• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Fake "Democracy" gets what's coming to her

flexy

flexy

Diamond Member
There are some, who like myself, agree that this is a very fake "democracy". We have delegates pledging for nominees before all candidates are even running, we have big money literally buying candidates, we have an electorate where the outcome can be that a president is elected who has less popular votes than a contender, we have states where the election outcome is already clear beforehand so that an election is decided merely in a few "swing states".

As I understand, the pledged delegate idea was at some point implemented to "avoid a disaster" happening, aka to avoid that "stupid voters vote for stupid candidates" even if of course no-one would openly admit this being the purpose. (Or they would word it nicely 🙂 )

But ironically, this is what is happening right now.

People have gotten tired of established "sell-out" politics and Clinton, along with Trump etc. enjoy never-before-seen unfavorability ratings. We're now at a point where it is actually NOT a given whether Clinton will landslide Trump.

Trump himself, is a result of this fake democracy. The outcome of what happens if a political party puts up idiots and/or "moguls" and other types of figures which in no way represent "normal" people. (Not that I am saying Trump does, but he makes it SEEM as if he does and he's brilliant at it)

The mentality of some/many Trump supporters is just mind-boggling. By the way it is not the first time I heard statements such as "I don't really support Trump or his views, but I vote for him simply to see liberals go insane when he becomes president".
(This ALONE should give you an idea about some of those people's mental state)

We now have a very real chance that some of the most uneducated people who (by any applied common sense/logic) "SHOULD" not even vote, *could* possibly vote a person like Trump into office, something which COULD probably have been avoided if the system was truly democratic.

No, I am not a "Bernie Bro" fantasizing up some numbers, in-fact I could care less about the US elections - I don't even live there anymore! 🙂

But..saying that if Clinton becomes the nominee (which is 99% the case) and she LOSES...don't blame just "the dumb Trump voters", but blame also the fvcked up system that clearly had her at an advantage and then ultimately (because of this) made her losing.

Do I think that Bernie would have the better chances? I don't know. Same say so, others claim "Trump would crush Bernie". I don't know.

All I know is you don't take a HIGHLY unpopular figure like Clinton who is effing investigated by the FBI and favorite her and give her massive advantages with "pledged candidates"..because this may well backfire and odds are good it will...
 
The system actually worked to Bernie's advantage. He got more delegates than his share of the popular vote.

The system worked in both primaries. The person who had the support of the greatest number of primary voters won. How else should it have been? Had Bernie won that would indicate that the system was broken because the will of the voters wasn't being respected.
 
You may have been listening to the Bernie Bros a little too much. Bernie was on a ONE state winning streak, (Hilary won Kentucky 46.8% to 46.3%) and the Bernie Bros were all going into Super Tuesday with "he's got the momentum!" Then, Bernie got crushed in Puerto Rico by about a 2 to 1 margin, and Hilary got all 7 delegates from the Virgin Islands. Somehow, Bernie Bros seem to think that an almost tie in California means Bernie is WAY better and super delegates should switch over to supporting him.
 
eskimospy said:
The system actually worked to Bernie's advantage. He got more delegates than his share of the popular vote.

The system worked in both primaries. The person who had the support of the greatest number of primary voters won. How else should it have been? Had Bernie won that would indicate that the system was broken because the will of the voters wasn't being respected.
Click to expand...

The strangest part in my opinion is that we got a democratic vote in the Democratic Party for the candidate least likely to focus on the fact we no longer have a democracy. We will see the party continue to seek campaign contributions fron the wealthy and congressional doors open for bribery.

I look forward with hope Trump will be a refreshing change. Maybe start or cause a revolution.
 
DrPizza said:
You may have been listening to the Bernie Bros a little too much. Bernie was on a ONE state winning streak, (Hilary won Kentucky 46.8% to 46.3%) and the Bernie Bros were all going into Super Tuesday with "he's got the momentum!" Then, Bernie got crushed in Puerto Rico by about a 2 to 1 margin, and Hilary got all 7 delegates from the Virgin Islands. Somehow, Bernie Bros seem to think that an almost tie in California means Bernie is WAY better and super delegates should switch over to supporting him.
Click to expand...
That's been the narrative for the past two weeks. What would be the implications if Sanders won California? If you are a Hillary supporter, you argue that the voters have already spoken and the math is insurmountable, which are both true if you weigh precedence above all other things. If you are a Sanders supporter, you make the case for candidate strength against Trump, using polls and the FBI investigation as the rationale for the superdelegates switching their commitments, and also arguing that the process was never really democratic to begin with.

Nothing changed yesterday. Clinton still doesn't have enough pledged delegates to claim the nomination. The AP call was premature and perhaps made to impact the primaries today. Then you wonder why people are angry. To be fair this is probably not how Clinton wanted it to go down, and the premature call by the AP could tip emotions.
 
Last edited:
Starbuck1975 said:
That's been the narrative for the past two weeks. What would be the implications if Sanders won California? If you are a Hillary supporter, you argue that the voters have already spoken. If you are a Sanders supporter, you make the case for candidate strength against Trump, using polls and the FBI investigation as the rationale for the superdelegates switching their commitments.

Nothing changed yesterday. Clinton still doesn't have enough pledged delegates to claim the nomination. The AP call was premature and perhaps made to impact the primaries today. Then you wonder why people are angry. To be fair this is probably not how Clinton wanted it to go down, and the premature call by the AP could tip emotions.
Click to expand...

What a crazy world you must live in where facts are trumped by conspiracy.

Good luck convincing super delegates to flip their vote to the guy that won less total votes by three million, who won less pledged delegates by 300, who won less states and territories. I mean if that were to happen will you be talking about a rigged system? Will you be complaining about the will of the people being subverted?
 
meh. we all know she has it. it looks terrible though the delegate count being close then the "super delegates" who are party leaders get to decide.

IT looks unfair but anyone who thought Bernie was really going to win is nuts. he made one hell of a run though.
 
3 million more voters have voted for Hilary than have voted for Bernie. If this had been a general election she would be winning by an historic landslide. In fact, Hilary Clinton has garnered the most votes -- from, you know, the people -- than any candidate on either side. The people have spoken. Some don't want to listen. Sounds awfully "elitist" to me. D:
 
Starbuck1975 said:
If you are a Sanders supporter, you make the case for candidate strength against Trump, using polls and the FBI investigation as the rationale for the superdelegates switching their commitments, and also arguing that the process was never really democratic to begin with.
Click to expand...

Your case is terrible and depends on a series of events unfolding that have a such a low probability of occurring in the required manner that such hopes would best be described as delusional.
 
Perknose said:
3 million more voters have voted for Hilary than have voted for Bernie. If this had been a general election she would be winning by an historic landslide. In fact, Hilary Clinton has garnered the most votes -- from, you know, the people -- than any candidate on either side. The people have spoken. Some don't want to listen. Sounds awfully "elitist" to me. D:
Click to expand...

It is bizarre that the 'populist' candidate has started to advocate for the will of the people to be overturned by the party elite. You know people say Bernie Sanders sticks to his principles but it seems to me that they went out the window.
 
Let me ask this question then. Popular vote is irrelevant. Delegates are all that matter. Neither candidate achieved the pledged delegates to outright claim the nomination. Clinton will end the campaign with an approximate 300 to 400 delegate lead, which indicates the will of the people, or at least the will of the existing process.

At what point are the superdelegates allowed to consider pledged delegates a statistical tie? What if only 50 or 100 delegates separated the candidates? What is the magic threshold? And if the superdelegates exist only to rubber stamp the candidate who received the most pledged delegates, why do they even exist to begin with?

Another question. Let's assume the Republicans fielded a viable and credible threat for the general election, where polls indicating Sanders as the stronger general election candidate held more weight. Should the superdelegates reverse the will of the people in that scenario?
 
Last edited:
Starbuck1975 said:
Let me ask this question then. Popular vote is irrelevant. Delegates are all that matter. Neither candidate achieved the pledged delegates to outright claim the nomination. Clinton will end the campaign with an approximate 300 to 400 delegate lead, which indicates the will of the people, or at least the will of the existing process.

At what point are the superdelegates allowed to consider pledged delegates a statistical tie? What if only 50 or 100 delegates separated the candidates? What is the magic threshold? And if the superdelegates exist only to rubber stamp the candidate who received the most pledged delegates, why do they even exist to begin with?

Another question. Let's assume the Republicans fielded a viable and credible threat for the general election, where polls indicating Sanders as the stronger general election candidate held more weight. Should the superdelegates reverse the will of the people in that scenario?
Click to expand...

Running down a dream
That would never come to me.........
 
Here are the facts:

kn04mbG.jpg


https://ballotpedia.org/Open_primary

Hillary has won more Open Primaries than Bernie.

Bernie has won more closed or mixed primaries than open. So much for his "voter suppression". In one of the states he won the caucus and lost the primary which didn't count. No word on vote suppression from that one either.

He is grasping at straws and frankly his rabid supporters are using a Fox News level of bad information.

The 2383 includes Super Delegates. If it was a majority of pledge delegates the number is: 2026. An inconvenient fact that Bernie keeps forgetting. Also NO, ZERO, NOT ONE delegate votes before the convention, so that is another moot point. Bernie seems to have lost his own message now that he wants the Super Delegates to over ride the democratic process.
 
hal2kilo said:
Running down a dream
That would never come to me.........
Click to expand...

Dream on
Dream on
Dream on
Dream until your dreams come true

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one

Arrows fester in my heart
Each memory another dart
Love and death both colored red
Showing my past, the dream is dead
The dream is dead, yea
 
flexy said:
There are some, who like myself, agree that this is a very fake "democracy".
Click to expand...

There is nothing fake about our democracy. We still have a democratic process (we never were a real democracy, we are a republic), the question is who is engaged in it. The answer is very few, and of those mostly people with a entrenched interest in maintaining the status quo.

If people would have gotten out and voted for Berne he would have won. But people didn't. Maybe because they didn't think their vote was needed, maybe because they thought Hillary was already undefeatable, or more likely because they simply don't care.

Our democracy isn't' the problem our apathy is.
 
SMOGZINN said:
If people would have gotten out and voted for Berne he would have won. But people didn't.
Click to expand...

And if people had gotten out and voted for Lincoln Chafee, he would have won.

However, if people had gotten out and voted for Chafee but then Godzilla had risen from the sea and wrecked lethal havoc across the length and breadth of the republic such that the sole living survivor was Buttons, the pet chihuahua of deceased elderly widow Beatrice Grumplewaith, late of Sun City, Arizona, that would be quite the pickle.

Would you hold that pickle for me, please? I'm wearing the white gloves of a bridesmaid in a gender neutral wedding and don't want to get pickle juice all over them.

Hey, mang, just making a point, like cavemen did when laboriously striking flint against stone to fashion their arrow heads.

I know, I know, you don't much like my particular counter-factuals while possibly seeing nothing wrong with the screaming assumption behind yours.

So sue me! :colbert:

Just make sure to do it in the proper venue, moot court. 😉

:biggrin:
 
Perknose said:
3 million more voters have voted for Hilary than have voted for Bernie. If this had been a general election she would be winning by an historic landslide. In fact, Hilary Clinton has garnered the most votes -- from, you know, the people -- than any candidate on either side. The people have spoken. Some don't want to listen. Sounds awfully "elitist" to me. D:
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it looks like Sanders will receive a minority of the vote making any deligate majority for him to be counter intuitive and absurd. The best one can hope for is some tweaking of the current rules. There is no way to force sleepers to awaken and its elitist to think that you can. It looks like the country will have to suffer the loss of democracy to money until the sword of God appears.
 
No shit its not a democracy. Those gloves were taken off the moment one party decided to buy votes with handouts 40 years ago. And its only gotten worse since. And the supporters of that fatally flawed party cannot see or comprehend what it was that was so bad about this. Now it has tilted so far into extremism that this party is now bringing in illegals from leftist countries just to have their vote. And giving half a trillion per year to single moms on welfare so their hellspawn will grow up and vote for their party. These are acts of war, nothing democratic about it.
 
sm625 said:
No shit its not a democracy. Those gloves were taken off the moment one party decided to buy votes with handouts to corporate interests 40 years ago. And its only gotten worse since. And the supporters of that fatally flawed party cannot see or comprehend what it was that was so bad about this. Now it has tilted so far into extremism that this party is now bringing in illegals from leftist refugees fleeing impoverished and war torn countries just to have their vote cheap labor and to break unions and further degrade what little is left of the blue collar middle class.. And giving half a multiple trillions per year to single moms on welfare corporate fat cats and war profiteers so their hellspawn will grow up and vote for their party. These are acts of war, nothing democratic about it.
Click to expand...

FTFY :thumbsup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top