The DNC Just Screwed Over Bernie Sanders and Spit in Voters’ Faces - Polidicks

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49716445]Not really. I really think Bernie threads are a giant echo chamber wherein people convince themselves Clinton is some sort of maniacal supervillian. I'm not against Bernie btw.[/QUOTE] Yeah pretty much. She's not the worst choice, she's just not a good one either.

[QUOTE=plokoon9619;49716004]And this is why were fucked. If it comes down to Hilary vs Donald, I'll vote Donald, not because I just can't stand Hilary, but because I want the country to go into Anarchy. Just imagine, a Conservative as president, majority control of the supreme court, and house going into the Republicans. Each part of the government will be controlled by the same Ideology. Homosexuality will be banned and outlawed, Obama care gone, Insurance rates skyrocket, Pharmacy prices go up 3000%, Minimum wage is abolished, unemployment skyrockets to 30% and above, education is restricted to the privileged and wealthy, interest rates go up 40-50% on all loans, riots in the street, middle class families can no longer support themselves to even have a roof, all the government programs such as social security are gone, Corporations gain continued rights and protections, minority genocide occurs, martial law is declared across the country, a revolution is declared and squashed, and through all this happening, we will be born again as a true Christian nation as the son of God intended it to be![/QUOTE] Man, I love [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Zero_(album)]Year Zero[/url] as much as the next guy but you're taking it a bit far :v:

[QUOTE=phygon;49716345]I'm confused, you were just saying that third parties are bad because they split the vote and then you say you're voting for a third party? [/QUOTE] You actually think the LP has a chance to split a vote? Or to dramatically take votes away from another candidate? That's laughable. Even Gary Johnson is aware he will not be winning the presidency. The goal is to gain notoriety. To have more people look at the party, gain more support. Then, we can take on the major parties after we've grown. I'm supporting the growth, not the third party draw to other candidates, which the scenario I mentioned before would do. The GOP establishment is growing further and further right as it does its best to pander to the religious fundamentals and closet fascists. Some day in the future, moderate Republicans are going to be so disenfranchised with their party that they'll remember what the GOP originally stood for, things that the LP stands for now. And it will be supplanted. It won't be this year, or next. Probably not in the next decade. But I'll do my part to get the ball rolling toward that goal.

[QUOTE=Squad1993;49716367]This country will be absolutely [B]FUCKED[/B] if Clinton wins.[/QUOTE] Nothing will change if Hillary is elected. That's a huge problem, but saying the country is fucked if she wins is just massively alarmist.

[QUOTE=Squad1993;49716367]This country will be absolutely [B]FUCKED[/B] if Clinton wins.[/QUOTE] hillary will just be obama 2.0

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49716553]You actually think the LP has a chance to split a vote? Or to dramatically take votes away from another candidate? That's laughable. Even Gary Johnson is aware he will not be winning the presidency. The goal is to gain notoriety. To have more people look at the party, gain more support. Then, we can take on the major parties after we've grown. I'm supporting the growth, not the third party draw to other candidates, which the scenario I mentioned before would do. The GOP establishment is growing further and further right as it does its best to pander to the religious fundamentals and closet fascists. Some day in the future, moderate Republicans are going to be so disenfranchised with their party that they'll remember what the GOP originally stood for, things that the LP stands for now. And it will be supplanted. It won't be this year, or next. Probably not in the next decade. But I'll do my part to get the ball rolling toward that goal.[/QUOTE] pretty sure the GOP is growing more and more towards the libertarians...

Sometimes i really just wish the world had a reset button to start over again, mass corruption in politics in which we have no choice over the outcome due to said corruption and stupidity is one of those reasons.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49716580]hillary will just be obama 2.0[/QUOTE] Well, under Obama we have: A poor excuse for a healthcare bill, which tries to be socialized medicine when it just forces everyone to buy it whether or not they can afford it and drove prices up. Growing destabilization in the Middle East, granted the first stone was cast under Bush but the Obama Administrations indecisiveness let the FSA fracture and give ISIS room to grow. Income inequality continues to grow, this is will continue under Clinton as well. He's been a mediocre president, not as bad as Bush but leaves a lot to be desired but what can you expect with a grid locked congress.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49716580]hillary will just be obama 2.0[/QUOTE] I feel like Obama and Bernie really want(ed) to make some changes, while Hillary is in it just to go down in history as the first female US president. I just don't see her as a leader or a person with a vision, but a political opportunist.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49716553]You actually think the LP has a chance to split a vote? Or to dramatically take votes away from another candidate? That's laughable. Even Gary Johnson is aware he will not be winning the presidency. The goal is to gain notoriety. To have more people look at the party, gain more support. Then, we can take on the major parties after we've grown. I'm supporting the growth, not the third party draw to other candidates, which the scenario I mentioned before would do. The GOP establishment is growing further and further right as it does its best to pander to the religious fundamentals and closet fascists. Some day in the future, moderate Republicans are going to be so disenfranchised with their party that they'll remember what the GOP originally stood for, things that the LP stands for now. And it will be supplanted. It won't be this year, or next. Probably not in the next decade. But I'll do my part to get the ball rolling toward that goal.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying they have the chance to split a vote [I]yet[/I]. But the logical conclusion of a third party gaining traction is the culmination in a three-way vote some year, which would split the vote. I understand that if the party kept gaining traction it might eventually replace one of the parties, but it would split at least one or two votes before that happened. [editline]11th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=LtKyle2;49716637]Well, under Obama we have: A poor excuse for a healthcare bill, which tries to be socialized medicine when it just forces everyone to buy it whether or not they can afford it and drove prices up. Growing destabilization in the Middle East, granted the first stone was cast under Bush but the Obama Administrations indecisiveness let the FSA fracture and give ISIS room to grow. Income inequality continues to grow, this is will continue under Clinton as well. He's been a mediocre president, not as bad as Bush but leaves a lot to be desired but what can you expect with a grid locked congress.[/QUOTE] Don't forget massive expenses to mass surveillance and increases to government operations that are clandestine to the American people

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;49716637]Well, under Obama we have: A poor excuse for a healthcare bill, which tries to be socialized medicine when it just forces everyone to buy it whether or not they can afford it and drove prices up. Growing destabilization in the Middle East, granted the first stone was cast under Bush but the Obama Administrations indecisiveness let the FSA fracture and give ISIS room to grow. Income inequality continues to grow, this is will continue under Clinton as well. He's been a mediocre president, not as bad as Bush but leaves a lot to be desired but what can you expect with a grid locked congress.[/QUOTE] while the ACA has been a mess, its far from a disaster, the price hikes are because insurance companies keep changing their rates because they are so risk adverse that being forced to accept people with any conditions has forced their profit margins down. don't blame obama for gridlock in congress, its pure republicanism thats blocked anything and bush was the one that signed all the deals to pull the troops out

[QUOTE=phygon;49716674]I'm not saying they have the chance to split a vote [I]yet[/I]. But the logical conclusion of a third party gaining traction is the culmination in a three-way vote some year, which would split the vote. I understand that if the party kept gaining traction it might eventually replace one of the parties, but it would split at least one or two votes before that happened. [/QUOTE] A risk, but a necessary one. [editline]10th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Sableye;49716598]pretty sure the GOP is growing more and more towards the libertarians...[/QUOTE] No, it's growing more far right and labeling it as "libertarian" which is really hurting the actual LP. Compare the political platforms and you will find their language similar at times but ideological different in a number of points.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49716767]A risk, but a necessary one. [/QUOTE] Fair enough [sp]Worth mentioning that even if I do question some of the stuff you say, it's not an attack against you. I actually agree with you on most points, even if not all of them[/sp]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49715919]Again, that's shitty for the country as a whole, though. If the election goes like this: Candidate A - 24% of votes Candidate B - 24% of votes Candidate C - 24% of votes Candidate D - 28% of votes Candidate D will win with 72% of the US not wanting him. On top of that, I'm pretty sure one cannot even legally win the presidency with such a voter rate.[/QUOTE] It's not even that. You've only figured 72% of the [i]voting[/i] population doesn't want him. How many more are so fed up with the bullshit that they don't even waste their time? They don't want Shithead D either, in all likelihood.

[QUOTE=TestECull;49717054]It's not even that. You've only figured 72% of the [i]voting[/i] population doesn't want him. How many more are so fed up with the bullshit that they don't even waste their time? They don't want Shithead D either, in all likelihood.[/QUOTE] I have no sympathy for those who don't vote. They have no right to complain about the results as they made no move get someone to that result or not.

[QUOTE=Doom14;49715915]I would rather have infinite parties or "no one is allowed to identify as a party" policies than our current, and frankly archaic, system. It's too easy to get stuck with two absolute shitheads, while everyone callously mewls "b-but, we have to vote with party lines or the other guy wins." I'm not really a huge fan of Bernie or Trump, but it's actually disgusting to see how much both parties are squirming at the idea that their posterchilds aren't really winning over the populace. I didn't even know unelected "superdelegates" were a thing until today. v:v:v[/QUOTE] Neither of those options are viable. You can have infinite parties in theory, but running an effective political party requires money, public support, and a slew of other things that only wealthy businessmen and established institutions have access to. And as for the "no parties allowed" solution, factionalism is an integral part of politics. Politicians are always going to align behind powerful and charismatic peers who they feel represent their views, or offer the best shot at power. The formalized party system, while flawed, prevents it from devolving into conspiracies and coups d'etats. The system sucks, but it's best anyone's come up with.

[QUOTE=wystan;49716279]Had this worked in Bernie's favor you all would be ecstatic. And not that I wish Bernie success in anything, but there are still a shitload of delegates to be pledged[/QUOTE] If bernie was the kind of person to use his influence (and all likelihood, money) to acquire so many super delegates to completely bypass the point of voting, chances are we wouldnt like him much, now would we?

I bet the Republicans wished they had Super Delegates

[QUOTE=person11;49717439]I bet the Republicans wished they had Super Delegates[/QUOTE] no need, every candidate is pretty much bought out one way or another anyways

Reminder: This was the same case with Obama.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49715919]Again, that's shitty for the country as a whole, though. If the election goes like this: Candidate A - 24% of votes Candidate B - 24% of votes Candidate C - 24% of votes Candidate D - 28% of votes Candidate D will win with 72% of the US not wanting him. On top of that, I'm pretty sure one cannot even legally win the presidency with such a voter rate.[/QUOTE] The 72% figure is true, but a democratic interpretation isn't meant to imply "the majority of voters didn't elect who they wanted". In the Canadian federal election last year we got Trudeau (Liberal) who beat out Harper (Conservative) and Mulclair (NDP) - he won with 40% of votes. This means if you asked the average Canadian, they were more likely to say they wanted Trudeau in office than any other candidate. That's the key takeaway - the average voter would say they wanted Candidate D instead of Candidate A/B/C, so he gets the position. It's not a great situation, but it's the only fair one to all the candidates and voters.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;49717536]Holy fuck. The fact that someone said Hillary would be Obama 2.0 is baffling. Obama isn't corrupt, and if he is, it's relatively nothing compared to Hillary. Dear god I'd take Obama another four years over Hillary (and Sanders). The fearmongering over a Republican victory is childish and absurd. Come out of your basements please.[/QUOTE] The only republican that's half decent is john kasich. MAYBE jeb bush. all of the others are hot garbage.

[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;49715874]What a fucking joke of an election process.[/QUOTE] Our country is a fucking joke, buddy.

[QUOTE=da space core;49717452]no need, every candidate is pretty much bought out one way or another anyways[/QUOTE] I just mean to say that the Republicans would love to use something like that to Stump the Trump [editline]10th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=FinalHunter;49717536]Holy fuck. The fact that someone said Hillary would be Obama 2.0 is baffling. Obama isn't corrupt, and if he is, it's relatively nothing compared to Hillary. Dear god I'd take Obama another four years over Hillary (and Sanders). The fearmongering over a Republican victory is childish and absurd. Come out of your basements please.[/QUOTE] a republican victory would actually be awful for the country the party has become more conservative to backlash against Obama over the last 7 years and would do previously unimaginable things with control of the government, like defunding planned parenthood

Super delegates this early in the race don't mean shit before the final result of each primary. Clinton's Super delegates were expected to go to her, but switched to Obama, the perceived reformer and liberal, giving him the victory. I wouldn't discount Bernie Sanders this early in the super delegate race, since the party insiders are, of course, going to default to vote for someone who is actually a member of their party. Bernie still has a chance to sway super delegates over full disclosure: I support Hillary Clinton

[QUOTE=proboardslol;49717894]Super delegates this early in the race don't mean shit before the final result of each primary. Clinton's Super delegates were expected to go to her, but switched to Obama, the perceived reformer and liberal, giving him the victory. I wouldn't discount Bernie Sanders this early in the super delegate race, since the party insiders are, of course, going to default to vote for someone who is actually a member of their party. Bernie still has a chance to sway super delegates over full disclosure: I support Hillary Clinton[/QUOTE] Still something for Sanders supporters to worry about until they do switch over, if they do. As it currently stands, superdelegates are not in their favor and though it's early in the election for anyone, it's still worth a concern.

The fact that superdelegates are even a thing is disgusting,.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49717901]Still something for Sanders supporters to worry about until they do switch over, if they do. As it currently stands, superdelegates are not in their favor and though it's early in the election for anyone, it's still worth a concern.[/QUOTE] This is the consequence of being 3rd party and caucusing with the democrats, and something everybody needs to know about the DNC and RNC: each party will do what is best for the electibility of that party, not for democracy. If the DNC doesn't believe that Bernie Sanders will represent the Democratic party against the Republicans, they're going to throw their weight towards Clinton. Same as the RNC: if the RNC thinks Trump isn't a team player, they'll throw their weight behind another candidate, though that candidate isn't clear yet because the GOP is shattered right now

[QUOTE=proboardslol;49717953]This is the consequence of being 3rd party and caucusing with the democrats, and something everybody needs to know about the DNC and RNC: each party will do what is best for the electibility of that party, not for democracy. If the DNC doesn't believe that Bernie Sanders will represent the Democratic party against the Republicans, they're going to throw their weight towards Clinton. Same as the RNC: if the RNC thinks Trump isn't a team player, they'll throw their weight behind another candidate, though that candidate isn't clear yet because the GOP is shattered right now[/QUOTE] Except the GOP hasn't a superdelegate apparatus to skew the results of the party's primaries. [editline]11th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=theevilldeadII;49717945]The fact that superdelegates are even a thing is disgusting,.[/QUOTE] Blame whomever ran the party in the late 1970s, that's when the DNC rewrote their nomination process (which at the time gave most of the decision making to the party) to focus more on the popular nomination vote, but wrote in super delegates as an insurance policy that the party bigwigs still can keep the party platform consistent. It makes one wonder if the GOP had this if they wouldn't persistently fall more into the right wing with every passing election.

[QUOTE=Shovel Mech;49715820]I sort of hope that Trump and Bernie go independent. The sooner we can shed the Republican and Democratic parties, the better.[/QUOTE] The problem with that is that it needs to be both parties, not one or the other because if sanders goes independent the democratic vote will be split and the democrats will win. Same goes for the republicans. If Trump goes independents then the republican vote will be split and the democrats will win.