• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NH, Hillary Barely Won Again

Lutherf said:
It's not supposed to be a fair system. It's designed specifically to insure that party unity is maintained and that the establishment get to decide the winners and losers. You have to understand that the core principle of the democrat party is that they know better than you do what's best for you.
Click to expand...

Says the man who's party is likely to nominate a Bush for the 4th time out of 8 and you will vote for him. Talk about sheep.
 
NonoBadDog said:
How are the Republicans going to "steal" the election? I gotta hear this.
Click to expand...

I say steal because the GOP is in total disarray and it is the Dems election to lose and Bernie just may do it for them. Don't you want the GOP to run against Bernie? Of course you do. Then they just have to lie and say Bernie is a "commie" and enough people will probably believe it. Bernie just migjht beat Trump but I doubt he will be the nominee. It looks like Bush again.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
I say steal because the GOP is in total disarray and it is the Dems to lose.
Click to expand...

If you want to think that go for it but nobody is going to "steal" anything unless it involves voter fraud.
 
roughdraft274 said:
That might be a fair point. The democratic party made the primary process in a way such that if the voters didn't go the way they want they had a way that they could legally subvert the vote.

But in that case, wouldn't you have to say the exact same thing about he founders of the country in setting up the electoral college in the first place? As a safeguard against the electorate voting in morons? Would you say the core principle of the founders of our country is that they know whats better for us than we do?
Click to expand...

The electoral college has the potential to be manipulated but it's MUCH more restricted as the number of electors is a Constitutional edict. There are no "bonus delegates" to the electoral college so the ability for a state to manipulate the outcome is limited and any elector who opts to switch sides in a hotly contested election would immediately receive more recognition than he or she could ever want.
 
Casper said:
Only one observation/question, do you actually believe Trump is a Conservative?
Click to expand...

No. He apparently just got whole of a new conservatism talking point list and he just keeps hurling red meat.

It appears that the 25% of people who are defenseless against persuasion are solidly behind trump. Not sure where they're falling for the dems, but the repetition of her slow, incremental progress being the only way meme, and that the money to pay for said persuasion is on her side I suspect its with her.
 
iguanaman said:
Says the man who's party is likely to nominate a Bush for the 4th time out of 8 and you will vote for him. Talk about sheep.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "likely". Based on what I'm seeing Jeb has about as much chance to with the nomination as you do. Unless Trump and Cruz are both killed in the same plane crash I don't see Bush picking up any more steam than he showed in NH and even then he'd still likely be behind Kasich and Rubio.
 
NonoBadDog said:
If you want to think that go for it but nobody is going to "steal" anything unless it involves voter fraud.
Click to expand...

Well there is another crooked GOP Governor here in Florida, but that is another story.
 
Lutherf said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "likely". Based on what I'm seeing Jeb has about as much chance to with the nomination as you do. Unless Trump and Cruz are both killed in the same plane crash I don't see Bush picking up any more steam than he showed in NH and even then he'd still likely be behind Kasich and Rubio.
Click to expand...

I will be surprised if he isn't 3rd in S. Carolina. He will crucify Rubio with negative ads and Kasich is toast in the South.. Bush has unlimited money behind him. You and I know that the GOP won't let Trump or Cruz be the nominee. its all over if they do. They have said that over and over. What's the matter? You don't like Jeb?
 
Casper said:
That is how it works in some States, same with the actual electoral votes that elect the President, do not like the rules work to change them. As for NH, who cares, we have more people living in DFW than the entire state of NH, they are not going to decide the nomination or the election. Oh and do not forget that while Bernie may do fine among NE Yankee Land Liberals he does not fare so well among Southern and Midwestern states where Hillary is far more popular. None the less it should be fun to watch and see if Bernie stands a chance of getting the nomination, there are a lot of Liberals that are no where near as Socialist as Bernie and realize that his ideas would only set this Nation on a pathway to More Debt, More Taxes, More Big Government, More Restrictive Laws and More Taxes (yes I mentioned it twice, it bears repeating) and even Less Economic Growth.
Click to expand...

It's a fact that Bernie is more popular with people who are able to read and write.
 
Lutherf said:
The electoral college has the potential to be manipulated but it's MUCH more restricted as the number of electors is a Constitutional edict. There are no "bonus delegates" to the electoral college so the ability for a state to manipulate the outcome is limited and any elector who opts to switch sides in a hotly contested election would immediately receive more recognition than he or she could ever want.
Click to expand...
"more recognition"? You say that as though that would stop some shady person from doing so. The way I look at it, even though I hate the democratic primary process, only about 800 of the delagate votes are super delegates, and about 3500 are delegates from the states based on votes. Meaning that the super delegates have a much reduced role in the outcome than does the electoral college since the electoral college comprises all of the votes. And yes, sine the founding, the electoral college has become essentially "they vote with who ever the state vote decides, but that's not how it started, hence my original reply.

It's funny to me how you so easily see such perversion in one system and such malice and hatred towards the voters, but refuse to acknowledge the same in the other system.
 
Lutherf said:
It's not supposed to be a fair system. It's designed specifically to insure that party unity is maintained and that the establishment get to decide the winners and losers. You have to understand that the core principle of the democrat party is that they know better than you do what's best for you.
Click to expand...



As exemplified by party chairman Debbie Wasserman-Smith said after getting stomped in the last election (House and Senate) "we know we are right". What we are used to losing parties saying is "the people have spoken, and we know we need to change"

You can't fix anything until you admit you have a problem. I never thought I'd say this but Americans have become meek. As and example I emailed Canada's new defense minister, the Right Honorable Harjit S. Sajjan, requesting information on a date for the withdrawal of Canada's bombers from Syria two weeks ago. The response I got was pure boiler plate, but at the bottom the code indicated it was the 2,059th on that subject.

I have no idea of the time frame in which they were received, but imagine having to pay some poor schmuck to answer all of them, and by law any communication over the signature of a minister must be seen by the minister, the poor man has had a lot of non-recreational reading...even if the answer was boilerplate.
 
calamity said:
I remember this Super Delegate thing coming up when Obama was running against her. It never came to it, but there was a strong indication that if he didn't start winning again after losing to Hillary in Ohio and Pennsylvania, that the SD's would shift to Hillary. Obama's win in NC may have saved him.

It's amazing how close Hillary came to almost catching him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008#Disputed_primaries

Check out her string of victories after March 1st. No wonder they never gave up.
Click to expand...

And who says the Democratic primaries aren't rigged? :lamo

Yeah, the system has been rigged by the political elites. Good thing that the electorate who's against this have Trump and Bernie (never mind they'll never make it).
 
Fearandloathing said:
As exemplified by party chairman Debbie Wasserman-Smith said after getting stomped in the last election (House and Senate) "we know we are right". What we are used to losing parties saying is "the people have spoken, and we know we need to change"

You can't fix anything until you admit you have a problem. I never thought I'd say this but Americans have become meek. As and example I emailed Canada's new defense minister, the Right Honorable Harjit S. Sajjan, requesting information on a date for the withdrawal of Canada's bombers from Syria two weeks ago. The response I got was pure boiler plate, but at the bottom the code indicated it was the 2,059th on that subject.

I have no idea of the time frame in which they were received, but imagine having to pay some poor schmuck to answer all of them, and by law any communication over the signature of a minister must be seen by the minister, the poor man has had a lot of non-recreational reading...even if the answer was boilerplate.
Click to expand...

The off year elections had such poor turnouts and are so riddled with gerrymandered results that it is disingenuous to even say "the people have spoken" about them. As far as bombers in Syria, I imagine it is too expensive after the last PM spent it all on that tar sands boondoogle. It appears the right wingers got to your pocketbook after all, despite the bragging about how Canada was unaffected by the 2008 financial meltdown . Join the club.
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
Hillary: Serial liar, sex-offender enabler and corporate stooge

Sanders: Wild-eyed socialist (whoever first said that should copyright it)

Trump: Charismatic personality-cult leader channeling nationalistic fervor and promoting the normalization of "othering."

Cruz: God's own candidate

Rubio: Depends on the weather. This week he is the apocalyptic, "the world will end if Hillary Clinton is elected" candidate.

Kasich: IMO, the best of the bunch but lacking money, organization and name-recognition, while also being seen as too liberal by "the Base."

Bush: Bush---no, we do not want another.

Christie: Another one who might have done better had the base not written him off because he once shook Obama's hand.

Paul: Too little too late, but perhaps the best candidate of all the people running above.

Carson: What the hell was that anyway?
Click to expand...

Skeery, isn't it?
 
Risky Thicket said:
It's a fact that Bernie is more popular with people who are able to read and write.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I do believe some of us Southerners are quite good at the three R's, hence why so many High Tech companies make their home here. I have nothing against Bernie, he seems like a smart man, problem is he wants to spend money we do not have and I am not in agreement with how he would get it. Socialism is great so long as you have a big old slush fund to draw from but if the fund is nothing but more IOU's then it is doomed to failure from the start. Do not get me wrong I am all for Social Programs that actually do some good and a wisely run and funded but as we both know that is not our history and I have seen no signs of that changing. Somewhere along the line someone has to draw a line in the sand and say we need to Reform our spending before adding any new expenditures to the already underfunded list of expenses. It would be a refreshing change indeed if we had politicians pushing for real Reforms in spending instead of the same old let's cut what we do not like then spend the money on more stuff we do like, as if there is actually any surplus to spend. We need to look Hard at every expenditure and make the needed cuts and reforms to ensure that we are spending our money wisely and that the monies that are spent and actually doing what it was intended to do, then and Only then can we even talk about adding more programs and expanding others. Bernie is not talking about real reforms but he is Big on more expenditures and yes more taxes, bad ideas under the current situation and this Liberal Independent cannot support it.
 
Here's the full quote between the CNN anchor and this Wasserman-Schultz creature:
Q: "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 "super-delegates," these party insiders. What do you tell voters who are new to the process who says this makes them feel like it's all rigged?"

A: "Well, let me just make sure that I can clarify exactly what was available during the primaries in Iowa and 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 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."​

What in the **** kind of answer to the question was that? That was a bunch of horse****.

Hope you "Democratic" Party faithful love and adore whoever your Party Leadership chooses for you on your behalf.
 
paraphrased:

"Well of course its rigged! We rigged everything for this exact reason, so we wouldn't have to be worried about someone as popular but non-establishment as Bernie. Have your fun feeling the Bern and surging in the polls. You can even win the popular votes in most of the states, it won't matter. You never had a chance. You're stuck with tails and its a double headed coin."

While sad, perhaps this will help birth a third party. Its becoming painfully obvious how bad things have been and for how long. Debbie thinks this is no big deal and should be obvious to everyone, how they've managed to put measures in place to undermine the will of the voters if they don't like it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom