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

[QUOTE=apierce1289;49721632]We're fucked if Hillary wins.[/QUOTE]I don't like Hillary as much as the next person, but this is such an exaggeration and needs to stop. We aren't going to fucked if Hillary wins, now a Republican win is a different story.

[QUOTE=Killer900;49721671]I don't like Hillary as much as the next person, but this is such an exaggeration and needs to stop. We aren't going to fucked if Hillary wins, now a Republican win is a different story.[/QUOTE] This is the mindset that allows corruption to seep into politics. As long its not "those people" Corruption is corruption. End of discussion.

[QUOTE=Killer900;49721671]I don't like Hillary as much as the next person, but this is such an exaggeration and needs to stop. We aren't going to fucked if Hillary wins, now a Republican win is a different story.[/QUOTE] lmao clinton does the same shit some of the diehard republicans are down for, she just plays a different crowd for it (good job buying into it btw)

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49716313]Isn't this basically how the electoral college works? If the popular vote breakdowns put the race close to but above 50%, it can go the other way (and was on track to for Bush when Gore conceded), as I understand it.[/QUOTE] Nah, the electoral college is very different and imo is actually somewhat fair of a system if you look into how it helps both majority and minority opinions. This on the other hand is just pro-establishment bullshit.

[QUOTE=Daysofwinter;49721717]This is the mindset that allows corruption to seep into politics. As long its not "those people" Corruption is corruption. End of discussion.[/QUOTE]lol "end of discussion" nice one guy. Believe it or not it won't be the end of times if Hillary get's elected, it's no secret that Hillary isn't a saint, far from it, but thinking that we're all doomed if she wins the nomination IS an exaggeration. [QUOTE=No Party Hats;49721927]lmao clinton does the same shit some of the diehard republicans are down for, she just plays a different crowd for it (good job buying into it btw)[/QUOTE]Thanks for assuming I buy into it

[QUOTE=Killer900;49721957]lol "end of discussion" nice one guy. Believe it or not it won't be the end of times if Hillary get's elected, it's no secret that Hillary isn't a saint, far from it, but thinking that we're all doomed if she wins the nomination IS an exaggeration. [/QUOTE] Let ask you something. Who or what are Clinton's backers? I'm guessing rich white men. Who do you think these rich white men (who own Clinton) will encourage those in their pockets to do? Write laws for rich white folk or help out those who are poor and of color? By voting in someone who is in the corporations pockets, you are in proxy, being racist. Why? Because by proxy, you are supporting these rich assholes ability to continue oppressing them through the political and legal system. Every time you vote for a puppet, your vote is going towards supporting a system that oppresses people. Also you show signs of tribalism. Which in my view is racist and bigoted in it self.

[QUOTE=Daysofwinter;49722266]Let ask you something. Who or what are Clinton's backers? I'm guessing rich white men. Who do you think these rich white men (who own Clinton) will encourage those in their pockets to do? White laws for rich white folk or help out those who are ooor and of color? B voting in someone who is in the corporations pockets, you are in proxy, being racist. Also you show signs of tribalism. Which in my view is racist and bigoted in it self.[/QUOTE] Actually Bernie's supporters are mostly white, and [url=https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/donordemcid.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000528]most of his donors are men[/url]. Idk how rich they are, but it's common knowledge that Clinton has the support of the black vote right now (recently getting the endorsement of the congressional black caucus). Bernie did so well in Iowa and New Hampshire because those are very racially homogenous states, mostly white.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;49722301]Actually Bernie's supporters are mostly white, and [url=https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/donordemcid.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000528]most of his donors are men[/url]. Idk how rich they are, but it's common knowledge that Clinton has the support of the black vote right now (recently getting the endorsement of the congressional black caucus). Bernie did so well in Iowa and New Hampshire because those are very racially homogenous states, mostly white.[/QUOTE] so a majority of small donations come from men, Bernies no longer a good choice because of that But the majority of clintons money comes from giant corporations that don't have any desire to look after you, and you want her, and by extension, them in charge because "Foreign policy"? Okay then

And I think it's an exaggeration to say that we're fucked if Clinton wins. I think Clinton will simply continue more of what Obama has done, perhaps even more to the left. It reminds me of after 2008, all the McCain supporters were talking about the world was fucked, etc. Reminds me of the South Park episode where all the McCain supporters were shooting themselves or hiding in nuclear fallout bunkers, and all the Obama supporters were getting wasted and partying [editline]11th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49722310]so a majority of small donations come from men, Bernies no longer a good choice because of that But the majority of clintons money comes from giant corporations that don't have any desire to look after you, and you want her, and by extension, them in charge because "Foreign policy"? Okay then[/QUOTE] I'm not saying that Bernie is a bad choice because of his donation sources, I'm just pointing out that saying Clinton's supporters are "mostly rich white men" is verifiably untrue, and in fact most of Bernie's supporters are white, and most of his donators are men. I'm just correction the voting demographics here. I don't think white men deserve less representation than anyone else.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;49722312]And I think it's an exaggeration to say that we're fucked if Clinton wins. I think Clinton will simply continue more of what Obama has done, perhaps even more to the left. It reminds me of after 2008, all the McCain supporters were talking about the world was fucked, etc. Reminds me of the South Park episode where all the McCain supporters were shooting themselves or hiding in nuclear fallout bunkers, and all the Obama supporters were getting wasted and partying[/QUOTE] Clinton's not going to ruin America. That kind of hyperbole is useless. She will enact corporatist policies, and you'll have to argue for days to prove she won't, and when she gets elected, she'll still do it because there's too much money pushing her to do so. And guess what congress and the senate don't oppose? Those corporatist bills, so her getting elected won't result in gridlock, just mindless, hurtful legislation. I'd actually rather have 8 more years of gridlock than regression. [editline]11th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=proboardslol;49722312] I'm not saying that Bernie is a bad choice because of his donation sources, I'm just pointing out that saying Clinton's supporters are "mostly rich white men" is verifiably untrue, and in fact most of Bernie's supporters are white, and most of his donators are men. I'm just correction the voting demographics here. I don't think white men deserve less representation than anyone else.[/QUOTE] Her donations may come from different sources, but I'm going to be very blunt and say, most of her money comes from the rich, and wealthy. I don't know why gender of donations matters so much. If at all.

[QUOTE=apierce1289;49721632]We're fucked if Hillary wins.[/QUOTE] If Hillary wins, absolutely nothing will happen. She'll be as ineffective a president as Obama, especially as deadlocked as Congress is.

Also, [url=https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00000019]most of Clinton's donations (90%)[/url] came from individual contributors as well. When "Citigroup" is listed as her top contributor, it is in fact people working for and representing Citigroup being encouraged to donate the legal maximum to her campaign, not unlike a labor union encouraging its members to support and donate to their candidate of choice. This is how money in politics has worked for a VERY long time. Bernie Sanders, in fact, [url=https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2016&cid=N00000528&type=I&newmem=N]has taken legal maximum donations from labor unions[/url]. As you can see, these unions have contributed a LOT less money than Citigroup has to Clinton, but the fact stands that Bernie takes money from groups who have their own incentives to have a leftist pro-labor president. Not saying this invalidates Sanders, but I'm just pointing to the reality of political contributions. [editline]11th February 2016[/editline] Also, not during this election cycle, but career-wise, [url=https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00000528&type=I]Sanders has taken several hundred thousands of dollars from large labor unions like the teamsters[/url] [editline]11th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49722326]Clinton's not going to ruin America. That kind of hyperbole is useless. She will enact corporatist policies, and you'll have to argue for days to prove she won't, and when she gets elected, she'll still do it because there's too much money pushing her to do so. And guess what congress and the senate don't oppose? Those corporatist bills, so her getting elected won't result in gridlock, just mindless, hurtful legislation. I'd actually rather have 8 more years of gridlock than regression. [editline]11th February 2016[/editline] Her donations may come from different sources, but I'm going to be very blunt and say, most of her money comes from the rich, and wealthy. I don't know why gender of donations matters so much. If at all.[/QUOTE] To me, gender of donations doesn't matter, but to the poster I initially replied to, it does.

[QUOTE=Atlascore;49722397]And what makes you think Bernie will be any different? A lot of people in Congress are opposed to his "radical" ideas, Republicans in particular are going to fight him every time he makes a move, it'll be just as bad, if not worse than what happened with Obama.[/QUOTE] Where did I say that at? You think you know what I'm thinking, but you don't.

the thing is, the DNC is a political party, they won't let it get to the point where the superdelagates overrule the majority voice, it would be suicide. ya its stupid that they're polling superdelagates with the primary results, and the DNC should really come out and clarify that and ask that the superdelagates be removed from counts as they are misleading, but nobody really pays attention to the actual count of delagates anyways so its not that bad

[QUOTE=proboardslol;49722312]And I think it's an exaggeration to say that we're fucked if Clinton wins. I think Clinton will simply continue more of what Obama has done, perhaps even more to the left. It reminds me of after 2008, all the McCain supporters were talking about the world was fucked, etc. Reminds me of the South Park episode where all the McCain supporters were shooting themselves or hiding in nuclear fallout bunkers, and all the Obama supporters were getting wasted and partying [editline]11th February 2016[/editline] I'm not saying that Bernie is a bad choice because of his donation sources, I'm just pointing out that saying Clinton's supporters are "mostly rich white men" is verifiably untrue, and in fact most of Bernie's supporters are white, and most of his donators are men. I'm just correction the voting demographics here. I don't think white men deserve less representation than anyone else.[/QUOTE] She's far more to the right than Obama, look at her lately its hard to say for sure what she really supports and isn't just saying to get your vote. I'm a registered independent because of stuff like this happening in both parties. If you want to bring money into this, Hillary's average donation:$100 Bernies Average donation:$27 Bernie has way more donations than Hillary too. Yesterday Clinton sent out an Email begging for $1 donations; She's trying to mimic Bernie and look populist in comparison. Hillary would do anything to get elected. I support Bernie because he's honest, and i support Bernie because he's not the one doing the really underhanded attacks against everyone. Just look at hillary's donation numbers against bernies. [url]https://www.crowdpac.com/candidates/9999817/hillary-clinton[/url] [url]https://www.crowdpac.com/candidates/1235/bernie-sanders[/url] The Majority of Clinton donations are from people donation $200 or more bur bernies overwhelmingly are from the average person, with a huge amount coming from the $200 or less range, and a fair bit of those pocket change. [editline]12th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=proboardslol;49722370]Also, [url=https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00000019]most of Clinton's donations (90%)[/url] came from individual contributors as well. When "Citigroup" is listed as her top contributor, it is in fact people working for and representing Citigroup being encouraged to donate the legal maximum to her campaign, not unlike a labor union encouraging its members to support and donate to their candidate of choice. This is how money in politics has worked for a VERY long time. Bernie Sanders, in fact, [url=https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2016&cid=N00000528&type=I&newmem=N]has taken legal maximum donations from labor unions[/url]. As you can see, these unions have contributed a LOT less money than Citigroup has to Clinton, but the fact stands that Bernie takes money from groups who have their own incentives to have a leftist pro-labor president. Not saying this invalidates Sanders, but I'm just pointing to the reality of political contributions. [editline]11th February 2016[/editline] Also, not during this election cycle, but career-wise, [url=https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00000528&type=I]Sanders has taken several hundred thousands of dollars from large labor unions like the teamsters[/url] [editline]11th February 2016[/editline] To me, gender of donations doesn't matter, but to the poster I initially replied to, it does.[/QUOTE] You seem to forget the point of a union vs the point of a company. A union is from the PEOPLE, while the company donates from a CORPORATION. One fights for better workplace environment, the other fights against it. i have no problem with those donations from unions, i have a problem when hillary's money comes from a backroom talk with a board of trustees. Like how she gets money from "Speaking Fees" which is literally just a way of saying they're donating but paying her to talk.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49722410]She's far more to the right than Obama, look at her lately its hard to say for sure what she really supports and isn't just saying to get your vote. I'm a registered independent because of stuff like this happening in both parties. If you want to bring money into this, Hillary's average donation:$100 Bernies Average donation:$27 Bernie has way more donations than Hillary too. Yesterday Clinton sent out an Email begging for $1 donations; She's trying to mimic Bernie and look populist in comparison. Hillary would do anything to get elected. I support Bernie because he's honest, and i support Bernie because he's not the one doing the really underhanded attacks against everyone. Just look at hillary's donation numbers against bernies. [url]https://www.crowdpac.com/candidates/9999817/hillary-clinton[/url] [url]https://www.crowdpac.com/candidates/1235/bernie-sanders[/url] The Majority of Clinton donations are from people donation $200 or more bur bernies overwhelmingly are from the average person, with a huge amount coming from the $200 or less range, and a fair bit of those pocket change.[/quote] I'm not saying Clinton doesn't have big money behind her, I'm saying that the nature of the election is such that individual donations make up the majority of a campaign, regardless of who that individual works for, Clinton included. Frankly, I've forgotten the point i was trying to make. initially I just wanted to dispell the idea that Clinton is backed entirely by rich white men. Point is: Clinton has a more diverse voter base than Sanders. But to say that Clinton is more conservative than Obama is untrue. They've both got the same economic principles, and both receive money from large interest groups (Obama's are mostly tech companies). Clinton is more liberal than Obama in healthcare, having been in support of Universal Healthcare since the 1990s as first lady, as well as using gun control as one of the main talking points of her campaign (mimmicking Obama). She supports LGBT rights, just as Obama does, and supports increased government subsidization of higher education. [quote] You seem to forget the point of a union vs the point of a company. A union is from the PEOPLE, while the company donates from a CORPORATION. One fights for better workplace environment, the other fights against it. i have no problem with those donations from unions, i have a problem when hillary's money comes from a backroom talk with a board of trustees. Like how she gets money from "Speaking Fees" which is literally just a way of saying they're donating but paying her to talk.[/QUOTE] A union is for the union. Unions are not all saints, and some of them are backed by criminals. Unions can be good, unions can be bad, just like companies.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;49722455]I'm not saying Clinton doesn't have big money behind her, I'm saying that the nature of the election is such that individual donations make up the majority of a campaign, regardless of who that individual works for, Clinton included. Frankly, I've forgotten the point i was trying to make. initially I just wanted to dispell the idea that Clinton is backed entirely by rich white men. Point is: Clinton has a more diverse voter base than Sanders. A union is for the union. Unions are not all saints, and some of them are backed by criminals. Unions can be good, unions can be bad, just like companies.[/QUOTE] You mean like those rich white men that paid her to speak at Goldman Sachs? The only reason she has that voter base is because she's a household name. It's going to be interesting to see the polls that come out in the next couple weeks. Most of my black and Latino friends support Bernie over her. What i'm trying to say, is it's not surprising that he would be backed by a union considering that he's fighting for worker's pay increases, he's not taking money from wall street, while Hillary is.

[QUOTE=Daysofwinter;49722266]Let ask you something. Who or what are Clinton's backers? I'm guessing rich white men. Who do you think these rich white men (who own Clinton) will encourage those in their pockets to do? Write laws for rich white folk or help out those who are poor and of color? By voting in someone who is in the corporations pockets, you are in proxy, being racist. Why? Because by proxy, you are supporting these rich assholes ability to continue oppressing them through the political and legal system. Every time you vote for a puppet, your vote is going towards supporting a system that oppresses people. Also you show signs of tribalism. Which in my view is racist and bigoted in it self.[/QUOTE]I never once said I would ever vote for her, why are you assuming things so much.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49722478]You mean like those rich white men that paid her to speak at Goldman Sachs? The only reason she has that voter base is because she's a household name. It's going to be interesting to see the polls that come out in the next couple weeks. Most of my black and Latino friends support Bernie over her. What i'm trying to say, is it's not surprising that he would be backed by a union considering that he's fighting for worker's pay increases, he's not taking money from wall street, while Hillary is.[/QUOTE] Regardless of WHY black people support Clinton (I think her proximity to Obama), black people support Clinton. It's Sanders who has the white male voterbase.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;49722496]Regardless of WHY black people support Clinton (I think her proximity to Obama), black people support Clinton. It's Sanders who has the white male voterbase.[/QUOTE] Clintons never really done anything to help the black population of the US. Sanders has. I think that'll show later on.

[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] A process of elimination would probably benefit us in that situation, whoever has the least votes is dropped and voters make their choice until we have two people left.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49722535]Clintons never really done anything to help the black population of the US. Sanders has. I think that'll show later on.[/QUOTE] again is there a poll of what Nevada residents think of Sanders vs Hillary?

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;49722562]A process of elimination would probably benefit us in that situation, whoever has the least votes is dropped and voters make their choice until we have two people left.[/QUOTE] Well the U.S. already does this through the party primaries and caucuses.

[QUOTE=elevate;49722369]If Hillary wins, absolutely nothing will happen. She'll be as ineffective a president as Obama, especially as deadlocked as Congress is.[/QUOTE] Obama continued many policies as Bush, who came before him. [QUOTE]I never once said I would ever vote for her, why are you assuming things so much.[/QUOTE] I assume based on what you said, you would support a democrat over a republican. Which means vote for a democrat. Even if she or he in effect would end up working against the values I suspect you hold dear.

[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;49722565]again is there a poll of what Nevada residents think of Sanders vs Hillary?[/QUOTE] I don't know but she won Nevada in 2008, and she's forecasted to pick it up again.

[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;49722565]again is there a poll of what Nevada residents think of Sanders vs Hillary?[/QUOTE] Apparently no recent ones. Old polls show Hillary having a large margin over Sanders, but they were all before even Iowa so.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;49722728]I don't know but she won Nevada in 2008, and she's forecasted to pick it up again.[/QUOTE] thats only because there's been no polls there since last year.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;49722789]Apparently no recent ones. Old polls show Hillary having a large margin over Sanders, but they were all before even Iowa so.[/QUOTE] So long story short its anyone guess, I guess Latinos and Blacks Like Bernie more right? and there's allot of Latinos in Nevada right?

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49722801]thats only because there's been no polls there since last year.[/QUOTE] The hispanic vote is unknown in this election. The reason people are interested in South Carolina and Nevada is because SC has a large black population, and NV has a large hispanic population, both of which are not perceived as conducive because of Sander's voting demographics. SC is expected to be a pretty easy win for Clinton, and if Sanders can't shed his image as a white New England liberal, Clinton could grab Nevada as well. I wonder if Sanders will have trouble with christians in the south. I mean, evangelicals will go republican every time, but there was concern over Obama's religion, and I'm sure there will be some kind of dialogue on Sanders being Jewish [editline]11th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=theevilldeadII;49722816]So long story short its anyone guess, I guess Latinos and Blacks Like Bernie more right? and there's allot of Latinos in Nevada right?[/QUOTE] Blacks like Clinton more. something like 80%. [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-black-voters_us_55ca47f6e4b0f73b20bad91a[/url]

That huffpost article was written in august of 2015. Im hazy but wasnt he still basically "bernie who" back in august?