Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Eh, it didn't matter anyway. The incompetent people at my voting spot took my paperwork and slipped it into the ballet before I could actually write out my votes, and allegedly once it's put into the ballet it's too late. They told me "try again next election".
"Democracy", ayyy.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/07 23:50:03
BlaxicanX wrote: Eh, it didn't matter anyway. The incompetent people at my voting spot took my paperwork and slipped it into the ballet before I could actually write out my votes, and allegedly once it's put into the ballet it's too late. They told me "try again next election".
"Democracy", ayyy.
I have to wonder how many times that happened tonight...
Traditio wrote: Funny; I don't recall Trump supporters rioting and attacking people at Sanders' rallies.
Neither have Clinton or Sanders endorsed supporters committing violence at Trumpo rallies. In fact there isn't actually any indication that the people protesting at Trumpo rallies actually are Clinton or Sanders supporters, rather than simply anti-Trumpo people.
OTOH Trumpo actually is on record as endorsing violence against protestors at his rallies.
I know in Salt Lake, Sanders supporters tried, as a mob, to storm into the Trump rally. They ended up destroying some propert before they dispersed.
The article doesn't say that. It says they infiltrated carefully. There were some scuffles between both sides. When the rally was cancelled one of them ripped up a sign, and was attacked by Trump fans and had a bottle thrown at him.
I expect the sign being torn counts as property destruction in some sense of the term.
the article pretty much spells it out in plain English that it was a Sanders supporter who got the ball rolling and there was a fair sized group of Sanders supporters in on the disruptions with congratulations all around after it was over.
Actually, she's not. Victoria Claflin Woodhull..... Really not all that important historically, but she may come in handy for winning pub trivia night some day
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And now we've seriously got the argument that a nation founded on the ideas of liberty and freedom from persecution requires people to confirm to the majority, otherwise they're being racist. The Off-Topic forum never ceases to amaze me.
You should study more US history.... we were founded on those principles on paper... but in practice we were quite often quite far from those lofty ideals.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: I'll ask again, do you know why Donald Trump was selected to be audited? And do you know why he had been audited by the IRS every year for the past 14 years?
Generally speaking, and this really is generalized stuff here... the majority of people who are audited are done so because there is a "flag" or some other marker on their taxes that suggest that things may not be on the up and up. The purpose of the audit is to ensure that the person being audited did in fact file correctly, and that whatever caused the flag is a non-issue.
The fact that, as you say, Trumpo has been audited every single year for the past 14 years running suggests to me that there's a bit more than an "oops, I put the decimal point wrong on line 823 on form 11231124124-OD, I'll file an amendment right away," while obviously none of us can know for sure why Trump gets audited so much (unless of course, one of you gits is an IRS auditor), the suggestion to me is that he is misfiling, or perhaps even committing fraud or tax evasion or something. I'm not saying for certain that he is, merely that the bread crumbs suggest it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/08 00:45:19
Actually, she's not. Victoria Claflin Woodhull..... Really not all that important historically, but she may come in handy for winning pub trivia night some day
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And now we've seriously got the argument that a nation founded on the ideas of liberty and freedom from persecution requires people to confirm to the majority, otherwise they're being racist. The Off-Topic forum never ceases to amaze me.
You should study more US history.... we were founded on those principles on paper... but in practice we were quite often quite far from those lofty ideals.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: I'll ask again, do you know why Donald Trump was selected to be audited? And do you know why he had been audited by the IRS every year for the past 14 years?
Generally speaking, and this really is generalized stuff here... the majority of people who are audited are done so because there is a "flag" or some other marker on their taxes that suggest that things may not be on the up and up. The purpose of the audit is to ensure that the person being audited did in fact file correctly, and that whatever caused the flag is a non-issue.
The fact that, as you say, Trumpo has been audited every single year for the past 14 years running suggests to me that there's a bit more than an "oops, I put the decimal point wrong on line 823 on form 11231124124-OD, I'll file an amendment right away," while obviously none of us can know for sure why Trump gets audited so much (unless of course, one of you gits is an IRS auditor), the suggestion to me is that he is misfiling, or perhaps even committing fraud or tax evasion or something. I'm not saying for certain that he is, merely that the bread crumbs suggest it.
the link I linked earlier had the IRS commisioner saying it might not be so about Trump getting audited 14 years in a row.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/08 02:20:42
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
ulgurstasta wrote: Consider that she barely won against a political nobody while having the whole democratic party establishment behind here, It makes you think that her support outside the democratic establishment is weak.
People keep talking about how she's got the whole establishment behind her... but how does that produce votes. If a person is deciding between Clinton and Sanders, exactly how does the support of Warren or Biden or Kerry or push a person over to voting for Clinton? It makes no sense - candidates stand alone. Party establishment helps because of money... but then Sanders had plenty of money of his own so that's a wash.
There's also a weird thing going on, where people talk about Sanders as being a very good candidate, the guy who is gonna beat Trump. But then when people talk about Clinton having beaten Sanders... they say that doesn't show anything about Clinton because she only beat this nobody socialist.. Well people have to pick one.
Also Trumps strongpoint is his anti-establishment attiutde, which probably is going to work better against Hillary then Sanders.
Trump's strongpoint is his willingness to take already crazy Republican positions and turn them up to 11. It left Republicans in a weird position, on the one hand they wanted to show they were hardline to the brink of insanity on immigration or tax cuts, but then there's Trump who's marched way past the point of insanity. They couldn't point out Trump's position was totally loopy without also accepting their own position is right on the edge of ridiculousness.
Neither Clinton nor Sanders would have that problem in a general election.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: It makes no sense - candidates stand alone.
That would make sense if this weren't a party primary but it is so it does matter somewhat. I understand the basic concept but the idea that having the party backing someone in a party-centric election having no effect seems a bit off. Now it isn't everything, because if it was then she would have been the nominee in 2008.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
There's also a weird thing going on, where people talk about Sanders as being a very good candidate, the guy who is gonna beat Trump. But then when people talk about Clinton having beaten Sanders... they say that doesn't show anything about Clinton because she only beat this nobody socialist.. Well people have to pick one.
Thats because damn near every poll or article that I've seen on the subject, has Sanders beating Trump, in some cases, handily..... But I think there's also something to be said for the story of the "rigged" election going for the reason why Sanders is apparently not beating Clinton. The combination of the two create a situation where people who support Sanders aren't entirely comfortable with how we got to the results.
TheMeanDM wrote: Actually Sebster, if you take a step back and look at it....it does make sense.
But you have to understand how a caucus works....
I know how a caucus works, and I'll thank you to not be quite so silly in future.
And you're still missing the point - a caucus isn't an election and so can't pretend its an election, even if pretending it is makes Sanders look better.
We know less people show for caucus votes, because very fething obviously if voting takes a whole day instead of an hour then less people are going to do it. And we know the ones who remain are going to be the most committed supporters. And we know in this cycle Sanders has had a significant advantage in enthusiasm over Clinton. That's why the best models for predicting state votes have taken demographic data and then factored in whether the vote is closed, open or a caucus (with the first helping Clinton and the latter two helping Sanders).
As such, it's completely idiotic to take the advantage of it being a caucus, and then start to pretend that a popular vote had taken place. It would be equally ridiculous for the Clinton camp to notice that their best states were closed primaries, and then to claim that if they'd been open the vote total would have been greater, so she was just going to increase the vote count to what it might have been in an open primary... but keeping the vote shares the same.
You of course, instinctively know that last example is incredibly silly. And yet you can't see the exact same thing when it's applied to the caucus states... because you want to believe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: This is the end result of a culture infested with identity politics.
I repeat myself, but the idea that someone is unable to objectively and professionally perform his/her job OR perform it better because of your race *is* by definition racism. But, because identity politics is so pervasive in our culture, many are blind to it.
First up, I think you've got the bull before the horns - we had racism long before we had identity politics. Blaming racism on identity politics is out of sync by about 500 years.
Second up, recognising that a different background brings a different perspective is not racism. Seeing that a committee of six white women might benefit from a different point of view if the seventh member was a black man isn't sexist or racist. What is racist is the decision that because a person is of a background then he must be incapable in some thing or another.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: He has a point. We must be careful that separation does not intensify. The Balkans is an excellent example of what happens when you do that. Rwanda, Iraq and Afghanistan are others. The wars between the Scottish clans would be another. Clan McBlarrghhh vs. Clan McBLLarrgghh.
Separate too much and you become tribes in the area, and not the nation.
The primary driver of aggressive seperation isn't from people speaking of their own identity, but when the dominant tribe tells the rest that they can't be any different If a person says "I am a Chinese American"... well so what? They're still going to work to get food on the table and a roof over their head, still gonna raise kids and try and get a babysitter once a month so they can go out on a date night and get really angry about the latest TMNT movie.
But if someone says to them that they aren't Chinese American, but instead are just American... well then you get seperation. Because that's denying them their heritage, telling them that unique experiences they had because of their background should just be ignored or maybe even denied. That's not healthy and that's where you actually see seperation start.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/06/08 02:51:00
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Regardless, the FBI is currently investigation Clinton but has not named any federal statute that she is accused of violating (because they don't have to). I know to some people, coughcough::Whembly::cough, an investigation equals guilt but we'll have to wait and see. We won't know if it's criminal until they get to the end of it.
She's guilty as hell and it doesn't take a partisan to come to that conclusion.
whembly wrote: This is the end result of a culture infested with identity politics.
I repeat myself, but the idea that someone is unable to objectively and professionally perform his/her job OR perform it better because of your race *is* by definition racism. But, because identity politics is so pervasive in our culture, many are blind to it.
First up, I think you've got the bull before the horns - we had racism long before we had identity politics. Blaming racism on identity politics is out of sync by about 500 years.
You misunderstand my point. It isn't that racism = identity politics. It's the fact that identity politics is everywhere, such that people are numb to the implications... such as Trump believing that his judge cannot objectively do his job on the simple basis of his ethnicity.
Second up, recognising that a different background brings a different perspective is not racism. Seeing that a committee of six white women might benefit from a different point of view if the seventh member was a black man isn't sexist or racist. What is racist is the decision that because a person is of a background then he must be incapable in some thing or another.
Right.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/08 03:02:03
BlaxicanX wrote: Well, I'll be voting in about an hour or so. What do I do, guys? I dislike both of the Democratic nominees, but I don't dislike either of them as much as I dislike the Republican ones.
Hillary will likely win the nomination, and likely will likely go on to win the presidency, but she's a TPP supporter her foreign policy ideas are gak and I'm not interested in America getting dragged into another "intervention".
I like all of Bernie's ideas from a moral perspective, but at best, if he became President 90% of what he wants to achieve will never, ever go anywhere while at worst, I'm not confident that he could beat the Republican opposition in the primary even if he did somehow clinch the Democratic nomination.
What do?
Write in a candidate or vote for one of the lesser ones.
Hope everyone in OC voted against the two judge candidates involved in the big OC prosecutors scandal. I can't believe they had the chutzpah to run.
The primary driver of aggressive seperation isn't from people speaking of their own identity, but when the dominant tribe tells the rest that they can't be any different If a person says "I am a Chinese American"... well so what? They're still going to work to get food on the table and a roof over their head, still gonna raise kids and try and get a babysitter once a month so they can go out on a date night and get really angry about the latest TMNT movie.
But if someone says to them that they aren't Chinese American, but instead are just American... well then you get seperation. Because that's denying them their heritage, telling them that unique experiences they had because of their background should just be ignored or maybe even denied. That's not healthy and that's where you actually see seperation start.
do you see what you write? how is 4 people 1 American, 1 Irish-American, 1 Chinese-American and 1 African-America is not a separation? if all American you have one group of Americans, but with the appalations of a specific culture or group type now we have 4 groups, not one.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
If individual votes had been counted in caucus states...instead of the ridiculous caucus system....Clinton would not be able to claim a 3m vote lead in popular voting.
That is all I, and the article, was saying. But you seem to get your panties twisted in a bunch or some kind of rage induced vision when it comes to things I post....even if they make sense. Its like you purposely go out of your way to twist things.
Do I believe that Sanders would be winning the popular vote? Not at this moment, based on (you are wholly correct) the fact that caucus states DO INDEED have lower voter turnout.
The 3m votes from the primary states would be damn hard to overcome based on that fact.
I never said he would succeed in doing that....neither did the article.
Just pointing out the fallacy in saying she has a 3m vote lead as it does not accurately reflect all individuals voting.
If individual votes had been counted in caucus states...instead of the ridiculous caucus system....Clinton would not be able to claim a 3m vote lead in popular voting.
That is all I, and the article, was saying. But you seem to get your panties twisted in a bunch or some kind of rage induced vision when it comes to things I post....even if they make sense. Its like you purposely go out of your way to twist things.
Do I believe that Sanders would be winning the popular vote? Not at this moment, based on (you are wholly correct) the fact that caucus states DO INDEED have lower voter turnout.
The 3m votes from the primary states would be damn hard to overcome based on that fact.
I never said he would succeed in doing that....neither did the article.
Just pointing out the fallacy in saying she has a 3m vote lead as it does not accurately reflect all individuals voting.
Meanwhile the primaries are coming in and, well wouldn't ya know it, Sanders is nowhere near the 65% of the vote he would have needed to draw level in pledged delegates. He's had a thumping win in North Dakota, and Montana is still tight, but other than that? South Dakota was a tie, New Mexico was a 52-48 win for Clinton, and New Jersey was a big Clinton win - 63 to 37. California is in the early stages of counting, but its 62-36 for Clinton at this point.
So Clinton will extend her lead in votes and extend her lead in pledged delegates. She will have beaten Sanders through the simple strategy of having more people vote for her. Do you think everyone can move on now, realise that the more popular candidate won?
And then can everyone focus on November, because holy crap the Republicans are running a guy who thinks we should bring back CFCs because he likes the older kind of hairspray.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: That would make sense if this weren't a party primary but it is so it does matter somewhat. I understand the basic concept but the idea that having the party backing someone in a party-centric election having no effect seems a bit off. Now it isn't everything, because if it was then she would have been the nominee in 2008.
But how does it impact someone's vote? Seriously, if someone is on the border between Sanders and Clinton, and the party is behind Clinton... is that person going to switch to support Clinton? How does that process work?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Thats because damn near every poll or article that I've seen on the subject, has Sanders beating Trump, in some cases, handily.....
Sure, because Republicans never attacked Sanders, because he never going to win the general. It's pretty crazy to think polls right now give a good impression of how Sanders will fare in November, after half a year of dedicated Republican attacks.
But I think there's also something to be said for the story of the "rigged" election going for the reason why Sanders is apparently not beating Clinton. The combination of the two create a situation where people who support Sanders aren't entirely comfortable with how we got to the results.
Yeah, but that narrative has been bs from day one. From day one there's been a story that Clinton is only winning because of super-delegates, and then on top of that we've had stories about shenanigans (remember how we were supposed to be outraged about the Nevada process, in which the Sanders camp was dismayed that they weren't able to game the system to get more delegates than Clinton... in a state where they lost the caucus).
And through out all that nonsense and it's ignored the basic reality that Clinton has won more states by more votes, to secure more pledged delegates.
Democracy people. Get more votes, win elections.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: You misunderstand my point. It isn't that racism = identity politics. It's the fact that identity politics is everywhere, such that people are numb to the implications... such as Trump believing that his judge cannot objectively do his job on the simple basis of his ethnicity.
Sure, but the reality is that people were plenty bigoted before identity politics came in to fashion. So when Trump says something racist, it's probably because he's playing up to the same old racists who've been around since forever, and not for any other reason.
I do get your point that identity politics does muddy the water, but the answer isn't to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Diversity has a place and it has value, even if it is sometimes used to argue for token placements and other problematic things. And denying the value of that diversity is probably the worst thing we can do if we want racism to diminish.
It repeats the same silly error I was pointing out originally - the caucuses massively impact the people who vote in those states. You can come up with an okay guess of which way the participants in the caucus probably split their support, but you can never say which what the vote tally might have been if an actual vote had been held. A caucus that went 60-40 to Sanders might have been 55-45 to Sanders in an actual vote, or maybe even changed enough to change for Clinton.
You can't just ignore that and 'convert' caucus participation to votes, because it's an entirely different process.
You can make the argument that the vote total is misleading because it's combining two kinds of elections, closed and open, and failing to include the third kind of election entirely. Perhaps even better is the argument that the voting total is completely irrelevant, because it is the pledged delegates that matter. Personally I only use the vote total in addition to the pledged delegate count because so many people don't understand how pledged delegates are assigned.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote: do you see what you write? how is 4 people 1 American, 1 Irish-American, 1 Chinese-American and 1 African-America is not a separation? if all American you have one group of Americans, but with the appalations of a specific culture or group type now we have 4 groups, not one.
You're arguing that you can't have groups within a group. It's beyond absurd.
Can people be left handed, and also be American? Or does everyone have to be just American, because using any other descriptor at all is tearing this once great nation apart....
If individual votes had been counted in caucus states...instead of the ridiculous caucus system....Clinton would not be able to claim a 3m vote lead in popular voting.
Nope, your argument is a total fail, because you have no idea how the states would have voted under a different system. Read the words slowly - a caucus impacts the result in that state, it favours a candidate with a more enthusiastic core of voters over a candidate with a larger but less enthusiastic voter base.
If you want to talk about what might have happened in a state with no caucus... then the actual reality of that would be Clinton winning a bunch more delegates.
Do I believe that Sanders would be winning the popular vote? Not at this moment, based on (you are wholly correct) the fact that caucus states DO INDEED have lower voter turnout.
And you keep missing the point that they are low participating states, and states that went for Sanders because they ran caucuses.
This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 2016/06/08 04:46:06
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
@Sebster: I don't disagree with you. I was just pointing out how the popular vote was calculated in caucus states even though they aren't recorded, and if factored in, don't really change the total popular vote count enough to be significant.
If you want a good illustration about how much a caucus depresses the vote and how Sanders benefits from that depressed vote, take a look at the ND and SD votes tonight. (Caveat- I live in SD so I find this interesting). Both have extremely similar demographics and political leanings. ND was a caucus and SD was a primary. The results? Sanders won ND by +40% over Clinton. In SD, Clinton won by two.
Another interesting takeaway from the SD vote was Trump was only able to get 67% and he was unopposed.
Asterios wrote: do you see what you write? how is 4 people 1 American, 1 Irish-American, 1 Chinese-American and 1 African-America is not a separation? if all American you have one group of Americans, but with the appalations of a specific culture or group type now we have 4 groups, not one.
You're arguing that you can't have groups within a group. It's beyond absurd.
Can people be left handed, and also be American? Or does everyone have to be just American, because using any other descriptor at all is tearing this once great nation apart....
can be? people are, but do they need to shout it out? no, I don't say I'm Scottish American, or Swedish American, or Irish American, or anything else, I'm just an American plain and simple I don't have a desperate need to pigeon hole myself into something because I feel insecure about who I am, if you feel that need you go right ahead too. but me I'm American and Proud.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Whelp it looks like Sanders has seen the writing on the wall and those of you thinking (hoping?) he would run third party seem to be out of luck. Tomorrow he is cutting his staff by over half and has requested a meeting with Obama on Thursday. He might still "stay in" until the convention, but this certainly doesn't look like the actions of a man who is considering an independent run.
Gordon Shumway wrote: @Sebster: I don't disagree with you. I was just pointing out how the popular vote was calculated in caucus states even though they aren't recorded, and if factored in, don't really change the total popular vote count enough to be significant.
If you want a good illustration about how much a caucus depresses the vote and how Sanders benefits from that depressed vote, take a look at the ND and SD votes tonight.
Heh, I popped back in to this thread after seeing ND and SD and the effect that the caucus had
And yeah, I take your point that it doesn't really change the vote margin, but even then I still wanted to make the case as strongly as possible (just not necessarily to you). I probably didn't communicate that in the best way possible.
Another interesting takeaway from the SD vote was Trump was only able to get 67% and he was unopposed.
There's speculation about what that might mean for his numbers for the Upper Midwest in general. It's speculation of course, but it isn't a good sign for Trump.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote: can be? people are, but do they need to shout it out? no, I don't say I'm Scottish American, or Swedish American, or Irish American, or anything else
They are is the point. It is nothing to do with how much people talk about it, it is about a basic recognition of the reality that people from different backgrounds have different life experiences.
Whether a person identifies with it or doesn't, it still remains a reality.
I'm just an American plain and simple I don't have a desperate need to pigeon hole myself into something because I feel insecure about who I am, if you feel that need you go right ahead too. but me I'm American and Proud.
And that's where we get to the real weirdness of this. You think claiming some kind of ethnic heritage has some kind of basis in insecurity, but then in the next sentence you're proclaiming you are proud to be American.
You're asking us to believe that saying "I'm Indian American" is based in insecurity, but "I'm American and Proud" comes from a place of strong self esteem.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/08 05:25:17
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
If anybody happened to be watching CNN's election coverage tonight, it was exactly like this thread has been for the past few weeks. Just try to follow Trump's supporter's "logic" here. It was a bloodbath.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/08 05:32:49
So now that Hillary is officially the Democrat Party nominee (not that there was any doubt) we just need to see who gets the best bump out of the conventions. Then it's OFF TO THE DEBATES!! ...again.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/08 05:42:19
As much as I dislike it, it's been pretty obvious for a while that Sanders wasn't going to win the nomination. So I'm looking at what I feel to be most important to me: the TPP.
And despite the fact that I despise Trump on a number of things, the fact that Clinton has championed the TPP, and lobbyists expect her to sign the treaty if she is elected.
I’ve taken over @HillaryClinton's Snapchat, encouraging voters to support her in the CA primary.
Bill Clinton on snapchat ... what could possibly go wrong there !
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Having the backing of the party leadership seems pretty handy for things like access to mass media and favour with superdelegates. Like, superdelegates are capable of swaying the nomination to the person with fewer popular votes. It's what they're there for. They're meant to give the Democratic Party a greater degree of control over a populist candidate.
To claim that the open support of the party leadership has no bearing on an inter-party election when there are mechanics in place to specifically give the party leadership influence over the outcome is silly.
BlaxicanX wrote: Eh, it didn't matter anyway. The incompetent people at my voting spot took my paperwork and slipped it into the ballet before I could actually write out my votes, and allegedly once it's put into the ballet it's too late. They told me "try again next election".
BlaxicanX wrote: Eh, it didn't matter anyway. The incompetent people at my voting spot took my paperwork and slipped it into the ballet before I could actually write out my votes, and allegedly once it's put into the ballet it's too late. They told me "try again next election".
"Democracy", ayyy.
I have to wonder how many times that happened tonight...
Don't worry. That vote will be properly accounted for. Oh look Hillary won.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/08 11:05:37
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
