Aren't Dem SuperDelegates as bad as Citizens United in their ability to pervert democracy?

[g5000]

Aren't Dem SuperDelegates as bad as Citizens United in their ability to pervert democracy? They may even be worse! Citizens United is just about money and buying ad time, these SuperDelegates buy elections and pervert Democracy to their own ends

Examples?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Aren't Dem SuperDelegates as bad as Citizens United in their ability to pervert democracy? They may even be worse! Citizens United is just about money and buying ad time, these SuperDelegates buy elections and pervert Democracy to their own ends

You are absolutely right and where is the outrage from the Democrats? Their party is the only one where a candidate win the state and lose on delegates. The Democrat Sheeple do not seem to mind, so what the hell, let the party dictate the outcome.

I hate that, so what do you suggest we do to overturn the rules from the inception?

Yes.

Is that such a bad thing? The super delegates is a bad setup that has the potential to buck the actual vote. Why keep it?

I agree, so what can I do?

Call for change within your own party. Not saying that such is going to happen today, tomorrow or even ever but hey - that does not mean advocating for change is a bad thing

It is a bad thing when advocating from a position of ignorance.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Aren't Dem SuperDelegates as bad as Citizens United in their ability to pervert democracy? They may even be worse! Citizens United is just about money and buying ad time, these SuperDelegates buy elections and pervert Democracy to their own ends

So you're conceding that Citizen's United is in fact bad.

Interesting.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Aren't Dem SuperDelegates as bad as Citizens United in their ability to pervert democracy? They may even be worse! Citizens United is just about money and buying ad time, these SuperDelegates buy elections and pervert Democracy to their own ends

You are absolutely right and where is the outrage from the Democrats? Their party is the only one where a candidate win the state and lose on delegates. The Democrat Sheeple do not seem to mind, so what the hell, let the party dictate the outcome.

I hate that, so what do you suggest we do to overturn the rules from the inception?

Yes.

Is that such a bad thing? The super delegates is a bad setup that has the potential to buck the actual vote. Why keep it?

Simple: it grants the DNC a semblance of influence over the nomination by imparting an air of momentum on their favored candidate. And helps avoid populist assholes talking about their own dick on national television from being the Democrat's leading candidate.

I fond that extremely 'distasteful' tbh. The party has enough control as it is over candidate selection - they really do not need to be able to tell the voters that they do not like their selection so they are going to ignore it. The EC already does a bang up job of that travesty - why are you accepting it in your party as well?

And no, it does not stop a Trump from coming in and talking about his dick. You are deflecting.

they really do not need to be able to tell the voters that they do not like their selection so they are going to ignore it

.

Except that has never happened. I'm guessing this is a subject being discussed in the fever swamps given the amount of misinformed cons posting nonsense.

 

[Skylar]

You are absolutely right and where is the outrage from the Democrats? Their party is the only one where a candidate win the state and lose on delegates. The Democrat Sheeple do not seem to mind, so what the hell, let the party dictate the outcome.

I hate that, so what do you suggest we do to overturn the rules from the inception?

Yes.

Is that such a bad thing? The super delegates is a bad setup that has the potential to buck the actual vote. Why keep it?

Simple: it grants the DNC a semblance of influence over the nomination by imparting an air of momentum on their favored candidate. And helps avoid populist assholes talking about their own dick on national television from being the Democrat's leading candidate.

I fond that extremely 'distasteful' tbh. The party has enough control as it is over candidate selection - they really do not need to be able to tell the voters that they do not like their selection so they are going to ignore it. The EC already does a bang up job of that travesty - why are you accepting it in your party as well?

And no, it does not stop a Trump from coming in and talking about his dick. You are deflecting.

Never happened.

You are absolutely right and where is the outrage from the Democrats? Their party is the only one where a candidate win the state and lose on delegates. The Democrat Sheeple do not seem to mind, so what the hell, let the party dictate the outcome.

I hate that, so what do you suggest we do to overturn the rules from the inception?

Yes.

Is that such a bad thing? The super delegates is a bad setup that has the potential to buck the actual vote. Why keep it?

Simple: it grants the DNC a semblance of influence over the nomination by imparting an air of momentum on their favored candidate. And helps avoid populist assholes talking about their own dick on national television from being the Democrat's leading candidate.

I fond that extremely 'distasteful' tbh. The party has enough control as it is over candidate selection - they really do not need to be able to tell the voters that they do not like their selection so they are going to ignore it. The EC already does a bang up job of that travesty - why are you accepting it in your party as well?

And no, it does not stop a Trump from coming in and talking about his dick. You are deflecting.

they really do not need to be able to tell the voters that they do not like their selection so they are going to ignore it.

Except that has never happened. I'm guessing this is a subject being discussed in the fever swamps given the amount of misinformed cons posting nonsense.

Its a little more cynical. Their own GOP candidates are suggesting that the GOP do exactly what they're accusing the Dems of doing:

"In order to be the nominee, you have to have a certain number of votes," Kasich said. "Not like, a plurality. You’ve got to have a certain number. You know, it’s like anything else in life, there’s certain rules. You take a driving test, you don’t pass the driving test, you don’t get your license. It’s not like, well, that’s good enough for government. You’ve got to win. You don’t just say, 'Well, I have more than anybody else, therefore I’m in.' "

Kasich: I wouldn’t need a delegate lead to win at a brokered convention

So of course, they're blaming Democrats.

Conservatives are laying the ground work for their *own* brokered convention, where they don't listen to the majority, where they give the nomination to the guy who *didn't* get the most delegates. And they're going to use their accusations against democrats as their justification.

Despite the fact that the Democrats have never done that.

 

[depotoo]

Not even close.

Aren't Dem SuperDelegates as bad as Citizens United in their ability to pervert democracy? They may even be worse! Citizens United is just about money and buying ad time, these SuperDelegates buy elections and pervert Democracy to their own ends

So you disagree with or support both the SuperDelegates and Citizens United?

Support Citizens United, that just letting people spend $ and I don't care about democrat Superdelegates, we know it's a Party that thrives on fraud elections

So both do the same thing but you only support one. Based, coincidentally of course, on political party.


Shocker

Wrong.
"
The democrats have about 800 superdelegates and vote who they personally want while the Republicans have three per state and are obligated to follow the states vote.

Good info, but Frank believes they do the same thing but only disagrees with one...again, maybe a coincidence it just happens to be with the Republicans.

 

[FA_Q2]

You are absolutely right and where is the outrage from the Democrats? Their party is the only one where a candidate win the state and lose on delegates. The Democrat Sheeple do not seem to mind, so what the hell, let the party dictate the outcome.

I hate that, so what do you suggest we do to overturn the rules from the inception?

Yes.

Is that such a bad thing? The super delegates is a bad setup that has the potential to buck the actual vote. Why keep it?

Simple: it grants the DNC a semblance of influence over the nomination by imparting an air of momentum on their favored candidate. And helps avoid populist assholes talking about their own dick on national television from being the Democrat's leading candidate.

I fond that extremely 'distasteful' tbh. The party has enough control as it is over candidate selection - they really do not need to be able to tell the voters that they do not like their selection so they are going to ignore it.

And when have they ever done this? We both know the answer and why your narrative is complete horseshit. And you know I know it. I just want you to say it.

When have the super delegates ever given the nomination to a candidate that didn't have the majority of pledged delegates?

C'mon.....you know you wanna say it.

Say what? That they haven't? I don't really care one way or the other - because they have not overturned the will of the voters does not change the fact that there is no reason to keep an antiquated system that allows such to happen.

Come on, you know you want to actually address the points I made - oh wait, you don't...

The EC already does a bang up job of that travesty - why are you accepting it in your party as well?

What travesty? You realize that your imagination isn't actually a travesty, right?

The travesty of electing presidents that do not get a majority vote. You do realize that is not in my head or are insults what you are going to sink to now?

And no, it does not stop a Trump from coming in and talking about his dick. You are deflecting.

No, but then I never said it did. So you're offering a strawman.

I said that it helps the the DNC avoid having a populist asshole who goes on national television and talks about his dick as their leading candidate.

Try again, this time without the strawmen. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need the fallacies.

It is not a strawman - you directly stated that it avoids having a populist talking about his dick as the leading candidate. Saying that it does not is not a straw man. It is interesting though that you claim it stops having a populist as the lead on one side of your face and then claim with the other that it does not overturn the voters will, you know like if they were to vote for a populist.

The lack of super delegates has nothing to do with Trump as a leading candidate and the delegates would not change his actual votes even if such could change who was in the lead in overall delegates. What has created this is a combination of Republicans feeling disenfranchised with the party overall and the large number of candidates to chose from.

 

[Skylar]

I hate that, so what do you suggest we do to overturn the rules from the inception?

Yes.

Is that such a bad thing? The super delegates is a bad setup that has the potential to buck the actual vote. Why keep it?

Simple: it grants the DNC a semblance of influence over the nomination by imparting an air of momentum on their favored candidate. And helps avoid populist assholes talking about their own dick on national television from being the Democrat's leading candidate.

I fond that extremely 'distasteful' tbh. The party has enough control as it is over candidate selection - they really do not need to be able to tell the voters that they do not like their selection so they are going to ignore it.

And when have they ever done this? We both know the answer and why your narrative is complete horseshit. And you know I know it. I just want you to say it.

When have the super delegates ever given the nomination to a candidate that didn't have the majority of pledged delegates?

C'mon.....you know you wanna say it.

Say what? That they haven't? I don't really care one way or the other - because they have not overturned the will of the voters does not change the fact that there is no reason to keep an antiquated system that allows such to happen.

Come on, you know you want to actually address the points I made - oh wait, you don't...

You probably should care one way or the other. As its the difference between your argument being an imaginary pile of rhetorical horseshit. Or actually having some value.

Your scenario has never happened. You're condemning a figment of your imagination. However.....as you well know, your own GOP candidates have already been laying the ground work for a GOP brokered convention where everything you just complained about would actually happen at the GOP convention:

"In order to be the nominee, you have to have a certain number of votes," Kasich said. "Not like, a plurality. You’ve got to have a certain number. You know, it’s like anything else in life, there’s certain rules. You take a driving test, you don’t pass the driving test, you don’t get your license. It’s not like, well, that’s good enough for government. You’ve got to win. You don’t just say, 'Well, I have more than anybody else, therefore I’m in.' "

Kasich: I wouldn’t need a delegate lead to win at a brokered convention

So predictably....you blame democrats.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Aren't Dem SuperDelegates as bad as Citizens United in their ability to pervert democracy? They may even be worse! Citizens United is just about money and buying ad time, these SuperDelegates buy elections and pervert Democracy to their own ends

So you're conceding that Citizen's United is in fact bad.

Interesting.

Democrats said it was bad because it perverted our democracy...don't superdelegates do the same?

 

[Skylar]

Aren't Dem SuperDelegates as bad as Citizens United in their ability to pervert democracy? They may even be worse! Citizens United is just about money and buying ad time, these SuperDelegates buy elections and pervert Democracy to their own ends

So you're conceding that Citizen's United is in fact bad.

Interesting.

Democrats said it was bad because it perverted our democracy...don't superdelegates do the same?

What perversion of democracy do Super Delegates cause?

Its such a simple question and yet you run like its on fire.

Odd that,

 

[GHook93]

Aren't Dem SuperDelegates as bad as Citizens United in their ability to pervert democracy? They may even be worse! Citizens United is just about money and buying ad time, these SuperDelegates buy elections and pervert Democracy to their own ends

Super Delegates are far worse!

 

[GHook93]

Aren't Dem SuperDelegates as bad as Citizens United in their ability to pervert democracy? They may even be worse! Citizens United is just about money and buying ad time, these SuperDelegates buy elections and pervert Democracy to their own ends

So you disagree with or support both the SuperDelegates and Citizens United?

Red herring, by I don't expect anything less from you.

 

[Skylar]

Aren't Dem SuperDelegates as bad as Citizens United in their ability to pervert democracy? They may even be worse! Citizens United is just about money and buying ad time, these SuperDelegates buy elections and pervert Democracy to their own ends

Super Delegates are far worse!

How so?

 

[Agit8r]

The parties are free to nominate whoever they like.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes.

Is that such a bad thing? The super delegates is a bad setup that has the potential to buck the actual vote. Why keep it?

Simple: it grants the DNC a semblance of influence over the nomination by imparting an air of momentum on their favored candidate. And helps avoid populist assholes talking about their own dick on national television from being the Democrat's leading candidate.

I fond that extremely 'distasteful' tbh. The party has enough control as it is over candidate selection - they really do not need to be able to tell the voters that they do not like their selection so they are going to ignore it.

And when have they ever done this? We both know the answer and why your narrative is complete horseshit. And you know I know it. I just want you to say it.

When have the super delegates ever given the nomination to a candidate that didn't have the majority of pledged delegates?

C'mon.....you know you wanna say it.

Say what? That they haven't? I don't really care one way or the other - because they have not overturned the will of the voters does not change the fact that there is no reason to keep an antiquated system that allows such to happen.

Come on, you know you want to actually address the points I made - oh wait, you don't...

You probably should care one way or the other. As its the difference between your argument being an imaginary pile of rhetorical horseshit. Or actually having some value.

Your scenario has never happened. You're condemning a figment of your imagination. However.....as you well know, your own GOP candidates have already been laying the ground work for a GOP brokered convention where everything you just complained about would actually happen at the GOP convention:

"In order to be the nominee, you have to have a certain number of votes," Kasich said. "Not like, a plurality. You’ve got to have a certain number. You know, it’s like anything else in life, there’s certain rules. You take a driving test, you don’t pass the driving test, you don’t get your license. It’s not like, well, that’s good enough for government. You’ve got to win. You don’t just say, 'Well, I have more than anybody else, therefore I’m in.' "

Kasich: I wouldn’t need a delegate lead to win at a brokered convention

So predictably....you blame democrats.

And?

I have been stating that doing so on the republican side means the end of the party in general - it will tear itself apart and cease to exist.

You are so blind that you need to label me a partisan and that I am blaming democrats for something. I have not blamed democrats for anything. I have made no value statement comparing the democrat system with the republican system. I have made a simple observation about the democratic nomination process and stated that I believe it is a dumb system.

Can you get over your hyper partisan phobia long enough to realize I am not a republican or is conversing with you utterly pointless?

 

[Freewill]

What's hilarious is that its actually a republican candidate that just signaled that the GOP nomination shouldn't go to the candidate with the most votes. With talk of a brokered convention rising among republicans.

And republicans know it. So of course, they accuse the democrats of doing what they're considering doing.

Hear say BS left wing crap. The head of the GOP already said it would go by party rules, by the primary vote.

 

[hadit]

Aren't Dem SuperDelegates as bad as Citizens United in their ability to pervert democracy? They may even be worse! Citizens United is just about money and buying ad time, these SuperDelegates buy elections and pervert Democracy to their own ends

So you disagree with or support both the SuperDelegates and Citizens United?

Support Citizens United, that just letting people spend $ and I don't care about democrat Superdelegates, we know it's a Party that thrives on fraud elections

So both do the same thing but you only support one. Based, coincidentally of course, on political party.


Shocker

They are distinct animals. The DNC is a private organization and can make whatever rules they want to screw their voters. CU relates to organizations being able to petition the government.

Is there an instance of them screwing over the voters I dont know about or are you just being colorful?

I'm saying that the voters need to realize the DNC is a private organization and the party leadership has ways to make sure their preferred candidate wins. I hope Sanders' supporters realize this and make a really big stink about it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Aren't Dem SuperDelegates as bad as Citizens United in their ability to pervert democracy? They may even be worse! Citizens United is just about money and buying ad time, these SuperDelegates buy elections and pervert Democracy to their own ends

So you disagree with or support both the SuperDelegates and Citizens United?

Red herring, by I don't expect anything less from you.

Yellow Tuna....Are we just yelling out things? Because if not, you forgot to mention the how and why.

 

[ClosedCaption]

So you disagree with or support both the SuperDelegates and Citizens United?

Support Citizens United, that just letting people spend $ and I don't care about democrat Superdelegates, we know it's a Party that thrives on fraud elections

So both do the same thing but you only support one. Based, coincidentally of course, on political party.


Shocker

They are distinct animals. The DNC is a private organization and can make whatever rules they want to screw their voters. CU relates to organizations being able to petition the government.

Is there an instance of them screwing over the voters I dont know about or are you just being colorful?

I'm saying that the voters need to realize the DNC is a private organization and the party leadership has ways to make sure their preferred candidate wins. I hope Sanders' supporters realize this and make a really big stink about it.

So, you were just being colorful and have no examples of "Screwing over the voters". Thats good, I got worried for a second there

 

[Skylar]

What's hilarious is that its actually a republican candidate that just signaled that the GOP nomination shouldn't go to the candidate with the most votes. With talk of a brokered convention rising among republicans.

And republicans know it. So of course, they accuse the democrats of doing what they're considering doing.

Hear say BS left wing crap. The head of the GOP already said it would go by party rules, by the primary vote.

Read just a little further in the thread. I quote Kasich on this exact issue.

Twice.

"In order to be the nominee, you have to have a certain number of votes," Kasich said. "Not like, a plurality. You’ve got to have a certain number. You know, it’s like anything else in life, there’s certain rules. You take a driving test, you don’t pass the driving test, you don’t get your license. It’s not like, well, that’s good enough for government. You’ve got to win. You don’t just say, 'Well, I have more than anybody else, therefore I’m in.' "

Kasich: I wouldn’t need a delegate lead to win at a brokered convention

So of course you blame democrats.

Conservatives are laying the ground work for their *own* brokered convention, where they don't listen to the majority, where they give the nomination to the guy who *didn't* get the most delegates. And they're going to use their accusations against democrats as their justification.