WinterBorn
Diamond Member
They are led by people who know full well what they are doing. They are well coordinated, despite the appearance of chaos.
Antifa Explained: Very Informative Primer
- Thread starter OffensivelyOpenMinded
- Start date
They are led by people who know full well what they are doing. They are well coordinated, despite the appearance of chaos.
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 160,528
- 86,994
- 2,645
Trump should pivot on immigration, deport the criminals including Antifa and the students and staff at Berkley and keep the the America Loving, hard working, family oriented Mexicans; we'd be a million times better off
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 160,528
- 86,994
- 2,645
OffensivelyOpenMinded
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #45
Listen.... You are just a useful idiot that cannot admit he was duped and you support the most corrupt party in American history. Science has proven that you have to shut off part of your brain in order to be politically leftist.
OffensivelyOpenMinded
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #46
EverCurious
Gold Member
Reference: "Hillary Clinton: 2,814 (includes 609 superdelegates)Bernie Sanders: 1,893 (includes 47 superdelegates) Not yet allocated: 58"
- Who's Winning the Presidential Delegate Count?
(For the record I'm not really being specific in thinking superpacs (superdelegtes) are wrong in only the 2016 race, my point was actually broader than /just/ Sanders/Clinton, but I think that particular race was one of the most blatant "abuses.")
"These Democratic Party superdelegates include elected officials and party activists and officials. Democratic superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the presidential nomination. This contrasts with convention "pledged" delegates who are selected based on the party primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state, in which voters choose among candidates for the party's presidential nomination. Moreover, superdelegates are permitted to participate in the primary elections as regular voters."
- Superdelegate - Wikipedia
Now connect the dots between superdelegates and superpacs:
Critics who believe money corrupts the political process say the court rulings and creation of super PACs opened the floodgates to widespread corruption. In 2012, U.S. Sen. John McCain warned: "I guarantee there will be a scandal, there is too much money washing around politics, and it’s making the campaigns irrelevant."
McCain and other critics said the rulings allowed wealthy corporations and union to have an unfair advantage in electing candidates to federal office.
In writing his dissenting opinion for the Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens opined of the majority: "At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt."
Another criticism of super PACs arises from the allowance of some nonprofit groups to contribute to them without disclosing where their money came from, a loophole that allows so-called dark money to flow directly into elections." - Super PACs Spent More Than $1 Billion in 2016
And I will note; the critics, McCain, and Justice Stevens were all 100% correct - a large segment of the Democratic party realized that corruption had bore it's fruit in the Clinton/Sanders run. So the DNC hammered out a new compromise on how to handle these [superpac funded] superdelegates:
"On July 23, 2016, ahead of the 2016 Democratic National Convention, the 2016 DNC Rules Committee voted overwhelmingly (158–6) to adopt a superdelegate reform package. The new rules were the result of a compromise between the Clinton and the Sanders campaigns; in the past, Sanders had pressed for the complete elimination of superdelegates. I 100% agree with his original position, but the power buyers wouldn't let that happen
Under the reform package, in future Democratic Conventions, about two-thirds of superdelegates would be bound to the results of state primaries and caucuses. In other words, the actual average Joe democrats votes The remaining one-third – Members of Congress, Governors, and distinguished party leaders – would remain unpledged and free to support the candidate of their choice." In other words, the wealthy corporations and unions
- Superdelegate - Wikipedia
AKA they are now taking into consideration the average Joe Democrats votes more than the corporate and unions votes (the corps and unions have less influence purchasing power now)
And that is why people say that Clinton won because of Superpacs, its not exactly about the "whom" but rather the wholesale sale of votes for the candidates. An example might be (completely fictional example) Let's say that the teachers union has 30 votes and can raise $3 million dollars for campaign contributions. They don't like Sanders "Free College" idea because they think it'll make them less money, or give them less power, so they say we'll back [you] Clinton if [you] do X policy (or in this example "don't do that" might be more appropriate) She agrees to that and they funnel all of their cash and votes to Clinton. Basically what you end up with is not necessarily average joe democrat's "preference" and "chosen candidate" but rather the foxes running the hen house. With corporations they might whore their votes out for a policy or regulation to damage their competition. It's just asking for corruption, and they got it. Pay to play by huge numbers of corporations and unions for Clinton. At the same time, you have the "elite" leaders who generally all get together and agree on who they are backing as a "group." Again Foxes running the hen house. All that back-rubbing and handshaking of the political elite. And average Joe Democrat isn't necessarily on the same page as the superdelegates, but their votes are lessened or diluted or even influenced via ad time money by the inclusion of these 714 foxes (union, corporation, and elite leaders)
I mean if you're cool with that kind of a set up, you trust the politician to be true to their own opinions and not take money for rules/laws/regulations/etc, then that's your choice. I just personally think it is not properly reflecting the votes of the actual average Joe democrats (the new revision is better, but as I noted, I don't think they should exist.)
- Who's Winning the Presidential Delegate Count?
(For the record I'm not really being specific in thinking superpacs (superdelegtes) are wrong in only the 2016 race, my point was actually broader than /just/ Sanders/Clinton, but I think that particular race was one of the most blatant "abuses.")
"These Democratic Party superdelegates include elected officials and party activists and officials. Democratic superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the presidential nomination. This contrasts with convention "pledged" delegates who are selected based on the party primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state, in which voters choose among candidates for the party's presidential nomination. Moreover, superdelegates are permitted to participate in the primary elections as regular voters."
- Superdelegate - Wikipedia
Now connect the dots between superdelegates and superpacs:
Critics who believe money corrupts the political process say the court rulings and creation of super PACs opened the floodgates to widespread corruption. In 2012, U.S. Sen. John McCain warned: "I guarantee there will be a scandal, there is too much money washing around politics, and it’s making the campaigns irrelevant."
McCain and other critics said the rulings allowed wealthy corporations and union to have an unfair advantage in electing candidates to federal office.
In writing his dissenting opinion for the Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens opined of the majority: "At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt."
Another criticism of super PACs arises from the allowance of some nonprofit groups to contribute to them without disclosing where their money came from, a loophole that allows so-called dark money to flow directly into elections." - Super PACs Spent More Than $1 Billion in 2016
And I will note; the critics, McCain, and Justice Stevens were all 100% correct - a large segment of the Democratic party realized that corruption had bore it's fruit in the Clinton/Sanders run. So the DNC hammered out a new compromise on how to handle these [superpac funded] superdelegates:
"On July 23, 2016, ahead of the 2016 Democratic National Convention, the 2016 DNC Rules Committee voted overwhelmingly (158–6) to adopt a superdelegate reform package. The new rules were the result of a compromise between the Clinton and the Sanders campaigns; in the past, Sanders had pressed for the complete elimination of superdelegates. I 100% agree with his original position, but the power buyers wouldn't let that happen
Under the reform package, in future Democratic Conventions, about two-thirds of superdelegates would be bound to the results of state primaries and caucuses. In other words, the actual average Joe democrats votes The remaining one-third – Members of Congress, Governors, and distinguished party leaders – would remain unpledged and free to support the candidate of their choice." In other words, the wealthy corporations and unions
- Superdelegate - Wikipedia
AKA they are now taking into consideration the average Joe Democrats votes more than the corporate and unions votes (the corps and unions have less influence purchasing power now)
And that is why people say that Clinton won because of Superpacs, its not exactly about the "whom" but rather the wholesale sale of votes for the candidates. An example might be (completely fictional example) Let's say that the teachers union has 30 votes and can raise $3 million dollars for campaign contributions. They don't like Sanders "Free College" idea because they think it'll make them less money, or give them less power, so they say we'll back [you] Clinton if [you] do X policy (or in this example "don't do that" might be more appropriate) She agrees to that and they funnel all of their cash and votes to Clinton. Basically what you end up with is not necessarily average joe democrat's "preference" and "chosen candidate" but rather the foxes running the hen house. With corporations they might whore their votes out for a policy or regulation to damage their competition. It's just asking for corruption, and they got it. Pay to play by huge numbers of corporations and unions for Clinton. At the same time, you have the "elite" leaders who generally all get together and agree on who they are backing as a "group." Again Foxes running the hen house. All that back-rubbing and handshaking of the political elite. And average Joe Democrat isn't necessarily on the same page as the superdelegates, but their votes are lessened or diluted or even influenced via ad time money by the inclusion of these 714 foxes (union, corporation, and elite leaders)
I mean if you're cool with that kind of a set up, you trust the politician to be true to their own opinions and not take money for rules/laws/regulations/etc, then that's your choice. I just personally think it is not properly reflecting the votes of the actual average Joe democrats (the new revision is better, but as I noted, I don't think they should exist.)
Last edited:
JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,895
- 2,220
JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,895
- 2,220
As I said, the academics and liberals are the idiots of our society.
That study is so flawed it really shouldnt be called science.
OffensivelyOpenMinded
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #50
**** that shit.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
-
Please comment on new “ Project Hell Marry trailer ?? Getting great reviews- Started by Quasar44
- Replies: 0
