LogFAQs > #879063829

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, Database 1 ( 03.09.2017-09.16.2017 ), DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Seriously how can we stop Trump if he can just fire anyone in his way?
Zeus 05/14/17 1:02:07 AM #73:	streamofthesky posted... I have no problem with the concept of super delegates. A fail-safe at the convention to prevent someone from getting the nomination who would be a really bad idea -- like if it turned out Hillary had broken the law, or John Edwards had taken an insurmountable lead before his whole cheating on his cancer-stricken wife thing was discovered -- that's a good thing. Awesome. But that is NOT how it's used. It's used as a cudgel to beat back candidates the DNC doesn't favor before they can garner any momentum. News reporters will say, "It's only 4 primaries into the season and Bernie's down to Hillary by 500 delegates, how can he ever recover?!" and later on, "3/4 of states have already voted and Bernie's only closed the gap to 400 delegates difference! It's pretty much impossible for him to overtake Hillary now!" "98% of them are super delegates, but we'll keep that in the fine print" The party leadership is largely elected by the people so you already have representation. More importantly, Hillary own WITHOUT the superdelegates. And 98% weren't superdelegates. And, on a more fundamental level, the party leadership is decided BY THE PARTY. There's never been a requirement for some straight popular vote system nor should they be required to have one. If you feel that it's out of touch with your selfish political wants, either get more active within the Democratic party or support another party. Honestly, Bernie Sanders shouldn't have been given a shot at all because he only ran as a Democrat so he wouldn't have to run outside of a party and the establishment was 100% in its rights to want to protect itself. Likewise, Bernie is a nutter who has no business being president. He was so bad of a nom that he almost made me wish Obama could take another term and Obama was a mediocre (if not awful) president. In the most general sense, the Democratic Party tries to act within its best interests and to promote its agenda which is what political parties are supposed to do. If a candidate doesn't fit the party's values and isn't loyal to the party, they shouldn't represent the party. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:879063829] in Seriously ... [t:75335928]...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>I have no problem with the concept of super delegates. A fail-safe at the convention to prevent someone from getting the nomination who would be a really bad idea -- like if it turned out Hillary had broken the law, or John Edwards had taken an insurmountable lead before his whole cheating on his cancer-stricken wife thing was discovered -- that's a good thing. Awesome. But that is NOT how it's used. It's used as a cudgel to beat back candidates the DNC doesn't favor before they can garner any momentum. News reporters will say, "It's only 4 primaries into the season and Bernie's down to Hillary by 500 delegates, how can he ever recover?!" and later on, "3/4 of states have already voted and Bernie's only closed the gap to 400 delegates difference! It's pretty much impossible for him to overtake Hillary now!" "98% of them are super delegates, but we'll keep that in the fine print"</quote> The party leadership is largely elected by the people so you already have representation. More importantly, Hillary own WITHOUT the superdelegates. And 98% weren't superdelegates. And, on a more fundamental level, the party leadership is decided BY THE PARTY. There's never been a requirement for some straight popular vote system nor should they be required to have one. If you feel that it's out of touch with your selfish political wants, either get more active within the Democratic party or support another party. Honestly, Bernie Sanders shouldn't have been given a shot at all because he only ran as a Democrat so he wouldn't have to run outside of a party and the establishment was 100% in its rights to want to protect itself. Likewise, Bernie is a nutter who has no business being president. He was so bad of a nom that he almost made me wish Obama could take another term and Obama was a mediocre (if not awful) president. In the most general sense, the Democratic Party tries to act within its best interests and to promote its agenda which is what political parties are supposed to do. If a candidate doesn't fit the party's values and isn't loyal to the party, they shouldn't represent the party. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1