Why in god's name would you vote for Hillary?
-
So if it were one of the other Republican candidates you would not vote for Hillary? Or you would no matter what?Not Trump
WSS
So if it were one of the other Republican candidates you would not vote for Hillary? Or you would no matter what?
WSS
I'd vote for Hillary if it was Ted Cruz. I do not want a flat and consumption tax and I'd rather have status quo than what he's offering.
-
So if it were one of the other Republican candidates you would not vote for Hillary? Or you would no matter what?
WSS
I'd vote for Hillary if it was Ted Cruz. I do not want a flat and consumption tax and I'd rather have status quo than what he's offering.
I'd vote for Hillary if it was Ted Cruz. I do not want a flat and consumption tax and I'd rather have status quo than what he's offering.
Yeah I don't necessarily buy a flat tax but its like so many campaign promises, it's nothing that the president can make happen.
WSS
-
With a republican Senate and Congress I wouldn't risk it. A flat tax is bad enough, but Cruz also has a consumption tax that sits around 10%. I'd pay about 3-5% less income tax than I do now, but 10% on everything I buy.Yeah I don't necessarily buy a flat tax but its like so many campaign promises, it's nothing that the president can make happen.
WSS
I'd be paying way more for a smaller government.
-
Not to mention the other things Cruz supports.
Supporting the TPP is an automatic disqualifier for me.
And I don't like hard line Bible thumper approach to social issues, or continuing proxy wars in the middle east.
Increase H1Bs 500%
It's all bad with Cruz - not one good thing would come out of his presidency.
-
Hillary Clinton and the DNC's Super Delegate Fraud.
The AP headline read: Super delegates Help Clinton Expand Her Lead Despite NH Loss.It was and is a complete fabrication. Another way of putting it would be fraud. Initiated by Clinton and the DNC and unfortunately aided and abetted by two ignorant AP reporters (and others like CNN) who didn't know ( or maybe didn't care) that they were being snookered and simply swallowed what was thrown at them. It would help if people who actually think they are reporters would check DNC rules regarding the use of super delegates. Especially since there has never been a super delegate to have ever cast a vote at a Democratic convention for as long as they have been in existence.Because as of this moment,all those super delegates claimed by Clinton don't actually exist in terms of real votes. The only delegates that count right now and in all probability ever will count are pledged delegates won during the primaries, not super delegates.CNN also have been doing their share at inept reporting by perpetuating the fiction about Clinton's bogus superdelegate count .Super delegates do not count towards anyone's delegate total because they don't actually exist and will never be cast unless an extraordinary set of circumstances arises at the convention circumstances that so far have never happened before in the history of the Democratic Party. So in all likelihood super delegate votes will never be cast, something CNN is both too inept to know and too lazy to find out about.Super delegate declarations are also non-committal so any declarations made now count for nothing and carry no force of action even if super delegates were ever asked to cast a vote which is unlikely and has never happened. Clinton and the DNC know this.But it's clear that the Democratic party establishment is willing to create the fiction and false impression that Clinton has a big delegate lead. She doesn't. Ignorant, incompetent journalists who have more in common with parrots than Woodward and Bernstein just happily repeat the fraud they are fed.Hillary Clinton has no actual super delegate votes. Because based on Democratic Party rules and procedures super delegate votes won't ever be cast unless they are asked to break a hopelessly deadlocked convention. . They do not have automatic votes and have never voted. And may never. So the real story which CNN and other news organizations miss, is why is Clinton and the DNC claiming super delegate votes now as part of her delegate total when it's a lie and a sham, super delegates have no vote as of now, probably never will and the declarations are non-committal?
It's as much of a fraud as looking at a house you might buy, keep it under consideration, decide to keep looking but include the house in your financial statement as an asset even though you don't own it.It's not only fraud, it reeks of campaign dirty tricks in collusion with the Obama run DNC as part of Clinton's backroom deal with Obama, trying to give the illusion of Clinton leading by a substantial margin when she isn't. And it raises an interesting question: is Hillary Clinton and the DNC thinking about trying to steal the nomination?This nonsense about super delegates is sheer political dishonesty with the Clinton campaign along with the help of the DNC who, as even David Gergen pointed out is in the tank for Clinton, trying to make it look like she's way ahead when she isn't.
The story as reported by two AP reporters, Hope Yen and Stephen Ohlemacher (yes, let's name names) had the opening line, "so much for Bernie Sanders big win in New Hampshire. Hillary Clinton has picked up endorsements from 87 super delegates to the Democratic Conventions dwarfing Sanders gain in New Hampshire" .Its total fiction since Sanders pledged delegates are real and the "endorsements" count for nothing in terms of actual votes so Clinton and the DNC establishment successfully played the two AP reporters for stooges. As well as John King and others at CNN.Clinton saying she picked up 87 super delegates after New Hampshire has the same affect and same weight and real influence on the nomination as if she had picked up 87 empty beer cans.So here are the facts and the truth about super delegates based on Democratic Party rules and procedures that you won't get from Clinton or the DNC, and it seems from the news media, at least not now:Super delegates have never in the history of the Democratic party ever cast a single vote. Not one. Not ever. They have never played a role in the nominating process for president. And as of now have no role. So any declarations are bogus.Super delegates do not cast a vote unless an extraordinary set of circumstances arises at the convention, not before, a set of circumstances which so far, has never occurred in the history of the Democratic party since super delegates were created. Which is what makes any non-binding declarations now bogus. And Clinton and the DNC know it.Those circumstances are that neither candidate finishes the primary season with the two thirds majority of pledged delegatesneeded for the nomination that are won in the primaries, the delegate count is so close as to make them virtually tied, AND the convention is hopelessly deadlocked with neither candidate or party officials able to persuade delegates on the other side to switch after the first ballot.Super delegates are there to break a hopeless deadlock with neither candidate able to get the two-thirds delegate count needed. And they exist only for that purpose. Without those circumstances they have no vote. And have never voted for a nominee to date.When Obama finished the 2008 primary season with a paltry 65 delegate lead over Clinton and it looked like the nomination could go either way if superdelegates voted , Nancy Pelosi said super delegates were obligated to vote for the candidate who won the most delegates if they were to vote at all.So where does Clinton get off claiming over 400 super delegates when whether they will vote at all is yet to be determined, their "endorsements" are non-committal and in all probability super delegates will never vote at all?Delegates won in primaries, called "pledged delegates", are actually committed to vote for the candidate they are sent to the convention to vote for as a result of vote counts in the primaries. Without getting too esoteric, it's actually delegates that are elected during primaries, either Clinton or Sanders delegates who are then sent to the convention to vote for the candidate they were elected to vote for on the first ballot. They are the only delegates that actually count now. And are real. And the delegates that traditionally, and to date have always, decided the nomination.So until and unless those extraordinary set of circumstances occur which have never ocurred before,super delegates have no vote, no say, don't count, and for all intents and purposes dont even exist. When the first roll call vote is called there will be no super delegates voting. All of which shows the depths of dishonesty and deception Clinton is willing to go. And with her the Obama run DNC who look like they are trying to do what they can to rig the process.If Bernie Sanders finished with 2000 pledged delegates won during the primaries and needed another three hundred to get the two-thirds majority with Clinton say, 1,000 delegates behind, there would be some horse trading to get the remaining 300 delegates needed from Clinton perhaps making a deal on picking a vice presidential running mate. But its inconceivable super delegates even those declaring for her now ( which doesn't count) would cast votes for Clinton to give her the nomination. It would bring the Democratic party to its knees if they tried to crown a queen instead of nominate a president.Super delegates are only there to break an otherwise hopeless deadlock. They are a last resort and most importantly as mentioned earlier, super delegates have never -- repeat never in the history of the Democratic party ever cast even a single vote. Never. And if that hopeless deadlock never occurs super delegates have no role. To count them now is pure fabrication.So why is Hillary Clinton putting out the fiction that she is ahead on delegates even though she isn't because of super delegates? Because she is being underhanded and so is the DNC run by Wendy Wasserman-Schultz Obama's hand picked chair of the DNC who are trying to build a phony aura of expectation and inevitability and the illusion that she will be the nominee and then if she doesn't have the actual votes from the primary battles try and steal the nomination by using super delegates with Obama and Wasserman-Schultz driving the getaway car.
The New York Times acting like the long arm of the law put their arm on Clinton in a recent editorial making it clear that super delegates can have no role in the outcome of the nomination which needs to be decided by whoever wins the most delegates in the primaries.But there is another reason the Clinton campaign is putting out these super delegate numbers as if they count now when they don't. Its the kind of outrageous political tactics we've seen from Republicans -- a tactic to suppress the Sanders vote.There is little doubt that the Clinton campaign with the help of the DNC, by putting out these fictitious super delegate numbers are trying to create some false idea that Clinton has such a huge lead her nomination is inevitable. The hope is this will dampen the spirit and enthusiasm of Sanders voters (enthusiasm Clinton cant match) and hopefully hold down their turnout in the hopes of making them think Clinton's nomination is inevitable because of super delegates and there is nothing they can do to affect the outcome. Which of course is not true . Its more of a Republican style dirty trick, the kind they have tried in the past in the hopes of holding down the African American vote in certain communities. The principle is the same.The Clinton campaign and the DNC needs to be called out for this kind of dishonest manipulation when she is actually tied with Sanders 51-51 in pledged delegates, the only delegates that matter.This idea that super delegates have declared anything for her carries no authority, no weight, no certainty. Nothing. Its the same as if she never said a word. Nothing a super delegate says now is binding. They could change their minds a hundred times between now and the convention, and again, keep in mind, they have no role and no vote whatsoever unless a unique situation arises involving a hopeless deadlock which has never happened before.And if Clinton is putting out these phony super delegate numbers to try and grease the skids for an attempt at stealing the nomination at the convention, it might be a good idea for Sanders voters to remind her and everyone else of one other thing: In 2008 when it looked like Obama might lose the nomination to Clinton because of a super delegate vote, Donna Brazille, an Obama supporter and former chair of the DNC said publicly that if super delegates decided the nomination she would quit the Democratic party.If Donna Brazile can quit the Democratic party if super delegates decided the nomination so can Sanders voters. And they can make it clear that they will. Which means if Clinton and the DNC tries to steal the nomination from Sanders using super delegates if he has the majority of pledged delegates they can count on Sanders voters staying home.Clinton putting out the word that she has 469 delegates which include over 400 super delegates that don't count is almost a veiled threat as if to say, "okay I got buried by the voters in New Hampshire and it was razor thin in Iowa and Nevada but so what? I have a trick up my sleeve."If Clinton, Obama and the DNC think they are greasing the skids now so Clinton can pull a fast one at the convention later, they better not try. If they do anything to try and rig the nomination, Sanders voters can just vow never to support it, just like Donna Brazile threatened which will bring the Democratic party down like a house of cards and do Clinton no good in the general election.Let Sanders and his supporters put Clinton and the DNC on notice that if they do anything to rig the nomination, if the nomination does not go to the candidate who won the most votes and most delegates in the primaries as Nancy Pelosi in 2008 said it must, then the Democrats will have to face the music and take another drubbing like Democrats did in 2010 and 2014 essentially over Obama's unscrupulous sell out of the health care pubic option to the insurance companies.Make it clear that if Clinton can't win honestly she is not going to win at all.
And if Sanders voters stay home in the face of a corrupt process it will wipe out Democratic down ticket candidates also, and if that's what it takes to throw open the windows, let in the fresh air and purge the Democratic party of those trying to corrupt the system, so be it. No amount of whining or scare tactics by Democratic big wigs about what will happen if Clinton loses and begging Sanders supporters to go along with the corruption will ever work.Its called making your own bed and lying in it. With the double meaning of the word "lying" very clear.
NOTE: CNN is still showing super delegate totals for Clinton that don't count and don't actually exist and may never exist as part of the report of another politically ignorant CNN reporter Chris Fraites. The Sanders campaign needs to hold them accountable. -
The dems are a weird clusterfook, despite the problems that the reps are having - they are not.
It's time for the pendulum to swing back the other direction, anyways. By my pendulum theory,
the reps will win the WH. America is sailing way off course.
-
One step forward, two steps back.
WSS
-
The dems are a weird clusterfook, despite the problems that the reps are having - they are not.
It's time for the pendulum to swing back the other direction, anyways. By my pendulum theory,
the reps will win the WH. America is sailing way off course.
The dems are a weird clusterfook, despite the problems that the reps are having - they are not.
It's time for the pendulum to swing back the other direction, anyways. By my pendulum theory,
the reps will win the WH. America is sailing way off course.
So you've looked at both of these two parties over the last months, and you've determined the Dems are the clusterfuck? lol
Not that they're perfect by any means, but the guy leading the Rep field (that was once almost 20 people) just let us all know he has a big dick...
-
So Woody how'd I do?
WSS
-
The reps have their problems, woody, but it isn't a clusterfook.
The dems are lost as a respected party on both sides of the isle. They
are something very different, and not really a political party at all.
The dems are more like the Sandanistas back in the leftwing Nicaraguan days.
The reps seem to have the good guys unwilling to step forward and face the evil
demwitted land of Mordor......
sorry, I forgot.... you just look that stuff up, okay?
-
-
So if it were one of the other Republican candidates you would not vote for Hillary? Or you would no matter what?Not Trump
WSS
So if it were one of the other Republican candidates you would not vote for Hillary? Or you would no matter what?
WSS
Rubio absolutely
-
The reps have their problems, woody, but it isn't a clusterfook.
The dems are lost as a respected party on both sides of the isle. They
are something very different, and not really a political party at all.
The dems are more like the Sandanistas back in the leftwing Nicaraguan days.
The reps seem to have the good guys unwilling to step forward and face the evil
demwitted land of Mordor......
sorry, I forgot.... you just look that stuff up, okay?
The reps have their problems, woody, but it isn't a clusterfook.
The dems are lost as a respected party on both sides of the isle. They
are something very different, and not really a political party at all.
The dems are more like the Sandanistas back in the leftwing Nicaraguan days.
The reps seem to have the good guys unwilling to step forward and face the evil
demwitted land of Mordor......
sorry, I forgot.... you just look that stuff up, okay?
*aisle
*Sandinistas
-
Isle may refer to: An island, land surrounded by water; Isle, Haute-Vienne, a commune of the Haute-Vienne département in France; Isle, Minnesota, a small city in the ...
-
Sandanista | political and military organization,...www.britannica.com/topic/Sandanista
Sandinista, member of Sandinista National Liberation Front, Spanish Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional ... The Sandinistas governed Nicaragua from 1979 to 1990.
LOL....dammit....
-
Just saying, if you're going to criticise people for spelling mistakes (or "the woody spelling") then you'd better be damn perfect yourself.
-
Just saying, if you're going to criticise people for spelling mistakes (or "the woody spelling") then you'd better be damn perfect yourself.
Agreed. I'd say the only time its called for is in response to somebody who's calling you a moron and obviously (not a typo) uses the incorrect spelling or version of a word.Just saying, if you're going to criticise people for spelling mistakes (or "the woody spelling") then you'd better be damn perfect yourself.
"It's apparent that you're lack of education has made you a looser"
WSS
-
Agreed. I'd say the only time its called for is in response to somebody who's calling you a moron and obviously (not a typo) uses the incorrect spelling or version of a word.Just saying, if you're going to criticise people for spelling mistakes (or "the woody spelling") then you'd better be damn perfect yourself.
"It's apparent that you're lack of education has made you a looser"
WSS
Agreed. I'd say the only time its called for is in response to somebody who's calling you a moron and obviously (not a typo) uses the incorrect spelling or version of a word.
"It's apparent that you're lack of education has made you a looser"
WSS
Yep. Everyone makes spelling mistakes from time to time, it's not a huge deal.
-
-
Posted Today, 11:07 AM
Just saying, if you're going to criticise people for spelling mistakes (or "the woody spelling") then you'd better be damn perfect yourself. Chris
***************************
Woody makes spelling mistakes a LOT. I rarely do. Btw, knucklehead, you just made a spelling mistake yourself.
It's "criticiZe". Not s. Look it up, I'm pretty sure I'm correct. So, if you are going to catch me on it.then you'd better post
a damn perfect post yourself. LOL
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login