Is there really a difference between stealing a primary and having a Queen to bow to?

[usmbguest5318]

Is there really a difference between stealing a primary and having a Queen to bow to?

Yes. There aren't primaries in monarchical systems of governance/rule.

Few people would deign to conflate an aspect of democracy with anything having to do with monarchy.

And don't try to come up with some sort of verisimilitude of equivalence between the DNC and a monarchy. The DNC does not rule anything other than the DNC organization itself.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Really, if the Democrats are willing to just accept that someone can enter their primaries and be anointed the leader of the party, something which was very clear since the process has so many Super Delegates on top of the obvious bias and methods to undermine Sanders; then why not just move to Canada, Britain or some other country that bows to a Queen and get on one knee? She also shares this birthright.

Anyone who pretends they couldn't see the clear and obvious bias is willingly blind. The clear double standard is one reason so many Trump supporters and GOP supporters take issue with the current witch hunt against Trump. The allegations against him, which will most certainly end up being untrue or at best greatly exaggerated, is childs play compared to a political machine.

So, I ask, is there really a difference in submitting your liberty to a Queen or doing so to a political candidate?

DJ Trump not only stole the primary he stole the entire election.

He is a political genius. Same as Reagan.

These two bozo's prove that if you have a tv show you can easily get elected by saying whatever the public wants to hear.

These two bozo's prove that if you have a tv show you can easily get elected by saying whatever the public wants to hear.

One does not need to have a TV show to accomplish the noted outcome.

 

[oldsoul]

Since when is one ALLOWED to run for off
Last I heard if you met the legal requirements you could.
He may well prove to be the ONLY honest thing your party had going!

Since the DNC and the RNC are both private organizations, and they can allow or disallow anything they want. Bernie was certainly allowed to run for anything he wanted, but to be allowed to run on the Democratic ticket required approval by the DNC.

Then I suggest you encourage the DNC to say it in such a fashion, but they don't, yet another double standard. Better yet, be more courageous and blunt:

"We didn't want any competition for Hillary which is why we blocked Gabbard from the debates and blocked Lawrence Lessig from being able to run and outright stole from Sanders. In fact, even if polls show a candidate has 90% of the approval of the Democratic Party, we will simply choose who we want, because democratic processes do not matter (ironic I know considering the party name), what matters to us is that we know what is best for you and will choose accordingly".

No wonder they were trounced in 2016. Socialist, dynasty principles lost to liberty of vote. The very same principles which the RNC reluctantly accepted, and it sunk Jeb, the Establishment fave in favour of a businessman who was anti-establishment, focused on working to recover the harm done to America.

I encourage the RNC to say it in such fashion too, because they are a private organization with the same rules.
Which candidate do you think had 90% approval of the DNC and was not allowed to run?

I am using 90% as an example. If Bernie had such a number they still deny him the candidacy. It was clear the fix was in early when CNN showed all delegates to date and fully awarded Clinton EVERY super delegate, when in reality, in terms of voted delegates to date they were closer to neck and neck.

As for the RNC, clearly they didn't want Trump, the difference is they pitted him against 15 other candidates. He earned his spot and as much as there was big money and deceptive methods employed to undermine him, in the end they accepted the Will of their voting base. The Democrats clearly did not.

I've said it many times, Sanders and I are ideologically incompatible. Regardless, if the DNC had no intention of allowing the Will of the People decide their candidate, they shouldn't have allowed anyone to debate. They only did so for optics, to give the impression the DNC was somehow not an extension of Hillary and her International donors, and she would "stand up to any and all comers and debate her positions with pride and conviction".

Nothing was further from the truth. It was a scam, by all accounts. Peoples time and efforts wasted, with no legitimate opportunity to win, as if they were living in a dictatorship froth with the smoke and mirrors that accompany such a system. Thankfully, the strength of the greater American system balanced this overt abuse by electing the underdog and chastising the entitled. Sadly, to this day many see this defiance of the voters continuing with efforts to usurp the election results.

Since you were not compatible with any Democratic candidate, it's really none of your business, is it? Your characterization of what happened is bullshit, but that doesn't really matter either. Take care of your own business, and you won't have time to worry about ours. Do you try to poke your nose in your neighbor's business too?

Seeing as this was a part of a greater PUBLIC election, yes it IS everyone's business. To the extent that there was a total lack of transparency, what would be considered in the business world (of which the DNC is a part of) as a hostile takeover, and the corruption that the DNC allowed leading to the nomination of a candidate that was part of the corruption. These things should be known by the public, regardless of party, so that the voting public is aware of, and informed about, who is proposing to be our leaders.

If your neighbor was paying off local officials to turn a blind eye to their dealings, would you see that as something worthy of your knowledge? That is, in essence, what happened here, just on a much larger scale.

 

[BULLDOG]

Since the DNC and the RNC are both private organizations, and they can allow or disallow anything they want. Bernie was certainly allowed to run for anything he wanted, but to be allowed to run on the Democratic ticket required approval by the DNC.

Then I suggest you encourage the DNC to say it in such a fashion, but they don't, yet another double standard. Better yet, be more courageous and blunt:

"We didn't want any competition for Hillary which is why we blocked Gabbard from the debates and blocked Lawrence Lessig from being able to run and outright stole from Sanders. In fact, even if polls show a candidate has 90% of the approval of the Democratic Party, we will simply choose who we want, because democratic processes do not matter (ironic I know considering the party name), what matters to us is that we know what is best for you and will choose accordingly".

No wonder they were trounced in 2016. Socialist, dynasty principles lost to liberty of vote. The very same principles which the RNC reluctantly accepted, and it sunk Jeb, the Establishment fave in favour of a businessman who was anti-establishment, focused on working to recover the harm done to America.

I encourage the RNC to say it in such fashion too, because they are a private organization with the same rules.
Which candidate do you think had 90% approval of the DNC and was not allowed to run?

I am using 90% as an example. If Bernie had such a number they still deny him the candidacy. It was clear the fix was in early when CNN showed all delegates to date and fully awarded Clinton EVERY super delegate, when in reality, in terms of voted delegates to date they were closer to neck and neck.

As for the RNC, clearly they didn't want Trump, the difference is they pitted him against 15 other candidates. He earned his spot and as much as there was big money and deceptive methods employed to undermine him, in the end they accepted the Will of their voting base. The Democrats clearly did not.

I've said it many times, Sanders and I are ideologically incompatible. Regardless, if the DNC had no intention of allowing the Will of the People decide their candidate, they shouldn't have allowed anyone to debate. They only did so for optics, to give the impression the DNC was somehow not an extension of Hillary and her International donors, and she would "stand up to any and all comers and debate her positions with pride and conviction".

Nothing was further from the truth. It was a scam, by all accounts. Peoples time and efforts wasted, with no legitimate opportunity to win, as if they were living in a dictatorship froth with the smoke and mirrors that accompany such a system. Thankfully, the strength of the greater American system balanced this overt abuse by electing the underdog and chastising the entitled. Sadly, to this day many see this defiance of the voters continuing with efforts to usurp the election results.

Since you were not compatible with any Democratic candidate, it's really none of your business, is it? Your characterization of what happened is bullshit, but that doesn't really matter either. Take care of your own business, and you won't have time to worry about ours. Do you try to poke your nose in your neighbor's business too?

Seeing as this was a part of a greater PUBLIC election, yes it IS everyone's business. To the extent that there was a total lack of transparency, what would be considered in the business world (of which the DNC is a part of) as a hostile takeover, and the corruption that the DNC allowed leading to the nomination of a candidate that was part of the corruption. These things should be known by the public, regardless of party, so that the voting public is aware of, and informed about, who is proposing to be our leaders.

If your neighbor was paying off local officials to turn a blind eye to their dealings, would you see that as something worthy of your knowledge? That is, in essence, what happened here, just on a much larger scale.

Yes, if my neighbor was paying off a local public official, that would be worthy of my knowledge, because it's a public official. However, if the local book club ladies decided they didn't want to meet at Betty's house because she fooled around with Elizabeth's husband, or for any other reason, it's none of my business unless I am in the club.