Hillary won more votes for President

EarlWelsh said:

mrussel1 said:

EarlWelsh said:

mrussel1 said:

EarlWelsh said:

mrussel1 said:

EarlWelsh said:

jeffbr said:

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.

She only needs to win 31% of the delegates today to reach the magic number of pledged delegates, so unless you somehow thought that Sanders was going to crush her in the remaining primaries and caucuses, this is already a fait accompli. It's not like he's had a big momentum swing and is on a roll. Add superdelegates to the equation and the fat lady has sung. This isn't voter suppression. If everyone who was registered came out to vote, Sanders still wouldn't have a prayer today.

That's not the point. Let the people vote today without influencing their decision by declaring a winner. It is a form of voter suppression.

Let the people vote and let the chips fall as they may.

It's not suppression. No one is stopping them. Could it influence? Sure but you are misusing the word.

Btw, I support HRC. There's also 13.5 million voters that have done the same.

Call it what you may. I call it a form of suppression.

And, I don't know you, so the fact that you voted for HRC really has nothing to do with my point.

Just because you call it that doesn't make it so.

Fair enough, you don't know me. I know lots of HRC supporters. Don't know any Trump or Cruz supporters. None of that is relevant at all.

I was making an observation based on those in my life whose political viewpoints run the gamut. Interesting to me that none support her. That's all. Wasn't trying to make some grand statement.

Fuck's sake. I do see why Free, who at times may be passionate to a fault, gets so worked up going back and forth with you.

I'm more concerned with people throwing around words like fraud, corruption, suppression, etc., when there is no evidence any of that happened. So for fuck's sake, use the English language properly. If people did that, I wouldn't feel the need to argue with them.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. You're beyond condescending and, for the sake of following board rules, I'll stop there.

I'm aware of the meaning of these words, and sure, we're technically only speaking of influence here. To me, however, it's deeper than that and it's dirtier than that. It isn't fraud but it isn't merely suggesting or persuading someone to vote one way or another. This is telling people that it has been decided and that there's no need to show up and vote for your candidate. Perfect timing, too.

So that is why I call it a type of suppression.

Okay I'll ratchet it down a bit. I'm taking out my ongoing irritation with Free, on you.

The reason I have a problem with these words is they are used to de-legitimize completely legitimate election results. They are power words that are used to stoke fear and anger. That's wrong to me. If someone wants to argue for improvement in the process, good. I'm all for it. Increase early voting, allow same day registration, allow released felons to vote again, improve staffing at polling places. I'm all for those types of things. But that doesn't mean that HRC hasn't earned the win. Yet Bernie's hard core supporters seek to question EVERY SINGLE victory. It's beyond the pale frankly.

Senator Sanders is going to need a little space to come to a decision regarding when he turns his efforts to helping to defeat Donald Trump but I found this interesting. It'll all work out in the end though; no doubts here.

"Why was this the right standard in 2008, but the wrong standard in 2016? Rachel asked Michael Briggs, a Sanders campaign spokesperson, about this on the show last night. For those who can’t watch clips online, here’s the transcript (with various “umms” removed):

MADDOW: I have to ask you about when you would consider it to be over because in 2008 Senator Sanders stayed out of the race, stayed out of the primary between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama until the very end. He told the Free Press in Burlington in 2008 that he had held off supporting either of the Democratic candidates because he had made it a custom not to support any Democrat for the presidential nomination until the party had chosen its nominee. But then he endorsed Barack Obama when Barack Obama was at the position that Hillary Clinton is right now. Not when he had secured the nomination with pledged delegates alone, not even actually, Senator Sanders didn’t wait for Hillary Clinton to get out of the race in 2008. He endorsed Barack Obama saying the race was over between Obama and Clinton once Obama had the right number of delegates with both pledged delegates and super delegates combined. So if that standard ended the race for him fair and square in 2008 why wouldn’t that end the race for him fair and square tonight?

BRIGGS: Well, it’s because, there are differences between then and now, he’s led a dramatic revolutionary insurgency in the party and we are trying our darndest to give those people the voice that they have earned and deserved in the Democratic Party process.

It’s clearly an awkward defense, and I don’t blame Briggs for not being sure how best to handle this. Sanders publicly declared what he considered clinching the nomination – pledged delegates plus commitments from super-delegates – and now he doesn’t want this standard applied to his own campaign."

Free said:

PJ_Soul said:

Free said:

PJ_Soul said:

Free said:

what dreams said:

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

Comments like these only reach about five Americans, and we already know when super delegates vote. Perhaps you need a different pulpit if you really are intent on educating the unenlightened masses. Do you ever attend meetings at your local Democratic party precinct? I'm sure they're looking for volunteers. You might make a bigger difference there. You seem to be looking to make a difference.

Attempting to deflect the issue here and getting personal when things don't work in your favor proves nothing and goes nowhere.

I don't understand why you keep getting defensive when someone suggests that you actually do something with your enthusiasm for Bernie. You take it as an insult for some reason. You did the same with me when I suggested that you volunteer for Bernie's campaign. Why does this offend you??? If anything, it's a compliment to your dedication to a nominee, and you think it's a personal attack. It's kind of bizarre.

Ya know, we should rename this thread the "Attack Free" thread because again, most of you feel that I am the topic and that is just not so. If you have nothing to add to the topic then move on.

I'm not attacking you. I am making an observation for you to consider so that you can perhaps rethink how you are communicating with people on these boards. I WANT to have a decent conversation with you. You have consistently made this impossible for me and pretty much everyone else. I'm saying this in the hopes that you understand why good dialogue isn't happening between you and everyone else.

When you choose to get personal?

I'm not being personal dude. I'm talking about this discussion and how your participation in it appears to be affecting others. That involves all of us. We're all part of this thread. How can we discuss the issue when you refuse to engage with people??? That's all I'm saying.

mrussel1 said:

EarlWelsh said:

mrussel1 said:

EarlWelsh said:

mrussel1 said:

EarlWelsh said:

mrussel1 said:

EarlWelsh said:

jeffbr said:

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.

She only needs to win 31% of the delegates today to reach the magic number of pledged delegates, so unless you somehow thought that Sanders was going to crush her in the remaining primaries and caucuses, this is already a fait accompli. It's not like he's had a big momentum swing and is on a roll. Add superdelegates to the equation and the fat lady has sung. This isn't voter suppression. If everyone who was registered came out to vote, Sanders still wouldn't have a prayer today.

That's not the point. Let the people vote today without influencing their decision by declaring a winner. It is a form of voter suppression.

Let the people vote and let the chips fall as they may.

It's not suppression. No one is stopping them. Could it influence? Sure but you are misusing the word.

Btw, I support HRC. There's also 13.5 million voters that have done the same.

Call it what you may. I call it a form of suppression.

And, I don't know you, so the fact that you voted for HRC really has nothing to do with my point.

Just because you call it that doesn't make it so.

Fair enough, you don't know me. I know lots of HRC supporters. Don't know any Trump or Cruz supporters. None of that is relevant at all.

I was making an observation based on those in my life whose political viewpoints run the gamut. Interesting to me that none support her. That's all. Wasn't trying to make some grand statement.

Fuck's sake. I do see why Free, who at times may be passionate to a fault, gets so worked up going back and forth with you.

I'm more concerned with people throwing around words like fraud, corruption, suppression, etc., when there is no evidence any of that happened. So for fuck's sake, use the English language properly. If people did that, I wouldn't feel the need to argue with them.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. You're beyond condescending and, for the sake of following board rules, I'll stop there.

I'm aware of the meaning of these words, and sure, we're technically only speaking of influence here. To me, however, it's deeper than that and it's dirtier than that. It isn't fraud but it isn't merely suggesting or persuading someone to vote one way or another. This is telling people that it has been decided and that there's no need to show up and vote for your candidate. Perfect timing, too.

So that is why I call it a type of suppression.

Okay I'll ratchet it down a bit. I'm taking out my ongoing irritation with Free, on you.

The reason I have a problem with these words is they are used to de-legitimize completely legitimate election results. They are power words that are used to stoke fear and anger. That's wrong to me. If someone wants to argue for improvement in the process, good. I'm all for it. Increase early voting, allow same day registration, allow released felons to vote again, improve staffing at polling places. I'm all for those types of things. But that doesn't mean that HRC hasn't earned the win. Yet Bernie's hard core supporters seek to question EVERY SINGLE victory. It's beyond the pale frankly.

Thanks.

I just feel, as PJ_Soul has said, the report was inappropriate. As true as it is that Hillary will *most likely* get the nom (I'm not happy about it, the thought of it is actually quite terrible to me....but I can accept it's inevitability), it shouldn't be stated as such until she actually does.

Free said:

benjs said:

Free said:

benjs said:

Free said:

rgambs said:

Free said:

rgambs said:

Free said:

rgambs said:

Free said:

rgambs said:

Free said:

mrussel1 said:

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

Why do you want super delegates to overturn the will of the voters? That seems contrary to Bernie's core message. It's all very confusing.

Comments like these emphasize how little you know about who and how Superdelegates work. Or is it what you want to believe?

You are ignoring the point that Clinton has more votes from the people.

And you are ignoring the point that it is fraud and voter suppression to call the race the night before 5 states vote, as well as counting SDs before they vote.

I'm not ignoring that it is voter suppression at all.

Please point out where you talk about voter suppression, then.

This isn't about who will win the nom, this is about a fair and just election process. Which Americans are being robbed of.

I haven't felt the need to whine about it because it's nothing new and it's just reality.

And THAT sort of 'asleep at the wheel' attitude is why the media and the system get away with it, pushing it further and further away from a democratic process every election cycle. Give yourself a pat on the back. NOT.

Hahaha do you think pissing and moaning about how it is unfair is doing anything?
The media doesn't effect me, 3 gigs of data/month is the only connection I have to the world outside my farm. They aren't swaying me at all, and the sheep will continue to bah and bleat at their TV's even with your petulant child's attitude flooding the Pearl Jam forum. Come down off your high horse.

Good god, please. Check yourself!

Free, if you have a problem with the election process, use your democratic right to free speech and propose something better. Highlighting problems can only take you so far in a reasonable debate; at a certain point, empathy really does run dry when complaints are constant but solutions aren't even put on the table.

It's very interesting Benjs. Exactly how do you propose throwing actual solutions on the table when everyone here, including yourself, choose to attack the poster bringing up the electoral corruption problems rather than debate the topic itself? Does "shoot the messenger" have a nice ring to it?

Have you guys noticed Brian Lux gone, who left for this exact reason? Continually, you guys prefer to let loose on the messenger and NOT actually discuss the topic of election corruption. When we actually have a decent discussion without need to personally attack, that's when solutions can be proposed. But that can't Doesn't happen here.

Excuse me? You haven't proposed a single solution. Had you brought up an electoral corruption solution, I'd have happily engaged you in debate - surely sometimes agreeing with you, other times not, and sometimes playing devil's advocate. You are not engaging in reasonable debate when you refuse to read linked statements accurately, be criticized with valid arguments, or provide your own evidence when asked to. And by the way - I'm saying this as a Bernie Sanders supporter...

And for the record - I've long felt this way about the way debates are held on here: too much focusing on problems, not enough on discussing solutions. I don't think it's just you, and I'm sure I've been guilty of it too.

Stop the need to shoot the messenger and I would gladly discuss solutions. The ball is in your court.

How does one actively combat electoral corruption, and/or how does a vote for Sanders contribute towards that? Now the ball's back in your court.

Not once have I suppressed a discussion about electoral corruption - I just feel that the cycle for solving a problem involves identifying a problem, providing sufficient evidence, seeking alternatives, logically exploring said alternatives (or providing situational evidence if applicable). You've done the first part, to some degree you've done the second - but change doesn't come from exposing issues exclusively: at a certain point, solutions must be discussed.

how does it work if Bernie tries to run as an independent if he loses the democratic nom? is that allowed? although, that might just seal President Trump for the next 3 years.

not 4. nuclear war in 3.

HughFreakingDillon said:

how does it work if Bernie tries to run as an independent if he loses the democratic nom? is that allowed? although, that might just seal President Trump for the next 3 years.

not 4. nuclear war in 3.

Not sure how it works, but I don't think he could even get on many state ballots as an independent at this late stage.

I can't imagine Trump has a shot at winning. He will become much more exposed in a national election. He might not be smart enough to move towards the middle. His latest racist rant is getting the scrutiny it deserves.

There will be more to come.