Don't go off topic and bring stuff from outside the thread into here. Final warning.
--
Yay foxay! That Obama speech has me in tears.
Donald Trump is not outside of the election and the issues he and Clinton/Sanders touch on are relevant to the topic. Silencing opposition will never end well.
-
Quote:
Indiana May be the most Definitive Victory for Trump
None of this arguments make any sense.... First of all, the entire argument to say that super delegates should align with their state literally means that we shouldn't have super delegates... Which, by that metric, Hillary is destroying Bernie in the delegate count without super delegates. Super delegates do not need to align to their state, that's the entire point, otherwise they're just more pledged delegates.
Also, I don't get why he keeps claiming that he appeals to a "clear majority of Democrats" when he is failing to be winning by any measure in the primaries...
The entire, "I perform better against Donald Trump" argument is tactless. Those polls do not mean much this far out. You cannot base an entire nomination strictly off of them. THAT is undemocratic, not closed primaries.
Can I bring in Philippine Presidential stuff in this thread? The GE is in a week. I'm nervous who's going win, hopefully it'll be the Filipino Trump who wins President, and the Filipino Clinton as the VP
None of this arguments make any sense.... First of all, the entire argument to say that super delegates should align with their state literally means that we shouldn't have super delegates... Which, by that metric, Hillary is destroying Bernie in the delegate count without super delegates. Super delegates do not need to align to their state, that's the entire point, otherwise they're just more pledged delegates.
Also, I don't get why he keeps claiming that he appeals to a "clear majority of Democrats" when he is failing to be winning by any measure in the primaries...
The entire, "I perform better against Donald Trump" argument is tactless. Those polls do not mean much this far out. You cannot base an entire nomination strictly off of them. THAT is undemocratic, not closed primaries.
But what of those who profess to be "Bernie or Bust," at least within the context of Democratic Party candidates, because they desire to stick to their ideals and keep them in the spotlight, refuse to compromise? You can't say that it wouldn't make a strong point to refuse Hillary the Presidency - or more likely to at least give even more progressive candidates like Jill Stein a higher-than-usual share of the vote. The Democratic Party and liberals throughout this country should be moving more left, should be getting more progressive. If those against Bernie or Bust are so certain that Hillary will win, then it makes a lot more sense to allow the Bernie or Bust people to either not vote or to vote Green, rather than trying to guilt and pressure them through their assertions that they will not matter within the context of history. I'm not a fan of trying to get votes by giving the impression that they either vote Hillary or don't matter.
None of this arguments make any sense.... First of all, the entire argument to say that super delegates should align with their state literally means that we shouldn't have super delegates... Which, by that metric, Hillary is destroying Bernie in the delegate count without super delegates. Super delegates do not need to align to their state, that's the entire point, otherwise they're just more pledged delegates.
Also, I don't get why he keeps claiming that he appeals to a "clear majority of Democrats" when he is failing to be winning by any measure in the primaries...
The entire, "I perform better against Donald Trump" argument is tactless. Those polls do not mean much this far out. You cannot base an entire nomination strictly off of them. THAT is undemocratic, not closed primaries.
But with regard to the superdelegates issue, they really should be eliminated in the future. I know this is contrary to what I've said in the past but they no longer seem to me to serve a legitimate purpose. Sure, it wouldn't change the outcome of this year at all, but historically they've actually never been the deciding factor, and they're useless. If we talk about them being some sort of measure against Trump-style candidates on the left, I want to point out that it's far less likely for the left to produce a Trump. Additionally, if the people want Trump, then the democratic thing to do would probably be to give them that nominee.
But what of those who profess to be "Bernie or Bust," at least within the context of Democratic Party candidates, because they desire to stick to their ideals and keep them in the spotlight, refuse to compromise? You can't say that it wouldn't make a strong point to refuse Hillary the Presidency - or more likely to at least give even more progressive candidates like Jill Stein a higher-than-usual share of the vote. The Democratic Party and liberals throughout this country should be moving more left, should be getting more progressive. If those against Bernie or Bust are so certain that Hillary will win, then it makes a lot more sense to allow the Bernie or Bust people to either not vote or to vote Green, rather than trying to guilt and pressure them through their assertions that they will not matter within the context of history. I'm not a fan of trying to get votes by giving the impression that they either vote Hillary or don't matter.
I'm not certain Hillary will win. While I want everyone to support the candidate they most accurately feel represents their beliefs, I can't help but feel voting third party just gives Republicans a better shot at winning. If you allow someone like Trump to win the presidency, out of spite, you really aren't a true progressive. Or you have some idea that a Trump presidency will bring on "the revolution!!" which is pure fantasy
I'm not certain Hillary will win. While I want everyone to support the candidate they most accurately feel represents their beliefs, I can't help but feel voting third party just gives Republicans a better shot at winning. If you allow someone like Trump to win the presidency, out of spite, you really aren't a true progressive. Or you have some idea that a Trump presidency will bring on "the revolution!!" which is pure fantasy
I take issue with this stance. I feel that voting with your views and alignments can still be representative of a "true progressive" regardless of whether it endangers Democratic chances at the Presidency. Additionally, I don't think it's entirely crazy to assume that a Trump presidency would allow Democrats to take a step back and re-calibrate a little bit.
I take issue with this stance. I feel that voting with your views and alignments can still be representative of a "true progressive" regardless of whether it endangers Democratic chances at the Presidency. Additionally, I don't think it's entirely crazy to assume that a Trump presidency would allow Democrats to take a step back and re-calibrate a little bit.
I just don't see how a progressive could allow all the damage a Trump presidency would bring to happen.
I'm nervous who's going win, hopefully it'll be the Filipino Trump who wins President, and the Filipino Clinton as the VP 
