It's time to start thinking about resistance.

[theDoctorisIn]

No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.

That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.

Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???

Can you show me a single example of the Super Delegates turning an election against the Democratic candidate with the most pledged delegates?

Just name the year it happened.

Happens EVERY recent election cycle. . That's why the REPUBLICAN debate stage is ALWAYS overcrowded and the DEMS end up DISCOURAGING folks from EVEN ATTEMPTING to run..

That's simply not true. In 2008, for example, Obama won the party's nomination with the most delegates and the most superdelegates.

Hillary had those delegates. The DNC ordered them to change.

Of course they did.

 

[OnePercenter]

[

So the plan is to hand complete control of the government to Democrats?

Putting the middle class first.

Putting the middle class into gulags first, you mean.

Putting the middle class into gulags first, you mean.

That's what the right is doing.

The number one problem facing the middle class today is wage/price gap. Closing the gap will help the middle class and our economy by increasing middle class spending. The candidates on the right have either no plan, or have stated that they are going to do nothing.

Of course middle class conservatives will vote for the 'do nothing' or 'against their own best interest' candidates. ie; sociopath.

 

[OnePercenter]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

So how do we start?

It's quite simple.........Quit voting for Republicans.

We start locally. Put constitutional candidates who will defend their locals from the feds, and kick federal agents offbpublic lands. If necessary, use deadly force.

We start locally. Put constitutional candidates who will defend their locals from the feds, and kick federal agents offbpublic lands. If necessary, use deadly force

You mean defending the rights of multi-millionaires such as Bundy?

 

[Faun]

No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.

That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.

Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???

Can you show me a single example of the Super Delegates turning an election against the Democratic candidate with the most pledged delegates?

Just name the year it happened.

Happens EVERY recent election cycle. . That's why the REPUBLICAN debate stage is ALWAYS overcrowded and the DEMS end up DISCOURAGING folks from EVEN ATTEMPTING to run..

That's simply not true. In 2008, for example, Obama won the party's nomination with the most delegates and the most superdelegates.

Hillary had those delegates. The DNC ordered them to change.

Did they do that because Obama is black? Err, I mean... half black.

 

[flacaltenn]

In the context of the thread title -- "the resistance" is in motion.. And it's clear that THIS YEAR -- the war is on between the "outsiders" and the "insiders".. It's undeniable. And on the Rep side -- all the hard INSIDERS are already gone with the exception of that nuisance (one my FORMER heroes before I knew him better) Kasich.

OTH -- The Dems have had years of designing defenses against the "outsiders" and their actual voters. And the public -- including MANY key Dem orgs like MOVEON are now realizing that BEFORE Iowa and N. Hampshire the LARGEST STATE in Democrat Union -- the DNC themselves --- had and election and threw about 700 delegates at the preferred front-runner.

Best not to make little of this revolt. Not between Reps and Dems.. It's between the people and the 2 parties who are ONLY concerned with WINNING elections and not governing or fixing crap...

 

[flacaltenn]

So you like gassing children hiding in bunkers? Shooting mothers holding their babies in their arms. Your sense of sense of "self-preservation" when it comes to abuse of government power is sorely lacking. I think you'd love an actual Tyranny if they were abusing and killing the proper people..

I said nothing about Ruby Ridge. As far as Waco, I hold the parents responsible for leaving their children inside a compound where they were hold up indefinitely in defiance of arrest warrants.

All warrants COULD HAVE been served either by the local Sheriff who had a great relationship with the Mt Carmel folks or by the BATF folks who had been to fucking BBQs at the "compound" just weeks before. They even shot with these guys on their range.

But an "example" needed to made and photo ops and news to manufacture. All that new gear and shit. Couldn't help themselves.

Could have been but weren't. Instead, many of the Branch Davidians decided to hold up inside that compound indefinitely; hoping the law would just walk away. Even worse for them, they kept their own children in danger. The parents are to blame for their childrens' deaths.

First thing that happened at the compound was they shot the Kid's dogs. In a FENCED area. IN FRONT of the children.. No parent is gonna release their children to folks that ESCALATE a simple dispute about reselling gun parts into a military operation done for photo ops and press coverage.

First thing the "whackos" did was to call the Local Sheriff and ask him WHY people were shooting their dogs and at the compound. It was a SPECTACULAR over-use of power..

Then for 51 days, the Branch Davidians holed up in their compound, in defiance of arrest warrants, until law enforcement decided to root them out. At which time, most of the remaining Davidians who had not already turned themselves in, committed mass suicide.

Right -- they GASSED the children KNOWING exactly where to put the armored vehicles delivering the gas. They pounded the buildings with flashbangs and gas grenades known to be able to ignite fires. WITHOUT having a fire suppression plan. The FBI was cautioned by their lawyers, but refused to plan for fire/medical aid.

You can sleep calling it "suicide".. I call it escalation of unnecessary force. Something the govt is prone to do when THEY over-reach and aggravate the situation in the first place.

 

[flacaltenn]

SuperDelegates is a designed feature to shorten the primary bloodshed. Front load the support for the "perceived" winner and that person will not come out as scarred and bloodied by debates and competition.. The idiot media will declare the contest over as soon as the delegate count becomes lop-sided.

No idiot is gonna declare to run when they are facing a 15% deficit in delegates before they start. Only aging PRINCIPLED folks like Sanders who declares for reasons OTHER THAN WINNING are gonna line up for the process..

So how come there's not 12 or 15 candidates at the START of each DEM primary process? It's the fucking tyranny of what the PARTIES have become. That's why I dropped in here. Lot of couch patriots expecting the tyranny is gonna come from the Oval Office. It's coming from the 2 power whoring parties...

You're building an incorrect narrative by connecting dots that aren't connected. It's really pretty straight-forward.

The "superdelegate" system is more of a way to reward party faithful with importance than any of the conspiracy theories that you're putting together. The number of declared candidates has nothing to do with people being scared away by superdelegate counts - every candidate knows that if they rack up some primary wins, they'll get superdelegates to hop the fence to them.

Never said the number of declared delegates scare away potential candidates. It's the PARTY control that the DNC feels appropriate to wield that gives Dems such clearly stunted choice. If a candidate like Hillary can bind up the 760 SuperTwits BEFORE IOWA what's the sense of running a campaign on issues, proposals and character.. NOTE a citizen has yet voted --- and the PARTY has put a protective device in to ASSURE that party discipline is enforced. It's to cut short the democratic process and control the carnage.

Sgt Shultz can't even explain it.. Except for speaking out of both sides of her mouth about "weeding out grassroots candidates".. Meaning you OBEY the SGT or you're ass is grassroots. No dissent, no controversy, no new fangled grassy ideas tolerated.

We need more questions like this one from Jake Tapper to Debbie Wasserman Schultz [video]


TAPPER: Hillary Clinton lost to Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire by 22 percentage points, the biggest victory in a contested Democratic primary there since John F. Kennedy, but it looks as though Clinton and Sanders are leaving the Granite State with the same number of delegates in their pockets because Clinton has the support of New Hampshire's superdelegates, these party insiders. What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it's all rigged?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, let me just make sure that I can clarify exactly what was available during the primaries in Iowa and in New Hampshire. The unpledged delegates are a separate category. The only thing available on the ballot in a primary and a caucus is the pledged delegates, those that are tied to the candidate that they are pledged to support. And they receive a proportional number of delegates going into the — going into our convention.

Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots activists. We are, as a Democratic Party, really highlight and emphasize inclusiveness and diversity at our convention, and so we want to give every opportunity to grass-roots activists and diverse committed Democrats to be able to participate, attend and be a delegate at the convention. And so we separate out those unpledged delegates to make sure that there isn't competition between them.

TAPPER: I'm not sure that that would — that answer would satisfy an anxious young voter, but let's move on.


Tapper -- being the useless turd he is -- let her off with the "we love grassrooters, but we can't let them win" bullshit. If THAT doesn't make you mad, how about Bernie coming out of New Hampshire with the voters giving him 15 to 9 delegates over Shillary. BUT --- the actual DNC book-keeping books the sale at about 16 to 16...

And if THAT doesn't get mad -- Your own PARTY is gonna argue with you. Don't need to hear outrage from a marginalized political person like me. .MOVE ON --- that great "grassroots" DEM organization has almost 200,000 signatures on a petition to DNC to END this tyranny over the ballot box.

So just ho-hum and poo poo all ya want.. There's gonna be hell to pay when folks find out that MODERN TYRANNY starts with POLITICAL PARTIES disenfranchising and discounting the "will of the people".

Are you a member of the Democratic Party?

If not, it's hard to take your outrage on the part of Democrats seriously. But even so, you're mistaken on a number of points.

First of all, Hillary did not "bind up" any superdelegates before Iowa. Superdelegates are "unbound", that's the whole point of it. There's no "DNC book-keeping" - that's the media counting the delegates, not the DNC. The DNC doesn't count their "books" until the convention - nothing a superdelegate says right up until the first vote in the convention has any actual meaning.

As for "Sgt. Schultz", painting her as some sort of mastermind and dictator is so ludicrous in context of how it actually works that I can hardly keep a straight face.

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.. BOTH the DNC and MEDIA are counting those SuperDelegates,. THey are NOT "unbound". They have stated a CLEAR preference. They are patronage positions and are largely composed by CURRENTLY ELECTED Democrats and the leaders of the DNC. Ain't no Joe Average delegate.

Ask the WashPo what the Dem "delegate" count is. They will INCLUDE the Supertwits. And it will show that Bernie to date only has 6% of those "party snubs" who are there to make sure the DEM PARTY is in control of the process -- And not the people.

You gotta just deny a whole shitload of stuff to be in denial on this... Tell me -- WHY ARE THEY THERE? You have a better explanation than Sgt Schultz's non-answer??? They are there UNDOUBTABLY because the Party didn't LIKE the choices of McGovern and Carter.. THAT'S the real answer.. They are there because they don't TRUST mere citizens to determine who's "Democrat enough" to be a Prez candidate..

I'm going to break this up into parts.

THey are NOT "unbound". They have stated a CLEAR preference.

Those two statements are not contradictory. They may have "preferences", but they're not "bound" to them - they are able to change those preferences whenever they want, up until the day of the convention - and they almost always do. As has been pointed out many times already, in 2008 many of the superdelegates who initially supported Clinton ended up voting for Obama.

They are patronage positions and are largely composed by CURRENTLY ELECTED Democrats and the leaders of the DNC. Ain't no Joe Average delegate.

They are not "patronage positions", they're defined by DNC rules. No one at the DNC gets to choose who the superdelegates are, they're given that power by rules already in place due to winning elections, whether to government office or party position. As I've already said in this thread, my former business partner is a superdelegate this year, and he's no less of a "Joe Average" as you or I.

You gotta just deny a whole shitload of stuff to be in denial on this...

The only things that I'm "denying" is your massive conspiracy masterminded by the Dr. Evil-like Debbie W-S. The rest of your post is basically accurate.

You got a friend "who's no less of a Joe Average than you or I" ??? Don't know what that means exactly.. Being no less of a Joe Average (or Average Joe) I suppose would put him (us?) somewhere ABOVE average ???

And all those elected officials and DNC elite are all "Average Joes"?? Here's a fact Doc --

Every single fucking one of them = the votes of about 10,000 REAL Average Joes..

Anyway -- It's NOT CLEAR at all what kind of interview/selection/pledge is involved. The Wiki is not confused. There is a running tally there of Names, Allegiance, and why they were selected.

Sanders supporters revolt against superdelegates

Presumably -- your "no less of an Joe Avg" has his name on that list. Betcha I know where his disenfranchised 10,000 votes will go...

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You're building an incorrect narrative by connecting dots that aren't connected. It's really pretty straight-forward.

The "superdelegate" system is more of a way to reward party faithful with importance than any of the conspiracy theories that you're putting together. The number of declared candidates has nothing to do with people being scared away by superdelegate counts - every candidate knows that if they rack up some primary wins, they'll get superdelegates to hop the fence to them.

Never said the number of declared delegates scare away potential candidates. It's the PARTY control that the DNC feels appropriate to wield that gives Dems such clearly stunted choice. If a candidate like Hillary can bind up the 760 SuperTwits BEFORE IOWA what's the sense of running a campaign on issues, proposals and character.. NOTE a citizen has yet voted --- and the PARTY has put a protective device in to ASSURE that party discipline is enforced. It's to cut short the democratic process and control the carnage.

Sgt Shultz can't even explain it.. Except for speaking out of both sides of her mouth about "weeding out grassroots candidates".. Meaning you OBEY the SGT or you're ass is grassroots. No dissent, no controversy, no new fangled grassy ideas tolerated.

We need more questions like this one from Jake Tapper to Debbie Wasserman Schultz [video]


TAPPER: Hillary Clinton lost to Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire by 22 percentage points, the biggest victory in a contested Democratic primary there since John F. Kennedy, but it looks as though Clinton and Sanders are leaving the Granite State with the same number of delegates in their pockets because Clinton has the support of New Hampshire's superdelegates, these party insiders. What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it's all rigged?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, let me just make sure that I can clarify exactly what was available during the primaries in Iowa and in New Hampshire. The unpledged delegates are a separate category. The only thing available on the ballot in a primary and a caucus is the pledged delegates, those that are tied to the candidate that they are pledged to support. And they receive a proportional number of delegates going into the — going into our convention.

Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots activists. We are, as a Democratic Party, really highlight and emphasize inclusiveness and diversity at our convention, and so we want to give every opportunity to grass-roots activists and diverse committed Democrats to be able to participate, attend and be a delegate at the convention. And so we separate out those unpledged delegates to make sure that there isn't competition between them.

TAPPER: I'm not sure that that would — that answer would satisfy an anxious young voter, but let's move on.


Tapper -- being the useless turd he is -- let her off with the "we love grassrooters, but we can't let them win" bullshit. If THAT doesn't make you mad, how about Bernie coming out of New Hampshire with the voters giving him 15 to 9 delegates over Shillary. BUT --- the actual DNC book-keeping books the sale at about 16 to 16...

And if THAT doesn't get mad -- Your own PARTY is gonna argue with you. Don't need to hear outrage from a marginalized political person like me. .MOVE ON --- that great "grassroots" DEM organization has almost 200,000 signatures on a petition to DNC to END this tyranny over the ballot box.

So just ho-hum and poo poo all ya want.. There's gonna be hell to pay when folks find out that MODERN TYRANNY starts with POLITICAL PARTIES disenfranchising and discounting the "will of the people".

Are you a member of the Democratic Party?

If not, it's hard to take your outrage on the part of Democrats seriously. But even so, you're mistaken on a number of points.

First of all, Hillary did not "bind up" any superdelegates before Iowa. Superdelegates are "unbound", that's the whole point of it. There's no "DNC book-keeping" - that's the media counting the delegates, not the DNC. The DNC doesn't count their "books" until the convention - nothing a superdelegate says right up until the first vote in the convention has any actual meaning.

As for "Sgt. Schultz", painting her as some sort of mastermind and dictator is so ludicrous in context of how it actually works that I can hardly keep a straight face.

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.. BOTH the DNC and MEDIA are counting those SuperDelegates,. THey are NOT "unbound". They have stated a CLEAR preference. They are patronage positions and are largely composed by CURRENTLY ELECTED Democrats and the leaders of the DNC. Ain't no Joe Average delegate.

Ask the WashPo what the Dem "delegate" count is. They will INCLUDE the Supertwits. And it will show that Bernie to date only has 6% of those "party snubs" who are there to make sure the DEM PARTY is in control of the process -- And not the people.

You gotta just deny a whole shitload of stuff to be in denial on this... Tell me -- WHY ARE THEY THERE? You have a better explanation than Sgt Schultz's non-answer??? They are there UNDOUBTABLY because the Party didn't LIKE the choices of McGovern and Carter.. THAT'S the real answer.. They are there because they don't TRUST mere citizens to determine who's "Democrat enough" to be a Prez candidate..

I'm going to break this up into parts.

THey are NOT "unbound". They have stated a CLEAR preference.

Those two statements are not contradictory. They may have "preferences", but they're not "bound" to them - they are able to change those preferences whenever they want, up until the day of the convention - and they almost always do. As has been pointed out many times already, in 2008 many of the superdelegates who initially supported Clinton ended up voting for Obama.

They are patronage positions and are largely composed by CURRENTLY ELECTED Democrats and the leaders of the DNC. Ain't no Joe Average delegate.

They are not "patronage positions", they're defined by DNC rules. No one at the DNC gets to choose who the superdelegates are, they're given that power by rules already in place due to winning elections, whether to government office or party position. As I've already said in this thread, my former business partner is a superdelegate this year, and he's no less of a "Joe Average" as you or I.

You gotta just deny a whole shitload of stuff to be in denial on this...

The only things that I'm "denying" is your massive conspiracy masterminded by the Dr. Evil-like Debbie W-S. The rest of your post is basically accurate.

You got a friend "who's no less of a Joe Average than you or I" ??? Don't know what that means exactly.. Being no less of a Joe Average (or Average Joe) I suppose would put him (us?) somewhere ABOVE average ???

And all those elected officials and DNC elite are all "Average Joes"?? Here's a fact Doc --

Every single fucking one of them = the votes of about 10,000 REAL Average Joes..

Anyway -- It's NOT CLEAR at all what kind of interview/selection/pledge is involved. The Wiki is not confused. There is a running tally there of Names, Allegiance, and why they were selected.

Sanders supporters revolt against superdelegates

Presumably -- your "no less of an Joe Avg" has his name on that list. Betcha I know where his disenfranchised 10,000 votes will go...

He's a superdelegate because he's the chair of his state's Democratic Primary - an office that he was elected to.

His name is on that list, but I'm not going to post it. He's voting for Bernie, although he hasn't publicized it yet.

 

[flacaltenn]

If one SuperTwit = 10,000 Avg Joes --- I have no idea how that is NOT voter disenfranchisement ---- or Party tyranny or defense against voter resistance..

 

[IsaacNewton]

Soooo...still thinking about it. That's good, best to think something through before doing it, otherwise you'll take some birds in Oregon hostage for a few weeks or shoot up some cows and end up dead.

 

[flacaltenn]

Never said the number of declared delegates scare away potential candidates. It's the PARTY control that the DNC feels appropriate to wield that gives Dems such clearly stunted choice. If a candidate like Hillary can bind up the 760 SuperTwits BEFORE IOWA what's the sense of running a campaign on issues, proposals and character.. NOTE a citizen has yet voted --- and the PARTY has put a protective device in to ASSURE that party discipline is enforced. It's to cut short the democratic process and control the carnage.

Sgt Shultz can't even explain it.. Except for speaking out of both sides of her mouth about "weeding out grassroots candidates".. Meaning you OBEY the SGT or you're ass is grassroots. No dissent, no controversy, no new fangled grassy ideas tolerated.

We need more questions like this one from Jake Tapper to Debbie Wasserman Schultz [video]


TAPPER: Hillary Clinton lost to Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire by 22 percentage points, the biggest victory in a contested Democratic primary there since John F. Kennedy, but it looks as though Clinton and Sanders are leaving the Granite State with the same number of delegates in their pockets because Clinton has the support of New Hampshire's superdelegates, these party insiders. What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it's all rigged?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, let me just make sure that I can clarify exactly what was available during the primaries in Iowa and in New Hampshire. The unpledged delegates are a separate category. The only thing available on the ballot in a primary and a caucus is the pledged delegates, those that are tied to the candidate that they are pledged to support. And they receive a proportional number of delegates going into the — going into our convention.

Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots activists. We are, as a Democratic Party, really highlight and emphasize inclusiveness and diversity at our convention, and so we want to give every opportunity to grass-roots activists and diverse committed Democrats to be able to participate, attend and be a delegate at the convention. And so we separate out those unpledged delegates to make sure that there isn't competition between them.

TAPPER: I'm not sure that that would — that answer would satisfy an anxious young voter, but let's move on.


Tapper -- being the useless turd he is -- let her off with the "we love grassrooters, but we can't let them win" bullshit. If THAT doesn't make you mad, how about Bernie coming out of New Hampshire with the voters giving him 15 to 9 delegates over Shillary. BUT --- the actual DNC book-keeping books the sale at about 16 to 16...

And if THAT doesn't get mad -- Your own PARTY is gonna argue with you. Don't need to hear outrage from a marginalized political person like me. .MOVE ON --- that great "grassroots" DEM organization has almost 200,000 signatures on a petition to DNC to END this tyranny over the ballot box.

So just ho-hum and poo poo all ya want.. There's gonna be hell to pay when folks find out that MODERN TYRANNY starts with POLITICAL PARTIES disenfranchising and discounting the "will of the people".

Are you a member of the Democratic Party?

If not, it's hard to take your outrage on the part of Democrats seriously. But even so, you're mistaken on a number of points.

First of all, Hillary did not "bind up" any superdelegates before Iowa. Superdelegates are "unbound", that's the whole point of it. There's no "DNC book-keeping" - that's the media counting the delegates, not the DNC. The DNC doesn't count their "books" until the convention - nothing a superdelegate says right up until the first vote in the convention has any actual meaning.

As for "Sgt. Schultz", painting her as some sort of mastermind and dictator is so ludicrous in context of how it actually works that I can hardly keep a straight face.

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.. BOTH the DNC and MEDIA are counting those SuperDelegates,. THey are NOT "unbound". They have stated a CLEAR preference. They are patronage positions and are largely composed by CURRENTLY ELECTED Democrats and the leaders of the DNC. Ain't no Joe Average delegate.

Ask the WashPo what the Dem "delegate" count is. They will INCLUDE the Supertwits. And it will show that Bernie to date only has 6% of those "party snubs" who are there to make sure the DEM PARTY is in control of the process -- And not the people.

You gotta just deny a whole shitload of stuff to be in denial on this... Tell me -- WHY ARE THEY THERE? You have a better explanation than Sgt Schultz's non-answer??? They are there UNDOUBTABLY because the Party didn't LIKE the choices of McGovern and Carter.. THAT'S the real answer.. They are there because they don't TRUST mere citizens to determine who's "Democrat enough" to be a Prez candidate..

I'm going to break this up into parts.

THey are NOT "unbound". They have stated a CLEAR preference.

Those two statements are not contradictory. They may have "preferences", but they're not "bound" to them - they are able to change those preferences whenever they want, up until the day of the convention - and they almost always do. As has been pointed out many times already, in 2008 many of the superdelegates who initially supported Clinton ended up voting for Obama.

They are patronage positions and are largely composed by CURRENTLY ELECTED Democrats and the leaders of the DNC. Ain't no Joe Average delegate.

They are not "patronage positions", they're defined by DNC rules. No one at the DNC gets to choose who the superdelegates are, they're given that power by rules already in place due to winning elections, whether to government office or party position. As I've already said in this thread, my former business partner is a superdelegate this year, and he's no less of a "Joe Average" as you or I.

You gotta just deny a whole shitload of stuff to be in denial on this...

The only things that I'm "denying" is your massive conspiracy masterminded by the Dr. Evil-like Debbie W-S. The rest of your post is basically accurate.

You got a friend "who's no less of a Joe Average than you or I" ??? Don't know what that means exactly.. Being no less of a Joe Average (or Average Joe) I suppose would put him (us?) somewhere ABOVE average ???

And all those elected officials and DNC elite are all "Average Joes"?? Here's a fact Doc --

Every single fucking one of them = the votes of about 10,000 REAL Average Joes..

Anyway -- It's NOT CLEAR at all what kind of interview/selection/pledge is involved. The Wiki is not confused. There is a running tally there of Names, Allegiance, and why they were selected.

Sanders supporters revolt against superdelegates

Presumably -- your "no less of an Joe Avg" has his name on that list. Betcha I know where his disenfranchised 10,000 votes will go...

He's a superdelegate because he's the chair of his state's Democratic Primary - an office that he was elected to.

His name is on that list, but I'm not going to post it. He's voting for Bernie, although he hasn't publicized it yet.

That's brave of him. .He wouldn't be feeling intimidated or anything --- would he? He's the rare "uncommitted" super delegate..

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Are you a member of the Democratic Party?

If not, it's hard to take your outrage on the part of Democrats seriously. But even so, you're mistaken on a number of points.

First of all, Hillary did not "bind up" any superdelegates before Iowa. Superdelegates are "unbound", that's the whole point of it. There's no "DNC book-keeping" - that's the media counting the delegates, not the DNC. The DNC doesn't count their "books" until the convention - nothing a superdelegate says right up until the first vote in the convention has any actual meaning.

As for "Sgt. Schultz", painting her as some sort of mastermind and dictator is so ludicrous in context of how it actually works that I can hardly keep a straight face.

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.. BOTH the DNC and MEDIA are counting those SuperDelegates,. THey are NOT "unbound". They have stated a CLEAR preference. They are patronage positions and are largely composed by CURRENTLY ELECTED Democrats and the leaders of the DNC. Ain't no Joe Average delegate.

Ask the WashPo what the Dem "delegate" count is. They will INCLUDE the Supertwits. And it will show that Bernie to date only has 6% of those "party snubs" who are there to make sure the DEM PARTY is in control of the process -- And not the people.

You gotta just deny a whole shitload of stuff to be in denial on this... Tell me -- WHY ARE THEY THERE? You have a better explanation than Sgt Schultz's non-answer??? They are there UNDOUBTABLY because the Party didn't LIKE the choices of McGovern and Carter.. THAT'S the real answer.. They are there because they don't TRUST mere citizens to determine who's "Democrat enough" to be a Prez candidate..

I'm going to break this up into parts.

THey are NOT "unbound". They have stated a CLEAR preference.

Those two statements are not contradictory. They may have "preferences", but they're not "bound" to them - they are able to change those preferences whenever they want, up until the day of the convention - and they almost always do. As has been pointed out many times already, in 2008 many of the superdelegates who initially supported Clinton ended up voting for Obama.

They are patronage positions and are largely composed by CURRENTLY ELECTED Democrats and the leaders of the DNC. Ain't no Joe Average delegate.

They are not "patronage positions", they're defined by DNC rules. No one at the DNC gets to choose who the superdelegates are, they're given that power by rules already in place due to winning elections, whether to government office or party position. As I've already said in this thread, my former business partner is a superdelegate this year, and he's no less of a "Joe Average" as you or I.

You gotta just deny a whole shitload of stuff to be in denial on this...

The only things that I'm "denying" is your massive conspiracy masterminded by the Dr. Evil-like Debbie W-S. The rest of your post is basically accurate.

You got a friend "who's no less of a Joe Average than you or I" ??? Don't know what that means exactly.. Being no less of a Joe Average (or Average Joe) I suppose would put him (us?) somewhere ABOVE average ???

And all those elected officials and DNC elite are all "Average Joes"?? Here's a fact Doc --

Every single fucking one of them = the votes of about 10,000 REAL Average Joes..

Anyway -- It's NOT CLEAR at all what kind of interview/selection/pledge is involved. The Wiki is not confused. There is a running tally there of Names, Allegiance, and why they were selected.

Sanders supporters revolt against superdelegates

Presumably -- your "no less of an Joe Avg" has his name on that list. Betcha I know where his disenfranchised 10,000 votes will go...

He's a superdelegate because he's the chair of his state's Democratic Primary - an office that he was elected to.

His name is on that list, but I'm not going to post it. He's voting for Bernie, although he hasn't publicized it yet.

That's brave of him. .He wouldn't be feeling intimidated or anything --- would he? He's the rare "uncommitted" super delegate..

See, this is what I'm talking about. The whole narrative you've built is ridiculous. Stop trying to make boogeymen, and let's stick to reality.

No one has "intimidated" him. No one has pressured him. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has never told him who to vote for, nor has anyone else at the DNC.

 

[flacaltenn]

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.. BOTH the DNC and MEDIA are counting those SuperDelegates,. THey are NOT "unbound". They have stated a CLEAR preference. They are patronage positions and are largely composed by CURRENTLY ELECTED Democrats and the leaders of the DNC. Ain't no Joe Average delegate.

Ask the WashPo what the Dem "delegate" count is. They will INCLUDE the Supertwits. And it will show that Bernie to date only has 6% of those "party snubs" who are there to make sure the DEM PARTY is in control of the process -- And not the people.

You gotta just deny a whole shitload of stuff to be in denial on this... Tell me -- WHY ARE THEY THERE? You have a better explanation than Sgt Schultz's non-answer??? They are there UNDOUBTABLY because the Party didn't LIKE the choices of McGovern and Carter.. THAT'S the real answer.. They are there because they don't TRUST mere citizens to determine who's "Democrat enough" to be a Prez candidate..

I'm going to break this up into parts.

THey are NOT "unbound". They have stated a CLEAR preference.

Those two statements are not contradictory. They may have "preferences", but they're not "bound" to them - they are able to change those preferences whenever they want, up until the day of the convention - and they almost always do. As has been pointed out many times already, in 2008 many of the superdelegates who initially supported Clinton ended up voting for Obama.

They are patronage positions and are largely composed by CURRENTLY ELECTED Democrats and the leaders of the DNC. Ain't no Joe Average delegate.

They are not "patronage positions", they're defined by DNC rules. No one at the DNC gets to choose who the superdelegates are, they're given that power by rules already in place due to winning elections, whether to government office or party position. As I've already said in this thread, my former business partner is a superdelegate this year, and he's no less of a "Joe Average" as you or I.

You gotta just deny a whole shitload of stuff to be in denial on this...

The only things that I'm "denying" is your massive conspiracy masterminded by the Dr. Evil-like Debbie W-S. The rest of your post is basically accurate.

You got a friend "who's no less of a Joe Average than you or I" ??? Don't know what that means exactly.. Being no less of a Joe Average (or Average Joe) I suppose would put him (us?) somewhere ABOVE average ???

And all those elected officials and DNC elite are all "Average Joes"?? Here's a fact Doc --

Every single fucking one of them = the votes of about 10,000 REAL Average Joes..

Anyway -- It's NOT CLEAR at all what kind of interview/selection/pledge is involved. The Wiki is not confused. There is a running tally there of Names, Allegiance, and why they were selected.

Sanders supporters revolt against superdelegates

Presumably -- your "no less of an Joe Avg" has his name on that list. Betcha I know where his disenfranchised 10,000 votes will go...

He's a superdelegate because he's the chair of his state's Democratic Primary - an office that he was elected to.

His name is on that list, but I'm not going to post it. He's voting for Bernie, although he hasn't publicized it yet.

That's brave of him. .He wouldn't be feeling intimidated or anything --- would he? He's the rare "uncommitted" super delegate..

See, this is what I'm talking about. The whole narrative you've built is ridiculous. Stop trying to make boogeymen, and let's stick to reality.

No one has "intimidated" him. No one has pressured him. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has never told him who to vote for, nor has anyone else at the DNC.

But you said correctly that the Supers were SELECTED by formula. And that formula is a good predictor of selecting the INSIDER. And probably the insider with the most mojo.. Don't NEED to intimidate a bias sample to start with. It was slanted by the formula. But I'm pretty sure it is enforced by peer pressure from all the other "insiders"..

Bernie doesn't even self-identify as a Dem. Is it any wonder to you his voters are being restrained???
If the Repubs had done that -- and tossed 7Mill equivalent votes to Jeb --- you'd be outraged..

I'm guessing........... Or you could care less -- you party animal..

 

[Faun]

I said nothing about Ruby Ridge. As far as Waco, I hold the parents responsible for leaving their children inside a compound where they were hold up indefinitely in defiance of arrest warrants.

All warrants COULD HAVE been served either by the local Sheriff who had a great relationship with the Mt Carmel folks or by the BATF folks who had been to fucking BBQs at the "compound" just weeks before. They even shot with these guys on their range.

But an "example" needed to made and photo ops and news to manufacture. All that new gear and shit. Couldn't help themselves.

Could have been but weren't. Instead, many of the Branch Davidians decided to hold up inside that compound indefinitely; hoping the law would just walk away. Even worse for them, they kept their own children in danger. The parents are to blame for their childrens' deaths.

First thing that happened at the compound was they shot the Kid's dogs. In a FENCED area. IN FRONT of the children.. No parent is gonna release their children to folks that ESCALATE a simple dispute about reselling gun parts into a military operation done for photo ops and press coverage.

First thing the "whackos" did was to call the Local Sheriff and ask him WHY people were shooting their dogs and at the compound. It was a SPECTACULAR over-use of power..

Then for 51 days, the Branch Davidians holed up in their compound, in defiance of arrest warrants, until law enforcement decided to root them out. At which time, most of the remaining Davidians who had not already turned themselves in, committed mass suicide.

Right -- they GASSED the children KNOWING exactly where to put the armored vehicles delivering the gas. They pounded the buildings with flashbangs and gas grenades known to be able to ignite fires. WITHOUT having a fire suppression plan. The FBI was cautioned by their lawyers, but refused to plan for fire/medical aid.

You can sleep calling it "suicide".. I call it escalation of unnecessary force. Something the govt is prone to do when THEY over-reach and aggravate the situation in the first place.

They poured in tear gas to root them out. Meanwhile, the Davidians were dousing the compound with Coleman fuel which they themselves ignited.

What do you suggest law authorities should have done? Waited indefinitely with the hope the rest of the Davidians would eventually just turn themselves in? That law authorities just leave them in peace? What exactly?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I'm going to break this up into parts.

THey are NOT "unbound". They have stated a CLEAR preference.

Those two statements are not contradictory. They may have "preferences", but they're not "bound" to them - they are able to change those preferences whenever they want, up until the day of the convention - and they almost always do. As has been pointed out many times already, in 2008 many of the superdelegates who initially supported Clinton ended up voting for Obama.

They are patronage positions and are largely composed by CURRENTLY ELECTED Democrats and the leaders of the DNC. Ain't no Joe Average delegate.

They are not "patronage positions", they're defined by DNC rules. No one at the DNC gets to choose who the superdelegates are, they're given that power by rules already in place due to winning elections, whether to government office or party position. As I've already said in this thread, my former business partner is a superdelegate this year, and he's no less of a "Joe Average" as you or I.

You gotta just deny a whole shitload of stuff to be in denial on this...

The only things that I'm "denying" is your massive conspiracy masterminded by the Dr. Evil-like Debbie W-S. The rest of your post is basically accurate.

You got a friend "who's no less of a Joe Average than you or I" ??? Don't know what that means exactly.. Being no less of a Joe Average (or Average Joe) I suppose would put him (us?) somewhere ABOVE average ???

And all those elected officials and DNC elite are all "Average Joes"?? Here's a fact Doc --

Every single fucking one of them = the votes of about 10,000 REAL Average Joes..

Anyway -- It's NOT CLEAR at all what kind of interview/selection/pledge is involved. The Wiki is not confused. There is a running tally there of Names, Allegiance, and why they were selected.

Sanders supporters revolt against superdelegates

Presumably -- your "no less of an Joe Avg" has his name on that list. Betcha I know where his disenfranchised 10,000 votes will go...

He's a superdelegate because he's the chair of his state's Democratic Primary - an office that he was elected to.

His name is on that list, but I'm not going to post it. He's voting for Bernie, although he hasn't publicized it yet.

That's brave of him. .He wouldn't be feeling intimidated or anything --- would he? He's the rare "uncommitted" super delegate..

See, this is what I'm talking about. The whole narrative you've built is ridiculous. Stop trying to make boogeymen, and let's stick to reality.

No one has "intimidated" him. No one has pressured him. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has never told him who to vote for, nor has anyone else at the DNC.

But you said correctly that the Supers were SELECTED by formula. And that formula is a good predictor of selecting the INSIDER. And probably the insider with the most mojo.. Don't NEED to intimidate a bias sample to start with. It was slanted by the formula. But I'm pretty sure it is enforced by peer pressure from all the other "insiders"..

Bernie doesn't even self-identify as a Dem. Is it any wonder to you his voters are being restrained???
If the Repubs had done that -- and tossed 7Mill equivalent votes to Jeb --- you'd be outraged..

I'm guessing........... Or you could care less -- you party animal..

I'm not a member of the Democratic Party, so yeah - I don't really care. Are you?

You're misunderstanding me if you think I'm saying that there's no inherent bias. But your narratives of conspiracy and "intimidation" are nonsense.

 

[flacaltenn]

All warrants COULD HAVE been served either by the local Sheriff who had a great relationship with the Mt Carmel folks or by the BATF folks who had been to fucking BBQs at the "compound" just weeks before. They even shot with these guys on their range.

But an "example" needed to made and photo ops and news to manufacture. All that new gear and shit. Couldn't help themselves.

Could have been but weren't. Instead, many of the Branch Davidians decided to hold up inside that compound indefinitely; hoping the law would just walk away. Even worse for them, they kept their own children in danger. The parents are to blame for their childrens' deaths.

First thing that happened at the compound was they shot the Kid's dogs. In a FENCED area. IN FRONT of the children.. No parent is gonna release their children to folks that ESCALATE a simple dispute about reselling gun parts into a military operation done for photo ops and press coverage.

First thing the "whackos" did was to call the Local Sheriff and ask him WHY people were shooting their dogs and at the compound. It was a SPECTACULAR over-use of power..

Then for 51 days, the Branch Davidians holed up in their compound, in defiance of arrest warrants, until law enforcement decided to root them out. At which time, most of the remaining Davidians who had not already turned themselves in, committed mass suicide.

Right -- they GASSED the children KNOWING exactly where to put the armored vehicles delivering the gas. They pounded the buildings with flashbangs and gas grenades known to be able to ignite fires. WITHOUT having a fire suppression plan. The FBI was cautioned by their lawyers, but refused to plan for fire/medical aid.

You can sleep calling it "suicide".. I call it escalation of unnecessary force. Something the govt is prone to do when THEY over-reach and aggravate the situation in the first place.

They poured in tear gas to root them out. Meanwhile, the Davidians were dousing the compound with Coleman fuel which they themselves ignited.

What do you suggest law authorities should have done? Waited indefinitely with the hope the rest of the Davidians would eventually just turn themselves in? That law authorities just leave them in peace? What exactly?

Show some humility. Call in the LOCAL authorities who had great relations with the Davidians and turn off the psych op loud 24hour "boots were made for walking" torture that drove them crazy.. Listen to the lawyers who were advising that loss of life needed to be addressed BEFORE you launched a military assault?

Can we tie headphones on you for 2 weeks -- crank up the volume and see how more irrational you become?? Pretty sure you'd break before dawn..

Did you know that all the morgue freezers that held intact bodies "malfunctioned"?? Quite convieniently. Since the coroner might have found a bunch of bullet holes as they ran out of the compound? Or the FBI LOST the big iron door to Mt Carmel that would have shown proof of who fired first? Texas Rangers said it was there on the ground when they arrived.. Too many loose ends. Not a justified kill zone... Never justified to gas woman and children in a poorly ventilated bunker..

 

[Faun]

Could have been but weren't. Instead, many of the Branch Davidians decided to hold up inside that compound indefinitely; hoping the law would just walk away. Even worse for them, they kept their own children in danger. The parents are to blame for their childrens' deaths.

First thing that happened at the compound was they shot the Kid's dogs. In a FENCED area. IN FRONT of the children.. No parent is gonna release their children to folks that ESCALATE a simple dispute about reselling gun parts into a military operation done for photo ops and press coverage.

First thing the "whackos" did was to call the Local Sheriff and ask him WHY people were shooting their dogs and at the compound. It was a SPECTACULAR over-use of power..

Then for 51 days, the Branch Davidians holed up in their compound, in defiance of arrest warrants, until law enforcement decided to root them out. At which time, most of the remaining Davidians who had not already turned themselves in, committed mass suicide.

Right -- they GASSED the children KNOWING exactly where to put the armored vehicles delivering the gas. They pounded the buildings with flashbangs and gas grenades known to be able to ignite fires. WITHOUT having a fire suppression plan. The FBI was cautioned by their lawyers, but refused to plan for fire/medical aid.

You can sleep calling it "suicide".. I call it escalation of unnecessary force. Something the govt is prone to do when THEY over-reach and aggravate the situation in the first place.

They poured in tear gas to root them out. Meanwhile, the Davidians were dousing the compound with Coleman fuel which they themselves ignited.

What do you suggest law authorities should have done? Waited indefinitely with the hope the rest of the Davidians would eventually just turn themselves in? That law authorities just leave them in peace? What exactly?

Show some humility. Call in the LOCAL authorities who had great relations with the Davidians and turn off the psych op loud 24hour "boots were made for walking" torture that drove them crazy.. Listen to the lawyers who were advising that loss of life needed to be addressed BEFORE you launched a military assault?

Can we tie headphones on you for 2 weeks -- crank up the volume and see how more irrational you become?? Pretty sure you'd break before dawn..

Did you know that all the morgue freezers that held intact bodies "malfunctioned"?? Quite convieniently. Since the coroner might have found a bunch of bullet holes as they ran out of the compound? Or the FBI LOST the big iron door to Mt Carmel that would have shown proof of who fired first? Texas Rangers said it was there on the ground when they arrived.. Too many loose ends. Not a justified kill zone... Never justified to gas woman and children in a poorly ventilated bunker..

So wait until they chose to come out, in other words.

Now there's a bad plan. They'd still be in there today had that been tried.

 

[flacaltenn]

You got a friend "who's no less of a Joe Average than you or I" ??? Don't know what that means exactly.. Being no less of a Joe Average (or Average Joe) I suppose would put him (us?) somewhere ABOVE average ???

And all those elected officials and DNC elite are all "Average Joes"?? Here's a fact Doc --

Every single fucking one of them = the votes of about 10,000 REAL Average Joes..

Anyway -- It's NOT CLEAR at all what kind of interview/selection/pledge is involved. The Wiki is not confused. There is a running tally there of Names, Allegiance, and why they were selected.

Sanders supporters revolt against superdelegates

Presumably -- your "no less of an Joe Avg" has his name on that list. Betcha I know where his disenfranchised 10,000 votes will go...

He's a superdelegate because he's the chair of his state's Democratic Primary - an office that he was elected to.

His name is on that list, but I'm not going to post it. He's voting for Bernie, although he hasn't publicized it yet.

That's brave of him. .He wouldn't be feeling intimidated or anything --- would he? He's the rare "uncommitted" super delegate..

See, this is what I'm talking about. The whole narrative you've built is ridiculous. Stop trying to make boogeymen, and let's stick to reality.

No one has "intimidated" him. No one has pressured him. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has never told him who to vote for, nor has anyone else at the DNC.

But you said correctly that the Supers were SELECTED by formula. And that formula is a good predictor of selecting the INSIDER. And probably the insider with the most mojo.. Don't NEED to intimidate a bias sample to start with. It was slanted by the formula. But I'm pretty sure it is enforced by peer pressure from all the other "insiders"..

Bernie doesn't even self-identify as a Dem. Is it any wonder to you his voters are being restrained???
If the Repubs had done that -- and tossed 7Mill equivalent votes to Jeb --- you'd be outraged..

I'm guessing........... Or you could care less -- you party animal..

I'm not a member of the Democratic Party, so yeah - I don't really care. Are you?

You're misunderstanding me if you think I'm saying that there's no inherent bias. But your narratives of conspiracy and "intimidation" are nonsense.

I care about ballot access and stopping the DNC/RNC from scripting elections. If you're gonna defuse a real resistance or revolt -- you need to offer more choices than these 2.. Coalition governments work fine in most of the world democracies.. People are rapidly catching on to where the tyranny starts..

 

[theDoctorisIn]

He's a superdelegate because he's the chair of his state's Democratic Primary - an office that he was elected to.

His name is on that list, but I'm not going to post it. He's voting for Bernie, although he hasn't publicized it yet.

That's brave of him. .He wouldn't be feeling intimidated or anything --- would he? He's the rare "uncommitted" super delegate..

See, this is what I'm talking about. The whole narrative you've built is ridiculous. Stop trying to make boogeymen, and let's stick to reality.

No one has "intimidated" him. No one has pressured him. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has never told him who to vote for, nor has anyone else at the DNC.

But you said correctly that the Supers were SELECTED by formula. And that formula is a good predictor of selecting the INSIDER. And probably the insider with the most mojo.. Don't NEED to intimidate a bias sample to start with. It was slanted by the formula. But I'm pretty sure it is enforced by peer pressure from all the other "insiders"..

Bernie doesn't even self-identify as a Dem. Is it any wonder to you his voters are being restrained???
If the Repubs had done that -- and tossed 7Mill equivalent votes to Jeb --- you'd be outraged..

I'm guessing........... Or you could care less -- you party animal..

I'm not a member of the Democratic Party, so yeah - I don't really care. Are you?

You're misunderstanding me if you think I'm saying that there's no inherent bias. But your narratives of conspiracy and "intimidation" are nonsense.

I care about ballot access and stopping the DNC/RNC from scripting elections. If you're gonna defuse a real resistance or revolt -- you need to offer more choices than these 2.. Coalition governments work fine in most of the world democracies.. People are rapidly catching on to where the tyranny starts..

I'm all for a Parliamentary system and coalition governments. But that's just not the system we have.

The system we have will always tend towards a two-party system.

 

[LeftofLeft]

So how do we start?

First put down the bottle of cheap booze and, second, just keep stroking your guns.

Resistance, a form of dissension, is a form of patriotism. Show US where and how you people have never showed a form of Resistance??