Hillary won more votes for President
Comments
-
Excuse me? You haven't proposed a single solution. Had you brought up an electoral corruption solution, I'd have happily engaged you in debate - surely sometimes agreeing with you, other times not, and sometimes playing devil's advocate. You are not engaging in reasonable debate when you refuse to read linked statements accurately, be criticized with valid arguments, or provide your own evidence when asked to. And by the way - I'm saying this as a Bernie Sanders supporter...Free said:
It's very interesting Benjs. Exactly how do you propose throwing actual solutions on the table when everyone here, including yourself, choose to attack the poster bringing up the electoral corruption problems rather than debate the topic itself? Does "shoot the messenger" have a nice ring to it?benjs said:
Free, if you have a problem with the election process, use your democratic right to free speech and propose something better. Highlighting problems can only take you so far in a reasonable debate; at a certain point, empathy really does run dry when complaints are constant but solutions aren't even put on the table.Free said:
Good god, please. Check yourself!rgambs said:
Hahaha do you think pissing and moaning about how it is unfair is doing anything?Free said:
And THAT sort of 'asleep at the wheel' attitude is why the media and the system get away with it, pushing it further and further away from a democratic process every election cycle. Give yourself a pat on the back. NOT.rgambs said:
I haven't felt the need to whine about it because it's nothing new and it's just reality.Free said:
Please point out where you talk about voter suppression, then.rgambs said:
I'm not ignoring that it is voter suppression at all.Free said:
And you are ignoring the point that it is fraud and voter suppression to call the race the night before 5 states vote, as well as counting SDs before they vote.rgambs said:
You are ignoring the point that Clinton has more votes from the people.Free said:
Comments like these emphasize how little you know about who and how Superdelegates work. Or is it what you want to believe?mrussel1 said:
Why do you want super delegates to overturn the will of the voters? That seems contrary to Bernie's core message. It's all very confusing.Free said:One would be a fool to believe what the news is saying right now. The almighty race to be the first media station to report the false news!! And ahead of 5 state primaries!
Note to Americans:
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
This isn't about who will win the nom, this is about a fair and just election process. Which Americans are being robbed of.
The media doesn't effect me, 3 gigs of data/month is the only connection I have to the world outside my farm. They aren't swaying me at all, and the sheep will continue to bah and bleat at their TV's even with your petulant child's attitude flooding the Pearl Jam forum. Come down off your high horse.
Have you guys noticed Brian Lux gone, who left for this exact reason? Continually, you guys prefer to let loose on the messenger and NOT actually discuss the topic of election corruption. When we actually have a decent discussion without need to personally attack, that's when solutions can be proposed. But thatcan'tDoesn't happen here.
And for the record - I've long felt this way about the way debates are held on here: too much focusing on problems, not enough on discussing solutions. I don't think it's just you, and I'm sure I've been guilty of it too.Post edited by benjs on'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 10 -
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait....Wait. Before we get started here can we put our tin foil hats on first?0
-
She only needs to win 31% of the delegates today to reach the magic number of pledged delegates, so unless you somehow thought that Sanders was going to crush her in the remaining primaries and caucuses, this is already a fait accompli. It's not like he's had a big momentum swing and is on a roll. Add superdelegates to the equation and the fat lady has sung. This isn't voter suppression. If everyone who was registered came out to vote, Sanders still wouldn't have a prayer today.EarlWelsh said:It's so strange to me that out of everyone I know, there has been at least one supporter of all the major candidates. This includes Sanders, Trump, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, O'Malley, and even some of the losers in the back. It includes all but one....Clinton.
AP shouldn't have made that call, however presumptive it may have been, on the eve of such a big primary day. They knew the effect it would have. It's bullshit voter suppression. Legal, of course, but still a total bullshit move."I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/080 -
That's not the point. Let the people vote today without influencing their decision by declaring a winner. It is a form of voter suppression.jeffbr said:
She only needs to win 31% of the delegates today to reach the magic number of pledged delegates, so unless you somehow thought that Sanders was going to crush her in the remaining primaries and caucuses, this is already a fait accompli. It's not like he's had a big momentum swing and is on a roll. Add superdelegates to the equation and the fat lady has sung. This isn't voter suppression. If everyone who was registered came out to vote, Sanders still wouldn't have a prayer today.EarlWelsh said:It's so strange to me that out of everyone I know, there has been at least one supporter of all the major candidates. This includes Sanders, Trump, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, O'Malley, and even some of the losers in the back. It includes all but one....Clinton.
AP shouldn't have made that call, however presumptive it may have been, on the eve of such a big primary day. They knew the effect it would have. It's bullshit voter suppression. Legal, of course, but still a total bullshit move.
Let the people vote and let the chips fall as they may.0 -
I don't think anybody but Mr Lux can speak for Brian, but I know he has toyed with the idea of leaving this forum for a long time, for various reasons.Free said:
It's very interesting Benjs. Exactly how do you propose throwing actual solutions on the table when everyone here, including yourself, choose to attack the poster bringing up the electoral corruption problems rather than debate the topic itself? Does "shoot the messenger" have a nice ring to it?benjs said:
Free, if you have a problem with the election process, use your democratic right to free speech and propose something better. Highlighting problems can only take you so far in a reasonable debate; at a certain point, empathy really does run dry when complaints are constant but solutions aren't even put on the table.Free said:
Good god, please. Check yourself!rgambs said:
Hahaha do you think pissing and moaning about how it is unfair is doing anything?Free said:
And THAT sort of 'asleep at the wheel' attitude is why the media and the system get away with it, pushing it further and further away from a democratic process every election cycle. Give yourself a pat on the back. NOT.rgambs said:
I haven't felt the need to whine about it because it's nothing new and it's just reality.Free said:
Please point out where you talk about voter suppression, then.rgambs said:
I'm not ignoring that it is voter suppression at all.Free said:
And you are ignoring the point that it is fraud and voter suppression to call the race the night before 5 states vote, as well as counting SDs before they vote.rgambs said:
You are ignoring the point that Clinton has more votes from the people.Free said:
Comments like these emphasize how little you know about who and how Superdelegates work. Or is it what you want to believe?mrussel1 said:
Why do you want super delegates to overturn the will of the voters? That seems contrary to Bernie's core message. It's all very confusing.Free said:One would be a fool to believe what the news is saying right now. The almighty race to be the first media station to report the false news!! And ahead of 5 state primaries!
Note to Americans:
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
This isn't about who will win the nom, this is about a fair and just election process. Which Americans are being robbed of.
The media doesn't effect me, 3 gigs of data/month is the only connection I have to the world outside my farm. They aren't swaying me at all, and the sheep will continue to bah and bleat at their TV's even with your petulant child's attitude flooding the Pearl Jam forum. Come down off your high horse.
Have you guys noticed Brian Lux gone, who left for this exact reason? Continually, you guys prefer to let loose on the messenger and NOT actually discuss the topic of election corruption. When we actually have a decent discussion without need to personally attack, that's when solutions can be proposed. But thatcan'tDoesn't happen here.
The man has fought the good fight for decades, sometimes exasperation is part of the cycle, but I don't like the idea of pinning his current absence on a single issue, topic, or group of posters.Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
It's not suppression. No one is stopping them. Could it influence? Sure but you are misusing the word.EarlWelsh said:
That's not the point. Let the people vote today without influencing their decision by declaring a winner. It is a form of voter suppression.jeffbr said:
She only needs to win 31% of the delegates today to reach the magic number of pledged delegates, so unless you somehow thought that Sanders was going to crush her in the remaining primaries and caucuses, this is already a fait accompli. It's not like he's had a big momentum swing and is on a roll. Add superdelegates to the equation and the fat lady has sung. This isn't voter suppression. If everyone who was registered came out to vote, Sanders still wouldn't have a prayer today.EarlWelsh said:It's so strange to me that out of everyone I know, there has been at least one supporter of all the major candidates. This includes Sanders, Trump, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, O'Malley, and even some of the losers in the back. It includes all but one....Clinton.
AP shouldn't have made that call, however presumptive it may have been, on the eve of such a big primary day. They knew the effect it would have. It's bullshit voter suppression. Legal, of course, but still a total bullshit move.
Let the people vote and let the chips fall as they may.
Btw, I support HRC. There's also 13.5 million voters that have done the same.0 -
Stop the need to shoot the messenger and I would gladly discuss solutions. The ball is in your court.benjs said:
Excuse me? You haven't proposed a single solution. Had you brought up an electoral corruption solution, I'd have happily engaged you in debate - surely sometimes agreeing with you, other times not, and sometimes playing devil's advocate. You are not engaging in reasonable debate when you refuse to read linked statements accurately, be criticized with valid arguments, or provide your own evidence when asked to. And by the way - I'm saying this as a Bernie Sanders supporter...Free said:
It's very interesting Benjs. Exactly how do you propose throwing actual solutions on the table when everyone here, including yourself, choose to attack the poster bringing up the electoral corruption problems rather than debate the topic itself? Does "shoot the messenger" have a nice ring to it?benjs said:
Free, if you have a problem with the election process, use your democratic right to free speech and propose something better. Highlighting problems can only take you so far in a reasonable debate; at a certain point, empathy really does run dry when complaints are constant but solutions aren't even put on the table.Free said:
Good god, please. Check yourself!rgambs said:
Hahaha do you think pissing and moaning about how it is unfair is doing anything?Free said:
And THAT sort of 'asleep at the wheel' attitude is why the media and the system get away with it, pushing it further and further away from a democratic process every election cycle. Give yourself a pat on the back. NOT.rgambs said:
I haven't felt the need to whine about it because it's nothing new and it's just reality.Free said:
Please point out where you talk about voter suppression, then.rgambs said:
I'm not ignoring that it is voter suppression at all.Free said:
And you are ignoring the point that it is fraud and voter suppression to call the race the night before 5 states vote, as well as counting SDs before they vote.rgambs said:
You are ignoring the point that Clinton has more votes from the people.Free said:
Comments like these emphasize how little you know about who and how Superdelegates work. Or is it what you want to believe?mrussel1 said:
Why do you want super delegates to overturn the will of the voters? That seems contrary to Bernie's core message. It's all very confusing.Free said:One would be a fool to believe what the news is saying right now. The almighty race to be the first media station to report the false news!! And ahead of 5 state primaries!
Note to Americans:
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
This isn't about who will win the nom, this is about a fair and just election process. Which Americans are being robbed of.
The media doesn't effect me, 3 gigs of data/month is the only connection I have to the world outside my farm. They aren't swaying me at all, and the sheep will continue to bah and bleat at their TV's even with your petulant child's attitude flooding the Pearl Jam forum. Come down off your high horse.
Have you guys noticed Brian Lux gone, who left for this exact reason? Continually, you guys prefer to let loose on the messenger and NOT actually discuss the topic of election corruption. When we actually have a decent discussion without need to personally attack, that's when solutions can be proposed. But thatcan'tDoesn't happen here.
And for the record - I've long felt this way about the way debates are held on here: too much focusing on problems, not enough on discussing solutions. I don't think it's just you, and I'm sure I've been guilty of it too.0 -
Call it what you may. I call it a form of suppression.mrussel1 said:
It's not suppression. No one is stopping them. Could it influence? Sure but you are misusing the word.EarlWelsh said:
That's not the point. Let the people vote today without influencing their decision by declaring a winner. It is a form of voter suppression.jeffbr said:
She only needs to win 31% of the delegates today to reach the magic number of pledged delegates, so unless you somehow thought that Sanders was going to crush her in the remaining primaries and caucuses, this is already a fait accompli. It's not like he's had a big momentum swing and is on a roll. Add superdelegates to the equation and the fat lady has sung. This isn't voter suppression. If everyone who was registered came out to vote, Sanders still wouldn't have a prayer today.EarlWelsh said:It's so strange to me that out of everyone I know, there has been at least one supporter of all the major candidates. This includes Sanders, Trump, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, O'Malley, and even some of the losers in the back. It includes all but one....Clinton.
AP shouldn't have made that call, however presumptive it may have been, on the eve of such a big primary day. They knew the effect it would have. It's bullshit voter suppression. Legal, of course, but still a total bullshit move.
Let the people vote and let the chips fall as they may.
Btw, I support HRC. There's also 13.5 million voters that have done the same.
And, I don't know you, so the fact that you voted for HRC really has nothing to do with my point.0 -
EarlWelsh said:
That's not the point. Let the people vote today without influencing their decision by declaring a winner. It is a form of voter suppression.jeffbr said:
She only needs to win 31% of the delegates today to reach the magic number of pledged delegates, so unless you somehow thought that Sanders was going to crush her in the remaining primaries and caucuses, this is already a fait accompli. It's not like he's had a big momentum swing and is on a roll. Add superdelegates to the equation and the fat lady has sung. This isn't voter suppression. If everyone who was registered came out to vote, Sanders still wouldn't have a prayer today.EarlWelsh said:It's so strange to me that out of everyone I know, there has been at least one supporter of all the major candidates. This includes Sanders, Trump, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, O'Malley, and even some of the losers in the back. It includes all but one....Clinton.
AP shouldn't have made that call, however presumptive it may have been, on the eve of such a big primary day. They knew the effect it would have. It's bullshit voter suppression. Legal, of course, but still a total bullshit move.
Let the people vote and let the chips fall as they may.Post edited by Free on0 -
Just because you call it that doesn't make it so.EarlWelsh said:
Call it what you may. I call it a form of suppression.mrussel1 said:
It's not suppression. No one is stopping them. Could it influence? Sure but you are misusing the word.EarlWelsh said:
That's not the point. Let the people vote today without influencing their decision by declaring a winner. It is a form of voter suppression.jeffbr said:
She only needs to win 31% of the delegates today to reach the magic number of pledged delegates, so unless you somehow thought that Sanders was going to crush her in the remaining primaries and caucuses, this is already a fait accompli. It's not like he's had a big momentum swing and is on a roll. Add superdelegates to the equation and the fat lady has sung. This isn't voter suppression. If everyone who was registered came out to vote, Sanders still wouldn't have a prayer today.EarlWelsh said:It's so strange to me that out of everyone I know, there has been at least one supporter of all the major candidates. This includes Sanders, Trump, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, O'Malley, and even some of the losers in the back. It includes all but one....Clinton.
AP shouldn't have made that call, however presumptive it may have been, on the eve of such a big primary day. They knew the effect it would have. It's bullshit voter suppression. Legal, of course, but still a total bullshit move.
Let the people vote and let the chips fall as they may.
Btw, I support HRC. There's also 13.5 million voters that have done the same.
And, I don't know you, so the fact that you voted for HRC really has nothing to do with my point.
Fair enough, you don't know me. I know lots of HRC supporters. Don't know any Trump or Cruz supporters. None of that is relevant at all.0 -
I guess I don't get very fired up about this issue, because it is just the way it goes. Being a West Coast voter, I am often voting when things have already been decided or called on election day. If people choose not to vote because they don't think their vote will matter, that is on them and speaks to their commitment to the process.EarlWelsh said:
That's not the point. Let the people vote today without influencing their decision by declaring a winner. It is a form of voter suppression.jeffbr said:
She only needs to win 31% of the delegates today to reach the magic number of pledged delegates, so unless you somehow thought that Sanders was going to crush her in the remaining primaries and caucuses, this is already a fait accompli. It's not like he's had a big momentum swing and is on a roll. Add superdelegates to the equation and the fat lady has sung. This isn't voter suppression. If everyone who was registered came out to vote, Sanders still wouldn't have a prayer today.EarlWelsh said:It's so strange to me that out of everyone I know, there has been at least one supporter of all the major candidates. This includes Sanders, Trump, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, O'Malley, and even some of the losers in the back. It includes all but one....Clinton.
AP shouldn't have made that call, however presumptive it may have been, on the eve of such a big primary day. They knew the effect it would have. It's bullshit voter suppression. Legal, of course, but still a total bullshit move.
Let the people vote and let the chips fall as they may."I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/080 -
Great point. Obama was called by like 10:15 pm est on election in 12, wasn't he? He had the 270. I don't remember anyone yelling suppression.jeffbr said:
I guess I don't get very fired up about this issue, because it is just the way it goes. Being a West Coast voter, I am often voting when things have already been decided or called on election day. If people choose not to vote because they don't think their vote will matter, that is on them and speaks to their commitment to the process.EarlWelsh said:
That's not the point. Let the people vote today without influencing their decision by declaring a winner. It is a form of voter suppression.jeffbr said:
She only needs to win 31% of the delegates today to reach the magic number of pledged delegates, so unless you somehow thought that Sanders was going to crush her in the remaining primaries and caucuses, this is already a fait accompli. It's not like he's had a big momentum swing and is on a roll. Add superdelegates to the equation and the fat lady has sung. This isn't voter suppression. If everyone who was registered came out to vote, Sanders still wouldn't have a prayer today.EarlWelsh said:It's so strange to me that out of everyone I know, there has been at least one supporter of all the major candidates. This includes Sanders, Trump, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, O'Malley, and even some of the losers in the back. It includes all but one....Clinton.
AP shouldn't have made that call, however presumptive it may have been, on the eve of such a big primary day. They knew the effect it would have. It's bullshit voter suppression. Legal, of course, but still a total bullshit move.
Let the people vote and let the chips fall as they may.0 -
I was making an observation based on those in my life whose political viewpoints run the gamut. Interesting to me that none support her. That's all. Wasn't trying to make some grand statement.mrussel1 said:
Just because you call it that doesn't make it so.EarlWelsh said:
Call it what you may. I call it a form of suppression.mrussel1 said:
It's not suppression. No one is stopping them. Could it influence? Sure but you are misusing the word.EarlWelsh said:
That's not the point. Let the people vote today without influencing their decision by declaring a winner. It is a form of voter suppression.jeffbr said:
She only needs to win 31% of the delegates today to reach the magic number of pledged delegates, so unless you somehow thought that Sanders was going to crush her in the remaining primaries and caucuses, this is already a fait accompli. It's not like he's had a big momentum swing and is on a roll. Add superdelegates to the equation and the fat lady has sung. This isn't voter suppression. If everyone who was registered came out to vote, Sanders still wouldn't have a prayer today.EarlWelsh said:It's so strange to me that out of everyone I know, there has been at least one supporter of all the major candidates. This includes Sanders, Trump, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, O'Malley, and even some of the losers in the back. It includes all but one....Clinton.
AP shouldn't have made that call, however presumptive it may have been, on the eve of such a big primary day. They knew the effect it would have. It's bullshit voter suppression. Legal, of course, but still a total bullshit move.
Let the people vote and let the chips fall as they may.
Btw, I support HRC. There's also 13.5 million voters that have done the same.
And, I don't know you, so the fact that you voted for HRC really has nothing to do with my point.
Fair enough, you don't know me. I know lots of HRC supporters. Don't know any Trump or Cruz supporters. None of that is relevant at all.
Fuck's sake. I do see why Free, who at times may be passionate to a fault, gets so worked up going back and forth with you.Post edited by EarlWelsh on0 -
I'm more concerned with people throwing around words like fraud, corruption, suppression, etc., when there is no evidence any of that happened. So for fuck's sake, use the English language properly. If people did that, I wouldn't feel the need to argue with them.EarlWelsh said:
I was making an observation based on those in my life whose political viewpoints run the gamut. Interesting to me that none support her. That's all. Wasn't trying to make some grand statement.mrussel1 said:
Just because you call it that doesn't make it so.EarlWelsh said:
Call it what you may. I call it a form of suppression.mrussel1 said:
It's not suppression. No one is stopping them. Could it influence? Sure but you are misusing the word.EarlWelsh said:
That's not the point. Let the people vote today without influencing their decision by declaring a winner. It is a form of voter suppression.jeffbr said:
She only needs to win 31% of the delegates today to reach the magic number of pledged delegates, so unless you somehow thought that Sanders was going to crush her in the remaining primaries and caucuses, this is already a fait accompli. It's not like he's had a big momentum swing and is on a roll. Add superdelegates to the equation and the fat lady has sung. This isn't voter suppression. If everyone who was registered came out to vote, Sanders still wouldn't have a prayer today.EarlWelsh said:It's so strange to me that out of everyone I know, there has been at least one supporter of all the major candidates. This includes Sanders, Trump, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, O'Malley, and even some of the losers in the back. It includes all but one....Clinton.
AP shouldn't have made that call, however presumptive it may have been, on the eve of such a big primary day. They knew the effect it would have. It's bullshit voter suppression. Legal, of course, but still a total bullshit move.
Let the people vote and let the chips fall as they may.
Btw, I support HRC. There's also 13.5 million voters that have done the same.
And, I don't know you, so the fact that you voted for HRC really has nothing to do with my point.
Fair enough, you don't know me. I know lots of HRC supporters. Don't know any Trump or Cruz supporters. None of that is relevant at all.
Fuck's sake. I do see why Free, who at times may be passionate to a fault, gets so worked up going back and forth with you.0 -
I don't understand why you keep getting defensive when someone suggests that you actually do something with your enthusiasm for Bernie. You take it as an insult for some reason. You did the same with me when I suggested that you volunteer for Bernie's campaign. Why does this offend you??? If anything, it's a compliment to your dedication to a nominee, and you think it's a personal attack. It's kind of bizarre.Free said:
Attempting to deflect the issue here and getting personal when things don't work in your favor proves nothing and goes nowhere.what dreams said:
Comments like these only reach about five Americans, and we already know when super delegates vote. Perhaps you need a different pulpit if you really are intent on educating the unenlightened masses. Do you ever attend meetings at your local Democratic party precinct? I'm sure they're looking for volunteers. You might make a bigger difference there. You seem to be looking to make a difference.Free said:One would be a fool to believe what the news is saying right now. The almighty race to be the first media station to report the false news!! And ahead of 5 state primaries!
Note to Americans:
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
superdelegates do not vote until july 25With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
That's exactly what I'm talking about. You come off far beyond condescending and, for the sake of following board rules, I'll stop there.mrussel1 said:
I'm more concerned with people throwing around words like fraud, corruption, suppression, etc., when there is no evidence any of that happened. So for fuck's sake, use the English language properly. If people did that, I wouldn't feel the need to argue with them.EarlWelsh said:
I was making an observation based on those in my life whose political viewpoints run the gamut. Interesting to me that none support her. That's all. Wasn't trying to make some grand statement.mrussel1 said:
Just because you call it that doesn't make it so.EarlWelsh said:
Call it what you may. I call it a form of suppression.mrussel1 said:
It's not suppression. No one is stopping them. Could it influence? Sure but you are misusing the word.EarlWelsh said:
That's not the point. Let the people vote today without influencing their decision by declaring a winner. It is a form of voter suppression.jeffbr said:
She only needs to win 31% of the delegates today to reach the magic number of pledged delegates, so unless you somehow thought that Sanders was going to crush her in the remaining primaries and caucuses, this is already a fait accompli. It's not like he's had a big momentum swing and is on a roll. Add superdelegates to the equation and the fat lady has sung. This isn't voter suppression. If everyone who was registered came out to vote, Sanders still wouldn't have a prayer today.EarlWelsh said:It's so strange to me that out of everyone I know, there has been at least one supporter of all the major candidates. This includes Sanders, Trump, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, O'Malley, and even some of the losers in the back. It includes all but one....Clinton.
AP shouldn't have made that call, however presumptive it may have been, on the eve of such a big primary day. They knew the effect it would have. It's bullshit voter suppression. Legal, of course, but still a total bullshit move.
Let the people vote and let the chips fall as they may.
Btw, I support HRC. There's also 13.5 million voters that have done the same.
And, I don't know you, so the fact that you voted for HRC really has nothing to do with my point.
Fair enough, you don't know me. I know lots of HRC supporters. Don't know any Trump or Cruz supporters. None of that is relevant at all.
Fuck's sake. I do see why Free, who at times may be passionate to a fault, gets so worked up going back and forth with you.
I'm aware of the meaning of these words, and sure, we're technically only speaking of influence here. To me, however, it's deeper than that and it's dirtier than that. It isn't fraud but it isn't merely suggesting or persuading someone to vote one way or another. This is telling people that it has been decided and that there's no need to show up and vote for your candidate. Perfect timing, too.
So that is why I call it a type of suppression.Post edited by EarlWelsh on0 -
Everyone here? I don't think so. I haven't attacked you on this. I have consistently mentioned electoral corruption in several threads, including this one, and now that I think about it, you never engaged with me when I brought it up. Nor have you ever engaged with me re the support I have shown for Bernie on these boards. You keep acting like everyone is against you... but you ignore the people who aren't against you.Free said:
It's very interesting Benjs. Exactly how do you propose throwing actual solutions on the table when everyone here, including yourself, choose to attack the poster bringing up the electoral corruption problems rather than debate the topic itself? Does "shoot the messenger" have a nice ring to it?benjs said:
Free, if you have a problem with the election process, use your democratic right to free speech and propose something better. Highlighting problems can only take you so far in a reasonable debate; at a certain point, empathy really does run dry when complaints are constant but solutions aren't even put on the table.Free said:
Good god, please. Check yourself!rgambs said:
Hahaha do you think pissing and moaning about how it is unfair is doing anything?Free said:
And THAT sort of 'asleep at the wheel' attitude is why the media and the system get away with it, pushing it further and further away from a democratic process every election cycle. Give yourself a pat on the back. NOT.rgambs said:
I haven't felt the need to whine about it because it's nothing new and it's just reality.Free said:
Please point out where you talk about voter suppression, then.rgambs said:
I'm not ignoring that it is voter suppression at all.Free said:
And you are ignoring the point that it is fraud and voter suppression to call the race the night before 5 states vote, as well as counting SDs before they vote.rgambs said:
You are ignoring the point that Clinton has more votes from the people.Free said:
Comments like these emphasize how little you know about who and how Superdelegates work. Or is it what you want to believe?mrussel1 said:
Why do you want super delegates to overturn the will of the voters? That seems contrary to Bernie's core message. It's all very confusing.Free said:One would be a fool to believe what the news is saying right now. The almighty race to be the first media station to report the false news!! And ahead of 5 state primaries!
Note to Americans:
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
This isn't about who will win the nom, this is about a fair and just election process. Which Americans are being robbed of.
The media doesn't effect me, 3 gigs of data/month is the only connection I have to the world outside my farm. They aren't swaying me at all, and the sheep will continue to bah and bleat at their TV's even with your petulant child's attitude flooding the Pearl Jam forum. Come down off your high horse.
Have you guys noticed Brian Lux gone, who left for this exact reason? Continually, you guys prefer to let loose on the messenger and NOT actually discuss the topic of election corruption. When we actually have a decent discussion without need to personally attack, that's when solutions can be proposed. But thatcan'tDoesn't happen here.
I honestly don't understand wtf it is you're looking for here. It kind of seems like you're just here to be contrary with everyone for the hell of it. Maybe you secretly enjoy the whole "me vs them" dynamic or something, I dunno.
FWIW, I agree that this call by the media is really inappropriate, given that pledges aren't votes. Superdelegates can actually change their minds, so the media should just shut the fuck up until the ballots are counted.Post edited by PJ_Soul onWith all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Ya know, we should rename this thread the "Attack Free" thread because again, most of you feel that I am the topic and that is just not so. If you have nothing to add to the topic then move on.PJ_Soul said:
I don't understand why you keep getting defensive when someone suggests that you actually do something with your enthusiasm for Bernie. You take it as an insult for some reason. You did the same with me when I suggested that you volunteer for Bernie's campaign. Why does this offend you??? If anything, it's a compliment to your dedication to a nominee, and you think it's a personal attack. It's kind of bizarre.Free said:
Attempting to deflect the issue here and getting personal when things don't work in your favor proves nothing and goes nowhere.what dreams said:
Comments like these only reach about five Americans, and we already know when super delegates vote. Perhaps you need a different pulpit if you really are intent on educating the unenlightened masses. Do you ever attend meetings at your local Democratic party precinct? I'm sure they're looking for volunteers. You might make a bigger difference there. You seem to be looking to make a difference.Free said:One would be a fool to believe what the news is saying right now. The almighty race to be the first media station to report the false news!! And ahead of 5 state primaries!
Note to Americans:
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
superdelegates do not vote until july 250 -
so you want to complain about being attacked and no one is allowed to respond?Free said:
Ya know, we should rename this thread the "Attack Free" thread because again, most of you feel that I am the topic and that is just not so. If you have nothing to add to the topic then move on.PJ_Soul said:
I don't understand why you keep getting defensive when someone suggests that you actually do something with your enthusiasm for Bernie. You take it as an insult for some reason. You did the same with me when I suggested that you volunteer for Bernie's campaign. Why does this offend you??? If anything, it's a compliment to your dedication to a nominee, and you think it's a personal attack. It's kind of bizarre.Free said:
Attempting to deflect the issue here and getting personal when things don't work in your favor proves nothing and goes nowhere.what dreams said:
Comments like these only reach about five Americans, and we already know when super delegates vote. Perhaps you need a different pulpit if you really are intent on educating the unenlightened masses. Do you ever attend meetings at your local Democratic party precinct? I'm sure they're looking for volunteers. You might make a bigger difference there. You seem to be looking to make a difference.Free said:One would be a fool to believe what the news is saying right now. The almighty race to be the first media station to report the false news!! And ahead of 5 state primaries!
Note to Americans:
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
superdelegates do not vote until july 25By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Boy am I popular!HughFreakingDillon said:
so you want to complain about being attacked and no one is allowed to respond?Free said:
Ya know, we should rename this thread the "Attack Free" thread because again, most of you feel that I am the topic and that is just not so. If you have nothing to add to the topic then move on.PJ_Soul said:
I don't understand why you keep getting defensive when someone suggests that you actually do something with your enthusiasm for Bernie. You take it as an insult for some reason. You did the same with me when I suggested that you volunteer for Bernie's campaign. Why does this offend you??? If anything, it's a compliment to your dedication to a nominee, and you think it's a personal attack. It's kind of bizarre.Free said:
Attempting to deflect the issue here and getting personal when things don't work in your favor proves nothing and goes nowhere.what dreams said:
Comments like these only reach about five Americans, and we already know when super delegates vote. Perhaps you need a different pulpit if you really are intent on educating the unenlightened masses. Do you ever attend meetings at your local Democratic party precinct? I'm sure they're looking for volunteers. You might make a bigger difference there. You seem to be looking to make a difference.Free said:One would be a fool to believe what the news is saying right now. The almighty race to be the first media station to report the false news!! And ahead of 5 state primaries!
Note to Americans:
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
superdelegates do not vote until july 25
superdelegates do not vote until july 250
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help