| |
News: Clinton Wins Nomination
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 15,224
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dessy Fenix
How do you suggest it should be? Every suggested methods from all open primaries to eliminating the super delegate all suggest Hillary would hypothetically win/would be winning outside of the current system and none of them favor Bernie in the least bit.
|
I'm not saying Bernie would've definitely won, but he could've. He had little to no chance with the current method.
Regardless of Bernie/Hillary and who you support the system is kind of ****ed up and ends up not being democratic.
I honestly don't know a solution but there must be one. I'm not totally educated on the American political system but the government should not only be able to change it, they should want to.
They should want to make things fairer for you.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 23,857
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Kim Kardashian
I'm not saying Bernie would've definitely won, but he could've. He had little to no chance with the current method.
Regardless of Bernie/Hillary and who you support the system is kind of ****ed up and ends up not being democratic.
I honestly don't know a solution but there must be one. I'm not totally educated on the American political system but the government should not only be able to change it, they should want to.
They should want to make things fairer for you. |
Well I also think our current system could improve. Maybe in our lifetime hopefully.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dark Horse
|
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 15,224
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bloo
History disagrees with you.
|
Maybe they wouldn't have but they could have. Which to me, is a problem. The DNC/RNC should just have much less power in general.
I mean, like Superpower was saying: If the RNC had superdelegates they'd have stopped (or at least attempted to stop) Trump getting the nomination. Trump is scarily similar to Hitler but if the people of America want him he has every right to lead.
I'm not a pressed Hillary hater, i'm really rooting for her to deliver with this presidency and make up for past mistakes.
The problem I have with a lot of people on here (on both sides tbh, not just Hillary's) is the blind 'stanning' of candidates.
They've all done wrong (some a lot more than others imo) but y'all seem to pretend like they're angels and will not accept any criticism against them.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 7,989
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Kim Kardashian
Maybe they wouldn't have but they could have. Which to me, is a problem. The DNC/RNC should just have much less power in general.
I mean, like Superpower was saying: If the RNC had superdelegates they'd have stopped (or at least attempted to stop) Trump getting the nomination. Trump is scarily similar to Hitler but if the people of America want him he has every right to lead.
|
But our country is, and always has been, a Democratic Republic because the fear was that the people would make the wrong decision. So... super delegates follow that mindset. I would happily prefer that the major parties override the election of a madman bent on destroying this country than just let the people elect him. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bloo
But our country is, and always has been, a Democratic Republic because the fear was that the people would make the wrong decision. So... super delegates follow that mindset. I would happily prefer that the major parties override the election of a madman bent on destroying this country than just let the people elect him. |
I literally was about to type this but when I went to edit I saw you already did 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 7,989
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
I literally was about to type this but when I went to edit I saw you already did |
We always got each other's backs! 
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 15,224
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bloo
But our country is, and always has been, a Democratic Republic because the fear was that the people would make the wrong decision. So... super delegates follow that mindset. I would happily prefer that the major parties override the election of a madman bent on destroying this country than just let the people elect him. |
I do understand what you mean, Trump is vile and will bring so much bad to the entire world if he is elected. Democracy has to be the main priority in the end though. A lot of the people in power feed their own interests, not those of the American people.
We have a similar situation here. The current seat system isn't very democratic and gives the main parties a lot more power. However if we switched the the more democratic system, UKIP (racist party) would have something like 40 seats instead of 1.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 7,989
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Kim Kardashian
I do understand what you mean, Trump is vile and will bring so much bad to the entire world if he is elected. Democracy has to be the main priority in the end though. A lot of the people in power feed their own interests, not those of the American people. |
So, you'd be okay with us electing someone like Hitler who wants to round up and kill a group of people if it's the will of the people? No thank you. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 1,627
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dark Horse
|
Did you even fact check this or did you just believe it because it was put together in an easy-to-read chart?
Quote:
Irag War & Syria: Sanders actually voted in support of the Afghanistan war. Though, as we all know, he opposed the Iraq War. But there was no American “war” in Libya or Syria – nor any “vote” to go to the non-existent war. Not only that, but the military actions President Obama has taken against ISIS in Syria and Iraq happened after Clinton was no longer secretary of state. So she wouldn’t have had anything to do with “voting” for Syria. By the way, secretary of states don’t “vote” for war.
Wall Street & Glass-Steagall: Sorry, Glass-Steagall is not the only form of Wall Street regulation that exists. While it’s true he does support reinstating Glass-Steagall, this implies Clinton opposes Wall Street regulations – which isn’t true. She called for regulations early on in the financial crash, supports Dodd-Frank and has called on taking on shadow banking (the main cause of the 2008 crash) if elected president.
Gay Marriage: While it’s true Sanders has been more pro-gay than many, he still never fully came out in favor of the national legalization of same-sex marriage until the last few years. In fact, in 2006, he said gay marriage should be a state issue. When asked at the time if he thought Vermont should legalize it, he said “no.”
Snowden: It’s true Clinton has said she doesn’t support Snowden’s actions and believes he should face criminal prosecution. However, Bernie Sanders never said Snowden was defending American freedom. In fact, Sanders believes Snowden violated laws and should be prosecuted. In other words, this one is completely false.
Canabis: “I do support the use of medical marijuana,” she said in the first Democratic presidential debate last month. “And I think even there we need to do a lot more research so that we know exactly how we’re going to help people for whom medical marijuana provides relief.”
|
Here's some extra ones:
Quote:
Prison profits: Well, considering Bernie Sanders voted for Bill Clinton’s “tough on crime” bill which many credit with driving for-profit prisons and harsher punishments, I would say at one time he did support both. Though it’s clear he’s changed his stance on this over the years.
Super PACs: Campaign Finance Reform – Citizens United – Super PACs: Considering both candidates have been vocal about overturning Citizens United and getting money out of politics, this is disingenuous. Many well-respected liberals have or had Super PACs, including President Obama. Not only that, but it’s a bit of a misnomer to claim Sanders isn’t being supported by any PAC money – when he is.
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 9,799
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Kim Kardashian
I'm not saying Bernie would've definitely won, but he could've. He had little to no chance with the current method.
Regardless of Bernie/Hillary and who you support the system is kind of ****ed up and ends up not being democratic.
I honestly don't know a solution but there must be one. I'm not totally educated on the American political system but the government should not only be able to change it, they should want to.
They should want to make things fairer for you. |
Explain how the system isn't democratic?
No matter which way you try and twist it, she won fair and square.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/4/2014
Posts: 3,730
|
first woman yay!
let's just ignore all the negative things that made history if she indeed becomes the nominee.
thank goodness she's running against Trump because I imagine anyone else would squash her and barely even try.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/16/2005
Posts: 16,872
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lights and Waves
Explain how the system isn't democratic?
No matter which way you try and twist it, she won fair and square. |
The only thing that I could see as unfair was Debbie Wasserman Schultz drastically reducing and limiting the number of debates. That was a sketchy move.
DWS is very biased and I think everyone sees through her claims that she is being impartial.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/6/2012
Posts: 29,767
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Andres
first woman yay!
let's just ignore all the negative things that made history if she indeed becomes the nominee.
thank goodness she's running against Trump because I imagine anyone else would squash her and barely even try.
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/13/2010
Posts: 11,566
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Andres
first woman yay!
let's just ignore all the negative things that made history if she indeed becomes the nominee.
thank goodness she's running against Trump because I imagine anyone else would squash her and barely even try.
|
Bernie couldn't.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/1/2013
Posts: 3,235
|
So let's say by some chance Bernie ends up having more pledged delegates after the end of today? Then you guys still think Hillary should be the nominee?
Basically the argument on the Sanders side is by showing the number including the superdelegates, they are painting a much bigger lead for Clinton this whole cycle, thus discouraging people from going out and voting.
I'm a Sanders supporter, and I'm not going to lie Clinton has a significant lead. The only thing I would complain about is that the news should be showing the pledged delegate numbers only until everyone vote. Even DWS has said that, but the news hasn't listened.
Finally, I believe that the superdelegates should vote with the will of the people. So the states Sanders has won, he should get the Superdelegates, and Clinton should get her's. So she would still most likely win, but it's not fair to say she is already the nominee when she hasn't reached the number of pledged delegates she needs. They should have waited until she reached the number of pledged.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by TroubleSwift
So let's say by some chance Bernie ends up having more pledged delegates after the end of today? Then you guys still think Hillary should be the nominee?
Basically the argument on the Sanders side is by showing the number including the superdelegates, they are painting a much bigger lead for Clinton this whole cycle, thus discouraging people from going out and voting.
I'm a Sanders supporter, and I'm not going to lie Clinton has a significant lead. The only thing I would complain about is that the news should be showing the pledged delegate numbers only until everyone vote. Even DWS has said that, but the news hasn't listened.
Finally, I believe that the superdelegates should vote with the will of the people. So the states Sanders has won, he should get the Superdelegates, and Clinton should get her's. So she would still most likely win, but it's not fair to say she is already the nominee when she hasn't reached the number of pledged delegates she needs. They should have waited until she reached the number of pledged.
|
If by some chance Bernie receives more pledged delegates after today, which is tough, then yes he will be the nominee. The supers would flock to him. I also think he should be the nominee in that case
The problem is people say super delegates don't count until the convention. Well pledged delegates don't count until then either so should we not even count them?
Neither Bernie nor Hillary will get the number of pledged delegates necessary for the convention. With superdelegates making up 15% of the total delegate count unless you consistently blow your opponent away in these proportional contests it's nearly impossible. And the media has, from Walter Mondale up until Clinton, has declared a presumptive nominee when that person crosses the threshold with super delegates. It's more than fair
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by TroubleSwift
So let's say by some chance Bernie ends up having more pledged delegates after the end of today? Then you guys still think Hillary should be the nominee?
|
No. This call, however, was made in full knowledge that he won't have more pledged delegates because he won't get an average of 70.25% or more in all six states. It's not a question, there's no chance.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/10/2011
Posts: 14,331
|
Quote:
The Associated Press surprised the world and its competitors at 8:20 p.m. ET Monday. CNN followed at 11 p.m. And Tuesday morning, a New York Times front page for the ages came with attribution: "CLINTON REACHES HISTORIC MARK, A.P. SAYS."
Bernie Sanders' campaign and his supporters blasted the media for jumping ahead of voters who head to the polls Tuesday night in six states, including the big prizes of California and New Jersey.
And while they howled, Clinton herself was largely silent.
CNN's Dan Merica pressed her seven times Monday night on the rope line in Long Beach, California, for her reaction to her historic achievement. She didn't answer.
In her moment of triumph, the former first lady, senator and secretary of state was forced to put history on pause. She urged her supporters to head to the polls. She waited -- at least for one night -- to revel in her journey, to talk about the arc of history and the little girls who sat in classrooms for so many years and wondered if they, too, could one day become president.
She waited to talk about the light shining through all of those cracks in the glass ceiling. During her first try at president, she had shied away from making gender a cornerstone of her candidacy -- then summoned her greatest eloquence on the topic as she conceded defeat, exactly eight years ago Tuesday.
|
She is definitely being gracious about it. But will likely be more forceful tonight after the final primary results trickle in.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
