Just curious but.....Hillary won Iowa by a half a percent and lost New Hampshire by 40 points so how is it that she has a 300 delegate lead? In election parlance that's called being rigged.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 16, 2016, 12:35:26 PM
Just curious but.....Hillary won Iowa by a half a percent and lost New Hampshire by 40 points so how is it that she has a 300 delegate lead? In election parlance that's called being rigged.
You really don't understand the process very well; do you? Hide and watch how it all plays out at the Republican National Convention because it will be an ugly display.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 16, 2016, 12:35:26 PM
Just curious but.....Hillary won Iowa by a half a percent and lost New Hampshire by 40 points so how is it that she has a 300 delegate lead? In election parlance that's called being rigged.
Al Gore beat G.W. Bush by 540,000 popular votes in the 2000 election. Does that mean the election was rigged?
Either you can't or won't answer the question.........hmm, interesting. :yes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 16, 2016, 02:31:24 PM
Either you can't or won't answer the question.........hmm, interesting. :yes:
We're trying to teach you to fish. Are you familiar with superdelegates?
Quote from: Exterminator on February 16, 2016, 02:47:04 PM
We're trying to teach you to fish. Are you familiar with superdelegates?
yep, and it is just another way the democrats have to 'stack' the deck to get who they want instead of going with the will of the people, who VOTE.
the republicans don't do that shit...and that is exactly what it is.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 16, 2016, 02:47:04 PM
We're trying to teach you to fish.
Trying to teach Henry to fish? :haha: That is like when scientist thought they would make a better fish. They took a Polk and a Musky and breed them together. Well the fish really tasted good and they fought like hell. :yes: :smile: But the problem they had was, they had to teach each fish to swim. :wink: :yes: :smile:
Swim Henry, swim! :shrk:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 16, 2016, 03:52:30 PM
yep, and it is just another way the democrats have to 'stack' the deck to get who they want instead of going with the will of the people, who VOTE.
the republicans don't do that shit...and that is exactly what it is.
Really? Would you like to put your money where your mouth is and place a bet? If Trump is leading going into the national convention but has less than 50% of the delegates, he will not be your party's nominee. In fact, given the way the system works, it is entirely possible that the eventual nominee could be someone who isn't even in the current primaries. Your statement that, "the republicans don't do that shit," only underscores how little you understand about our election process.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 17, 2016, 08:25:21 AM
Really? Would you like to put your money where your mouth is and place a bet? If Trump is leading going into the national convention but has less than 50% of the delegates, he will not be your party's nominee. In fact, given the way the system works, it is entirely possible that the eventual nominee could be someone who isn't even in the current primaries. Your statement that, "the republicans don't do that shit," only underscores how little you understand about our election process.
Give me a real life example in recent times where a nominee won the primary that didn't win the states. It would be unprecedented at the least.
Give me a logical reason as to WHY the democrats feel it is important to have a SUPER DELEGATE. Why can't they just let the people who vote decide? It is indeed SHIT. PERIOD. And the republican party doesn't to that.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 17, 2016, 08:50:48 AM
Why can't they just let the people who vote decide?
This is EXACTLY why I asked what I did yesterday and you didn't answer. "Al Gore beat G.W. Bush by 540,000 popular votes in the 2000 election. Does that mean the election was rigged?"
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 17, 2016, 08:50:48 AM
Give me a real life example in recent times where a nominee won the primary that didn't win the states. It would be unprecedented at the least.
Unprecedented indeed but it can happen.
QuoteGive me a logical reason as to WHY the democrats feel it is important to have a SUPER DELEGATE. Why can't they just let the people who vote decide? It is indeed SHIT. PERIOD. And the republican party doesn't to that.
Remember these words. You can have them as a side with the crow you'll be eating in July. :biggrin:
Quote from: Exterminator on February 17, 2016, 09:39:28 AM
Remember these words. You can have them as a side with the crow you'll be eating in July. :biggrin:
That is not really a logical reason. I don't think you have one.
Quote from: Bo D on February 17, 2016, 09:13:34 AM
This is EXACTLY why I asked what I did yesterday and you didn't answer. "Al Gore beat G.W. Bush by 540,000 popular votes in the 2000 election. Does that mean the election was rigged?"
No, Bush won the Electoral College as established by our forefathers, in the Constitution. That has NOTHING to do with the primary votes and the "SUPER" delegates, that I am discussing.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 17, 2016, 10:34:39 AM
No, Bush won the Electoral College as established by our forefathers, in the Constitution. That has NOTHING to do with the primary votes and the "SUPER" delegates, that I am discussing.
But you raised the question - "Why can't they just let the people who vote decide?" and I think it has implications beyond the primaries. If "the people who vote" decide a general election, then Bush wouldn't have been elected.
Quote from: Bo D on February 17, 2016, 11:06:29 AM
But you raised the question - "Why can't they just let the people who vote decide?" and I think it has implications beyond the primaries. If "the people who vote" decide a general election, then Bush wouldn't have been elected.
Again, I see where you are going...that is for a different discussion as far as I am concerned. I am talking on HOW is it Bernie, loses by a twat hair in Iowa and beat that dog crap out of her in NH (by 40%), in EVERY category (age, race, sex, ect) and she has 300 delegate lead....All because of Super Delegates........which seems to me to be very, very shady.....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 17, 2016, 11:27:31 AM
I am talking on HOW is it Bernie, loses by a twat hair in Iowa and beat that dog crap out of her in NH (by 40%), in EVERY category (age, race, sex, ect) and she has 300 delegate lead....All because of Super Delegates........which seems to me to be very, very shady.....
Why do you care? Not your party; not your business.
Quote from: Bo D on February 17, 2016, 11:06:29 AM
But you raised the question - "Why can't they just let the people who vote decide?" and I think it has implications beyond the primaries. If "the people who vote" decide a general election, then Bush wouldn't have been elected.
Short answer.......the general election is 50 states all decide who each states winner is...they get points for the size of the population of that state.
Now, back to this Super Delegate crap. Convince me that this is a good thing.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 17, 2016, 11:31:02 AM
Why do you care? Not your party; not your business.
Why get nasty? I'm curious, that's all. It is such a corrupt party, I guess I should just accept it.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 17, 2016, 11:49:28 AM
Why get nasty? I'm curious, that's all. It is such a corrupt party, I guess I should just accept it.
Yes, because the repubs all have halos; right?
Quote from: Exterminator on February 17, 2016, 12:26:15 PM
Yes, because the repubs all have halos; right?
Never said that, but you seem to want to avoid answering my question.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 17, 2016, 12:41:36 PM
Never said that, but you seem to want to avoid answering my question.
Because your question is pejorative, sort of like asking someone if he still beats his wife. This is how the Democrats have decided among themselves to pick their candidates; it should be of no concern to you.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 17, 2016, 12:54:32 PM
Because your question is pejorative, sort of like asking someone if he still beats his wife. This is how the Democrats have decided among themselves to pick their candidates; it should be of no concern to you.
Bull crap....it is not a pejorative question. It is a simple question, How is it you seem to think that a Super Delegate is a fair process? I really want to know. It seems to me like its only purpose is for the DNC to have control of who is nominated and NOT the people of given state. IMO, that seems very, very crooked. It should bother any decent citizen that is a democrat.
They've never determined the outcome of any primary process HH.
Quote from: Locutus on February 17, 2016, 03:27:14 PM
They've never determined the outcome of any primary process HH.
I know it isn't official until the convention....but,
according to several articles she leads bernie 359 to 8 delegates (http://www.npr.org/2015/11/13/455812702/clinton-has-45-to-1-superdelegate-advantage-over-sanders)....
according to Politic (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-superdelegates-democrats-219286)..Sanders supporters revolt against superdelegates...they say she has a 350 point lead.
You guys STILL seem to dodge my question.....How is it you seem to think that a Super Delegate is a fair process?
That is all I want to know......I'm sure you have a good answer.....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 17, 2016, 02:58:04 PM
How is it you seem to think that a Super Delegate is a fair process? I really want to know. It seems to me like its only purpose is for the DNC to have control of who is nominated and NOT the people of given state. IMO, that seems very, very crooked. It should bother any decent citizen that is a democrat.
I'm not sure how many times I'd have to point this out to you before it finally sinks in but let's try one more time: Republican delegates are only "soft pledged" to vote based on the primaries. If no candidate receives a clear majority of the delegates in the first ballot at the national convention, the delegates become free agents able to vote for whomever they want. In other words, they can completely disregard the will of the voters. How is that substantially different?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 17, 2016, 03:35:38 PM
You guys STILL seem to dodge my question.....How is it you seem to think that a Super Delegate is a fair process?
And you still seem to dodge mine: if the Democrats collectively decided that this is how we want to run our primary race and everyone agreed to it, what business is it of yours? Are we not allowed to make these decisions for ourselves because it offends your sensibilities?
Quote from: Exterminator on February 17, 2016, 03:38:55 PM
I'm not sure how many times I'd have to point this out to you
Well, this is YOUR FIRST TIME.....so, uh...yeah.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 17, 2016, 03:38:55 PM
I'm not sure how many times I'd have to point this out to you before it finally sinks in but let's try one more time: Republican delegates are only "soft pledged" to vote based on the primaries. If no candidate receives a clear majority of the delegates in the first ballot at the national convention, the delegates become free agents able to vote for whomever they want. In other words, they can completely disregard the will of the voters. How is that substantially different?
Great now I got that song from ABBA, "Dancing Queen" stuck in my mind now! :biggrin:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 17, 2016, 03:44:19 PM
Well, this is YOUR FIRST TIME.....so, uh...yeah.
Really? To what did you think I was referring when I mentioned July?
Quote from: Exterminator on February 17, 2016, 04:05:33 PM
Really? To what did you think I was referring when I mentioned July?
WHAT?!?! When did you mention JULY?
Wow! Never mind...you obviously don't have a real answer for this one...so...eh.
I will see if Palehorse will give me an intelligent answer.......I'm not even trying to be a smart ass about this.......I just don't see HOW this is fair, and why many dems are okay with this obviously crooked process. Bernie's people are not too happy about it right now.....
You've been given an answer several times; it clearly just isn't the one you want to hear. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on February 18, 2016, 09:50:10 AM
You've been given an answer several times; it clearly just isn't the one you want to hear. :rolleyes:
Are you crazy? You told me that that is what they want to do....THAT is not an answer.....
I want to know, HOW IS IT, that a SuperDelegate is a FAIR process? It is clearly a way to RIG an election to go as the DNC wants it to go, rather than allowing the people of that state determine who they want. It seem asinine to me.
Quit saying you have given the answer several times...........you haven't given it ONCE. Go back and read....not even ONCE have you given anything close to an answer to my question. If you don't want to answer that's fine.....but quit saying you have, when you haven't.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 18, 2016, 10:28:54 AM
I want to know, HOW IS IT, that a SuperDelegate is a FAIR process?
If everyone involved in the process agrees with the way the process is run, it is, by definition, fair. One huge benefit to the way the Dems nominate their candidate is that it insures that a bunch of sub-100 IQ voters don't get to nominate an idiot like Trump because they think rudeness and arrogance are cool.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 18, 2016, 10:42:17 AM
If everyone involved in the process agrees
THAT is where I see the problem....The DNC and the RNC are bought and paid for by lobbyiest, so it really comes down to who THEY WANT to win, NOT who the people want to win.
Don't try to tell me that Obama didn't have more than his share of sub IQ voters.........because it that is who won it for him.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 18, 2016, 10:54:41 AM
THAT is where I see the problem....The DNC and the RNC are bought and paid for by lobbyiest, so it really comes down to who THEY WANT to win, NOT who the people want to win.
Don't try to tell me that Obama didn't have more than his share of sub IQ voters.........because it that is who won it for him.
Obama won and you just don't like it. Tough shit, Bird Boy. I, for some reason just don't think we would be in good shape as we are, if we had John McCain and Sara Palin as president and dumbass. And that is what you wanted Dip Stick. Why don't you trade in your brain for a bowel, that's how you think. :haha:
Quote from: The Troll on February 18, 2016, 04:37:35 PM
Obama won and you just don't like it. Tough shit, Bird Boy. I, for some reason just don't think we would be in good shape as we are, if we had John McCain and Sara Palin as president and dumbass. And that is what you wanted Dip Stick. Why don't you trade in your brain for a bowel, that's how you think. :haha:
Shut up dude!
I am not talking about Obama, I didn't once mention him...I am talking about how crooked this Super Delegate deal seems to me.
You have real issues pal, try to stay focused just once will ya?
Answer my question.. I seriously would like to hear why and how is it that it doesn't seem to bother many democrats... I know Bernie isn't too happy about it.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 18, 2016, 06:53:40 PM
Shut up dude!
I am not talking about Obama, I didn't once mention him...I am talking about how crooked this Super Delegate deal seems to me.
You have real issues pal, try to stay focused just once will ya?
Answer my question.. I seriously would like to hear why and how is it that it doesn't seem to bother many democrats... I know Bernie isn't too happy about it.
Well I know one thing, if the Republicans had Super Delegates. Jeb Bush (paid for by the rich) would be your candidate for president of the United States and we would have more wars and more depressions and the rich would become richer. Bunky Bird. :haha:
Quote from: The Troll on February 18, 2016, 11:54:46 PM
Well I know one thing, if the Republicans had Super Delegates. Jeb Bush (paid for by the rich) would be your candidate for president of the United States
EXACTLY! and that is what I clearly don't like about it.........so, why doesn't it bother democrats? I find it very, very odd.
The Republicans do have superdelegates; they just don't use them the same way the Democrats do.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 19, 2016, 08:44:52 AM
The Republicans do have superdelegates; they just don't use them the same way the Democrats do.
Explain
Quote from: Exterminator on February 19, 2016, 08:53:56 AM
Look it up.
No
You made the claim. I am still waiting on someone to answer my question.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 19, 2016, 10:29:10 AM
No
You made the claim.
Stay ignorant of your own party's procedures then. I. Don't. Care.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 19, 2016, 11:00:35 AM
Stay ignorant of your own party's procedures then. I. Don't. Care.
All I know is, we do NOT at this time, have people 'rigging' the out come of delegates.
You keep making statements, i just wanted to see if YOU can back them up. otherwise.... I. Don't. Care. Either.
Yeah, we know you don't really care. You're only regurgitating the idiotic crap you swallow from the RW Noize Machine you read an listen to. You've accomplished what you wanted.
You're too intellectually lazy and too much the ideologue to bother learning anything or fact checking the BS you're spoon fed.
Both parties have superdelegates, dimwit.
Learn your history and you'll know why.
If you have evidence of either party 'rigging' a candidacy, then present it.
And stop acting like you're only innocently asking questions when what you're really doing falls under baiting and trolling. You're not fooling anyone that knows you.
Quote from: Y on February 19, 2016, 06:55:52 PM
You're only regurgitating the idiotic crap you swallow from the RW Noize Machine you read an listen to. You've accomplished what you wanted.
What's funny about HH and 'me' is that they always claim they don't get the majority of their news from Fox, but they bring in the same points here that are being discussed as the topic du jour on Fox News. ;D
I turned on Fox News around lunchtime today, and lo and behold, guess what was being discussed! They were all outraged about how those bad ole' corrupt Democrats were going to steal the nomination for Hillary, against the will of the people, by the use of the superdelgates.
But they don't watch Fox News. :biggrin:
I don't know who they think they kid when they say that. Anyone aware of the the current memes from the RW Noize Machine knows they're just regurgitating the crap they've been spoon fed.
They never come up their BS out of the blue.
Quote from: Y on February 19, 2016, 07:22:21 PM
They never come up their BS out of the blue.
Nope! :biggrin:
Quote from: Y on February 19, 2016, 07:22:21 PM
I don't know who they think they kid when they say that. Anyone aware of the the current memes from the RW Noize Machine knows they're just regurgitating the crap they've been spoon fed.
They never come up their BS out of the blue.
You got that right. :thumbsup: These Republicans like "ME" and Henry are brain dead :knife: Sheeple :baaa:, yes I said stupid Sheeple. They have to be belled so you can find them when they get lost (which is every day) and herded around with Sheeple dogs. :dogrun: :haha:
Quote from: Exterminator on February 19, 2016, 08:44:52 AM
The Republicans do have superdelegates; they just don't use them the same way the Democrats do.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 19, 2016, 08:50:01 AM
Explain
Maybe this will help you, HH. This is the way PA handles the delegates. "Republicans, with a total of just 71 delegates, have three kinds of delegates. They are: district delegates, at-large delegates and RNC delegates.
District delegates: There are 54 district delegates, who are ""elected on the primary ballot as officially unbound." In other words, they're not required to pledge their support to whoever wins Pennsylvania's Republican primary.
At-Large delegates: These 14 delegates, according to Ballotpedia, are awarded on a winner-take-all basis. So if you're the plurality winner of the primary, they're yours.
RNC delegates: The biggest of the big shots. These three, national party leaders are required to pledge their support to whomever wins the GOP primary."
Here's the whole article: http://www.pennlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/04/on_delegates_and_what_you_need.html#incart_big-photo Sounds like the district delegates are like the Democratic superdelegates. It's my understanding we aren't the only state that does this.
Ex tried to tell him all of that. ;D
Quote from: Locutus on April 26, 2016, 08:59:45 PM
Ex tried to tell him all of that. ;D
Maybe this is a little clearer. ;D
Sometimes, ole' HH is hard to convince. ;D
hey, first of all, I am not claiming the GOP is innocent of anything...this whole, super delegate and "uncommitted" delegates, imo, is all BS. I did hear, that most of the 55 uncommitted delegates from PA, are pledging to vote for the winner of their district on the first round.
I think it is plain and simple, that the delegates should/must vote for the majority of the people in their district.....they should not have MORE POWER or be in a position where they can be "bought off" by a candidate. THAT is exactly what happens to some if not many.
It set itself up for corruption........and we already have way too much of that as it is.
btw...thanks abby for posting your link.... :yes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 27, 2016, 07:39:33 AM
hey, first of all, I am not claiming the GOP is innocent of anything...this whole, super delegate and "uncommitted" delegates, imo, is all BS. I did hear, that most of the 55 uncommitted delegates from PA, are pledging to vote for the winner of their district on the first round.
I think it is plain and simple, that the delegates should/must vote for the majority of the people in their district.....they should not have MORE POWER or be in a position where they can be "bought off" by a candidate. THAT is exactly what happens to some if not many.
It set itself up for corruption........and we already have way too much of that as it is.
btw...thanks abby for posting your link.... :yes:
You're welcome! :smile: