Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Superdelegates aren't part of the voting process?
You know Republicans have Superdelegates too...
Superdelegates make up seven percent of the Republican nominating delegation, but they don’t have the same "untethered" status that Democratic superdelegates do.What are superdelegates? (And, yes, Republicans have them, too)
Following the prolonged 2012 nomination of Mitt Romney, the Republican Party decided to instate new convention guidelines. One of these guidelines mandated that all superdelegates vote for the candidate who won their state in the primary.
So basically they are just extra votes.
The tethering is what makes the difference. It gives an air of elitism to the Dem primary.
Seriously, what is your beef? Superdelegates have not effected any primary. They didn't "rig" any election. The popular vote winner has taken the top spot in democrats' primaries. Why is the method how a party, you will never vote for, chooses their candidate for the general election of ANY concern to you?
I just like pointing out how undemocratic the Democrats are.
That they mistrust their own party members so much that they have to rig the game a bit in case they get an outcome the party aristocracy doesn't like.
Except they aren't since Superdelegates have not effected a single primary. Bernie, the non democrat, didn't have anything stolen from him. He lost the POPULAR VOTE and did not win...unlike Donnie Small Hands.
How many of those votes happened after the primaries were already "Decided" via the process, which includes superdelegates?
If their dream includes discriminating against "sinners", then they need to find a better dream. If your dream requires you to break the law and refuse service to the class of people you don't like, then this isn't religion, and you can't make this claim, and really you should not open a business where you cannot serve everyone who comes through the door, based on your belief system.
Only in one specific case, and the guy in Colorado also doesn't do things like Halloween cakes, and dildo cakes.
The law shouldn't be going after this guy in the first place. This is a case of butthurt vs. butthurt, and the government shouldn't be involved.
Contracted services are not Public Accomodations.
But he does do wedding cakes and there is no difference in the cake for a straight wedding, a gay wedding or an interracial wedding.
Accord to the LAW contracted services ARE public accommodations. You bitching about the law with every breath you take does ZERO to change the law.
Does constantly whining about PA laws at least make you feel better? There has to be some benefit to you over your bake the cake obsession...
According to his moral code, via his right to free exercise, he does see a difference. Since this is not a true Public Accommodation, PA laws shouldn't apply. Plus this is a contracted, non-essential, easily replicated good or service. In this case, the right of the individual outweighs the right of the State to assure commerce.
The law is being wrongly applied, laws to fight systemic discrimination are being used for witch hunts.
I am on the side of maximum freedom for the most people. You are on the side of punishing anyone that doesn't accept and bow down to your lifestyle, and the best part you are a gutless twat about it by using the government to do your fighting.
Yes, we know how you feel about the laws. You have many deep feelings about the law. It is your white whale. Well Ahab, that whale isn't going anywhere as long as you're just obsessing from your couch.
When you have nothing left to defend your position, you argue about the argument,
Thanks for admitting your defeat. Now go play in traffic.
Again, look up any post by JoeB, I just responded to one 5 minutes ago.
He said threads started by, not posts... Sorry you don't get simple instructions.
The Democrats aren’t even close to being a democratic organization. The deck is stacked with superdelegates. Watch how they control their own party members and imagine what they do with control of the government.
The Superdelegate rule was put in there so they didn't have a repeat of what happened in 1972, where they nominated a nut and lost 49 states. After the Trump Debacle plays out, the GOP will do the same.
Worthless post is worthless
Superdelegates are undemocratic,. lol.
The "Electoral College" is undemocratic. Gerrymandering is undemocratic. Removing voters names fromo the register without comfirming their status is undemocratic.
The entire nominating process of both parties is entirely undemocratic. You have a candidate who got 15% of the votes winning ALL of the delegates from a state. That's not democracy. That's idiocy on the hoof.
Preventing Murder is a compelling government interest. Pretty sad you had to go that route to make your "point"
A person should not be forced to give up their dream over a single transaction. Sorry, but their butthurt doesn't a federal or state case make.
Only in one specific case, and the guy in Colorado also doesn't do things like Halloween cakes, and dildo cakes.
The law shouldn't be going after this guy in the first place. This is a case of butthurt vs. butthurt, and the government shouldn't be involved.
Contracted services are not Public Accomodations.
Not even close. Democrats give politicians and special interest groups voting power. Democrat voters can’t outvote the superdelegates...who range from NAACP to union officials to congressmen to party officials. As JoeB131 said...they are there in case the voters don’t make the “right” decision.
By definition all superdelegates are unpledged.
Not even close. Democrats give politicians and special interest groups voting power. Democrat voters can’t outvote the superdelegates...who range from NAACP to union officials to congressmen to party officials. As JoeB131 said...they are there in case the voters don’t make the “right” decision.
By definition all superdelegates are unpledged.
But the Superdelegates don't have enough numbers to choose the nominee, just to decide it in a close race.
This all stems from 1972, when George McGovern, who actually got LESS votes than Hubert Humphrey in the primaries, still won the nomination because he collected more delegates with a mere 25% of the vote.
The Party elders KNEW he was a disaster of a candidate... One Senator referred to him as the nominee of "Amnesty, Acid and Abortion". (McGovern made this guy his running mate, not knowing he said it, and then had to drop him from the ticket when it was found he had been hospitalized.)
In short, it was a safeguard against exactly this sort of thing happening.
It really had no effect in 2016. Hillary got a majority of the votes and a majority of the elected delegates.
So basically they are just extra votes.
The tethering is what makes the difference. It gives an air of elitism to the Dem primary.
Seriously, what is your beef? Superdelegates have not effected any primary. They didn't "rig" any election. The popular vote winner has taken the top spot in democrats' primaries. Why is the method how a party, you will never vote for, chooses their candidate for the general election of ANY concern to you?
I just like pointing out how undemocratic the Democrats are.
That they mistrust their own party members so much that they have to rig the game a bit in case they get an outcome the party aristocracy doesn't like.
Except they aren't since Superdelegates have not effected a single primary. Bernie, the non democrat, didn't have anything stolen from him. He lost the POPULAR VOTE and did not win...unlike Donnie Small Hands.
How many of those votes happened after the primaries were already "Decided" via the process, which includes superdelegates?
None. The superdelegates haven't effected a democratic primary since their inception. The candidate with the most votes from voters has won. In the primary Hillary got 3 million more votes from VOTERS than Bernie and won the primary...then she got 3 million more votes from VOTERS than Trump and lost...but please do keep sniveling about how Democratic Primaries are "undemocratic".
Only in one specific case, and the guy in Colorado also doesn't do things like Halloween cakes, and dildo cakes.
The law shouldn't be going after this guy in the first place. This is a case of butthurt vs. butthurt, and the government shouldn't be involved.
Contracted services are not Public Accomodations.
But he does do wedding cakes and there is no difference in the cake for a straight wedding, a gay wedding or an interracial wedding.
Accord to the LAW contracted services ARE public accommodations. You bitching about the law with every breath you take does ZERO to change the law.
Does constantly whining about PA laws at least make you feel better? There has to be some benefit to you over your bake the cake obsession...
According to his moral code, via his right to free exercise, he does see a difference. Since this is not a true Public Accommodation, PA laws shouldn't apply. Plus this is a contracted, non-essential, easily replicated good or service. In this case, the right of the individual outweighs the right of the State to assure commerce.
The law is being wrongly applied, laws to fight systemic discrimination are being used for witch hunts.
I am on the side of maximum freedom for the most people. You are on the side of punishing anyone that doesn't accept and bow down to your lifestyle, and the best part you are a gutless twat about it by using the government to do your fighting.
Yes, we know how you feel about the laws. You have many deep feelings about the law. It is your white whale. Well Ahab, that whale isn't going anywhere as long as you're just obsessing from your couch.
When you have nothing left to defend your position, you argue about the argument,
Thanks for admitting your defeat. Now go play in traffic.
Hello pot, I'd like you to meet kettle. Your entire "argument" is that you feel the law should be different. Your feelings and $5 can get you a medium latte.
Preventing Murder is a compelling government interest. Pretty sad you had to go that route to make your "point"
A person should not be forced to give up their dream over a single transaction. Sorry, but their butthurt doesn't a federal or state case make.
But people lose their businesses over a single transaction all the time... You don't clear the ice off the sidewalk in front of your store and someone slips and breaks his back.... sucks to be you!
Government has a compelling interest in stomping out discrimination. That's why we have public accommodation laws... which you are fine with when they aren't protecting gays.
Only in one specific case, and the guy in Colorado also doesn't do things like Halloween cakes, and dildo cakes.
But here's the point, he won't do Halloween cakes or Dildo cakes for ANYONE. But he will do Wedding cakes for straights and not for gays... "We don't serve your kind here" is the definition of discrimination.
The law shouldn't be going after this guy in the first place. This is a case of butthurt vs. butthurt, and the government shouldn't be involved.
Contracted services are not Public Accomodations.
And if he decided that he wasn't going to give a cake to this couple for religious reasons, would you be as cool with it?
View attachment 249710
So they should support a party that shits on their religious beliefs, forces them to not just tolerate, but accept lifestyles they do not approve of, and enforces an open hositlity to their religion in schools and the public square?
And can it with the ist/ic/ism bullshit. You are just as bigoted as the most virulent KKK asshole, but because you are bigoted against "approved" groups, you think you get a pass.
As long as Democrats are the party of "BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE, PEASANT" they will not have the support of the most Religious people in this country.
They also lose people like me, who while not religious, don't have the deep hatred of the religious you have.
You have it backwards. The EVANGELICALS are the ones who shit on the beliefs of others, who denigrate other Christians who don't believe as they do, and who reserve the right to deny service to those they deem unworthy. They ignore Jesus commandment to "Love one another as I have loved you", and his instruction "Judge not lest you be judged" and have determined in their own minds that some sins are worse than others. They have no prohibition on serving second marriages or adulterers, but they draw the line at homosexuals. It makes no theological sense whatsoever. Adultery is prohibited in the 10 Commandments and was punishable by stoning to death in Biblical times. But homosexuality was neither. The obvious logical conclusion is that evangelicals are hiding behind religion to discriminate against gays, just as they hide behind "private religious schools" to ensure their children aren't forced to mix with non-white children at school.
Evangelicals are using "religious freedom" to discriminate against gays and non-whites, and because the Republican agenda lets them control the sexual behaviour of women. That's while they will continue to support Republicans. Racism, misogyny and homophobia. It has nothing to do with religion.
If you actually read some of the cases involving bakers, most of them also don't do halloween cakes, or other things that go against their morals. And it is only recently that they have been forced to do so, because of the SSM thing. You can't bitch about it being the issue when it is what is creating the issue in the first place.
You just can't tolerate others who believe differently than you, and you need to use government force to get your way, like the mewling little coward-twat you are.
You don't get to decide how they follow their religion, and government doesn't either until there there is some compelling, overriding interest.
Human sacrifice would be that, having to go to another baker is not.
Bullshit. If the baker is refusing to bake Halloween cakes, one presumes they wouldn't bake ANY Halloween cakes. The baker is baking wedding cakes for some people and not for others that he deems to be sinners. But he doesn't exclude other sinners either - like adulterers. So if some sinners are OK, why not others? You see how this isn't about religion at all.
Evangelicals are really, really quick to claim that THEIR rights are violated, when in fact it is the evangelicals who are the ones who are violating the rights of others. It is positively amazing how many of the basic tenets of the Christian faith that evangelicals are prepared to violate in order to assert their Constitutional right to hate gays.
Read the case. He doesn't. This is all about religion, but more importantly it's about horrible people like you who need to force others to be like you, think like you, and act like you OR ELSE.
Where in the Constitution does it say a person has a right to a specific cake from a specific baker?
The part where it says ". . . .all men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights". If you believe in the Bible, you
But one religious representative WAS allowed in, elevating that one above all others. Directly in violation of the Constitution.So they should support a party that shits on their religious beliefs, forces them to not just tolerate, but accept lifestyles they do not approve of, and enforces an open hositlity to their religion in schools and the public square?
And can it with the ist/ic/ism bullshit. You are just as bigoted as the most virulent KKK asshole, but because you are bigoted against "approved" groups, you think you get a pass.
As long as Democrats are the party of "BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE, PEASANT" they will not have the support of the most Religious people in this country.
They also lose people like me, who while not religious, don't have the deep hatred of the religious you have.
I'm sorry...come again with who is "shitting on religious beliefs"?
Supreme Court is ‘unspeakably cruel’ for denying Muslim death row inmate’s request for imam, ex-Obama official says
He wasn't allowed in the death chamber, because the law as set up didn't allow it. The guy was not denied an Imam prior to being in the death chamber.
The issue becomes that if he was allowed in, the people trying to get his sentence commuted would have also appealed for THAT, because the State was then not following the rules of the death chamber.
Catch-22 situation.
There's no "elevation" about it, imbecile. The religious representative in question was an employee of the Department of Corrections, which is what the rules require of anyone present in the execution chamber. You would know that, if you had read the article and employed some reason, rather than just reading the headline and jumping straight to "Aha!"
The "rules" in question were written to keep anyone but the Christian pastor out of the execution room. Even the SC agreed that it was unconstitutional to keep the Iman out but that the condemned man waited until too late to make the request, even though he made the request as soon as he became aware there was an issue.
So is "faith".LolReligion is man-made, Christianity is a faith not a religion....Christianity is not an religion... dumbass
Huh?
Well golly, thanks for that distinction in search of a difference.
Religion is man-made, anybody can be a religious at anything... You do realize it’s a generic term
What I want is government to follow the Constitution. Free exercise is a Constitutional Right, and just because you pathologically hate religious people, it doesn't mean you or government gets to ignore that.
Constitution isn't an issue here. You don't get to ignore laws for bullshit religious excuses. Otherwise, I want to cut out my former boss's heart and offer it as a sacrifice to Quetzalcoatl!!! Don't go oppressing my religion with your silly homicide laws!
You want to apply laws that were designed to fight systemic discrimination and apply them to individual rare episodes of crises of conscience.
Your crisis isn't my problem. If you are having a crisis, there's a simple solution. Go find something else to do for a living. I didn't cut out my bosses' heart, even though he was a true asshole. I just found something else to do for a living. If you really hate gay people because you are a latent homosexual fighting down your sexual urges, don't come up with some bullshit religious excuse because you can't stand to see someone else being happy.
Preventing Murder is a compelling government interest. Pretty sad you had to go that route to make your "point"
A person should not be forced to give up their dream over a single transaction. Sorry, but their butthurt doesn't a federal or state case make.
If their dream includes discriminating against "sinners", then they need to find a better dream. If your dream requires you to break the law and refuse service to the class of people you don't like, then this isn't religion, and you can't make this claim, and really you should not open a business where you cannot serve everyone who comes through the door, based on your belief system.
Seriously, what is your beef? Superdelegates have not effected any primary. They didn't "rig" any election. The popular vote winner has taken the top spot in democrats' primaries. Why is the method how a party, you will never vote for, chooses their candidate for the general election of ANY concern to you?
I just like pointing out how undemocratic the Democrats are.
That they mistrust their own party members so much that they have to rig the game a bit in case they get an outcome the party aristocracy doesn't like.
Except they aren't since Superdelegates have not effected a single primary. Bernie, the non democrat, didn't have anything stolen from him. He lost the POPULAR VOTE and did not win...unlike Donnie Small Hands.
How many of those votes happened after the primaries were already "Decided" via the process, which includes superdelegates?
None. The superdelegates haven't effected a democratic primary since their inception. The candidate with the most votes from voters has won. In the primary Hillary got 3 million more votes from VOTERS than Bernie and won the primary...then she got 3 million more votes from VOTERS than Trump and lost...but please do keep sniveling about how Democratic Primaries are "undemocratic".
Then why have them in the first place?
So is "faith".LolReligion is man-made, Christianity is a faith not a religion....Huh?
Well golly, thanks for that distinction in search of a difference.
Religion is man-made, anybody can be a religious at anything... You do realize it’s a generic term
You don’t have any faith because you lack that bit of humanity. Worse yet the faith of others drives you to envy.
Again, look up any post by JoeB, I just responded to one 5 minutes ago.
He said threads started by, not posts... Sorry you don't get simple instructions.
The Democrats aren’t even close to being a democratic organization. The deck is stacked with superdelegates. Watch how they control their own party members and imagine what they do with control of the government.
The Superdelegate rule was put in there so they didn't have a repeat of what happened in 1972, where they nominated a nut and lost 49 states. After the Trump Debacle plays out, the GOP will do the same.
Worthless post is worthless
Superdelegates are undemocratic,. lol.
The "Electoral College" is undemocratic. Gerrymandering is undemocratic. Removing voters names fromo the register without comfirming their status is undemocratic.
The entire nominating process of both parties is entirely undemocratic. You have a candidate who got 15% of the votes winning ALL of the delegates from a state. That's not democracy. That's idiocy on the hoof.
So is "faith".LolReligion is man-made, Christianity is a faith not a religion....
Well golly, thanks for that distinction in search of a difference.
Religion is man-made, anybody can be a religious at anything... You do realize it’s a generic term
You don’t have any faith because you lack that bit of humanity. Worse yet the faith of others drives you to envy.
Where does it say I have no faith. I have lots of faith in lots of things, but it doesn’t come from the “divine”.
Again, look up any post by JoeB, I just responded to one 5 minutes ago.
He said threads started by, not posts... Sorry you don't get simple instructions.
The Democrats aren’t even close to being a democratic organization. The deck is stacked with superdelegates. Watch how they control their own party members and imagine what they do with control of the government.
The Superdelegate rule was put in there so they didn't have a repeat of what happened in 1972, where they nominated a nut and lost 49 states. After the Trump Debacle plays out, the GOP will do the same.
Worthless post is worthless
Superdelegates are undemocratic,. lol.
The "Electoral College" is undemocratic. Gerrymandering is undemocratic. Removing voters names fromo the register without comfirming their status is undemocratic.
The entire nominating process of both parties is entirely undemocratic. You have a candidate who got 15% of the votes winning ALL of the delegates from a state. That's not democracy. That's idiocy on the hoof.
"Your system of government is totally against your system of government, because I say so and I'm an expert on countries I'm not part of!"
Call me when you can produce a country that matters to anyone, and maybe you can talk about what it takes. Maybe.
So is "faith".LolWell golly, thanks for that distinction in search of a difference.
Religion is man-made, anybody can be a religious at anything... You do realize it’s a generic term
You don’t have any faith because you lack that bit of humanity. Worse yet the faith of others drives you to envy.
Where does it say I have no faith. I have lots of faith in lots of things, but it doesn’t come from the “divine”.
I don’t know who “it” you appeal to. I am saying you have no faith. Empty. The most base type of person...the faithless type.
So is "faith".Lol
Religion is man-made, anybody can be a religious at anything... You do realize it’s a generic term
You don’t have any faith because you lack that bit of humanity. Worse yet the faith of others drives you to envy.
Where does it say I have no faith. I have lots of faith in lots of things, but it doesn’t come from the “divine”.
I don’t know who “it” you appeal to. I am saying you have no faith. Empty. The most base type of person...the faithless type.
I have faith in abundance ...just not in some imaginary deity.
