ... it's a bit of a quagmire in that the current electoral system ultimately favours this 2-party system ... and the only way to increase transparency and decrease corruption is to break free from this system ...
the reality is that more than 2/3rds of the nation's votes don't really matter in this electoral system ... if you're in texas, california, arizona, washington, etc ... your vote won't mean diddly squat ...
it's this ruse of democracy that people think they are part of - when in reality it's a system that is probably the most undemocratic short of a dictatorship ...
Got that right. I appreciate that Canadians want to learn more about our election process. But it is so hard to describe in detail without repeating how corrupt and anti-democratic and rigged it truly has become since 2000.
Benjs, Sanders HAD to get on the 2 party ticket to not repeat what Nadar did. And by doing that, he upset Hillary ("It's MY turn" Hillary), and made history by creating a massive support in numbers. I kinda wish he did go back and run on the Independent ticket. I think he would have had a good chance, simply because the 2 clowns for candidates we have are the most UNPOPULAR candidates in US history. People here aren't hopeful about this election, everyone I see and talk to are deflated and depressed that these 2 are our options.
huh? he couldn't beat Hillary in a primary how the hell could he beat both Hillary and Trump in a general election. that's just absurd.
Dude, how is that absurd when there was so many issues regarding the election? Closed primaries, Bill Clinton affecting events, media calling it while people were in line, DNC people telling people in line that it was over, hours and hours of wait time, understaffed locations, and let's not forget those emails!!!!! The tactics used here were beneficial to Hillary and they turned out to help her get a few more million votes. Shit they're still counting ballots in CA! Many of those ballots were immediately tossed out! C'mon man... It wasn't a fair process.
Honest question... If Sanders is the pro-transparency and anti-corruption candidate, and he recognized the lack of transparency and abundance of corruption in the party he was representing, and he failed to increase the transparency or decrease the corruption - why did he not go independent? Surely he is intelligent enough to recognize insurmountable stacked odds, but more than that - his sticking with a corrupt and opaque Party to me seems a betrayal to his own character.
pretty simple ... see the polling numbers of stein and johnson ... or even go back to ron paul ... it's a bit of a quagmire in that the current electoral system ultimately favours this 2-party system ... and the only way to increase transparency and decrease corruption is to break free from this system ...
the reality is that more than 2/3rds of the nation's votes don't really matter in this electoral system ... if you're in texas, california, arizona, washington, etc ... your vote won't mean diddly squat ...
it's this ruse of democracy that people think they are part of - when in reality it's a system that is probably the most undemocratic short of a dictatorship ...
Got that right. I appreciate that Canadians want to learn more about our election process. But it is so hard to describe in detail without repeating how corrupt and anti-democratic and rigged it truly has become since 2000.
Benjs, Sanders HAD to get on the 2 party ticket to not repeat what Nadar did. And by doing that, he upset Hillary ("It's MY turn" Hillary), and made history by creating a massive support in numbers. I kinda wish he did go back and run on the Independent ticket. I think he would have had a good chance, simply because the 2 clowns for candidates we have are the most UNPOPULAR candidates in US history. People here aren't hopeful about this election, everyone I see and talk to are deflated and depressed that these 2 are our options.
huh? he couldn't beat Hillary in a primary how the hell could he beat both Hillary and Trump in a general election. that's just absurd.
i don't necessarily disagree ... see my previous post on 2-party system ... however, if you factor in shady tactics by the DNC, voter suppression and general corporate biases from the msm - i don't think it's unreasonable to think that bernie could have beaten hillary ... especially when you see the influence of superdelegates ... you also have to factor in that in polling - sanders beats trump by double digits whereas hillary was favoured over trump by single digits ...
having said all that - the coverage he did get was strictly a result of him being in the democratic party - not likely to get that attention running as an independent or as the green party leader ...
Honest question... If Sanders is the pro-transparency and anti-corruption candidate, and he recognized the lack of transparency and abundance of corruption in the party he was representing, and he failed to increase the transparency or decrease the corruption - why did he not go independent? Surely he is intelligent enough to recognize insurmountable stacked odds, but more than that - his sticking with a corrupt and opaque Party to me seems a betrayal to his own character.
pretty simple ... see the polling numbers of stein and johnson ... or even go back to ron paul ... it's a bit of a quagmire in that the current electoral system ultimately favours this 2-party system ... and the only way to increase transparency and decrease corruption is to break free from this system ...
the reality is that more than 2/3rds of the nation's votes don't really matter in this electoral system ... if you're in texas, california, arizona, washington, etc ... your vote won't mean diddly squat ...
it's this ruse of democracy that people think they are part of - when in reality it's a system that is probably the most undemocratic short of a dictatorship ...
Got that right. I appreciate that Canadians want to learn more about our election process. But it is so hard to describe in detail without repeating how corrupt and anti-democratic and rigged it truly has become since 2000.
Benjs, Sanders HAD to get on the 2 party ticket to not repeat what Nadar did. And by doing that, he upset Hillary ("It's MY turn" Hillary), and made history by creating a massive support in numbers. I kinda wish he did go back and run on the Independent ticket. I think he would have had a good chance, simply because the 2 clowns for candidates we have are the most UNPOPULAR candidates in US history. People here aren't hopeful about this election, everyone I see and talk to are deflated and depressed that these 2 are our options.
huh? he couldn't beat Hillary in a primary how the hell could he beat both Hillary and Trump in a general election. that's just absurd.
Dude, how is that absurd when there was so many issues regarding the election? Closed primaries, Bill Clinton affecting events, media calling it while people were in line, DNC people telling people in line that it was over, hours and hours of wait time, understaffed locations, and let's not forget those emails!!!!! The tactics used here were beneficial to Hillary and they turned out to help her get a few more million votes. Shit they're still counting ballots in CA! Many of those ballots were immediately tossed out! C'mon man... It wasn't a fair process.
he lost the popular vote by over 4 million votes in the primaries. are you telling me that 4 million people were voter suppressed? if so where are those 4 million people bitching? just stop.
Honest question... If Sanders is the pro-transparency and anti-corruption candidate, and he recognized the lack of transparency and abundance of corruption in the party he was representing, and he failed to increase the transparency or decrease the corruption - why did he not go independent? Surely he is intelligent enough to recognize insurmountable stacked odds, but more than that - his sticking with a corrupt and opaque Party to me seems a betrayal to his own character.
pretty simple ... see the polling numbers of stein and johnson ... or even go back to ron paul ... it's a bit of a quagmire in that the current electoral system ultimately favours this 2-party system ... and the only way to increase transparency and decrease corruption is to break free from this system ...
the reality is that more than 2/3rds of the nation's votes don't really matter in this electoral system ... if you're in texas, california, arizona, washington, etc ... your vote won't mean diddly squat ...
it's this ruse of democracy that people think they are part of - when in reality it's a system that is probably the most undemocratic short of a dictatorship ...
Got that right. I appreciate that Canadians want to learn more about our election process. But it is so hard to describe in detail without repeating how corrupt and anti-democratic and rigged it truly has become since 2000.
Benjs, Sanders HAD to get on the 2 party ticket to not repeat what Nadar did. And by doing that, he upset Hillary ("It's MY turn" Hillary), and made history by creating a massive support in numbers. I kinda wish he did go back and run on the Independent ticket. I think he would have had a good chance, simply because the 2 clowns for candidates we have are the most UNPOPULAR candidates in US history. People here aren't hopeful about this election, everyone I see and talk to are deflated and depressed that these 2 are our options.
huh? he couldn't beat Hillary in a primary how the hell could he beat both Hillary and Trump in a general election. that's just absurd.
Dude, how is that absurd when there was so many issues regarding the election? Closed primaries, Bill Clinton affecting events, media calling it while people were in line, DNC people telling people in line that it was over, hours and hours of wait time, understaffed locations, and let's not forget those emails!!!!! The tactics used here were beneficial to Hillary and they turned out to help her get a few more million votes. Shit they're still counting ballots in CA! Many of those ballots were immediately tossed out! C'mon man... It wasn't a fair process.
Sigh...
1. Bernie is still like 400k short in CA 2. Bill Clinton affecting events? What does that mean? 3. Media calling the state too early... Did only Sanders supporters get that message and they left while HRC supporters stayed in line? 4. Emails weren't released until last week. Did any of those affect the election? 5. Understaffed locations in NV and AZ disproportionately affected minority voting. Now who did minorities go for?
These are all nits that are extrapolated for maximum negative Bernie impact only.
Honest question... If Sanders is the pro-transparency and anti-corruption candidate, and he recognized the lack of transparency and abundance of corruption in the party he was representing, and he failed to increase the transparency or decrease the corruption - why did he not go independent? Surely he is intelligent enough to recognize insurmountable stacked odds, but more than that - his sticking with a corrupt and opaque Party to me seems a betrayal to his own character.
pretty simple ... see the polling numbers of stein and johnson ... or even go back to ron paul ... it's a bit of a quagmire in that the current electoral system ultimately favours this 2-party system ... and the only way to increase transparency and decrease corruption is to break free from this system ...
the reality is that more than 2/3rds of the nation's votes don't really matter in this electoral system ... if you're in texas, california, arizona, washington, etc ... your vote won't mean diddly squat ...
it's this ruse of democracy that people think they are part of - when in reality it's a system that is probably the most undemocratic short of a dictatorship ...
Got that right. I appreciate that Canadians want to learn more about our election process. But it is so hard to describe in detail without repeating how corrupt and anti-democratic and rigged it truly has become since 2000.
Benjs, Sanders HAD to get on the 2 party ticket to not repeat what Nadar did. And by doing that, he upset Hillary ("It's MY turn" Hillary), and made history by creating a massive support in numbers. I kinda wish he did go back and run on the Independent ticket. I think he would have had a good chance, simply because the 2 clowns for candidates we have are the most UNPOPULAR candidates in US history. People here aren't hopeful about this election, everyone I see and talk to are deflated and depressed that these 2 are our options.
huh? he couldn't beat Hillary in a primary how the hell could he beat both Hillary and Trump in a general election. that's just absurd.
Are you kidding? Those primaries were closed most of them. Imagine if they were open to all parties. sanders would have won no problem. And as a result of this fiasco, states are working to make primaries in the future open to all.
I feel like I have to repeat myself constantly about the primaries and how they were closed. You Cannot compare closed primarirs and him losing to Hillary when it was not open and fair to begin with.
Honest question... If Sanders is the pro-transparency and anti-corruption candidate, and he recognized the lack of transparency and abundance of corruption in the party he was representing, and he failed to increase the transparency or decrease the corruption - why did he not go independent? Surely he is intelligent enough to recognize insurmountable stacked odds, but more than that - his sticking with a corrupt and opaque Party to me seems a betrayal to his own character.
pretty simple ... see the polling numbers of stein and johnson ... or even go back to ron paul ... it's a bit of a quagmire in that the current electoral system ultimately favours this 2-party system ... and the only way to increase transparency and decrease corruption is to break free from this system ...
the reality is that more than 2/3rds of the nation's votes don't really matter in this electoral system ... if you're in texas, california, arizona, washington, etc ... your vote won't mean diddly squat ...
it's this ruse of democracy that people think they are part of - when in reality it's a system that is probably the most undemocratic short of a dictatorship ...
Got that right. I appreciate that Canadians want to learn more about our election process. But it is so hard to describe in detail without repeating how corrupt and anti-democratic and rigged it truly has become since 2000.
Benjs, Sanders HAD to get on the 2 party ticket to not repeat what Nadar did. And by doing that, he upset Hillary ("It's MY turn" Hillary), and made history by creating a massive support in numbers. I kinda wish he did go back and run on the Independent ticket. I think he would have had a good chance, simply because the 2 clowns for candidates we have are the most UNPOPULAR candidates in US history. People here aren't hopeful about this election, everyone I see and talk to are deflated and depressed that these 2 are our options.
huh? he couldn't beat Hillary in a primary how the hell could he beat both Hillary and Trump in a general election. that's just absurd.
Are you kidding? Those primaries were closed most of them. Imagine if they were open to all parties. sanders would I have won no problem. And as a result of this fiasco, states are working to make primaries in the future open to all.
I don't know, he lost in Ohio and all you have to do is declare which ballot you would like at the polling place. My guess is that he might have gotten closer, but she still just got more votes. Bernie supporters had time to switch affiliations.
Honest question... If Sanders is the pro-transparency and anti-corruption candidate, and he recognized the lack of transparency and abundance of corruption in the party he was representing, and he failed to increase the transparency or decrease the corruption - why did he not go independent? Surely he is intelligent enough to recognize insurmountable stacked odds, but more than that - his sticking with a corrupt and opaque Party to me seems a betrayal to his own character.
pretty simple ... see the polling numbers of stein and johnson ... or even go back to ron paul ... it's a bit of a quagmire in that the current electoral system ultimately favours this 2-party system ... and the only way to increase transparency and decrease corruption is to break free from this system ...
the reality is that more than 2/3rds of the nation's votes don't really matter in this electoral system ... if you're in texas, california, arizona, washington, etc ... your vote won't mean diddly squat ...
it's this ruse of democracy that people think they are part of - when in reality it's a system that is probably the most undemocratic short of a dictatorship ...
Got that right. I appreciate that Canadians want to learn more about our election process. But it is so hard to describe in detail without repeating how corrupt and anti-democratic and rigged it truly has become since 2000.
Benjs, Sanders HAD to get on the 2 party ticket to not repeat what Nadar did. And by doing that, he upset Hillary ("It's MY turn" Hillary), and made history by creating a massive support in numbers. I kinda wish he did go back and run on the Independent ticket. I think he would have had a good chance, simply because the 2 clowns for candidates we have are the most UNPOPULAR candidates in US history. People here aren't hopeful about this election, everyone I see and talk to are deflated and depressed that these 2 are our options.
huh? he couldn't beat Hillary in a primary how the hell could he beat both Hillary and Trump in a general election. that's just absurd.
Dude, how is that absurd when there was so many issues regarding the election? Closed primaries, Bill Clinton affecting events, media calling it while people were in line, DNC people telling people in line that it was over, hours and hours of wait time, understaffed locations, and let's not forget those emails!!!!! The tactics used here were beneficial to Hillary and they turned out to help her get a few more million votes. Shit they're still counting ballots in CA! Many of those ballots were immediately tossed out! C'mon man... It wasn't a fair process.
Sigh...
1. Bernie is still like 400k short in CA 2. Bill Clinton affecting events? What does that mean? 3. Media calling the state too early... Did only Sanders supporters get that message and they left while HRC supporters stayed in line? 4. Emails weren't released until last week. Did any of those affect the election? 5. Understaffed locations in NV and AZ disproportionately affected minority voting. Now who did minorities go for?
These are all nits that are extrapolated for maximum negative Bernie impact only.
Dude, this isn't some fucking conspiracy. We may never know the full affects of the election.
There are more factors here as well. But just to answer the points.
1) many votes were not counted- there was a deadline to register as a democrat and many people, including myself met that deadline - yet we weren't placed on the official list. I can't prove that there wasn't tampering involved, but that sure is fishy! Considering all the other shady shit going around the country 2) bill showed up at two separate events(off the top of my head) and made situations worse - I believe there is a federal law against this- causing crowds and confusion 3) most of these were in locations where mail in ballots were sent in high numbers. Most of the people voting for sanders were young, uninformed, day jobs, unfamiliar with the process, intimidated, pushed away(not psychically)- Hillary people are mostly older folks and they got it done before the damn election even began(there were many examples of this) 4) emails showed the goddam tactics. Before we were a bunch of conspiracy whackos- now the emails prove us right- the tactics were being used and the emails proved it. Wtf 5)I'm a minority I sure as hell didn't vote for her. Not sure what your point is on that one- and yes understaffed locations were an issue - shit as a matter of fact people were fired for it- but that's after the fact that the voting took place- I'm sure those people are working directly for Clinton now- as a matter of fact DWS is back to to working for her. Closed primaries
The list can go on and on. There were a lot of factors that aren't being touched here, but all those little details helped shape the outcome and they were tactics- shit even debates were an issue - DWS trying to have debates during large sporting events etc... Could this have been the difference? Who knows, all we know is that tactics were used to favor Clinton. And that's our biggest issue here- democracy is stained, not with bill's cum, but with a powerful group of elitist known as the establishment.
Harry R. And so many other leaders have already came out and said sanders did not receive a fair shot. People have been fired- This isn't about us crying foul- this is about our democracy. So stop pretending shit didn't happen.
Honest question... If Sanders is the pro-transparency and anti-corruption candidate, and he recognized the lack of transparency and abundance of corruption in the party he was representing, and he failed to increase the transparency or decrease the corruption - why did he not go independent? Surely he is intelligent enough to recognize insurmountable stacked odds, but more than that - his sticking with a corrupt and opaque Party to me seems a betrayal to his own character.
pretty simple ... see the polling numbers of stein and johnson ... or even go back to ron paul ... it's a bit of a quagmire in that the current electoral system ultimately favours this 2-party system ... and the only way to increase transparency and decrease corruption is to break free from this system ...
the reality is that more than 2/3rds of the nation's votes don't really matter in this electoral system ... if you're in texas, california, arizona, washington, etc ... your vote won't mean diddly squat ...
it's this ruse of democracy that people think they are part of - when in reality it's a system that is probably the most undemocratic short of a dictatorship ...
Got that right. I appreciate that Canadians want to learn more about our election process. But it is so hard to describe in detail without repeating how corrupt and anti-democratic and rigged it truly has become since 2000.
Benjs, Sanders HAD to get on the 2 party ticket to not repeat what Nadar did. And by doing that, he upset Hillary ("It's MY turn" Hillary), and made history by creating a massive support in numbers. I kinda wish he did go back and run on the Independent ticket. I think he would have had a good chance, simply because the 2 clowns for candidates we have are the most UNPOPULAR candidates in US history. People here aren't hopeful about this election, everyone I see and talk to are deflated and depressed that these 2 are our options.
huh? he couldn't beat Hillary in a primary how the hell could he beat both Hillary and Trump in a general election. that's just absurd.
Are you kidding? Those primaries were closed most of them. Imagine if they were open to all parties. sanders would I have won no problem. And as a result of this fiasco, states are working to make primaries in the future open to all.
I don't know, he lost in Ohio and all you have to do is declare which ballot you would like at the polling place. My guess is that he might have gotten closer, but she still just got more votes. Bernie supporters had time to switch affiliations.
You're going to bring up one state? Each state has their own rules. In New York State you had to switch your affiliation by November for a primary in April the next year. There is a Severe problem with not being able to change your party within a few weeks of learning about the candidates. Most states had closed primaries. In other words all those independents in favor of Bernie we're not allowed to vote. Imagine how much he would've won by if it was all open in all states.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,310
All of the tactics that went against Bernie having a chance are either going to be ignored, swept under the carpet, justified or falsified.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Honest question... If Sanders is the pro-transparency and anti-corruption candidate, and he recognized the lack of transparency and abundance of corruption in the party he was representing, and he failed to increase the transparency or decrease the corruption - why did he not go independent? Surely he is intelligent enough to recognize insurmountable stacked odds, but more than that - his sticking with a corrupt and opaque Party to me seems a betrayal to his own character.
pretty simple ... see the polling numbers of stein and johnson ... or even go back to ron paul ... it's a bit of a quagmire in that the current electoral system ultimately favours this 2-party system ... and the only way to increase transparency and decrease corruption is to break free from this system ...
the reality is that more than 2/3rds of the nation's votes don't really matter in this electoral system ... if you're in texas, california, arizona, washington, etc ... your vote won't mean diddly squat ...
it's this ruse of democracy that people think they are part of - when in reality it's a system that is probably the most undemocratic short of a dictatorship ...
Got that right. I appreciate that Canadians want to learn more about our election process. But it is so hard to describe in detail without repeating how corrupt and anti-democratic and rigged it truly has become since 2000.
Benjs, Sanders HAD to get on the 2 party ticket to not repeat what Nadar did. And by doing that, he upset Hillary ("It's MY turn" Hillary), and made history by creating a massive support in numbers. I kinda wish he did go back and run on the Independent ticket. I think he would have had a good chance, simply because the 2 clowns for candidates we have are the most UNPOPULAR candidates in US history. People here aren't hopeful about this election, everyone I see and talk to are deflated and depressed that these 2 are our options.
huh? he couldn't beat Hillary in a primary how the hell could he beat both Hillary and Trump in a general election. that's just absurd.
Are you kidding? Those primaries were closed most of them. Imagine if they were open to all parties. sanders would have won no problem. And as a result of this fiasco, states are working to make primaries in the future open to all.
I feel like I have to repeat myself constantly about the primaries and how they were closed. You Cannot compare closed primarirs and him losing to Hillary when it was not open and fair to begin with.
so are you trying to tell me that 4 million more republican or independent voters if allowed to vote in the democratic primaries would have voted for Bernie over Hillary? how many non-democrats would you expect to vote in the primary if they were open? he would have to at least get +4 million votes. come on dude your grasping at straws. the numbers don't add up.
I'm saying nothing material happened that affected the outcome in any state.
- Closed primaries is known information - Registration deadlines are posted - My point about minorities is that HRC carried more minorities than Bernie. Ergo, if election issues occur at a minority heavy polling place, then mathematically it is more likely to affect HRC. The statement has nothing to do with you. - Bill showed up at two events in MA. Could that have influenced certain individuals? Not sure. Would it influence you? He probably broke a state law there, but throw Bernie 2 extra delegates for that and it still is a nit. - Which emails prove something that actually happened? They appeared to be stupid musings of people. Was he attacked in WV and KY for being an atheist? I don't recall that angle. This is a serious question, not rhetorical. Which 'tactics' discussed played out? - Uneducated young people is the fault of uneducated young people. It's not like there are no resources available. They don't have to go to the library to figure out what to do like I had to do when I turned 18. Tough shit on that one.
Sorry. End of the day, your candidate lost. And even he knows it.
Honest question... If Sanders is the pro-transparency and anti-corruption candidate, and he recognized the lack of transparency and abundance of corruption in the party he was representing, and he failed to increase the transparency or decrease the corruption - why did he not go independent? Surely he is intelligent enough to recognize insurmountable stacked odds, but more than that - his sticking with a corrupt and opaque Party to me seems a betrayal to his own character.
pretty simple ... see the polling numbers of stein and johnson ... or even go back to ron paul ... it's a bit of a quagmire in that the current electoral system ultimately favours this 2-party system ... and the only way to increase transparency and decrease corruption is to break free from this system ...
the reality is that more than 2/3rds of the nation's votes don't really matter in this electoral system ... if you're in texas, california, arizona, washington, etc ... your vote won't mean diddly squat ...
it's this ruse of democracy that people think they are part of - when in reality it's a system that is probably the most undemocratic short of a dictatorship ...
Got that right. I appreciate that Canadians want to learn more about our election process. But it is so hard to describe in detail without repeating how corrupt and anti-democratic and rigged it truly has become since 2000.
Benjs, Sanders HAD to get on the 2 party ticket to not repeat what Nadar did. And by doing that, he upset Hillary ("It's MY turn" Hillary), and made history by creating a massive support in numbers. I kinda wish he did go back and run on the Independent ticket. I think he would have had a good chance, simply because the 2 clowns for candidates we have are the most UNPOPULAR candidates in US history. People here aren't hopeful about this election, everyone I see and talk to are deflated and depressed that these 2 are our options.
huh? he couldn't beat Hillary in a primary how the hell could he beat both Hillary and Trump in a general election. that's just absurd.
Dude, how is that absurd when there was so many issues regarding the election? Closed primaries, Bill Clinton affecting events, media calling it while people were in line, DNC people telling people in line that it was over, hours and hours of wait time, understaffed locations, and let's not forget those emails!!!!! The tactics used here were beneficial to Hillary and they turned out to help her get a few more million votes. Shit they're still counting ballots in CA! Many of those ballots were immediately tossed out! C'mon man... It wasn't a fair process.
Sigh...
1. Bernie is still like 400k short in CA 2. Bill Clinton affecting events? What does that mean? 3. Media calling the state too early... Did only Sanders supporters get that message and they left while HRC supporters stayed in line? 4. Emails weren't released until last week. Did any of those affect the election? 5. Understaffed locations in NV and AZ disproportionately affected minority voting. Now who did minorities go for?
These are all nits that are extrapolated for maximum negative Bernie impact only.
Dude, this isn't some fucking conspiracy. We may never know the full affects of the election.
There are more factors here as well. But just to answer the points.
1) many votes were not counted- there was a deadline to register as a democrat and many people, including myself met that deadline - yet we weren't placed on the official list. I can't prove that there wasn't tampering involved, but that sure is fishy! Considering all the other shady shit going around the country 2) bill showed up at two separate events(off the top of my head) and made situations worse - I believe there is a federal law against this- causing crowds and confusion 3) most of these were in locations where mail in ballots were sent in high numbers. Most of the people voting for sanders were young, uninformed, day jobs, unfamiliar with the process, intimidated, pushed away(not psychically)- Hillary people are mostly older folks and they got it done before the damn election even began(there were many examples of this) 4) emails showed the goddam tactics. Before we were a bunch of conspiracy whackos- now the emails prove us right- the tactics were being used and the emails proved it. Wtf 5)I'm a minority I sure as hell didn't vote for her. Not sure what your point is on that one- and yes understaffed locations were an issue - shit as a matter of fact people were fired for it- but that's after the fact that the voting took place- I'm sure those people are working directly for Clinton now- as a matter of fact DWS is back to to working for her. Closed primaries
The list can go on and on. There were a lot of factors that aren't being touched here, but all those little details helped shape the outcome and they were tactics- shit even debates were an issue - DWS trying to have debates during large sporting events etc... Could this have been the difference? Who knows, all we know is that tactics were used to favor Clinton. And that's our biggest issue here- democracy is stained, not with bill's cum, but with a powerful group of elitist known as the establishment.
Harry R. And so many other leaders have already came out and said sanders did not receive a fair shot. People have been fired- This isn't about us crying foul- this is about our democracy. So stop pretending shit didn't happen.
i ask again, where are the at least 4 million people who had their votes suppressed (as if all votes suppressed would have gone to one side)? i mean people go online to bitch about how hot their coffee is, and take pictures and post online for every fucking thing they do on a daily basis. yet you will have us believe that very few have go online to bitch about their votes being suppressed?
I'm saying nothing material happened that affected the outcome in any state.
- Closed primaries is known information - Registration deadlines are posted - My point about minorities is that HRC carried more minorities than Bernie. Ergo, if election issues occur at a minority heavy polling place, then mathematically it is more likely to affect HRC. The statement has nothing to do with you. - Bill showed up at two events in MA. Could that have influenced certain individuals? Not sure. Would it influence you? He probably broke a state law there, but throw Bernie 2 extra delegates for that and it still is a nit. - Which emails prove something that actually happened? They appeared to be stupid musings of people. Was he attacked in WV and KY for being an atheist? I don't recall that angle. This is a serious question, not rhetorical. Which 'tactics' discussed played out? - Uneducated young people is the fault of uneducated young people. It's not like there are no resources available. They don't have to go to the library to figure out what to do like I had to do when I turned 18. Tough shit on that one.
Sorry. End of the day, your candidate lost. And even he knows it.
so Harry R. Is full of shit, right?
Sanders did as he has always done, he sacrificed himself for the people. He could have remained and ran as an independent - since technically he is an independent, guaranteeing Clintons loss.
Now your response to some of the points are lacking details in reality and priciples your party stands on. The emails are proof- they proved some tactics that were used- and those tactics were in favor of Clinton, even though DWS said it was going to be a fair process. She lost her position as a result and will probably lose her race.
I changed party affiliation before the deadline in CA, and my name wasn't on the official list. I had to spend hours reaching out to govt/state employees to figure shit out. End of the day my shit was tossed in the trash. Now, is that my fault? Do I have the resources to lawyer up and figure out why my one ballot was tossed? There are many real life examples of this- the sanders camp was sending out emails changing the details because the rules kept changing on them. They were running against Clinton and the whole establishment - DWS didn't lose her job because she was the head of the party, she lost it because she fucked with the process. Using little tactics that resulted favorably for Clinton. You're in denial, just look at the polls- look at her trustworthiness rating. It's the American people speaking their minds- or are you the only one who's right here?
I think there was 48% delegates at the convention- they were enough to make their voices heard every single day at the convention- imagine if these tactics weren't used- the outcome could have been different. It wasn't fair and Harry R even said it.
All those small tactics were enough to change the course. Keep telling yourself it was a fair process when she loses don't blame the Bernie bros blame her, yourself, and the establishment.
Lastly, When more leaks drop make sure you come here to post.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,310
I'm saying nothing material happened that affected the outcome in any state.
- Closed primaries is known information - Registration deadlines are posted - My point about minorities is that HRC carried more minorities than Bernie. Ergo, if election issues occur at a minority heavy polling place, then mathematically it is more likely to affect HRC. The statement has nothing to do with you. - Bill showed up at two events in MA. Could that have influenced certain individuals? Not sure. Would it influence you? He probably broke a state law there, but throw Bernie 2 extra delegates for that and it still is a nit. - Which emails prove something that actually happened? They appeared to be stupid musings of people. Was he attacked in WV and KY for being an atheist? I don't recall that angle. This is a serious question, not rhetorical. Which 'tactics' discussed played out? - Uneducated young people is the fault of uneducated young people. It's not like there are no resources available. They don't have to go to the library to figure out what to do like I had to do when I turned 18. Tough shit on that one.
Sorry. End of the day, your candidate lost. And even he knows it.
so Harry R. Is full of shit, right?
Sanders did as he has always done, he sacrificed himself for the people. He could have remained and ran as an independent - since technically he is an independent, guaranteeing Clintons loss.
Now your response to some of the points are lacking details in reality and priciples your party stands on. The emails are proof- they proved some tactics that were used- and those tactics were in favor of Clinton, even though DWS said it was going to be a fair process. She lost her position as a result and will probably lose her race.
I changed party affiliation before the deadline in CA, and my name wasn't on the official list. I had to spend hours reaching out to govt/state employees to figure shit out. End of the day my shit was tossed in the trash. Now, is that my fault? Do I have the resources to lawyer up and figure out why my one ballot was tossed? There are many real life examples of this- the sanders camp was sending out emails changing the details because the rules kept changing on them. They were running against Clinton and the whole establishment - DWS didn't lose her job because she was the head of the party, she lost it because she fucked with the process. Using little tactics that resulted favorably for Clinton. You're in denial, just look at the polls- look at her trustworthiness rating. It's the American people speaking their minds- or are you the only one who's right here?
I think there was 48% delegates at the convention- they were enough to make their voices heard every single day at the convention- imagine if these tactics weren't used- the outcome could have been different. It wasn't fair and Harry R even said it.
All those small tactics were enough to change the course. Keep telling yourself it was a fair process when she loses don't blame the Bernie bros blame her, yourself, and the establishment.
Lastly, When more leaks drop make sure you come here to post.
I don't think you will get anyone to understand that it wasn't a fair process who doesn't already understand that. It's called denial.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I'm saying nothing material happened that affected the outcome in any state.
- Closed primaries is known information - Registration deadlines are posted - My point about minorities is that HRC carried more minorities than Bernie. Ergo, if election issues occur at a minority heavy polling place, then mathematically it is more likely to affect HRC. The statement has nothing to do with you. - Bill showed up at two events in MA. Could that have influenced certain individuals? Not sure. Would it influence you? He probably broke a state law there, but throw Bernie 2 extra delegates for that and it still is a nit. - Which emails prove something that actually happened? They appeared to be stupid musings of people. Was he attacked in WV and KY for being an atheist? I don't recall that angle. This is a serious question, not rhetorical. Which 'tactics' discussed played out? - Uneducated young people is the fault of uneducated young people. It's not like there are no resources available. They don't have to go to the library to figure out what to do like I had to do when I turned 18. Tough shit on that one.
Sorry. End of the day, your candidate lost. And even he knows it.
so Harry R. Is full of shit, right?
Sanders did as he has always done, he sacrificed himself for the people. He could have remained and ran as an independent - since technically he is an independent, guaranteeing Clintons loss.
Now your response to some of the points are lacking details in reality and priciples your party stands on. The emails are proof- they proved some tactics that were used- and those tactics were in favor of Clinton, even though DWS said it was going to be a fair process. She lost her position as a result and will probably lose her race.
I changed party affiliation before the deadline in CA, and my name wasn't on the official list. I had to spend hours reaching out to govt/state employees to figure shit out. End of the day my shit was tossed in the trash. Now, is that my fault? Do I have the resources to lawyer up and figure out why my one ballot was tossed? There are many real life examples of this- the sanders camp was sending out emails changing the details because the rules kept changing on them. They were running against Clinton and the whole establishment - DWS didn't lose her job because she was the head of the party, she lost it because she fucked with the process. Using little tactics that resulted favorably for Clinton. You're in denial, just look at the polls- look at her trustworthiness rating. It's the American people speaking their minds- or are you the only one who's right here?
I think there was 48% delegates at the convention- they were enough to make their voices heard every single day at the convention- imagine if these tactics weren't used- the outcome could have been different. It wasn't fair and Harry R even said it.
All those small tactics were enough to change the course. Keep telling yourself it was a fair process when she loses don't blame the Bernie bros blame her, yourself, and the establishment.
Lastly, When more leaks drop make sure you come here to post.
I don't think you will get anyone to understand that it wasn't a fair process who doesn't already understand that. It's called denial.
I think it's called foreknowledge. Brian, honestly, did you think the process was nonpartisan before all of this?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I'm saying nothing material happened that affected the outcome in any state.
- Closed primaries is known information - Registration deadlines are posted - My point about minorities is that HRC carried more minorities than Bernie. Ergo, if election issues occur at a minority heavy polling place, then mathematically it is more likely to affect HRC. The statement has nothing to do with you. - Bill showed up at two events in MA. Could that have influenced certain individuals? Not sure. Would it influence you? He probably broke a state law there, but throw Bernie 2 extra delegates for that and it still is a nit. - Which emails prove something that actually happened? They appeared to be stupid musings of people. Was he attacked in WV and KY for being an atheist? I don't recall that angle. This is a serious question, not rhetorical. Which 'tactics' discussed played out? - Uneducated young people is the fault of uneducated young people. It's not like there are no resources available. They don't have to go to the library to figure out what to do like I had to do when I turned 18. Tough shit on that one.
Sorry. End of the day, your candidate lost. And even he knows it.
so Harry R. Is full of shit, right?
Sanders did as he has always done, he sacrificed himself for the people. He could have remained and ran as an independent - since technically he is an independent, guaranteeing Clintons loss.
Now your response to some of the points are lacking details in reality and priciples your party stands on. The emails are proof- they proved some tactics that were used- and those tactics were in favor of Clinton, even though DWS said it was going to be a fair process. She lost her position as a result and will probably lose her race.
I changed party affiliation before the deadline in CA, and my name wasn't on the official list. I had to spend hours reaching out to govt/state employees to figure shit out. End of the day my shit was tossed in the trash. Now, is that my fault? Do I have the resources to lawyer up and figure out why my one ballot was tossed? There are many real life examples of this- the sanders camp was sending out emails changing the details because the rules kept changing on them. They were running against Clinton and the whole establishment - DWS didn't lose her job because she was the head of the party, she lost it because she fucked with the process. Using little tactics that resulted favorably for Clinton. You're in denial, just look at the polls- look at her trustworthiness rating. It's the American people speaking their minds- or are you the only one who's right here?
I think there was 48% delegates at the convention- they were enough to make their voices heard every single day at the convention- imagine if these tactics weren't used- the outcome could have been different. It wasn't fair and Harry R even said it.
All those small tactics were enough to change the course. Keep telling yourself it was a fair process when she loses don't blame the Bernie bros blame her, yourself, and the establishment.
Lastly, When more leaks drop make sure you come here to post.
I don't think you will get anyone to understand that it wasn't a fair process who doesn't already understand that. It's called denial.
No, it's called pragmatic reasoning. It's not a zero sum game. I'm not arguing that the DNC was impartial. I'm arguing that any thumb on the sales was minor at best and maybe dumb (like the suggestions in the email). I won't blast HRC, Robbie Mook or her campaign for what a couple of staffers at the DNC are emailing to each other. Sorry about that. I'm sure you've all written some jacked up things in emails that you prefer never be public.
And BTW - maybe I'm the fucking establishment? Maybe I'm glad Bernie lost because I disagree with several points in his agenda. And maybe HRC wins and we continue down the path of having a country that's better than it was 10 years ago, 50 years ago and 150 years ago. I'd be cool with all that.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,310
I'm saying nothing material happened that affected the outcome in any state.
- Closed primaries is known information - Registration deadlines are posted - My point about minorities is that HRC carried more minorities than Bernie. Ergo, if election issues occur at a minority heavy polling place, then mathematically it is more likely to affect HRC. The statement has nothing to do with you. - Bill showed up at two events in MA. Could that have influenced certain individuals? Not sure. Would it influence you? He probably broke a state law there, but throw Bernie 2 extra delegates for that and it still is a nit. - Which emails prove something that actually happened? They appeared to be stupid musings of people. Was he attacked in WV and KY for being an atheist? I don't recall that angle. This is a serious question, not rhetorical. Which 'tactics' discussed played out? - Uneducated young people is the fault of uneducated young people. It's not like there are no resources available. They don't have to go to the library to figure out what to do like I had to do when I turned 18. Tough shit on that one.
Sorry. End of the day, your candidate lost. And even he knows it.
so Harry R. Is full of shit, right?
Sanders did as he has always done, he sacrificed himself for the people. He could have remained and ran as an independent - since technically he is an independent, guaranteeing Clintons loss.
Now your response to some of the points are lacking details in reality and priciples your party stands on. The emails are proof- they proved some tactics that were used- and those tactics were in favor of Clinton, even though DWS said it was going to be a fair process. She lost her position as a result and will probably lose her race.
I changed party affiliation before the deadline in CA, and my name wasn't on the official list. I had to spend hours reaching out to govt/state employees to figure shit out. End of the day my shit was tossed in the trash. Now, is that my fault? Do I have the resources to lawyer up and figure out why my one ballot was tossed? There are many real life examples of this- the sanders camp was sending out emails changing the details because the rules kept changing on them. They were running against Clinton and the whole establishment - DWS didn't lose her job because she was the head of the party, she lost it because she fucked with the process. Using little tactics that resulted favorably for Clinton. You're in denial, just look at the polls- look at her trustworthiness rating. It's the American people speaking their minds- or are you the only one who's right here?
I think there was 48% delegates at the convention- they were enough to make their voices heard every single day at the convention- imagine if these tactics weren't used- the outcome could have been different. It wasn't fair and Harry R even said it.
All those small tactics were enough to change the course. Keep telling yourself it was a fair process when she loses don't blame the Bernie bros blame her, yourself, and the establishment.
Lastly, When more leaks drop make sure you come here to post.
I don't think you will get anyone to understand that it wasn't a fair process who doesn't already understand that. It's called denial.
No, it's called pragmatic reasoning. It's not a zero sum game. I'm not arguing that the DNC was impartial. I'm arguing that any thumb on the sales was minor at best and maybe dumb (like the suggestions in the email). I won't blast HRC, Robbie Mook or her campaign for what a couple of staffers at the DNC are emailing to each other. Sorry about that. I'm sure you've all written some jacked up things in emails that you prefer never be public.
And BTW - maybe I'm the fucking establishment? Maybe I'm glad Bernie lost because I disagree with several points in his agenda. And maybe HRC wins and we continue down the path of having a country that's better than it was 10 years ago, 50 years ago and 150 years ago. I'd be cool with all that.
Oh, to have such optimistic hope. Who wouldn't be cool with that? I don't see it. And what about what I said about most people being HUGELY disappointed in the choices this time around. Confidence at an all time low. You see that as moving forward? I don't get it.
Post edited by brianlux on
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I'm saying nothing material happened that affected the outcome in any state.
- Closed primaries is known information - Registration deadlines are posted - My point about minorities is that HRC carried more minorities than Bernie. Ergo, if election issues occur at a minority heavy polling place, then mathematically it is more likely to affect HRC. The statement has nothing to do with you. - Bill showed up at two events in MA. Could that have influenced certain individuals? Not sure. Would it influence you? He probably broke a state law there, but throw Bernie 2 extra delegates for that and it still is a nit. - Which emails prove something that actually happened? They appeared to be stupid musings of people. Was he attacked in WV and KY for being an atheist? I don't recall that angle. This is a serious question, not rhetorical. Which 'tactics' discussed played out? - Uneducated young people is the fault of uneducated young people. It's not like there are no resources available. They don't have to go to the library to figure out what to do like I had to do when I turned 18. Tough shit on that one.
Sorry. End of the day, your candidate lost. And even he knows it.
so Harry R. Is full of shit, right?
Sanders did as he has always done, he sacrificed himself for the people. He could have remained and ran as an independent - since technically he is an independent, guaranteeing Clintons loss.
Now your response to some of the points are lacking details in reality and priciples your party stands on. The emails are proof- they proved some tactics that were used- and those tactics were in favor of Clinton, even though DWS said it was going to be a fair process. She lost her position as a result and will probably lose her race.
I changed party affiliation before the deadline in CA, and my name wasn't on the official list. I had to spend hours reaching out to govt/state employees to figure shit out. End of the day my shit was tossed in the trash. Now, is that my fault? Do I have the resources to lawyer up and figure out why my one ballot was tossed? There are many real life examples of this- the sanders camp was sending out emails changing the details because the rules kept changing on them. They were running against Clinton and the whole establishment - DWS didn't lose her job because she was the head of the party, she lost it because she fucked with the process. Using little tactics that resulted favorably for Clinton. You're in denial, just look at the polls- look at her trustworthiness rating. It's the American people speaking their minds- or are you the only one who's right here?
I think there was 48% delegates at the convention- they were enough to make their voices heard every single day at the convention- imagine if these tactics weren't used- the outcome could have been different. It wasn't fair and Harry R even said it.
All those small tactics were enough to change the course. Keep telling yourself it was a fair process when she loses don't blame the Bernie bros blame her, yourself, and the establishment.
Lastly, When more leaks drop make sure you come here to post.
I don't think you will get anyone to understand that it wasn't a fair process who doesn't already understand that. It's called denial.
No, it's called pragmatic reasoning. It's not a zero sum game. I'm not arguing that the DNC was impartial. I'm arguing that any thumb on the sales was minor at best and maybe dumb (like the suggestions in the email). I won't blast HRC, Robbie Mook or her campaign for what a couple of staffers at the DNC are emailing to each other. Sorry about that. I'm sure you've all written some jacked up things in emails that you prefer never be public.
And BTW - maybe I'm the fucking establishment? Maybe I'm glad Bernie lost because I disagree with several points in his agenda. And maybe HRC wins and we continue down the path of having a country that's better than it was 10 years ago, 50 years ago and 150 years ago. I'd be cool with all that.
Oh, to have such optimistic hope. Who wouldn't be cool with that? I don't see it.
Morning in America, Brian. I am actually optimistic.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,310
I'm saying nothing material happened that affected the outcome in any state.
- Closed primaries is known information - Registration deadlines are posted - My point about minorities is that HRC carried more minorities than Bernie. Ergo, if election issues occur at a minority heavy polling place, then mathematically it is more likely to affect HRC. The statement has nothing to do with you. - Bill showed up at two events in MA. Could that have influenced certain individuals? Not sure. Would it influence you? He probably broke a state law there, but throw Bernie 2 extra delegates for that and it still is a nit. - Which emails prove something that actually happened? They appeared to be stupid musings of people. Was he attacked in WV and KY for being an atheist? I don't recall that angle. This is a serious question, not rhetorical. Which 'tactics' discussed played out? - Uneducated young people is the fault of uneducated young people. It's not like there are no resources available. They don't have to go to the library to figure out what to do like I had to do when I turned 18. Tough shit on that one.
Sorry. End of the day, your candidate lost. And even he knows it.
so Harry R. Is full of shit, right?
Sanders did as he has always done, he sacrificed himself for the people. He could have remained and ran as an independent - since technically he is an independent, guaranteeing Clintons loss.
Now your response to some of the points are lacking details in reality and priciples your party stands on. The emails are proof- they proved some tactics that were used- and those tactics were in favor of Clinton, even though DWS said it was going to be a fair process. She lost her position as a result and will probably lose her race.
I changed party affiliation before the deadline in CA, and my name wasn't on the official list. I had to spend hours reaching out to govt/state employees to figure shit out. End of the day my shit was tossed in the trash. Now, is that my fault? Do I have the resources to lawyer up and figure out why my one ballot was tossed? There are many real life examples of this- the sanders camp was sending out emails changing the details because the rules kept changing on them. They were running against Clinton and the whole establishment - DWS didn't lose her job because she was the head of the party, she lost it because she fucked with the process. Using little tactics that resulted favorably for Clinton. You're in denial, just look at the polls- look at her trustworthiness rating. It's the American people speaking their minds- or are you the only one who's right here?
I think there was 48% delegates at the convention- they were enough to make their voices heard every single day at the convention- imagine if these tactics weren't used- the outcome could have been different. It wasn't fair and Harry R even said it.
All those small tactics were enough to change the course. Keep telling yourself it was a fair process when she loses don't blame the Bernie bros blame her, yourself, and the establishment.
Lastly, When more leaks drop make sure you come here to post.
I don't think you will get anyone to understand that it wasn't a fair process who doesn't already understand that. It's called denial.
No, it's called pragmatic reasoning. It's not a zero sum game. I'm not arguing that the DNC was impartial. I'm arguing that any thumb on the sales was minor at best and maybe dumb (like the suggestions in the email). I won't blast HRC, Robbie Mook or her campaign for what a couple of staffers at the DNC are emailing to each other. Sorry about that. I'm sure you've all written some jacked up things in emails that you prefer never be public.
And BTW - maybe I'm the fucking establishment? Maybe I'm glad Bernie lost because I disagree with several points in his agenda. And maybe HRC wins and we continue down the path of having a country that's better than it was 10 years ago, 50 years ago and 150 years ago. I'd be cool with all that.
Oh, to have such optimistic hope. Who wouldn't be cool with that? I don't see it.
Morning in America, Brian. I am actually optimistic.
What about my second question above?
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I'm saying nothing material happened that affected the outcome in any state.
- Closed primaries is known information - Registration deadlines are posted - My point about minorities is that HRC carried more minorities than Bernie. Ergo, if election issues occur at a minority heavy polling place, then mathematically it is more likely to affect HRC. The statement has nothing to do with you. - Bill showed up at two events in MA. Could that have influenced certain individuals? Not sure. Would it influence you? He probably broke a state law there, but throw Bernie 2 extra delegates for that and it still is a nit. - Which emails prove something that actually happened? They appeared to be stupid musings of people. Was he attacked in WV and KY for being an atheist? I don't recall that angle. This is a serious question, not rhetorical. Which 'tactics' discussed played out? - Uneducated young people is the fault of uneducated young people. It's not like there are no resources available. They don't have to go to the library to figure out what to do like I had to do when I turned 18. Tough shit on that one.
Sorry. End of the day, your candidate lost. And even he knows it.
so Harry R. Is full of shit, right?
Sanders did as he has always done, he sacrificed himself for the people. He could have remained and ran as an independent - since technically he is an independent, guaranteeing Clintons loss.
Now your response to some of the points are lacking details in reality and priciples your party stands on. The emails are proof- they proved some tactics that were used- and those tactics were in favor of Clinton, even though DWS said it was going to be a fair process. She lost her position as a result and will probably lose her race.
I changed party affiliation before the deadline in CA, and my name wasn't on the official list. I had to spend hours reaching out to govt/state employees to figure shit out. End of the day my shit was tossed in the trash. Now, is that my fault? Do I have the resources to lawyer up and figure out why my one ballot was tossed? There are many real life examples of this- the sanders camp was sending out emails changing the details because the rules kept changing on them. They were running against Clinton and the whole establishment - DWS didn't lose her job because she was the head of the party, she lost it because she fucked with the process. Using little tactics that resulted favorably for Clinton. You're in denial, just look at the polls- look at her trustworthiness rating. It's the American people speaking their minds- or are you the only one who's right here?
I think there was 48% delegates at the convention- they were enough to make their voices heard every single day at the convention- imagine if these tactics weren't used- the outcome could have been different. It wasn't fair and Harry R even said it.
All those small tactics were enough to change the course. Keep telling yourself it was a fair process when she loses don't blame the Bernie bros blame her, yourself, and the establishment.
Lastly, When more leaks drop make sure you come here to post.
I don't think you will get anyone to understand that it wasn't a fair process who doesn't already understand that. It's called denial.
No, it's called pragmatic reasoning. It's not a zero sum game. I'm not arguing that the DNC was impartial. I'm arguing that any thumb on the sales was minor at best and maybe dumb (like the suggestions in the email). I won't blast HRC, Robbie Mook or her campaign for what a couple of staffers at the DNC are emailing to each other. Sorry about that. I'm sure you've all written some jacked up things in emails that you prefer never be public.
And BTW - maybe I'm the fucking establishment? Maybe I'm glad Bernie lost because I disagree with several points in his agenda. And maybe HRC wins and we continue down the path of having a country that's better than it was 10 years ago, 50 years ago and 150 years ago. I'd be cool with all that.
Oh, to have such optimistic hope. Who wouldn't be cool with that? I don't see it.
Morning in America, Brian. I am actually optimistic.
What about my second question above?
I responded before your edit.
I think HRC has been the victim of 25 years of right wing conspiracy mongering and negative spin. I have no worries about her capacity to be a President and very confident that she will choose an exceptional staff and SCOTUS judges.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,310
I'm saying nothing material happened that affected the outcome in any state.
- Closed primaries is known information - Registration deadlines are posted - My point about minorities is that HRC carried more minorities than Bernie. Ergo, if election issues occur at a minority heavy polling place, then mathematically it is more likely to affect HRC. The statement has nothing to do with you. - Bill showed up at two events in MA. Could that have influenced certain individuals? Not sure. Would it influence you? He probably broke a state law there, but throw Bernie 2 extra delegates for that and it still is a nit. - Which emails prove something that actually happened? They appeared to be stupid musings of people. Was he attacked in WV and KY for being an atheist? I don't recall that angle. This is a serious question, not rhetorical. Which 'tactics' discussed played out? - Uneducated young people is the fault of uneducated young people. It's not like there are no resources available. They don't have to go to the library to figure out what to do like I had to do when I turned 18. Tough shit on that one.
Sorry. End of the day, your candidate lost. And even he knows it.
so Harry R. Is full of shit, right?
Sanders did as he has always done, he sacrificed himself for the people. He could have remained and ran as an independent - since technically he is an independent, guaranteeing Clintons loss.
Now your response to some of the points are lacking details in reality and priciples your party stands on. The emails are proof- they proved some tactics that were used- and those tactics were in favor of Clinton, even though DWS said it was going to be a fair process. She lost her position as a result and will probably lose her race.
I changed party affiliation before the deadline in CA, and my name wasn't on the official list. I had to spend hours reaching out to govt/state employees to figure shit out. End of the day my shit was tossed in the trash. Now, is that my fault? Do I have the resources to lawyer up and figure out why my one ballot was tossed? There are many real life examples of this- the sanders camp was sending out emails changing the details because the rules kept changing on them. They were running against Clinton and the whole establishment - DWS didn't lose her job because she was the head of the party, she lost it because she fucked with the process. Using little tactics that resulted favorably for Clinton. You're in denial, just look at the polls- look at her trustworthiness rating. It's the American people speaking their minds- or are you the only one who's right here?
I think there was 48% delegates at the convention- they were enough to make their voices heard every single day at the convention- imagine if these tactics weren't used- the outcome could have been different. It wasn't fair and Harry R even said it.
All those small tactics were enough to change the course. Keep telling yourself it was a fair process when she loses don't blame the Bernie bros blame her, yourself, and the establishment.
Lastly, When more leaks drop make sure you come here to post.
I don't think you will get anyone to understand that it wasn't a fair process who doesn't already understand that. It's called denial.
No, it's called pragmatic reasoning. It's not a zero sum game. I'm not arguing that the DNC was impartial. I'm arguing that any thumb on the sales was minor at best and maybe dumb (like the suggestions in the email). I won't blast HRC, Robbie Mook or her campaign for what a couple of staffers at the DNC are emailing to each other. Sorry about that. I'm sure you've all written some jacked up things in emails that you prefer never be public.
And BTW - maybe I'm the fucking establishment? Maybe I'm glad Bernie lost because I disagree with several points in his agenda. And maybe HRC wins and we continue down the path of having a country that's better than it was 10 years ago, 50 years ago and 150 years ago. I'd be cool with all that.
Oh, to have such optimistic hope. Who wouldn't be cool with that? I don't see it.
Morning in America, Brian. I am actually optimistic.
What about my second question above?
I responded before your edit.
I think HRC has been the victim of 25 years of right wing conspiracy mongering and negative spin. I have no worries about her capacity to be a President and very confident that she will choose an exceptional staff and SCOTUS judges.
And what about what I said about most people being HUGELY disappointed in the choices this time around. Confidence at an all time low. You see that as moving forward? I don't get it.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I'm saying nothing material happened that affected the outcome in any state.
- Closed primaries is known information - Registration deadlines are posted - My point about minorities is that HRC carried more minorities than Bernie. Ergo, if election issues occur at a minority heavy polling place, then mathematically it is more likely to affect HRC. The statement has nothing to do with you. - Bill showed up at two events in MA. Could that have influenced certain individuals? Not sure. Would it influence you? He probably broke a state law there, but throw Bernie 2 extra delegates for that and it still is a nit. - Which emails prove something that actually happened? They appeared to be stupid musings of people. Was he attacked in WV and KY for being an atheist? I don't recall that angle. This is a serious question, not rhetorical. Which 'tactics' discussed played out? - Uneducated young people is the fault of uneducated young people. It's not like there are no resources available. They don't have to go to the library to figure out what to do like I had to do when I turned 18. Tough shit on that one.
Sorry. End of the day, your candidate lost. And even he knows it.
so Harry R. Is full of shit, right?
Sanders did as he has always done, he sacrificed himself for the people. He could have remained and ran as an independent - since technically he is an independent, guaranteeing Clintons loss.
Now your response to some of the points are lacking details in reality and priciples your party stands on. The emails are proof- they proved some tactics that were used- and those tactics were in favor of Clinton, even though DWS said it was going to be a fair process. She lost her position as a result and will probably lose her race.
I changed party affiliation before the deadline in CA, and my name wasn't on the official list. I had to spend hours reaching out to govt/state employees to figure shit out. End of the day my shit was tossed in the trash. Now, is that my fault? Do I have the resources to lawyer up and figure out why my one ballot was tossed? There are many real life examples of this- the sanders camp was sending out emails changing the details because the rules kept changing on them. They were running against Clinton and the whole establishment - DWS didn't lose her job because she was the head of the party, she lost it because she fucked with the process. Using little tactics that resulted favorably for Clinton. You're in denial, just look at the polls- look at her trustworthiness rating. It's the American people speaking their minds- or are you the only one who's right here?
I think there was 48% delegates at the convention- they were enough to make their voices heard every single day at the convention- imagine if these tactics weren't used- the outcome could have been different. It wasn't fair and Harry R even said it.
All those small tactics were enough to change the course. Keep telling yourself it was a fair process when she loses don't blame the Bernie bros blame her, yourself, and the establishment.
Lastly, When more leaks drop make sure you come here to post.
I don't think you will get anyone to understand that it wasn't a fair process who doesn't already understand that. It's called denial.
No, it's called pragmatic reasoning. It's not a zero sum game. I'm not arguing that the DNC was impartial. I'm arguing that any thumb on the sales was minor at best and maybe dumb (like the suggestions in the email). I won't blast HRC, Robbie Mook or her campaign for what a couple of staffers at the DNC are emailing to each other. Sorry about that. I'm sure you've all written some jacked up things in emails that you prefer never be public.
And BTW - maybe I'm the fucking establishment? Maybe I'm glad Bernie lost because I disagree with several points in his agenda. And maybe HRC wins and we continue down the path of having a country that's better than it was 10 years ago, 50 years ago and 150 years ago. I'd be cool with all that.
Oh, to have such optimistic hope. Who wouldn't be cool with that? I don't see it.
Morning in America, Brian. I am actually optimistic.
What about my second question above?
I responded before your edit.
I think HRC has been the victim of 25 years of right wing conspiracy mongering and negative spin. I have no worries about her capacity to be a President and very confident that she will choose an exceptional staff and SCOTUS judges.
And what about what I said about most people being HUGELY disappointed in the choices this time around. Confidence at an all time low. You see that as moving forward? I don't get it.
Regardless of 'confidence' numbers, I look at unemployment, the stock market, the education levels, healthcare, etc. I focus on the state of the union and results.
Honest question... If Sanders is the pro-transparency and anti-corruption candidate, and he recognized the lack of transparency and abundance of corruption in the party he was representing, and he failed to increase the transparency or decrease the corruption - why did he not go independent? Surely he is intelligent enough to recognize insurmountable stacked odds, but more than that - his sticking with a corrupt and opaque Party to me seems a betrayal to his own character.
pretty simple ... see the polling numbers of stein and johnson ... or even go back to ron paul ... it's a bit of a quagmire in that the current electoral system ultimately favours this 2-party system ... and the only way to increase transparency and decrease corruption is to break free from this system ...
the reality is that more than 2/3rds of the nation's votes don't really matter in this electoral system ... if you're in texas, california, arizona, washington, etc ... your vote won't mean diddly squat ...
it's this ruse of democracy that people think they are part of - when in reality it's a system that is probably the most undemocratic short of a dictatorship ...
Got that right. I appreciate that Canadians want to learn more about our election process. But it is so hard to describe in detail without repeating how corrupt and anti-democratic and rigged it truly has become since 2000.
Benjs, Sanders HAD to get on the 2 party ticket to not repeat what Nadar did. And by doing that, he upset Hillary ("It's MY turn" Hillary), and made history by creating a massive support in numbers. I kinda wish he did go back and run on the Independent ticket. I think he would have had a good chance, simply because the 2 clowns for candidates we have are the most UNPOPULAR candidates in US history. People here aren't hopeful about this election, everyone I see and talk to are deflated and depressed that these 2 are our options.
I totally understand that the odds are skewed towards the candidates from either of the two parties. I truly feel that in spite of this, given the rep and dem nominees, his independent ticket truly would have sent a strong message about not tolerating corruption, and shown a willingness to fight uphill battles when they will be for right and just reasons.
'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
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,310
I'm saying nothing material happened that affected the outcome in any state.
- Closed primaries is known information - Registration deadlines are posted - My point about minorities is that HRC carried more minorities than Bernie. Ergo, if election issues occur at a minority heavy polling place, then mathematically it is more likely to affect HRC. The statement has nothing to do with you. - Bill showed up at two events in MA. Could that have influenced certain individuals? Not sure. Would it influence you? He probably broke a state law there, but throw Bernie 2 extra delegates for that and it still is a nit. - Which emails prove something that actually happened? They appeared to be stupid musings of people. Was he attacked in WV and KY for being an atheist? I don't recall that angle. This is a serious question, not rhetorical. Which 'tactics' discussed played out? - Uneducated young people is the fault of uneducated young people. It's not like there are no resources available. They don't have to go to the library to figure out what to do like I had to do when I turned 18. Tough shit on that one.
Sorry. End of the day, your candidate lost. And even he knows it.
so Harry R. Is full of shit, right?
Sanders did as he has always done, he sacrificed himself for the people. He could have remained and ran as an independent - since technically he is an independent, guaranteeing Clintons loss.
Now your response to some of the points are lacking details in reality and priciples your party stands on. The emails are proof- they proved some tactics that were used- and those tactics were in favor of Clinton, even though DWS said it was going to be a fair process. She lost her position as a result and will probably lose her race.
I changed party affiliation before the deadline in CA, and my name wasn't on the official list. I had to spend hours reaching out to govt/state employees to figure shit out. End of the day my shit was tossed in the trash. Now, is that my fault? Do I have the resources to lawyer up and figure out why my one ballot was tossed? There are many real life examples of this- the sanders camp was sending out emails changing the details because the rules kept changing on them. They were running against Clinton and the whole establishment - DWS didn't lose her job because she was the head of the party, she lost it because she fucked with the process. Using little tactics that resulted favorably for Clinton. You're in denial, just look at the polls- look at her trustworthiness rating. It's the American people speaking their minds- or are you the only one who's right here?
I think there was 48% delegates at the convention- they were enough to make their voices heard every single day at the convention- imagine if these tactics weren't used- the outcome could have been different. It wasn't fair and Harry R even said it.
All those small tactics were enough to change the course. Keep telling yourself it was a fair process when she loses don't blame the Bernie bros blame her, yourself, and the establishment.
Lastly, When more leaks drop make sure you come here to post.
I don't think you will get anyone to understand that it wasn't a fair process who doesn't already understand that. It's called denial.
No, it's called pragmatic reasoning. It's not a zero sum game. I'm not arguing that the DNC was impartial. I'm arguing that any thumb on the sales was minor at best and maybe dumb (like the suggestions in the email). I won't blast HRC, Robbie Mook or her campaign for what a couple of staffers at the DNC are emailing to each other. Sorry about that. I'm sure you've all written some jacked up things in emails that you prefer never be public.
And BTW - maybe I'm the fucking establishment? Maybe I'm glad Bernie lost because I disagree with several points in his agenda. And maybe HRC wins and we continue down the path of having a country that's better than it was 10 years ago, 50 years ago and 150 years ago. I'd be cool with all that.
Oh, to have such optimistic hope. Who wouldn't be cool with that? I don't see it.
Morning in America, Brian. I am actually optimistic.
What about my second question above?
I responded before your edit.
I think HRC has been the victim of 25 years of right wing conspiracy mongering and negative spin. I have no worries about her capacity to be a President and very confident that she will choose an exceptional staff and SCOTUS judges.
And what about what I said about most people being HUGELY disappointed in the choices this time around. Confidence at an all time low. You see that as moving forward? I don't get it.
Regardless of 'confidence' numbers, I look at unemployment, the stock market, the education levels, healthcare, etc. I focus on the state of the union and results.
Right. I rest my case.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I'm saying nothing material happened that affected the outcome in any state.
- Closed primaries is known information - Registration deadlines are posted - My point about minorities is that HRC carried more minorities than Bernie. Ergo, if election issues occur at a minority heavy polling place, then mathematically it is more likely to affect HRC. The statement has nothing to do with you. - Bill showed up at two events in MA. Could that have influenced certain individuals? Not sure. Would it influence you? He probably broke a state law there, but throw Bernie 2 extra delegates for that and it still is a nit. - Which emails prove something that actually happened? They appeared to be stupid musings of people. Was he attacked in WV and KY for being an atheist? I don't recall that angle. This is a serious question, not rhetorical. Which 'tactics' discussed played out? - Uneducated young people is the fault of uneducated young people. It's not like there are no resources available. They don't have to go to the library to figure out what to do like I had to do when I turned 18. Tough shit on that one.
Sorry. End of the day, your candidate lost. And even he knows it.
so Harry R. Is full of shit, right?
Sanders did as he has always done, he sacrificed himself for the people. He could have remained and ran as an independent - since technically he is an independent, guaranteeing Clintons loss.
Now your response to some of the points are lacking details in reality and priciples your party stands on. The emails are proof- they proved some tactics that were used- and those tactics were in favor of Clinton, even though DWS said it was going to be a fair process. She lost her position as a result and will probably lose her race.
I changed party affiliation before the deadline in CA, and my name wasn't on the official list. I had to spend hours reaching out to govt/state employees to figure shit out. End of the day my shit was tossed in the trash. Now, is that my fault? Do I have the resources to lawyer up and figure out why my one ballot was tossed? There are many real life examples of this- the sanders camp was sending out emails changing the details because the rules kept changing on them. They were running against Clinton and the whole establishment - DWS didn't lose her job because she was the head of the party, she lost it because she fucked with the process. Using little tactics that resulted favorably for Clinton. You're in denial, just look at the polls- look at her trustworthiness rating. It's the American people speaking their minds- or are you the only one who's right here?
I think there was 48% delegates at the convention- they were enough to make their voices heard every single day at the convention- imagine if these tactics weren't used- the outcome could have been different. It wasn't fair and Harry R even said it.
All those small tactics were enough to change the course. Keep telling yourself it was a fair process when she loses don't blame the Bernie bros blame her, yourself, and the establishment.
Lastly, When more leaks drop make sure you come here to post.
I don't think you will get anyone to understand that it wasn't a fair process who doesn't already understand that. It's called denial.
No, it's called pragmatic reasoning. It's not a zero sum game. I'm not arguing that the DNC was impartial. I'm arguing that any thumb on the sales was minor at best and maybe dumb (like the suggestions in the email). I won't blast HRC, Robbie Mook or her campaign for what a couple of staffers at the DNC are emailing to each other. Sorry about that. I'm sure you've all written some jacked up things in emails that you prefer never be public.
And BTW - maybe I'm the fucking establishment? Maybe I'm glad Bernie lost because I disagree with several points in his agenda. And maybe HRC wins and we continue down the path of having a country that's better than it was 10 years ago, 50 years ago and 150 years ago. I'd be cool with all that.
Oh, to have such optimistic hope. Who wouldn't be cool with that? I don't see it.
Morning in America, Brian. I am actually optimistic.
What about my second question above?
I responded before your edit.
I think HRC has been the victim of 25 years of right wing conspiracy mongering and negative spin. I have no worries about her capacity to be a President and very confident that she will choose an exceptional staff and SCOTUS judges.
And what about what I said about most people being HUGELY disappointed in the choices this time around. Confidence at an all time low. You see that as moving forward? I don't get it.
Regardless of 'confidence' numbers, I look at unemployment, the stock market, the education levels, healthcare, etc. I focus on the state of the union and results.
Comments
having said all that - the coverage he did get was strictly a result of him being in the democratic party - not likely to get that attention running as an independent or as the green party leader ...
1. Bernie is still like 400k short in CA
2. Bill Clinton affecting events? What does that mean?
3. Media calling the state too early... Did only Sanders supporters get that message and they left while HRC supporters stayed in line?
4. Emails weren't released until last week. Did any of those affect the election?
5. Understaffed locations in NV and AZ disproportionately affected minority voting. Now who did minorities go for?
These are all nits that are extrapolated for maximum negative Bernie impact only.
I feel like I have to repeat myself constantly about the primaries and how they were closed. You Cannot compare closed primarirs and him losing to Hillary when it was not open and fair to begin with.
There are more factors here as well. But just to answer the points.
1) many votes were not counted- there was a deadline to register as a democrat and many people, including myself met that deadline - yet we weren't placed on the official list. I can't prove that there wasn't tampering involved, but that sure is fishy! Considering all the other shady shit going around the country
2) bill showed up at two separate events(off the top of my head) and made situations worse - I believe there is a federal law against this- causing crowds and confusion
3) most of these were in locations where mail in ballots were sent in high numbers. Most of the people voting for sanders were young, uninformed, day jobs, unfamiliar with the process, intimidated, pushed away(not psychically)- Hillary people are mostly older folks and they got it done before the damn election even began(there were many examples of this)
4) emails showed the goddam tactics. Before we were a bunch of conspiracy whackos- now the emails prove us right- the tactics were being used and the emails proved it. Wtf
5)I'm a minority I sure as hell didn't vote for her. Not sure what your point is on that one- and yes understaffed locations were an issue - shit as a matter of fact people were fired for it- but that's after the fact that the voting took place- I'm sure those people are working directly for Clinton now- as a matter of fact DWS is back to to working for her.
Closed primaries
The list can go on and on. There were a lot of factors that aren't being touched here, but all those little details helped shape the outcome and they were tactics- shit even debates were an issue - DWS trying to have debates during large sporting events etc... Could this have been the difference? Who knows, all we know is that tactics were used to favor Clinton. And that's our biggest issue here- democracy is stained, not with bill's cum, but with a powerful group of elitist known as the establishment.
Harry R. And so many other leaders have already came out and said sanders did not receive a fair shot. People have been fired-
This isn't about us crying foul- this is about our democracy. So stop pretending shit didn't happen.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
- Closed primaries is known information
- Registration deadlines are posted
- My point about minorities is that HRC carried more minorities than Bernie. Ergo, if election issues occur at a minority heavy polling place, then mathematically it is more likely to affect HRC. The statement has nothing to do with you.
- Bill showed up at two events in MA. Could that have influenced certain individuals? Not sure. Would it influence you? He probably broke a state law there, but throw Bernie 2 extra delegates for that and it still is a nit.
- Which emails prove something that actually happened? They appeared to be stupid musings of people. Was he attacked in WV and KY for being an atheist? I don't recall that angle. This is a serious question, not rhetorical. Which 'tactics' discussed played out?
- Uneducated young people is the fault of uneducated young people. It's not like there are no resources available. They don't have to go to the library to figure out what to do like I had to do when I turned 18. Tough shit on that one.
Sorry. End of the day, your candidate lost. And even he knows it.
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
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; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
Sanders did as he has always done, he sacrificed himself for the people. He could have remained and ran as an independent - since technically he is an independent, guaranteeing Clintons loss.
Now your response to some of the points are lacking details in reality and priciples your party stands on. The emails are proof- they proved some tactics that were used- and those tactics were in favor of Clinton, even though DWS said it was going to be a fair process. She lost her position as a result and will probably lose her race.
I changed party affiliation before the deadline in CA, and my name wasn't on the official list. I had to spend hours reaching out to govt/state employees to figure shit out. End of the day my shit was tossed in the trash. Now, is that my fault? Do I have the resources to lawyer up and figure out why my one ballot was tossed? There are many real life examples of this- the sanders camp was sending out emails changing the details because the rules kept changing on them. They were running against Clinton and the whole establishment - DWS didn't lose her job because she was the head of the party, she lost it because she fucked with the process. Using little tactics that resulted favorably for Clinton. You're in denial, just look at the polls- look at her trustworthiness rating. It's the American people speaking their minds- or are you the only one who's right here?
I think there was 48% delegates at the convention- they were enough to make their voices heard every single day at the convention- imagine if these tactics weren't used- the outcome could have been different. It wasn't fair and Harry R even said it.
All those small tactics were enough to change the course. Keep telling yourself it was a fair process when she loses don't blame the Bernie bros blame her, yourself, and the establishment.
Lastly, When more leaks drop make sure you come here to post.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
And BTW - maybe I'm the fucking establishment? Maybe I'm glad Bernie lost because I disagree with several points in his agenda. And maybe HRC wins and we continue down the path of having a country that's better than it was 10 years ago, 50 years ago and 150 years ago. I'd be cool with all that.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I think HRC has been the victim of 25 years of right wing conspiracy mongering and negative spin. I have no worries about her capacity to be a President and very confident that she will choose an exceptional staff and SCOTUS judges.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"