• Sanders urging superdelegates to abandon Clinton
    79 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;50018258]They aren't, and they aren't meant to be. [B]What they do is block someone like Donald Trump[/B] from wresting control of the party on a purely popular surge, regardless of how well their beliefs or policies line up with the party's, or how sensible or feasible their plans are. Political process is difficult, but direct democracy is about as good an idea as a passenger jet piloted by consensus.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=The Ultimate;50018613]Because of when things like Donald Trump happen[/QUOTE] I am not sure how this is a valid argument. Donald Trump [I]is[/I] happening so the system failed.
I think he means a DNC version of Trump, the GOP doesn't use the same system
[QUOTE=bitches;50018569]Could you/someone explain why exactly Hillary is so popular among the "older black" population? [img]http://i.imgur.com/6WUFWmd.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] jesus, everytime I see this it makes me wince a little bit. I don't know if you understand the inherent racism of taking black voters for granted like their just a number, or if you're just so evil that you completely understand it and don't care.
[QUOTE=mr kjerr;50019667]jesus, everytime I see this it makes me wince a little bit. I don't know if you understand the inherent racism of taking black voters for granted like their just a number, or if you're just so evil that you completely understand it and don't care.[/QUOTE] Who, exactly, is doing this? It's pointing out a very simple true fact. Sanders has been fighting for civil rights for longer than most people on this forum have been alive. Clinton hasn't. Clinton has more support from those who benefit from the people who fight for civil rights. There's a very obvious discrepancy there, nothing to do with blacks being a single unanimous hivemind.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;50019434]I am not sure how this is a valid argument. Donald Trump [I]is[/I] happening so the system failed.[/QUOTE] Donald trump hasn't even actually done anything yet apart from shouting controversial shit and y'all are talking about him as if he's a war criminal
[QUOTE=proch;50019789]Donald trump hasn't even actually done anything yet apart from shouting controversial shit and y'all are talking about him as if he's a war criminal[/QUOTE] He is however promising to actually legit commit war crimes if he gets into office.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;50019825]He is however promising to actually legit commit war crimes if he gets into office.[/QUOTE] Promising stupid shit and doing stupid shit are two entirely different things and even if he was intended on attempting to pull off the shit he spouts, it's highly unlikely he'd actually get anywhere, even if he did become president. Until he's actually done any of the things he spouts, he's just someone spouting utter crap that never intends on continuing through with to get recognition in my eyes, because most of the shit he spouts just isn't possible, if he didn't he wouldn't be nearly as popular, or noticed in the media.
[QUOTE=proch;50019789]Donald trump hasn't even actually done anything yet apart from shouting controversial shit and y'all are talking about him as if he's a war criminal[/QUOTE] When GOP debate Moderator Bret Baier noted that several high-ranking military and intelligence officials said they believed the rank-and-file military would refuse to commit war crimes, per their training to refuse illegal orders — he asked what Trump would do. He replied: "They won't refuse. They're not going to refuse me. Believe me." The correct response is "I would not issue those illegal orders in the first place" — so in effect — Trump is admitting to being a future war criminal.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;50019434]I am not sure how this is a valid argument. Donald Trump [I]is[/I] happening so the system failed.[/QUOTE] He's saying that if there was a Donald Trump equivalent for the Dem's they would block him. The GOP don't have super delegates so that's the problem.
[QUOTE=Stiffy360;50018431]Then it would be a democracy. AKA mob rule.[/QUOTE] I often wonder what kind of world we would be living in if Al Gore had taken the White House in 2000 with that lead in the popular vote. How dramatic a shift that might have had for our country over the past 16 years?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50020400]I often wonder what kind of world we would be living in if Al Gore had taken the White House in 2000 with that lead in the popular vote. How dramatic a shift that might have had for our country over the past 16 years?[/QUOTE] Well— we'd have a technocrat in charge of the White House. Someone who is highly versed in science— one who is highly versed in technology (arguably one of the founders of the 1994 internet we use today). We would have no Iraq War, Middle East would be a lot more peaceful— the world would be a lot more peaceful. Many things. The only thing negative about him was his running-mate; Joe Lieberman (choosing a Vice-President is something that many aspiring presidents can't seem to grasp to get right). But above that, America would prosper. It wouldn't be the laughing stock of the world that is known as "The country that elected Bush twice."
[QUOTE=Starpluck;50020483]Well— we'd have a technocrat in charge of the White House. Someone who is highly versed in science— one who is highly versed in technology (arguably one of the founders of the 1994 internet we use today). We would have no Iraq War, Middle East would be a lot more peaceful— the world would be a lot more peaceful. Many things. The only thing negative about him was his running-mate; Joe Lieberman (choosing a Vice-President is something that many aspiring presidents can't seem to grasp to get right). But above that, America would prosper. It wouldn't be the laughing stock of the world that is known as "The country that elected Bush twice."[/QUOTE] Fucking tragic
[QUOTE=Saturn V;50020489]Fucking tragic[/QUOTE] Read this [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_and_information_technology"]Al Gore and information technology[/URL]. Nothing is more depressing than to see this article and think "He was 537 votes away from being president" What is more infuriating is that he technically lost by one vote. (5-4) [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOqiH-bTXIc"][B]Justice Scalia spearheaded the Supreme Court effort by convincing all other Justices to prevent a recount[/B] of the Florida elections, because fuck Democracy[/URL]. I do not wish death upon anyone— but I am glad that Scalia's "person" no longer holds a seat at the Supreme Court. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/JH8z5NL.png[/IMG] Al Gore was a "genuine computer nerd" — known as an "[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Democrat"]Atari democrat[/URL]" He was truly a geek. And we lost it all.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;50020483]Well— we'd have a technocrat in charge of the White House. Someone who is highly versed in science— one who is highly versed in technology (arguably one of the founders of the 1994 internet we use today). We would have no Iraq War, Middle East would be a lot more peaceful— the world would be a lot more peaceful. Many things. The only thing negative about him was his running-mate; Joe Lieberman (choosing a Vice-President is something that many aspiring presidents can't seem to grasp to get right). But above that, America would prosper. It wouldn't be the laughing stock of the world that is known as "The country that elected Bush twice."[/QUOTE] I feel like staring at the stars for a few hours. I need to get a little perspective on the smallness of people and the vastness of time and space, or some other sweeping existential shit, to help sooth myself in light of this. I doubt there will ever be another example of just how badly broken our political system is in my lifetime, or of the consequences that such a system can lead to.
Speechless, honestly.
And to think of climate change initiatives we may have seen put into place!
What a world.
wow, that's pretty fucking depressing
We live in the darkest timeline where Al Gore wasnt elected
Yeah it was literally either a Facepuncher or George W. Bush.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;50020866]Yeah it was literally either a [B]Facepuncher [/B]or George W. Bush.[/QUOTE]And you ruined it. I wouldn't trust a Facepuncher to run a country, even myself.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;50020483]Well— we'd have a technocrat in charge of the White House. Someone who is highly versed in science— one who is highly versed in technology (arguably one of the founders of the 1994 internet we use today). We would have no Iraq War, Middle East would be a lot more peaceful— the world would be a lot more peaceful. Many things. The only thing negative about him was his running-mate; Joe Lieberman (choosing a Vice-President is something that many aspiring presidents can't seem to grasp to get right). But above that, America would prosper. It wouldn't be the laughing stock of the world that is known as "The country that elected Bush twice."[/QUOTE] Kind of dumb to make giant assumptions like that, there is literally no way of knowing if the future state of affairs would be any better or worse. This is wishful thinking at its worse.
[QUOTE=wystan;50020883]Kind of dumb to make giant assumptions like that, there is literally no way of knowing if the future state of affairs would be any better or worse. This is wishful thinking at its worse.[/QUOTE] I find it very hard to believe that Gore would've been worse than W lol
[QUOTE=wystan;50020883]Kind of dumb to make giant assumptions like that, there is literally no way of knowing if the future state of affairs would be any better or worse. This is wishful thinking at its worse.[/QUOTE] When you have someone who invades another country at the cost of $3 trillion because God secretly told him that "Iraq has WMDs" and that God told him "invade Iraq" as part of the neo-Crusades vs. someone who spearheaded the technological movement, internet and climate change — it doesn't take a psychic to project what would happen next.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;50020886]I find it very hard to believe that Gore would've been worse than W lol[/QUOTE]Ohh, most certainly not. But Starpluck is massively overselling Gore at the same time.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;50020886]I find it very hard to believe that Gore would've been worse than W lol[/QUOTE] That I won't really argue, but there are so many things out of the President's control I think it's foolish to just assume that the world would be such a better place with something like the future being so variable. We could make a whole list of what-ifs that could been out of Gore's control and resulted in a worse future, and we can do the same for what did and didn't happen during Bush's.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50020869]And you ruined it. I wouldn't trust a Facepuncher to run a country, even myself.[/QUOTE] I think there are a lot of Facepunchers that are better than the "because God told me so" president. George W. Bush would be right at home at this forum, though he would be considered a rightwing shitposter. Might even be banned for being a gimmick once he spells out how we were attacked for our "freedoms" and how God "told him" to execute the greatest crime of the millennium, the Iraq war.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;50020895]When you have someone who invades another country at the cost of $3 trillion because God secretly told him that "Iraq has WMDs" and that God told him "invade Iraq" as part of the neo-Crusades vs. someone who spearheaded the technological movement, internet and climate change — it doesn't take a psychic to project what would happen next.[/QUOTE] That's skipping to 2003, but think about how Gore may have handled 9/11, or maybe it doesn't happen, maybe things are super great and we have a moon colony by 2008, or what if something worse happened and things are actually worse than they are today. All I'm saying it's dumb to assume something so large.
[QUOTE=wystan;50020924]That's skipping to 2003, but think about how Gore may have handled 9/11, or maybe it doesn't happen, maybe things are super great and we have a moon colony by 2008, or what if something worse happened and things are actually worse than they are today. All I'm saying it's dumb to assume something so large.[/QUOTE] We would have still had 9/11. The difference is that Gore wouldn't strip us of our liberties in response. He wouldn't invade random countries entirely unrelated to the September 11th attacks in a prolonged occupation. George W. Bush was planning to invade Iraq long before 9/11.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;50018215]i don't get how superdelegates are democratic at all[/QUOTE] Wanna remind everyone that primaries have nothing to do with the law; they're private organizations choosing their candidates privately. They can do whatever they want and they in no way have to be democratic. Primaries didn't even exist before 1968, they just chose whatever person they wanted.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.