It's time to start thinking about resistance.

[Skylar]

No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.

That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.

Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???

"Sgt. Schultz" neither choses, nor has any power over superdelegates to influence their votes.

They how do almost every one of them end up being ardent Hillary supporters? She splits Missouri with Bernie and ends up with a 20% bonus? You believe all these coincidences are not by design.

Same shitty deal happened in 2008.. They ALL went to Hillary. Until Obama learned enough to move them,..

See leftists are only interested in winning. The governing part is just a nuisance.. So SuperDelegates are the un-democratic method of BOOSTING the candidate judged by Sgt Schultz as "most likely to win"..

A thumb in the eye of every one who went out to vote ON PRINCIPLES and not on attaining power..

There's nothing "coincidental" about it, and it doesn't take a conspiracy to explain. There's no doubt that the pool of superdelegates are what you might call "elites", but they're not beholden to Debbie Schultz or anyone else.

The vast majority of superdelegates who've announced their support have done so for Clinton - not because of some conspiracy, but because they think she's got a better chance than Sanders.

Superdelegates don't vote until the convention, so counting those votes for either candidate beforehand is counting your chickens before they hatch. Were some insane confluence of events to occur giving Sanders a popular delegate lead going into the convention, you would see plenty of superdelegates switching their votes.

My former business partner is a "superdelegate" to the DNC. He gained this status as a result of being popularly elected to a local Democratic Party office - he was chosen by voters - and he's received no "commands" from Schultz on who to vote for.

Although he hasn't announced support for either yet, he's voting for Bernie, by the way.

You just acknowledged my position. Lemme repeat this so we are clear. VOTERS believe they are choosing based on issue, policy, personality, and proposals. SUPER DELEGATES -- as you just admitted don't give a fuck about any of that. They are chosen to select the candidate with the "GREATEST CHANCE" of winning.

Again, for the third time......the Super Delegates have *never* turned an election against the Democratic candidate with the most pledged delegates. Not in 2012, or 2008, or 2004, or 2000, or 1996, or 1992, or 1988 or...

....ever.

You get this, right?

If not, just name the year that the super delegates turned the nomination against the nominee with the most pledged delegates. You've already admitted it wasn't 2012. So what year?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Direct taxation is legal ONLY during emergencies.

The first direct tax - known as the Victory Tax or the withholding tax at source - - was levied in 1942 - they can only be levied for two years - nevertheless the Vicory Tax was NEVER REMOVED - the welfare/warfare police state loves extracting monies from us bty any means necessary.

.

My point is that it isn't taxes which are immoral, it's direct taxes. Taxing wages or property is aggression against the rightful owners, it is theft, armed robbery.

A tax on liquor though, is another matter. It is not against any person and we are free to avoid the tax by not buying the liquor.

Tariffs and use fees are the proper way to fund a free state,

 

[Skylar]

No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.

That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.

Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???

Can you show me a single example of the Super Delegates turning an election against the Democratic candidate with the most pledged delegates?

Just name the year it happened.

1924. William Gibbs McAdoo swept the primaries. Never heard of him? How about the second place front runner, Al Smith? You may have heard of him. Very popular New York populist, like Trump.

Guess which one got the nomination?

Wrong!

John W. Davis, a total outsider, was given the nomination at the brokered convention after a record 103 ballots!

Super Delegates weren't invented until 1968. How then could they have turned the nomination against a candidate in 1924?

And was a blue police box involved?

Same difference. The party bosses ran the conventions back then. Who do you think "super delegates" are?

Party bosses.

I seem to recall in the historical texts of the time Al Smith making a reference to "an infernal Time And Relative Dimension In Space machine which transported me to a period in the future, with an eccentric man and a fetching lady at the controls."

Okay, I don't care who you are. That's funny.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

It's not "tyranny", it's reality. If you were in charge of delegating limited resources to campaigns, would you spend money on races you thought you couldn't win?

What are you yapping about?

Your filthy party doesn't "fund" Mao Tse Sanders, his supporters do, Nor do they support their Hillary, Wall Street and Silicone Valley Billionaires do. Each candidate or the corrupt party has their own support apparatus.

You really have no clue at all how this works, do you?

You can complain about the system all you want, but it's the one we've got - and I've never seen anyone able to come up with a better one.

It is a system you are utterly ignorant of.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Says who?

Show me such a restriction in the Constitution. Because I'm reasonably certain you just pulled that restriction sideways out of your ass. And that's not how the standards of 'legal' are defined.

THIS is what is wrong with the rewriting of history by Zinn to meet party objectives.

The 16th Amendment to the Constitution, adopted in 1913, allowed for direct taxation. Prior to this, it was indeed against the Constitution to directly apportion taxes.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

[

It's not "tyranny", it's reality. If you were in charge of delegating limited resources to campaigns, would you spend money on races you thought you couldn't win?

What are you yapping about?

Your filthy party doesn't "fund" Mao Tse Sanders, his supporters do, Nor do they support their Hillary, Wall Street and Silicone Valley Billionaires do. Each candidate or the corrupt party has their own support apparatus.

You really have no clue at all how this works, do you?

You can complain about the system all you want, but it's the one we've got - and I've never seen anyone able to come up with a better one.

It is a system you are utterly ignorant of.

I can assure you that I know much more about how "this" works than you do, seeing as how it's what I do for a living.

Now, if you'd have bothered to read my post in the context of the post I was responding to (for whatever reason, that seems to be beyond you), you'd realize that I was talking about funding local candidates in the "loser districts or states" that Flacaltenn was discussing:

BOTH parties for instance ROUTINELY refuse to back candidates in "loser districts or states".. Leaving their membership in those states COMPLETELY UNREPRESENTED... That's tyranny.. And it's been the story of about 15% of congressional seats in every recent election...

And if you believe that the DNC, D-trip, and DSCC don't divert funding to or from various local elections, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I can assure you that I know much more about how "this" works than you do, seeing as how it's what I do for a living.

I see.

So tell us again how the GLORIOUS people democratic - socialist party is allocating scarce resources to the presidential candidate?

It's

Now, if you'd have bothered to read my post in the context of the post I was responding to (for whatever reason, that seems to be beyond you), you'd realize that I was talking about funding local candidates in the "loser districts or states" that Flacaltenn was discussing:

BOTH parties for instance ROUTINELY refuse to back candidates in "loser districts or states".. Leaving their membership in those states COMPLETELY UNREPRESENTED... That's tyranny.. And it's been the story of about 15% of congressional seats in every recent election...

And if you believe that the DNC, D-trip, and DSCC don't divert funding to or from various local elections, I don't know what to tell you.

Even local campaigns are generally funded by their own volition. This is why candidates build up "war chests" of funds.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I can assure you that I know much more about how "this" works than you do, seeing as how it's what I do for a living.

I see.

So tell us again how the GLORIOUS people democratic - socialist party is allocating scarce resources to the presidential candidate?

It's View attachment 71251

Now, if you'd have bothered to read my post in the context of the post I was responding to (for whatever reason, that seems to be beyond you), you'd realize that I was talking about funding local candidates in the "loser districts or states" that Flacaltenn was discussing:

BOTH parties for instance ROUTINELY refuse to back candidates in "loser districts or states".. Leaving their membership in those states COMPLETELY UNREPRESENTED... That's tyranny.. And it's been the story of about 15% of congressional seats in every recent election...

And if you believe that the DNC, D-trip, and DSCC don't divert funding to or from various local elections, I don't know what to tell you.

Even local campaigns are generally funded by their own volition. This is why candidates build up "war chests" of funds.

Since I never said anything about Presidential candidates, I see no reason why I should "tell you again" - but on that note, are you under the impression that the DNC isn't going to put resources behind whoever the party nominee is?

The primary purpose of the DNC, and the DSCC and D-trip under it are to raise and allocate money to races around the country.

 

[Faun]

Super delegates are the party's insurance against a rebellious electorate.

SuperDelegates is blatant "voter disenfranchisement".. Those that SCREAM the loudest are usually guilty of it themselves...

No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.

That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.

Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???

Bullshit it's bullshit. It's by design to keep the parties in control. And it's no secret.

And of course Sanders is a threat to the party. Just as Trump is to the Republican party. Again... the parties are private entities which maintain a certain amount if control over who is nominated to lead their party.

You just ADMITTED it's by design to keep the PARTY in control.. The VOTERS are choosing based on principles, policies, and personalities.. The PARTY is only interesting in the designing the process to WIN...

This design includes the following feature ----

It tends to shorten the process and produce a "front-runner" faster. Therefore sparing the candidate from being beaten and bloodied by FIGHTING for the nomination with "less powerful candidates".

It's a very un-democratic way of EXCLUDING those considerations that the VOTERS think are important. And to short-circuit debate of any real policies, issues, or personality traits.

It is not undemocratic. The parties maintain some control over themselves. That's their right. Again... they're private entities. The electorate can rally behind an independent candidate, who is not subject to those rules, at anytime if it's a problem for them. Just as Trump and his Trumpettes are threatening to do if the Republican party tries to deny him the nomination he feels he deserves.

 

[flacaltenn]

That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.

Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???

Can you show me a single example of the Super Delegates turning an election against the Democratic candidate with the most pledged delegates?

Just name the year it happened.

Happens EVERY recent election cycle. . That's why the REPUBLICAN debate stage is ALWAYS overcrowded and the DEMS end up DISCOURAGING folks from EVEN ATTEMPTING to run..

What do superdelegates have to do with debates?

The party doesn't have control over who can run for President. All you need is petition signatures.

SuperDelegates is a designed feature to shorten the primary bloodshed. Front load the support for the "perceived" winner and that person will not come out as scarred and bloodied by debates and competition.. The idiot media will declare the contest over as soon as the delegate count becomes lop-sided.

No idiot is gonna declare to run when they are facing a 15% deficit in delegates before they start. Only aging PRINCIPLED folks like Sanders who declares for reasons OTHER THAN WINNING are gonna line up for the process..

So how come there's not 12 or 15 candidates at the START of each DEM primary process? It's the fucking tyranny of what the PARTIES have become. That's why I dropped in here. Lot of couch patriots expecting the tyranny is gonna come from the Oval Office. It's coming from the 2 power whoring parties...

You're building an incorrect narrative by connecting dots that aren't connected. It's really pretty straight-forward.

The "superdelegate" system is more of a way to reward party faithful with importance than any of the conspiracy theories that you're putting together. The number of declared candidates has nothing to do with people being scared away by superdelegate counts - every candidate knows that if they rack up some primary wins, they'll get superdelegates to hop the fence to them.

Never said the number of declared delegates scare away potential candidates. It's the PARTY control that the DNC feels appropriate to wield that gives Dems such clearly stunted choice. If a candidate like Hillary can bind up the 760 SuperTwits BEFORE IOWA what's the sense of running a campaign on issues, proposals and character.. NOTE -- no citizen has yet voted --- and the PARTY has put a protective device in to ASSURE that party discipline is enforced. It's to cut short the democratic process and control the carnage.

Sgt Shultz can't even explain it.. Except for speaking out of both sides of her mouth about "weeding out grassroots candidates".. Meaning you OBEY the SGT or you're ass is grassroots. No dissent, no controversy, no new fangled grassy ideas tolerated.

We need more questions like this one from Jake Tapper to Debbie Wasserman Schultz [video]


TAPPER: Hillary Clinton lost to Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire by 22 percentage points, the biggest victory in a contested Democratic primary there since John F. Kennedy, but it looks as though Clinton and Sanders are leaving the Granite State with the same number of delegates in their pockets because Clinton has the support of New Hampshire's superdelegates, these party insiders. What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it's all rigged?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, let me just make sure that I can clarify exactly what was available during the primaries in Iowa and in New Hampshire. The unpledged delegates are a separate category. The only thing available on the ballot in a primary and a caucus is the pledged delegates, those that are tied to the candidate that they are pledged to support. And they receive a proportional number of delegates going into the — going into our convention.

Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots activists. We are, as a Democratic Party, really highlight and emphasize inclusiveness and diversity at our convention, and so we want to give every opportunity to grass-roots activists ( )
and diverse committed Democrats to be able to participate, attend and be a delegate at the convention. And so we separate out those unpledged delegates to make sure that there isn't competition between them.

TAPPER: I'm not sure that that would — that answer would satisfy an anxious young voter, but let's move on.


Tapper -- being the useless turd he is -- let her off with the "we love grassrooters, but we can't let them win" bullshit. If THAT doesn't make you mad, how about Bernie coming out of New Hampshire with the voters giving him 15 to 9 delegates over Shillary. BUT --- the actual DNC book-keeping books the sale at about 16 to 16...

And if THAT doesn't get mad -- Your own PARTY is gonna argue with you. Don't need to hear outrage from a marginalized political person like me. .MOVE ON --- that great "grassroots" DEM organization has almost 200,000 signatures on a petition to DNC to END this tyranny over the ballot box.

So just ho-hum and poo poo all ya want.. There's gonna be hell to pay when folks find out that MODERN TYRANNY starts with POLITICAL PARTIES disenfranchising and discounting the "will of the people".

 

[Faun]

Super delegates are the party's insurance against a rebellious electorate.

SuperDelegates is blatant "voter disenfranchisement".. Those that SCREAM the loudest are usually guilty of it themselves...

No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.

That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.

Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???

Can you show me a single example of the Super Delegates turning an election against the Democratic candidate with the most pledged delegates?

Just name the year it happened.

Happens EVERY recent election cycle. . That's why the REPUBLICAN debate stage is ALWAYS overcrowded and the DEMS end up DISCOURAGING folks from EVEN ATTEMPTING to run..

That's simply not true. In 2008, for example, Obama won the party's nomination with the most delegates and the most superdelegates.

 

[flacaltenn]

SuperDelegates is blatant "voter disenfranchisement".. Those that SCREAM the loudest are usually guilty of it themselves...

No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.

That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.

Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???

Bullshit it's bullshit. It's by design to keep the parties in control. And it's no secret.

And of course Sanders is a threat to the party. Just as Trump is to the Republican party. Again... the parties are private entities which maintain a certain amount if control over who is nominated to lead their party.

You just ADMITTED it's by design to keep the PARTY in control.. The VOTERS are choosing based on principles, policies, and personalities.. The PARTY is only interesting in the designing the process to WIN...

This design includes the following feature ----

It tends to shorten the process and produce a "front-runner" faster. Therefore sparing the candidate from being beaten and bloodied by FIGHTING for the nomination with "less powerful candidates".

It's a very un-democratic way of EXCLUDING those considerations that the VOTERS think are important. And to short-circuit debate of any real policies, issues, or personality traits.

It is not undemocratic. The parties maintain some control over themselves. That's their right. Again... they're private entities. The electorate can rally behind an independent candidate, who is not subject to those rules, at anytime if it's a problem for them. Just as Trump and his Trumpettes are threatening to do if the Republican party tries to deny him the nomination he feels he deserves.

I've worked on 3rd/4th party access to the ballot for the past 20 years. Even coordinated with the Greens and Constitutionalists and others for the common cause. The barriers to ballot access are huge for any organized effort. And only crazy Billionaires like Trump or Perot could make that effort without party organization.

For the past 4 or 6 cycles -- the only alternate party that has been on the Fed Election ballots in 48 states or greater have been the Libertarians.

 

[Faun]

As far as Waco and Malheur, that's good. Lunatic fringe righties git what they deserved. I have no problem if more of you righties want to thin your herd with such actions. There's room on that list for more of you.

So you like gassing children hiding in bunkers? Shooting mothers holding their babies in their arms. Your sense of sense of "self-preservation" when it comes to abuse of government power is sorely lacking. I think you'd love an actual Tyranny if they were abusing and killing the proper people..

I said nothing about Ruby Ridge. As far as Waco, I hold the parents responsible for leaving their children inside a compound where they were hold up indefinitely in defiance of arrest warrants.

All warrants COULD HAVE been served either by the local Sheriff who had a great relationship with the Mt Carmel folks or by the BATF folks who had been to fucking BBQs at the "compound" just weeks before. They even shot with these guys on their range.

But an "example" needed to made and photo ops and news to manufacture. All that new gear and shit. Couldn't help themselves.

Could have been but weren't. Instead, many of the Branch Davidians decided to hold up inside that compound indefinitely; hoping the law would just walk away. Even worse for them, they kept their own children in danger. The parents are to blame for their childrens' deaths.

No, the people who killed them are to blame.

Completely idiotic. That's like driving your car, with your kids in tow, into a tornado... and then blaming the tornado, and not the parent committing suicide for the death of their kids.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Can you show me a single example of the Super Delegates turning an election against the Democratic candidate with the most pledged delegates?

Just name the year it happened.

Happens EVERY recent election cycle. . That's why the REPUBLICAN debate stage is ALWAYS overcrowded and the DEMS end up DISCOURAGING folks from EVEN ATTEMPTING to run..

What do superdelegates have to do with debates?

The party doesn't have control over who can run for President. All you need is petition signatures.

SuperDelegates is a designed feature to shorten the primary bloodshed. Front load the support for the "perceived" winner and that person will not come out as scarred and bloodied by debates and competition.. The idiot media will declare the contest over as soon as the delegate count becomes lop-sided.

No idiot is gonna declare to run when they are facing a 15% deficit in delegates before they start. Only aging PRINCIPLED folks like Sanders who declares for reasons OTHER THAN WINNING are gonna line up for the process..

So how come there's not 12 or 15 candidates at the START of each DEM primary process? It's the fucking tyranny of what the PARTIES have become. That's why I dropped in here. Lot of couch patriots expecting the tyranny is gonna come from the Oval Office. It's coming from the 2 power whoring parties...

You're building an incorrect narrative by connecting dots that aren't connected. It's really pretty straight-forward.

The "superdelegate" system is more of a way to reward party faithful with importance than any of the conspiracy theories that you're putting together. The number of declared candidates has nothing to do with people being scared away by superdelegate counts - every candidate knows that if they rack up some primary wins, they'll get superdelegates to hop the fence to them.

Never said the number of declared delegates scare away potential candidates. It's the PARTY control that the DNC feels appropriate to wield that gives Dems such clearly stunted choice. If a candidate like Hillary can bind up the 760 SuperTwits BEFORE IOWA what's the sense of running a campaign on issues, proposals and character.. NOTE a citizen has yet voted --- and the PARTY has put a protective device in to ASSURE that party discipline is enforced. It's to cut short the democratic process and control the carnage.

Sgt Shultz can't even explain it.. Except for speaking out of both sides of her mouth about "weeding out grassroots candidates".. Meaning you OBEY the SGT or you're ass is grassroots. No dissent, no controversy, no new fangled grassy ideas tolerated.

We need more questions like this one from Jake Tapper to Debbie Wasserman Schultz [video]


TAPPER: Hillary Clinton lost to Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire by 22 percentage points, the biggest victory in a contested Democratic primary there since John F. Kennedy, but it looks as though Clinton and Sanders are leaving the Granite State with the same number of delegates in their pockets because Clinton has the support of New Hampshire's superdelegates, these party insiders. What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it's all rigged?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, let me just make sure that I can clarify exactly what was available during the primaries in Iowa and in New Hampshire. The unpledged delegates are a separate category. The only thing available on the ballot in a primary and a caucus is the pledged delegates, those that are tied to the candidate that they are pledged to support. And they receive a proportional number of delegates going into the — going into our convention.

Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots activists. We are, as a Democratic Party, really highlight and emphasize inclusiveness and diversity at our convention, and so we want to give every opportunity to grass-roots activists and diverse committed Democrats to be able to participate, attend and be a delegate at the convention. And so we separate out those unpledged delegates to make sure that there isn't competition between them.

TAPPER: I'm not sure that that would — that answer would satisfy an anxious young voter, but let's move on.


Tapper -- being the useless turd he is -- let her off with the "we love grassrooters, but we can't let them win" bullshit. If THAT doesn't make you mad, how about Bernie coming out of New Hampshire with the voters giving him 15 to 9 delegates over Shillary. BUT --- the actual DNC book-keeping books the sale at about 16 to 16...

And if THAT doesn't get mad -- Your own PARTY is gonna argue with you. Don't need to hear outrage from a marginalized political person like me. .MOVE ON --- that great "grassroots" DEM organization has almost 200,000 signatures on a petition to DNC to END this tyranny over the ballot box.

So just ho-hum and poo poo all ya want.. There's gonna be hell to pay when folks find out that MODERN TYRANNY starts with POLITICAL PARTIES disenfranchising and discounting the "will of the people".

Are you a member of the Democratic Party?

If not, it's hard to take your outrage on the part of Democrats seriously. But even so, you're mistaken on a number of points.

First of all, Hillary did not "bind up" any superdelegates before Iowa. Superdelegates are "unbound", that's the whole point of it. There's no "DNC book-keeping" - that's the media counting the delegates, not the DNC. The DNC doesn't count their "books" until the convention - nothing a superdelegate says right up until the first vote in the convention has any actual meaning.

As for "Sgt. Schultz", painting her as some sort of mastermind and dictator is so ludicrous in context of how it actually works that I can hardly keep a straight face.

 

[Faun]

As far as Waco and Malheur, that's good. Lunatic fringe righties git what they deserved. I have no problem if more of you righties want to thin your herd with such actions. There's room on that list for more of you.

So you like gassing children hiding in bunkers? Shooting mothers holding their babies in their arms. Your sense of sense of "self-preservation" when it comes to abuse of government power is sorely lacking. I think you'd love an actual Tyranny if they were abusing and killing the proper people..

I said nothing about Ruby Ridge. As far as Waco, I hold the parents responsible for leaving their children inside a compound where they were hold up indefinitely in defiance of arrest warrants.

All warrants COULD HAVE been served either by the local Sheriff who had a great relationship with the Mt Carmel folks or by the BATF folks who had been to fucking BBQs at the "compound" just weeks before. They even shot with these guys on their range.

But an "example" needed to made and photo ops and news to manufacture. All that new gear and shit. Couldn't help themselves.

Could have been but weren't. Instead, many of the Branch Davidians decided to hold up inside that compound indefinitely; hoping the law would just walk away. Even worse for them, they kept their own children in danger. The parents are to blame for their childrens' deaths.

First thing that happened at the compound was they shot the Kid's dogs. In a FENCED area. IN FRONT of the children.. No parent is gonna release their children to folks that ESCALATE a simple dispute about reselling gun parts into a military operation done for photo ops and press coverage.

First thing the "whackos" did was to call the Local Sheriff and ask him WHY people were shooting their dogs and at the compound. It was a SPECTACULAR over-use of power..

Then for 51 days, the Branch Davidians holed up in their compound, in defiance of arrest warrants, until law enforcement decided to root them out. At which time, most of the remaining Davidians who had not already turned themselves in, committed mass suicide.

 

[flacaltenn]

As of today --- Bernie gets 6% of the 500 (activated after primary/caucus) SuperTwits. Yeah -- no problem there.

Move along MOVEON -- you got NOTHING to complain about here. And theDoc can keep telling himself this kind of tyranny over representative democracy has nothing to do with the amount of CHOICES on the podium for the Dem debates.

 

[Faun]

No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.

That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.

Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???

"Sgt. Schultz" neither choses, nor has any power over superdelegates to influence their votes.

They how do almost every one of them end up being ardent Hillary supporters? She splits Missouri with Bernie and ends up with a 20% bonus? You believe all these coincidences are not by design.

Same shitty deal happened in 2008.. They ALL went to Hillary. Until Obama learned enough to move them,..

See leftists are only interested in winning. The governing part is just a nuisance.. So SuperDelegates are the un-democratic method of BOOSTING the candidate judged by Sgt Schultz as "most likely to win"..

A thumb in the eye of every one who went out to vote ON PRINCIPLES and not on attaining power..

There's nothing "coincidental" about it, and it doesn't take a conspiracy to explain. There's no doubt that the pool of superdelegates are what you might call "elites", but they're not beholden to Debbie Schultz or anyone else.

The vast majority of superdelegates who've announced their support have done so for Clinton - not because of some conspiracy, but because they think she's got a better chance than Sanders.

Superdelegates don't vote until the convention, so counting those votes for either candidate beforehand is counting your chickens before they hatch. Were some insane confluence of events to occur giving Sanders a popular delegate lead going into the convention, you would see plenty of superdelegates switching their votes.

My former business partner is a "superdelegate" to the DNC. He gained this status as a result of being popularly elected to a local Democratic Party office - he was chosen by voters - and he's received no "commands" from Schultz on who to vote for.

Although he hasn't announced support for either yet, he's voting for Bernie, by the way.

You just acknowledged my position. Lemme repeat this so we are clear. VOTERS believe they are choosing based on issue, policy, personality, and proposals. SUPER DELEGATES -- as you just admitted don't give a fuck about any of that. They are chosen to select the candidate with the "GREATEST CHANCE" of winning.

That;'s the sole basis of the party interest if you're a trusted member of the DNC.. And it IS a form of tyranny since the parties have a duopoly on politics in America.

BOTH parties for instance ROUTINELY refuse to back candidates in "loser districts or states".. Leaving their membership in those states COMPLETELY UNREPRESENTED... That's tyranny.. And it's been the story of about 15% of congressional seats in every recent election...

No, it's not tyranny because candidates are not forced to run as Democrat or a Republican. The electorate is not forced to vote for a Democrat or a Republican. But if you're going to, then you have to play by the party's rules. If that's a problem for you, you can run as an independent or vote for an independent.

 

[flacaltenn]

Happens EVERY recent election cycle. . That's why the REPUBLICAN debate stage is ALWAYS overcrowded and the DEMS end up DISCOURAGING folks from EVEN ATTEMPTING to run..

What do superdelegates have to do with debates?

The party doesn't have control over who can run for President. All you need is petition signatures.

SuperDelegates is a designed feature to shorten the primary bloodshed. Front load the support for the "perceived" winner and that person will not come out as scarred and bloodied by debates and competition.. The idiot media will declare the contest over as soon as the delegate count becomes lop-sided.

No idiot is gonna declare to run when they are facing a 15% deficit in delegates before they start. Only aging PRINCIPLED folks like Sanders who declares for reasons OTHER THAN WINNING are gonna line up for the process..

So how come there's not 12 or 15 candidates at the START of each DEM primary process? It's the fucking tyranny of what the PARTIES have become. That's why I dropped in here. Lot of couch patriots expecting the tyranny is gonna come from the Oval Office. It's coming from the 2 power whoring parties...

You're building an incorrect narrative by connecting dots that aren't connected. It's really pretty straight-forward.

The "superdelegate" system is more of a way to reward party faithful with importance than any of the conspiracy theories that you're putting together. The number of declared candidates has nothing to do with people being scared away by superdelegate counts - every candidate knows that if they rack up some primary wins, they'll get superdelegates to hop the fence to them.

Never said the number of declared delegates scare away potential candidates. It's the PARTY control that the DNC feels appropriate to wield that gives Dems such clearly stunted choice. If a candidate like Hillary can bind up the 760 SuperTwits BEFORE IOWA what's the sense of running a campaign on issues, proposals and character.. NOTE a citizen has yet voted --- and the PARTY has put a protective device in to ASSURE that party discipline is enforced. It's to cut short the democratic process and control the carnage.

Sgt Shultz can't even explain it.. Except for speaking out of both sides of her mouth about "weeding out grassroots candidates".. Meaning you OBEY the SGT or you're ass is grassroots. No dissent, no controversy, no new fangled grassy ideas tolerated.

We need more questions like this one from Jake Tapper to Debbie Wasserman Schultz [video]


TAPPER: Hillary Clinton lost to Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire by 22 percentage points, the biggest victory in a contested Democratic primary there since John F. Kennedy, but it looks as though Clinton and Sanders are leaving the Granite State with the same number of delegates in their pockets because Clinton has the support of New Hampshire's superdelegates, these party insiders. What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it's all rigged?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, let me just make sure that I can clarify exactly what was available during the primaries in Iowa and in New Hampshire. The unpledged delegates are a separate category. The only thing available on the ballot in a primary and a caucus is the pledged delegates, those that are tied to the candidate that they are pledged to support. And they receive a proportional number of delegates going into the — going into our convention.

Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots activists. We are, as a Democratic Party, really highlight and emphasize inclusiveness and diversity at our convention, and so we want to give every opportunity to grass-roots activists and diverse committed Democrats to be able to participate, attend and be a delegate at the convention. And so we separate out those unpledged delegates to make sure that there isn't competition between them.

TAPPER: I'm not sure that that would — that answer would satisfy an anxious young voter, but let's move on.


Tapper -- being the useless turd he is -- let her off with the "we love grassrooters, but we can't let them win" bullshit. If THAT doesn't make you mad, how about Bernie coming out of New Hampshire with the voters giving him 15 to 9 delegates over Shillary. BUT --- the actual DNC book-keeping books the sale at about 16 to 16...

And if THAT doesn't get mad -- Your own PARTY is gonna argue with you. Don't need to hear outrage from a marginalized political person like me. .MOVE ON --- that great "grassroots" DEM organization has almost 200,000 signatures on a petition to DNC to END this tyranny over the ballot box.

So just ho-hum and poo poo all ya want.. There's gonna be hell to pay when folks find out that MODERN TYRANNY starts with POLITICAL PARTIES disenfranchising and discounting the "will of the people".

Are you a member of the Democratic Party?

If not, it's hard to take your outrage on the part of Democrats seriously. But even so, you're mistaken on a number of points.

First of all, Hillary did not "bind up" any superdelegates before Iowa. Superdelegates are "unbound", that's the whole point of it. There's no "DNC book-keeping" - that's the media counting the delegates, not the DNC. The DNC doesn't count their "books" until the convention - nothing a superdelegate says right up until the first vote in the convention has any actual meaning.

As for "Sgt. Schultz", painting her as some sort of mastermind and dictator is so ludicrous in context of how it actually works that I can hardly keep a straight face.

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.. BOTH the DNC and MEDIA are counting those SuperDelegates,. THey are NOT "unbound". They have stated a CLEAR preference. They are patronage positions and are largely composed by CURRENTLY ELECTED Democrats and the leaders of the DNC. Ain't no Joe Average delegate.

Ask the WashPo what the Dem "delegate" count is. They will INCLUDE the Supertwits. And it will show that Bernie to date only has 6% of those "party snubs" who are there to make sure the DEM PARTY is in control of the process -- And not the people.

You gotta just deny a whole shitload of stuff to be in denial on this... Tell me -- WHY ARE THEY THERE? You have a better explanation than Sgt Schultz's non-answer??? They are there UNDOUBTABLY because the Party didn't LIKE the choices of McGovern and Carter.. THAT'S the real answer.. They are there because they don't TRUST mere citizens to determine who's "Democrat enough" to be a Prez candidate..

 

[Katzndogz]

SuperDelegates is blatant "voter disenfranchisement".. Those that SCREAM the loudest are usually guilty of it themselves...

No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.

That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.

Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???

Can you show me a single example of the Super Delegates turning an election against the Democratic candidate with the most pledged delegates?

Just name the year it happened.

Happens EVERY recent election cycle. . That's why the REPUBLICAN debate stage is ALWAYS overcrowded and the DEMS end up DISCOURAGING folks from EVEN ATTEMPTING to run..

That's simply not true. In 2008, for example, Obama won the party's nomination with the most delegates and the most superdelegates.

Hillary had those delegates. The DNC ordered them to change.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What do superdelegates have to do with debates?

The party doesn't have control over who can run for President. All you need is petition signatures.

SuperDelegates is a designed feature to shorten the primary bloodshed. Front load the support for the "perceived" winner and that person will not come out as scarred and bloodied by debates and competition.. The idiot media will declare the contest over as soon as the delegate count becomes lop-sided.

No idiot is gonna declare to run when they are facing a 15% deficit in delegates before they start. Only aging PRINCIPLED folks like Sanders who declares for reasons OTHER THAN WINNING are gonna line up for the process..

So how come there's not 12 or 15 candidates at the START of each DEM primary process? It's the fucking tyranny of what the PARTIES have become. That's why I dropped in here. Lot of couch patriots expecting the tyranny is gonna come from the Oval Office. It's coming from the 2 power whoring parties...

You're building an incorrect narrative by connecting dots that aren't connected. It's really pretty straight-forward.

The "superdelegate" system is more of a way to reward party faithful with importance than any of the conspiracy theories that you're putting together. The number of declared candidates has nothing to do with people being scared away by superdelegate counts - every candidate knows that if they rack up some primary wins, they'll get superdelegates to hop the fence to them.

Never said the number of declared delegates scare away potential candidates. It's the PARTY control that the DNC feels appropriate to wield that gives Dems such clearly stunted choice. If a candidate like Hillary can bind up the 760 SuperTwits BEFORE IOWA what's the sense of running a campaign on issues, proposals and character.. NOTE a citizen has yet voted --- and the PARTY has put a protective device in to ASSURE that party discipline is enforced. It's to cut short the democratic process and control the carnage.

Sgt Shultz can't even explain it.. Except for speaking out of both sides of her mouth about "weeding out grassroots candidates".. Meaning you OBEY the SGT or you're ass is grassroots. No dissent, no controversy, no new fangled grassy ideas tolerated.

We need more questions like this one from Jake Tapper to Debbie Wasserman Schultz [video]


TAPPER: Hillary Clinton lost to Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire by 22 percentage points, the biggest victory in a contested Democratic primary there since John F. Kennedy, but it looks as though Clinton and Sanders are leaving the Granite State with the same number of delegates in their pockets because Clinton has the support of New Hampshire's superdelegates, these party insiders. What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it's all rigged?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, let me just make sure that I can clarify exactly what was available during the primaries in Iowa and in New Hampshire. The unpledged delegates are a separate category. The only thing available on the ballot in a primary and a caucus is the pledged delegates, those that are tied to the candidate that they are pledged to support. And they receive a proportional number of delegates going into the — going into our convention.

Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots activists. We are, as a Democratic Party, really highlight and emphasize inclusiveness and diversity at our convention, and so we want to give every opportunity to grass-roots activists and diverse committed Democrats to be able to participate, attend and be a delegate at the convention. And so we separate out those unpledged delegates to make sure that there isn't competition between them.

TAPPER: I'm not sure that that would — that answer would satisfy an anxious young voter, but let's move on.


Tapper -- being the useless turd he is -- let her off with the "we love grassrooters, but we can't let them win" bullshit. If THAT doesn't make you mad, how about Bernie coming out of New Hampshire with the voters giving him 15 to 9 delegates over Shillary. BUT --- the actual DNC book-keeping books the sale at about 16 to 16...

And if THAT doesn't get mad -- Your own PARTY is gonna argue with you. Don't need to hear outrage from a marginalized political person like me. .MOVE ON --- that great "grassroots" DEM organization has almost 200,000 signatures on a petition to DNC to END this tyranny over the ballot box.

So just ho-hum and poo poo all ya want.. There's gonna be hell to pay when folks find out that MODERN TYRANNY starts with POLITICAL PARTIES disenfranchising and discounting the "will of the people".

Are you a member of the Democratic Party?

If not, it's hard to take your outrage on the part of Democrats seriously. But even so, you're mistaken on a number of points.

First of all, Hillary did not "bind up" any superdelegates before Iowa. Superdelegates are "unbound", that's the whole point of it. There's no "DNC book-keeping" - that's the media counting the delegates, not the DNC. The DNC doesn't count their "books" until the convention - nothing a superdelegate says right up until the first vote in the convention has any actual meaning.

As for "Sgt. Schultz", painting her as some sort of mastermind and dictator is so ludicrous in context of how it actually works that I can hardly keep a straight face.

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.. BOTH the DNC and MEDIA are counting those SuperDelegates,. THey are NOT "unbound". They have stated a CLEAR preference. They are patronage positions and are largely composed by CURRENTLY ELECTED Democrats and the leaders of the DNC. Ain't no Joe Average delegate.

Ask the WashPo what the Dem "delegate" count is. They will INCLUDE the Supertwits. And it will show that Bernie to date only has 6% of those "party snubs" who are there to make sure the DEM PARTY is in control of the process -- And not the people.

You gotta just deny a whole shitload of stuff to be in denial on this... Tell me -- WHY ARE THEY THERE? You have a better explanation than Sgt Schultz's non-answer??? They are there UNDOUBTABLY because the Party didn't LIKE the choices of McGovern and Carter.. THAT'S the real answer.. They are there because they don't TRUST mere citizens to determine who's "Democrat enough" to be a Prez candidate..

I'm going to break this up into parts.

THey are NOT "unbound". They have stated a CLEAR preference.

Those two statements are not contradictory. They may have "preferences", but they're not "bound" to them - they are able to change those preferences whenever they want, up until the day of the convention - and they almost always do. As has been pointed out many times already, in 2008 many of the superdelegates who initially supported Clinton ended up voting for Obama.

They are patronage positions and are largely composed by CURRENTLY ELECTED Democrats and the leaders of the DNC. Ain't no Joe Average delegate.

They are not "patronage positions", they're defined by DNC rules. No one at the DNC gets to choose who the superdelegates are, they're given that power by rules already in place due to winning elections, whether to government office or party position. As I've already said in this thread, my former business partner is a superdelegate this year, and he's no less of a "Joe Average" as you or I.

You gotta just deny a whole shitload of stuff to be in denial on this...

The only things that I'm "denying" is your massive conspiracy masterminded by the Dr. Evil-like Debbie W-S. The rest of your post is basically accurate.