Superdelegates in the Democratic Party (Primary) should be eliminated

Fogdog said:

LOL

Moore was a shoe in before the bad press happened. This is the perfect example of how you fabricate whatever falsehoods you like to support your false narrative.

Click to expand...

Sounds to me like you'd rather see a Republican win than a progressive.

Establishment Democratic shills feel the same way, but at least they're getting paid.

How's that working out for ya?

ttystikk said:

We're right. They're on the side of the corporatist 'opposition', which means they're used to cognitive dissonance. By now, it must feel as normal to them as voting for rich people who screw them over must feel to poor Republicans.

Click to expand...

ttystikk said:

The very fact of Chump in office is the best thing that's happened to the Left in America in my lifetime.

Click to expand...

This happened a bunch of times in another thread too.

ttystikk said:

Well, I was waiting for this. You're such an idiot; you posted numbers from a non binding poll that happened on May 24, 2016- almost months AFTER the binding caucus vote held on March 26, 2016.

And you conveniently ignore the fact that every one of the unpledged delegates voted for Clinton anyway.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Democratic_caucuses,_2016

It's all there, under the 'results' tab. You are really bad at this kind of disinformation.

So much for 'phony', idiot. The only phony here is you.

Click to expand...

so is your argument that washington state should have allotted their delegates based on the votes of 27,000 people instead of the votes of 800,000 people?

because the people of washington state wanted clinton, but they had to give all their delegates to bernie.

aren't you constantly crying about democracy and the will of the people and who is more popular?

ttystikk said:

Buckwit got his facts wrong. It's starting to look like a habit with him.

Click to expand...

sarin gas attacks and 650 step protocols.

UncleBuck said:

so is your argument that washington state should have allotted their delegates based on the votes of 27,000 people instead of the votes of 800,000 people?

because the people of washington state wanted clinton, but they had to give all their delegates to bernie.

aren't you constantly crying about democracy and the will of the people and who is more popular?

Click to expand...

Damn, sounds like those voters got stuffed into a dog kennel.

ttystikk said:

This is a lie.

Click to expand...

so hillary didn't win when 800,000+ people voted, but lose 47 net delegates based on the vote of 27,000 people?

ttystikk said:

democracy by the people

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

so is your argument that washington state should have allotted their delegates based on the votes of 27,000 people instead of the votes of 800,000 people?

because the people of washington state wanted clinton, but they had to give all their delegates to bernie.

aren't you constantly crying about democracy and the will of the people and who is more popular?

Click to expand...

They're called rules, moron. You want your vote to count, you show up when it matters.

Now you're gonna whine cuz it didn't go your way.

You really are a lying cheap shot artist, aren't you?

No one should believe anything you say without independent verification.

UncleBuck said:

sarin gas attacks and 650 step protocols.

Click to expand...

Squirrel!

abandonconflict said:

Damn, sounds like those voters got stuffed into a dog kennel.

Click to expand...

Squirrel!

Can't stay on topic on a bet, can you?

Especially when your Dear Bleeder is caught lying through his teeth!

UncleBuck said:

so hillary didn't win when 800,000+ people voted, but lose 47 net delegates based on the vote of 27,000 people?

Click to expand...

Rules. You wanna have a recount cuz you don't like the results?

Lying idiot clown.

UncleBuck said:

so hillary didn't win when 800,000+ people voted, but lose 47 net delegates based on the vote of 27,000 people?

Click to expand...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Democratic_caucuses,_2016

This time, try actually reading it.

Padawanbater2 said:

"[the JFA] specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff."

Click to expand...

Is that what you call ownership? If she owned the DNC there would be no need for an agreement that gave her control of the money she gave the DNC. What you posted is proof that the DNC was not owned by Clinton.

Has anybody in Sanders campaign said the DNC denied them access to the shared systems in the DNC offices? It is a fact that Sanders said he ran as a Democrat because it was too expensive to run as an independent. He needed access to the DNC's databases. He in fact did get access to that database. What evidence do you have that says Sanders was denied access that he was entitled to as a Democratic Party candidate?

ttystikk said:

Squirrel!

Click to expand...

you accused me of having my facts wrong and said i do it often. so i pointed out that you get your facts wrong in embarrassing ways far more often.

i didn;t even get any facts wrong though. when 800,000 people in washington state voted, they chose clinton. but bernie got all the delegates because rigged.

ttystikk said:

They're called rules, moron.

Click to expand...

so is your argument that washington state should have allotted their delegates based on the votes of 27,000 people instead of the votes of 800,000 people?

ttystikk said:

Squirrel!

Click to expand...

You spent months crying about name-calling and now you show up in my alerts to call me names on a post that wasn't even responding to you...

Here's how bernie can still win?

ttystikk said:

Sounds to me like you'd rather see a Republican win than a progressive.

Establishment Democratic shills feel the same way, but at least they're getting paid.

How's that working out for ya?

Click to expand...

You lost your argument. So you just divert a make up shit?

I'll repost what I originally replied to

ttystikk said:

My citations that you call strange support my perspectives. If you can't see the relevance, maybe that's down too your biases, not mine.

Even negative publicity is better than none.

Want proof? Look at Roy Moore. I'm being he's gonna win, at least in part BECAUSE of all that negative publicity!

Your 'rabid misogynists' claim is yet another attempt to gain support by saying something untrue and wildly off topic. Lame clown sauce that wouldn't stand for a second in any real debate.

Click to expand...

I repeat:

Your statement that negative press is better than none is disproven by your own example. Moore was winning handily before the bad press came out.

Padawanbater2 said:

"[the JFA] specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff."

Click to expand...

"Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign—and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.

If I didn’t know about this, I assumed that none of the other officers knew about it, either. That was just Debbie’s way. In my experience she didn’t come to the officers of the DNC for advice and counsel. She seemed to make decisions on her own and let us know at the last minute what she had decided, as she had done when she told us about the hacking only minutes before the Washington Post broke the news.

On the phone Gary told me the DNC had needed a $2 million loan, which the campaign had arranged.

“No! That can’t be true!” I said. “The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers.”

“Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?” I asked. “I don’t know how Debbie relates to the officers,” Gary said. He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee."

Padawanbater2 said:

"Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign—and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.

If I didn’t know about this, I assumed that none of the other officers knew about it, either. That was just Debbie’s way. In my experience she didn’t come to the officers of the DNC for advice and counsel. She seemed to make decisions on her own and let us know at the last minute what she had decided, as she had done when she told us about the hacking only minutes before the Washington Post broke the news.

On the phone Gary told me the DNC had needed a $2 million loan, which the campaign had arranged.

“No! That can’t be true!” I said. “The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers.”

“Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?” I asked. “I don’t know how Debbie relates to the officers,” Gary said. He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee."

Click to expand...

exactly my point.

Clinton didn't buy the DNC.

Padawanbater2 said:

"Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign—and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.

If I didn’t know about this, I assumed that none of the other officers knew about it, either. That was just Debbie’s way. In my experience she didn’t come to the officers of the DNC for advice and counsel. She seemed to make decisions on her own and let us know at the last minute what she had decided, as she had done when she told us about the hacking only minutes before the Washington Post broke the news.

On the phone Gary told me the DNC had needed a $2 million loan, which the campaign had arranged.

“No! That can’t be true!” I said. “The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers.”

“Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?” I asked. “I don’t know how Debbie relates to the officers,” Gary said. He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee."

Click to expand...