Democratic National Convention & Protests Super(delegate)thread - Goodbye, Bernie
1,979 replies, posted
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50779777]James Comey is a republican from the Reagan days.
He looked at Clintons "crimes" and gave her a pass.
A [B]fucking reagan conservative gave her a pass[/B]
no matter how much I want to believe she's guilty, she's probably not guilty.[/QUOTE]
Comey's political history had absolutely nothing to do with his testimony, and he adamantly defended that in Congress. The FBI was tasked with finding whether or not she had criminal intent in mishandling classified information. They found that she did mishandle it, but she's extremely careless, and can't prove [I]with absolute certainty[/I] if there was criminal intent for an indiction. Republicans are pissed because the information was mishandled and for whatever reason there's no consequence for her because she's no longer a federal employee.
She is being investigated now for perjury because in many of her previous statements she claimed there was no classified information sent or received, which was proven false.
[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;50779788]So delegates [i]have[/i] to adhere to the results from the primaries, right? Why are people talking about Sanders being placed in nomination? Not a rhetorical question, is there some scenario I don't know about where the results are still contested?[/QUOTE]
Some freak political event happens? Clinton's incapacitated somehow?
Actually here's a question: what happens if the nominee of a party becomes incapacitated during the election? Who replaces them?
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;50779810]Some freak political event happens? Clinton's incapacitated somehow?
Actually here's a question: what happens if the nominee of a party becomes incapacitated during the election? Who replaces them?[/QUOTE]
probably their VP
[QUOTE=TheHydra;50779832]probably their VP[/QUOTE]
Is their precedent for that when they're a presidential nominee and not President? I could see that not going down well - though considering incapacitation would most likely mean death, emotion would be running so high it'd probably be the only logical choice.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;50779810]Some freak political event happens? Clinton's incapacitated somehow?
Actually here's a question: what happens if the nominee of a party becomes incapacitated during the election? Who replaces them?[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/hey_wait_a_minute/2000/10/dead_presidentelect.html[/url]
A big problem happens, actually
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50779854][url]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/hey_wait_a_minute/2000/10/dead_presidentelect.html[/url]
A big problem happens, actually[/QUOTE]
I didn't know Slate existed in 2000.
Oh god the music.
[QUOTE=plunger435;50779800]State primaries determine who the state nominates, so when they come up and say, "We nominate Sanders." they mean Sanders won the state primary.[/QUOTE]
Except for states where he won the popular vote and still lost the majority of delegates. Nothing to see here, everybody! #ImWithHer
[QUOTE=srobins;50779906]Except for states where he won the popular vote and still lost the majority of delegates. Nothing to see here, everybody! #ImWithHer[/QUOTE]
Are you talking about superdelegates or pledged delegates?
There isn't a single state that Sanders won the popular vote in, but lost in pledged delegates.
[QUOTE=srobins;50779906]Except for states where he won the popular vote and still lost the majority of delegates. Nothing to see here, everybody! #ImWithHer[/QUOTE]
Which states?
nancy pelosi is terrifying
[QUOTE=plunger435;50779912]Are you talking about superdelegates or pledged delegates?
There isn't a single state that Sanders won the popular vote in, but lost in pledged delegates.[/QUOTE]
Both, I think it was Wyoming that announced a few minutes ago they were giving majority delegates to Clinton despite Sanders winning the primary.
[QUOTE=srobins;50779950]Both, I think it was Wyoming that announced a few minutes ago they were giving majority delegates to Clinton despite Sanders winning the primary.[/QUOTE]
0 states had more pledged delegates with less popular vote. Saying otherwise is lying.
Wyoming tied in pledged delegates because of the popular vote, with Sanders actually winning it.
Just like Clinton actually won South Dakota on the popular vote, but split half with Sanders because of the total pledged delegate amount. It's math not rigging the vote. When they're tied in pledged they decided using super delegates.
So if you're using Wyoming to say it's rigged you should be complaining that Sanders also did the same exact thing. (Though you shouldn't because you'd be wrong.)
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50779854][url]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/hey_wait_a_minute/2000/10/dead_presidentelect.html[/url]
A big problem happens, actually[/QUOTE]
Well that's concerning.
I also found this from the article:
"The man who loses the national popular vote next month might nonetheless win the electoral vote."
... Slate actually predicted what happened in 2000. That's some hell of a coincidence.
EDIT:
No seriously I knew when the article mentioned it that this had already happened, but to me this opens new insight into what's happening right now in the States...
[QUOTE=plunger435;50779979]0 states had more pledged delegates with less popular vote. Saying otherwise is lying.
Wyoming tied in pledged delegates because of the popular vote, with Sanders actually winning it.
Just like Clinton actually won South Dakota on the popular vote, but split half with Sanders because of the total pledged delegate amount. It's math not rigging the vote. When they're tied in pledged they decided using super delegates.
So if you're using Wyoming to say it's rigged you should be complaining that Sanders also did the same exact thing. (Though you shouldn't because you'd be wrong.)[/QUOTE]
South Dakota gave Clinton 15 delegates compare to Sanders' 10. Am I missing something?
[editline]26th July 2016[/editline]
And I never said anything about pledged delegates for fuck sake, can you just go off what's in my post instead of injecting your own shit into it?
[QUOTE=srobins;50780016]South Dakota gave Clinton 15 delegates compare to Sanders' 10. Am I missing something?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, South Dakota only has a total of 20 pledged delegates. 15+10=|=20
Clinton got 10 in South Dakota with 51.1% of the popular vote.
Sanders got 10 in South Dakota with 48.9% of the popular vote.
Clinton got 2 of the super delegates in South Dakota for 12 total.
Sanders got 0 of the super delegates in South Dakota for 10 total.
3 super delegates went undecided.
[QUOTE=srobins;50780016][B]And I never said anything about pledged delegates for fuck sake[/B], can you just go off what's in my post instead of injecting your own shit into it?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=plunger435;50779912]Are you talking about superdelegates or pledged delegates?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=srobins;50779950][B]Both[/B], I think it was Wyoming that announced a few minutes ago they were giving majority delegates to Clinton despite Sanders winning the primary.[/QUOTE]
You explicitly mentioned both pledged and super delegates.
Not to mention if you were only talking about supers South Dakota only has 5 of those, not the 25 total you're using.
[QUOTE=plunger435;50780036]Yeah, South Dakota only has a total of 20 pledged delegates. 15+10=|=20
Clinton got 10 in South Dakota with 51.1% of the popular vote.
Sanders got 10 in South Dakota with 48.9% of the popular vote.
Clinton got 2 of the super delegates in South Dakota for 12 total.
Sanders got 0 of the super delegates in South Dakota for 10 total.
3 super delegates went undecided.
You explicitly mentioned both pledged and super delegates.
Not to mention if you were only talking about supers South Dakota only has 5 of those, not the 25 total you're using.[/QUOTE]
Right.. Which means Clinton got more delegates than Sanders I'm the state she won.. Whereas Sanders got less delegates in the state he won. Clearly I'm still missing something. And yeah I said both because I'm factoring both in when I say someone got more delegates than they deserved. The statement is only false when you assert I'm talking specifically about pledged delegates, which I'm not..
[QUOTE=srobins;50780089]Right.. Which means Clinton got more delegates than Sanders I'm the state she won.. Whereas Sanders got less delegates in the state he won. Clearly I'm still missing something. And yeah I said both because I'm factoring both in when I say someone got more delegates than they deserved. The statement is only false when you assert I'm talking specifically about pledged delegates, which I'm not..[/QUOTE]
Because you have a fundamental misunderstanding on the difference between a pledged and un-pledged delegate. Pledge delegates are the popular vote, they are directly determined by the popular vote, and there hasn't been a time where someone has won the popular vote but lost in pledged delegates. Un-pledged delegates represent the party as a whole, not the state.
It's kind of sad how completely and utterly the republicans have poisoned the well. Not only did their decades of covert racism give rise to Trump but they also made it actually really difficult to criticize Clinton. Right wing attacks on her are so excessive, so constant, that a lot of her flaws get pushed by the wayside because people don't want to be associated with nutjobs.
[QUOTE=srobins;50780089]Right.. Which means Clinton got more delegates than Sanders I'm the state she won.. Whereas Sanders got less delegates in the state he won. Clearly I'm still missing something. And yeah I said both because I'm factoring both in when I say someone got more delegates than they deserved. The statement is only false when you assert I'm talking specifically about pledged delegates, which I'm not..[/QUOTE]
Are you going to also complain that Obama cheated in the primary and Clinton should have been president in the 2008 election cycle?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50779759]i'm not even sure if people are ironic anymore or not[/QUOTE]
I'm constantly reminded of that Simpsons episode with Frank Grimes. It's like we're suddenly in a world operating on the rules of a comedy, which as in that episode, is terrifying.
[QUOTE=plunger435;50780128]Because you have a fundamental misunderstanding on the difference between a pledged and un-pledged delegate. Pledge delegates are the popular vote, they are directly determined by the popular vote, and there hasn't been a time where someone has won the popular vote but lost in pledged delegates. Un-pledged delegates represent the party as a whole, not the state.[/QUOTE]
Jesus Christ, you're like a wall lol. You're arguing about something you made up in your own head. Bernie won Wyoming and still lost the delegates. Clinton won South Dakota and still won the delegates. Done?
[editline]26th July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=plunger435;50780139]Are you going to also complain that Obama cheated in the primary and Clinton should have been president in the 2008 election cycle?[/QUOTE]
I would if there was fucking evidence that the DNC had colluded to elect Obama.
[QUOTE=srobins;50780206]Jesus Christ, you're like a wall lol. You're arguing about something you made up in your own head. Bernie won Wyoming and still lost the delegates. Clinton won South Dakota and still won the delegates. Done?
[editline]26th July 2016[/editline]
I would if there was fucking evidence that the DNC had colluded to elect Obama.[/QUOTE]
Pledged delegates and Un-pledged delegates have both been a part of the Democratic Party since 1968. I didn't "Make them up in my head" to argue with you, it's an established party tradition. It's only this year that legislation is being passed to tie un-pledged delegates to the states and not the party as a whole.
And on the second point, Clinton won the popular vote, Obama won the delegate count, shouldn't Clinton have won in delegates if that was the case, going by what you're arguing.
Clinton Popular Vote 2008: 17,857,501
Obama Popular Vote 2008: 17,584,692
Clinton Delegates 2008: 1,973
Obama Delegates 2008: 2,285
Isn't that what you were just complaining about?
[QUOTE=plunger435;50780312]Pledged delegates and Un-pledged delegates have both been a part of the Democratic Party since 1968. I didn't "Make them up in my head" to argue with you, it's an established party tradition. It's only this year that legislation is being passed to tie un-pledged delegates to the states and not the party as a whole.
And on the second point, Clinton won the popular vote, Obama won the delegate count, shouldn't Clinton have won in delegates if that was the case, going by what you're arguing.
Clinton Popular Vote 2008: 17,857,501
Obama Popular Vote 2008: 17,584,692
Clinton Delegates 2008: 1,973
Obama Delegates 2008: 2,285
Isn't that what you were just complaining about?[/QUOTE]
Love how you're just skipping over the fact that I was right about Wyoming. You didn't make up delegates, you made up the arbitrary distinction that I was talking specifically about pledged delegates.
That was a nice video package built on lies. Good to see the Dem platform has it's priorities in line.
[QUOTE=srobins;50780369]Love how you're just skipping over the fact that I was right about Wyoming. You didn't make up delegates, you made up the arbitrary distinction that I was talking specifically about pledged delegates.[/QUOTE]
Because popular vote has absolutely no bearing on the un-pledged delegates, and has never been the case. I pointed out that this happens in every single election to show you it's not some new trick they pulled to put Sanders down, and that he still won his share of the Wyoming pledged. You also were talking about pledged, you said so yourself. You're trying to say pledged and un-pledged have no distinction, I've gone out of my way multiple times to show you this difference.
And I could also point out how your complaint is that out of 4,763 delegates total for the election you picked the state with the absolute lowest stateside delegate count of 18 (That's the reason they had to split the pledged delegates by the way) where he only lost by 4 un-pledged delegates.
[QUOTE=plunger435;50780399]Because popular vote has absolutely no bearing on the un-pledged delegates, and has never been the case. I pointed out that this happens in every single election to show you it's not some new trick they pulled to put Sanders down, and that he still won his share of the Wyoming pledged. You also were talking about pledged, you said so yourself. You're trying to say pledged and un-pledged have no distinction, I've gone out of my way multiple times to show you this difference.
And I could also point out how your complaint is that out of 4,763 delegates total for the election you picked the state with the absolute lowest stateside delegate count of 18 (That's the reason they had to split the pledged delegates by the way) where he only lost by 4 un-pledged delegates.[/QUOTE]
You're unbelievable. At no point did I speak specifically about pledged delegates, learn to read.
Standing ovation for lies and deceit
The Dems deserve Hillary
[QUOTE=srobins;50780442]You're unbelievable. At no point did I speak specifically about pledged delegates, learn to read.[/QUOTE]
Wyoming:
Clinton Pledged: 7
Sanders Pledged: 7
Clinton Un-Pledged: 4
Sanders Un-Pledged: 0
Total Delegates for Democratic Primary: 4,763
The un-pledged living in Wyoming gave their votes before it was Wyoming's turn to vote, because as I've said five times now, they are held to the party, not the state they live in. Hence they split the delegates and the popular vote.
If this is your best evidence you could come up with in defense of your claim that the DNC is ignoring the popular vote than I do expect a better argument.
Got any of that accurate pitch
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.