As much as I despise the GOP and ultimately think they are poison in comparison to democrats...

[Yarddog]

The people decided the Presidential election in 2016 yet some still can't accept it to this day.

The electoral college, not the people.

Incorrect and that argument always will be.

If 6 people voted for an apple, and 4 people voted for a banana; what did the people vote to eat?

Pie?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Since the DAY the Constitution was ratified the President has been ELECTED via the electoral college. Pretty simply concept. Each State has x amount of electors, in order to win you need more then half of them to vote for you. How do you get electors? By winning State elections on Election day. Except 2 States all States have winner take all elector rules.

If Hillary Clinton was TOO STUPID to campaign in enough States to win them then the people DID IN FACT vote in Trump. The popular vote is meaningless EXCEPT inside an individual State. It does not matter if the entire state of New York and California vote for one person you need to win in enough States to garner enough electoral votes.

 

[Pogo]

The people decided the Presidential election in 2016 yet some still can't accept it to this day.

The electoral college, not the people.

Incorrect and that argument always will be.

If 6 people voted for an apple, and 4 people voted for a banana; what did the people vote to eat?

What a great setup.

 

[shockedcanadian]

...I’ll give them credit for one thing.

They don’t have a superdelegate system.

Bernie will likely be the democratic nominee, but there’s still a small chance he won’t get the majority of delegates needed to be the winner and a contested convention would then occur. Those “superdelegates” who worship the DNC’s narrative might go for Bloomberg because they believe he can win against Trump, but they shouldn’t get the chance to decide. Bloomberg and those like him on the right represent all that is wrong with American politics. The people need to decide the election - not the billionaires.

I have to wonder though, if deciding that some wealthy donors will dictate their leaders, basically the same types of systems found in Fiefdoms, why would ANYONE support the party?

The run up is nothing more than a mirage? Hoping that the guy who gets the most votes will be supported by the kings and queens of the superdelegates?

I recall after Hillary was soundly crushed they said "we promise to get rid of this". So what happened? Just as NYT said they would be more fair to Trump. Both made nice outreach shortly after the loss, then decided "naw, just kidding". Who wins with such an approach?

If you want to force the Dems to change, Vote Trump. They will be forced to become democratic, ironically as their name suggests and not an oligarch of power determining your leader. What worked for them in the past won't work going forward, Americans want choices...THEIR choices.

Kinda hard to make that credible when the RP is cancelling primaries left and right to keep out challengers while Harry Reid is calling for all-primaries all-the time.

Guess you wouldn't know about that, being, you know, "Canadian" and all wink.

Of course, Trump is the incumbent, he has already been chosen by his party, and was successful as their nominee. Furthermore, when Joe Walsh ran in a caucus, Trump picked up 95% or more of the vote.

If a Dem wins the nomination and the WH, they won't face a challenger either.

Indeed, I'm Canadian, surely this is obvious by now. Please stop with the Fake News and Birthism against me.

 

[Pogo]

...I’ll give them credit for one thing.

They don’t have a superdelegate system.

Bernie will likely be the democratic nominee, but there’s still a small chance he won’t get the majority of delegates needed to be the winner and a contested convention would then occur. Those “superdelegates” who worship the DNC’s narrative might go for Bloomberg because they believe he can win against Trump, but they shouldn’t get the chance to decide. Bloomberg and those like him on the right represent all that is wrong with American politics. The people need to decide the election - not the billionaires.

I have to wonder though, if deciding that some wealthy donors will dictate their leaders, basically the same types of systems found in Fiefdoms, why would ANYONE support the party?

The run up is nothing more than a mirage? Hoping that the guy who gets the most votes will be supported by the kings and queens of the superdelegates?

I recall after Hillary was soundly crushed they said "we promise to get rid of this". So what happened? Just as NYT said they would be more fair to Trump. Both made nice outreach shortly after the loss, then decided "naw, just kidding". Who wins with such an approach?

If you want to force the Dems to change, Vote Trump. They will be forced to become democratic, ironically as their name suggests and not an oligarch of power determining your leader. What worked for them in the past won't work going forward, Americans want choices...THEIR choices.

Kinda hard to make that credible when the RP is cancelling primaries left and right to keep out challengers while Harry Reid is calling for all-primaries all-the time.

Guess you wouldn't know about that, being, you know, "Canadian" and all wink.

Of course, Trump is the incumbent, he has already been chosen by his party, and was successful as their nominee. Furthermore, when Joe Walsh ran in a caucus, Trump picked up 95% or more of the vote.

If a Dem wins the nomination and the WH, they won't face a challenger either.

Indeed, I'm Canadian, surely this is obvious by now. Please stop with the Fake News and Birthism against me.

You actually may be given this level of cluelessness.

NO party has picked their nominee yet. That happens at the convention, which for both parties is later this year, in the summer. Cancelling primaries --- at least some of which were done some time ago --- ensures that no competition CAN break through.

IF any party had already picked its nominee THEY WOULDN'T BE HAVING PRIMARIES OR CAUCUSES. There would be no point.

 

[Pogo]

Since the DAY the Constitution was ratified the President has been ELECTED via the electoral college. Pretty simply concept. Each State has x amount of electors, in order to win you need more then half of them to vote for you. How do you get electors? By winning State elections on Election day. Except 2 States all States have winner take all elector rules.

If Hillary Clinton was TOO STUPID to campaign in enough States to win them then the people DID IN FACT vote in Trump. The popular vote is meaningless EXCEPT inside an individual State. It does not matter if the entire state of New York and California vote for one person you need to win in enough States to garner enough electoral votes.

Whelp, that's not accurate either.

Take that infamous trio of states that pushed Rump over the hump in 2016 by a combined margin of 77,000 votes, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. *NOBODY* won the state vote of any of those states. Nor did anybody win this state (North Carolina). Nor did any candidate with the vote of Florida, Virginia, Minnesota, Colorado, Arizona or Utah. Yet every one sent 100% of their electoral votes to a candidate who could not win even half that state's vote.

 

[francoHFW]

...I’ll give them credit for one thing.

They don’t have a superdelegate system.

Bernie will likely be the democratic nominee, but there’s still a small chance he won’t get the majority of delegates needed to be the winner and a contested convention would then occur. Those “superdelegates” who worship the DNC’s narrative might go for Bloomberg because they believe he can win against Trump, but they shouldn’t get the chance to decide. Bloomberg and those like him on the right represent all that is wrong with American politics. The people need to decide the election - not the billionaires.

Haven't you ever wondered why the Democrats have that system? It's about power, and the corruption necessary to obtain that power. That corruption pervades the Democrat Party, down to the local level.

How else do you think Democrats have stayed in control of most every city that has high crime, high murder rate, and a high poverty rate? Just look at Chicago, Baltimore, St. Louis, etc. They've been playing that game for hundreds of years, and they're not about to give it up.

I think the super delegates in 2016 would have voted for Bernie if he had beaten Hillary and I think they will vote for him now. I'm just happy people are finding out what socialism means not the fear-mongering GOP version.

Sanders is a fabian socialist and none of his ideas to "share the wealth" are feasible no matter how he intends to finance it under the banner of "for the greater good". When you borrow (or in this case steal) from Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul. Sanders has never addressed the elephant in the room which is the PRIVATELY OWNED Central bank that is the Federal Reserve which by the way would only be more than happy to increase the debt of USA.INC until it collapses under the weight of unsecured debt.

You really are ignorant of the end game and how this debt based system actually works.

he wants to make us like Canada. It is not that scary. Canada Taxes there Rich. They also have a living wage health Care daycare paid parental leave cheap college and training great infrastructure and vacations just like every other modern country like Australia New Zealand. He ought to stop saying Scandinavia and Germany scares people just because they're stupid.okay brainwash functionally stupid because the propaganda machine is always bad-mouthing Europe. While they have 7 million refugees the GOP caused.

 

[Augustine_]

I admire how the republicans only let republicans into their primary.

Kind a like how Dems are only allowed into Democrat primaries.

Bernie has never been a Democrat

 

[Dale Smith]

...I’ll give them credit for one thing.

They don’t have a superdelegate system.

Bernie will likely be the democratic nominee, but there’s still a small chance he won’t get the majority of delegates needed to be the winner and a contested convention would then occur. Those “superdelegates” who worship the DNC’s narrative might go for Bloomberg because they believe he can win against Trump, but they shouldn’t get the chance to decide. Bloomberg and those like him on the right represent all that is wrong with American politics. The people need to decide the election - not the billionaires.

Haven't you ever wondered why the Democrats have that system? It's about power, and the corruption necessary to obtain that power. That corruption pervades the Democrat Party, down to the local level.

How else do you think Democrats have stayed in control of most every city that has high crime, high murder rate, and a high poverty rate? Just look at Chicago, Baltimore, St. Louis, etc. They've been playing that game for hundreds of years, and they're not about to give it up.

I think the super delegates in 2016 would have voted for Bernie if he had beaten Hillary and I think they will vote for him now. I'm just happy people are finding out what socialism means not the fear-mongering GOP version.

Sanders is a fabian socialist and none of his ideas to "share the wealth" are feasible no matter how he intends to finance it under the banner of "for the greater good". When you borrow (or in this case steal) from Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul. Sanders has never addressed the elephant in the room which is the PRIVATELY OWNED Central bank that is the Federal Reserve which by the way would only be more than happy to increase the debt of USA.INC until it collapses under the weight of unsecured debt.

You really are ignorant of the end game and how this debt based system actually works.

he wants to make us like Canada. It is not that scary. Canada Taxes there Rich. They also have a living wage health Care daycare paid parental leave cheap college and training great infrastructure and vacations just like every other modern country like Australia New Zealand. He ought to stop saying Scandinavia and Germany scares people just because they're stupid.okay brainwash functionally stupid because the propaganda machine is always bad-mouthing Europe. While they have 7 million refugees the GOP caused.

I don't want to be "Canada", I don't want America to model themselves after a country that doesn't relate to American values or usurps the Bill of Rights and the organic Constitution. I labor in one hour increments for a fiat currency with no intrinsic value. Who the fuck are you to say that more should be confiscated for the "greater good"? Most Americans (if given the opportunity) just want to be left the fuck alone and want nothing to do with the commie ideals that you and your ilk propose. Freedom and liberty comes with the risks that it entails. The biggest mistake little commie fucks like you could EVER make is to underestimate the determination of people that don't want the type of system you propose and will fight unto the death to prevent it from happening.

 

[Augustine_]

The people decided the Presidential election in 2016 yet some still can't accept it to this day.

The electoral college, not the people.

Incorrect and that argument always will be.

If 6 people voted for an apple, and 4 people voted for a banana; what did the people vote to eat?

If 6 people voted for an apple, and 4 people voted for a banana; what did the people vote to eat?

If 304 electors voted for an apple, and 227 electors voted for a banana; why isn't Hillary President?

Electors? Here I thought we were talking about people. If you want to add obsolete, centuries old systems into the vote about a banana vs. an apple then the least you can do is answer the original question first.

 

[Augustine_]

The people decided the Presidential election in 2016 yet some still can't accept it to this day.

The electoral college, not the people.

The electoral college is the people, state by state.

See, you had to add a qualifier there. There's a big difference between "what the people voted for" vs. "what the people voted for, but were overruled by some bullshit."

 

[Dale Smith]

The people decided the Presidential election in 2016 yet some still can't accept it to this day.

The electoral college, not the people.

The electoral college is the people, state by state.

See, you had to add a qualifier there. There's a big difference between "what the people voted for" vs. "what the people voted for, but were overruled by some bullshit."

LMAO!!!! You are so fucking ignorant about why the electoral college was put in place to begin with and what the role of the federal "gubermint" was intended to do. Let me guess...you are in your early 30's and got a certificate of completion in liberal arts from your local community college?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The people decided the Presidential election in 2016 yet some still can't accept it to this day.

The electoral college, not the people.

Incorrect and that argument always will be.

If 6 people voted for an apple, and 4 people voted for a banana; what did the people vote to eat?

If 6 people voted for an apple, and 4 people voted for a banana; what did the people vote to eat?

If 304 electors voted for an apple, and 227 electors voted for a banana; why isn't Hillary President?

Electors? Here I thought we were talking about people. If you want to add obsolete, centuries old systems into the vote about a banana vs. an apple then the least you can do is answer the original question first.

Here I thought we were talking about people.

Why would we be talking about people?

If you want to add obsolete, centuries old systems into the vote

Obsolete?

no longer produced or used; out of date.

Used in 2016, about to be used in 2020 and will be used again in 2024.
Nothing obsolete about it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The people decided the Presidential election in 2016 yet some still can't accept it to this day.

The electoral college, not the people.

The electoral college is the people, state by state.

See, you had to add a qualifier there. There's a big difference between "what the people voted for" vs. "what the people voted for, but were overruled by some bullshit."

There's a big difference between "what the people voted for" vs. "what the people voted for, but were overruled by some bullshit."

Which state(s) had their people's votes overruled?

 

[MarcATL]

Bernie will be the next President. Not to worry OP.

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bernie will be the next President. Not to worry OP.

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

I hear Venezuela could use a new President.
Maybe he can move there after Trump spanks him?

 

[Yarddog]

Since the DAY the Constitution was ratified the President has been ELECTED via the electoral college. Pretty simply concept. Each State has x amount of electors, in order to win you need more then half of them to vote for you. How do you get electors? By winning State elections on Election day. Except 2 States all States have winner take all elector rules.

If Hillary Clinton was TOO STUPID to campaign in enough States to win them then the people DID IN FACT vote in Trump. The popular vote is meaningless EXCEPT inside an individual State. It does not matter if the entire state of New York and California vote for one person you need to win in enough States to garner enough electoral votes.

Whelp, that's not accurate either.

Take that infamous trio of states that pushed Rump over the hump in 2016 by a combined margin of 77,000 votes, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. *NOBODY* won the state vote of any of those states. Nor did anybody win this state (North Carolina). Nor did any candidate with the vote of Florida, Virginia, Minnesota, Colorado, Arizona or Utah. Yet every one sent 100% of their electoral votes to a candidate who could not win even half that state's vote.

From what I can see, Trump won higher percentages in those states and most states have winner take all rules. Seems fair enough. If Hillary wins a higher percentage in Florida she gets all the electoral votes.

 

[Fueri]

Any Democrat with two brain cells remaining, knows that Bernie has zero chance of beating Trump in 2020

So the Democrat Party is desperate to find a way to derail Bernie and run a more palpable candidate the America people will vote for.. ...

palpable

able to be touched or felt.

Ummm.........

Well, feel The Bern....

 

[SmokeALib]

...I’ll give them credit for one thing.

They don’t have a superdelegate system.

Bernie will likely be the democratic nominee, but there’s still a small chance he won’t get the majority of delegates needed to be the winner and a contested convention would then occur. Those “superdelegates” who worship the DNC’s narrative might go for Bloomberg because they believe he can win against Trump, but they shouldn’t get the chance to decide. Bloomberg and those like him on the right represent all that is wrong with American politics. The people need to decide the election - not the billionaires.

Beat it.

 

[San Souci]

...I’ll give them credit for one thing.

They don’t have a superdelegate system.

Bernie will likely be the democratic nominee, but there’s still a small chance he won’t get the majority of delegates needed to be the winner and a contested convention would then occur. Those “superdelegates” who worship the DNC’s narrative might go for Bloomberg because they believe he can win against Trump, but they shouldn’t get the chance to decide. Bloomberg and those like him on the right represent all that is wrong with American politics. The people need to decide the election - not the billionaires.

May the CEO power rule forever. It takes BRAINS to run a country. What would "Workers" do with no employers?