[Megathread] Bernie Sanders 2016

[Caolela]

There is a difference between allowing something and being designed for something. My recliner was designed to seat one person, that doesn't stop both of my kids from sitting in it at the same time. There are incredibly easy changes that could have allowed for multiple parties (your plurality idea for instance). But they chose not to.

You said it was clearly designed for two parties. Obviously it was not. You've admitted to that but now keep spinning backwards. You can't have it both ways.

[Vynestra]

I also want to mention Clinton won 9 out the last 12 contests in 08...Sanders might do like 7/12 or something but still won't get near closing it. Clintons delegate shortage was half of bernies right now....so lol.

[Matchles]

You said it was clearly designed for two parties. Obviously it was not. You've admitted to that but now keep spinning backwards. You can't have it both ways.

::woosh:: /10

[Caolela]

If they had intended multiple parties, they would have written "plurality" instead of "majority". Or they would have required a rank system or something similar before requiring the drastic action of tossing the Presidency to Congress.

You obviously don't understand what "majority" means. It means 51% or more. Plurality is the greatest number of votes among more than two without needing a majority. That means with say 3 people running and 100 votes cast, the winner only needs the most votes of the 3, not 51, to win.

[Pterodactylus]

That's contradictory, since if a 3rd party candidate won the election it would obviate the need for Congressional involvement.

Well, they had better hurry up or they will miss some filing deadlines if they are going to run as an independent. Ballot access laws hamper third parties, but Libertarians will have a presidential candidate in 21 states and the Green Party will have a candidate on the ballot in 33 states.

- - - Updated - - -

You obviously don't understand what "majority" means. It means 51% or more. Plurality is the greatest number of votes among more than two without needing a majority. That means with say 3 people running and 100 votes cast, the winner only needs the most votes of the 3, not 51, to win.

They need to get on the ballot to be voted for though!

[Cooper]

You obviously don't understand what "majority" means. It means 51% or more. Plurality is the greatest number of votes among more than two without needing a majority. That means with say 3 people running and 100 votes cast, the winner only needs the most votes of the 3, not 51, to win.

A candidate needs to win the majority (minimum of 270 votes out of 538) of the Electoral College to be elected president.

Not that the system was explicitly designed for two parties, as parties did not (officially) exist at the time of the Constitutional Convention, and were frowned upon until after Washington's presidency. There are a few reasons for the Two Party system in the United States (the Electoral College being one of them), but it was not intentionally designed to be thus.

[Vynestra]

I just can't wrap my head around how some bernie bros on the reddit are so die hard thinking they'll 100% still win...

I literally do not get it. Every day new threads about how they're doing so well and the Indiana win was HUGE and etc etc etc...

Indiana put them further behind....like....they missed their 65% mark by 13%, they need even MORE from the remaining states than before Indiana. How is that a win?!

[Deleted]

The weather vane in action. One speech for one group of people, other speech for others. Two completely different stances on coal, within the same primary season.

Flippidy floppidy floo.

[Vynestra]

The weather vane in action. One speech for one group of people, other speech for others. Two completely different stances on coal, within the same primary season.

Flippidy floppidy floo.

This guy is gonna be posting anti-clinton TYT videos til the end of her 2nd term. lol

Bernie sanders will pass away and he'll still be at it.

[McCulloch]

I just can't wrap my head around how some bernie bros on the reddit are so die hard thinking they'll 100% still win...

I literally do not get it. Every day new threads about how they're doing so well and the Indiana win was HUGE and etc etc etc...

Indiana put them further behind....like....they missed their 65% mark by 13%, they need even MORE from the remaining states than before Indiana. How is that a win?!

They think Hillary will get indicted and the supers will flip. It's all they have left.

[Fugus]

They think Hillary will get indicted and the supers will flip. It's all they have left.

I still don't get why they keep talking about Reddit on here and comparing them. That is about like complaining on Youtube about 4Chan.

If they want to bash them, bash them where they are, not over here.

[BuckSparkles]

I just can't wrap my head around how some bernie bros on the reddit are so die hard thinking they'll 100% still win...

I literally do not get it. Every day new threads about how they're doing so well and the Indiana win was HUGE and etc etc etc...

Indiana put them further behind....like....they missed their 65% mark by 13%, they need even MORE from the remaining states than before Indiana. How is that a win?!

They are detached from reality. Or in denial.

Maybe both.

[Deleted]

30% of Hillary's supporters are viewed as very aggressive. 16% of Bernie's supporters are. When you act like a bully, people view you as a bully.

[Pterodactylus]

I just can't wrap my head around how some bernie bros on the reddit are so die hard thinking they'll 100% still win...

I literally do not get it. Every day new threads about how they're doing so well and the Indiana win was HUGE and etc etc etc...

Indiana put them further behind....like....they missed their 65% mark by 13%, they need even MORE from the remaining states than before Indiana. How is that a win?!

It's called an echo chamber.

- - - Updated - - -

This guy is gonna be posting anti-clinton TYT videos til the end of her 2nd term. lol

Bernie sanders will pass away and he'll still be at it.

I am pretty sure he works for revolution messaging.

[Caolela]

Here's an interesting development for the Clinton supporters:


Judicial Watch: Federal Court Allows Discovery to Begin in Clinton Email Case

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted “discovery” to Judicial Watch into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email system. The order allows Judicial Watch to take testimony of former top Clinton State Department aides Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin and Bryan Pagliano. The Court also notes that “based on information learned during discovery, the deposition of Mrs. Clinton may be necessary.” The discovery will take place over the next eight weeks.

The discovery arises in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that seeks records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former Deputy Chief of Staff to Clinton. The lawsuit was reopened because of revelations about the clintonemail.com system. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)).

In a Memorandum and Order issued today, Judge Sullivan found that “Judicial Watch raises significant questions in its Motion for Discovery about whether the State Department processed documents in good faith in response to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request. Judicial Watch is therefore entitled to limited discovery.” Judge Sullivan also questions, citing Supreme Court precedent, whether the State Department and Mrs. Clinton “purposefully routed…document[s] out of agency possession in order to circumvent a FOIA request.”

...

One would have thought the crypto-fascists had learned from the Nixon days that cover-ups can come back to bite you in the ass. Clinton may need a lot of that Gold-Sacks money for lawyers instead of TV ads now.


"I'm not a crook"


https://youtu.be/sh163n1lJ4M

[Forogil]

A candidate needs to win the majority (minimum of 270 votes out of 538) of the Electoral College to be elected president.

Not that the system was explicitly designed for two parties, as parties did not (officially) exist at the time of the Constitutional Convention, and were frowned upon until after Washington's presidency. There are a few reasons for the Two Party system in the United States (the Electoral College being one of them), but it was not intentionally designed to be thus.

True, and many countries that have multiple viable parties ensure that their president have a majority of the voters behind them in the election by using two-round systems as in France (and in other countries - including less democratic ones from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe).

Another system used in parliamentary systems is to ensure that there isn't a majority against the proposed candidate.

[Daerio]

Here's an interesting development for the Clinton supporters:


Judicial Watch: Federal Court Allows Discovery to Begin in Clinton Email Case

Eh, Clinton's been interrogated before and it didn't mean much. And I'm honestly starting to doubt seeing her slay puppies and kittens on live TV would be enough to make her flock ask any questions.

[BrerBear]

Eh, Clinton's been interrogated before and it didn't mean much. And I'm honestly starting to doubt seeing her slay puppies and kittens on live TV would be enough to make her flock ask any questions.

It's kind of fascinating to observe the conclusions you and Caolela drew from his linked story. It explains a lot about why politics is where it is today.

The actual background of the story you linked is that this is yet another effort by Judicial Watch, a right-wing organization funded by the infamous Richard Mellon Scaife, that has been using FOIA requests to try to dig up dirt on all of their political enemies for more than 20 years. They're the same kooks that tried to push the Vince Foster story back during the original Clinton administration. They've never succeeded in actually pinning anything on the Clintons, decades and millions of dollars later.

Because people easily fall prey to the "if there's smoke there's fire" mantra, groups like this know that if they manufacture enough smoke, you can convince enough of the public that anyone is crooked. And, as your comment makes clear, it works. If that right-wing group tries to manufacture scandal about Clinton for the 263rd time, and if we don't jump to the conclusion that "she's a crook", then clearly we must be willing to overlook anything. Right.

Forget the concern that money controls politics. Watching the demise of all the heavily-funded mainstream Republicans and the rise of Bernie puts that fear largely to rest. Much more concerning is that anyone with deep enough pockets can just destroy the character of anyone they choose. Remember what Citizens United was all about?

The fascinating part, though, isn't watching this happen for the umpteenth time. The fascinating part is that this is the first election cycle where the far left is using these techniques just as much as the far right traditionally has, and on their own party.

Sad, sad times. No wonder no one wants to enter politics any more.

[Daerio]

The actual background of the story you linked is that this is yet another effort by Judicial Watch, a right-wing organization funded by the infamous Richard Mellon Scaife, that has been using FOIA requests to try to dig up dirt on all of their political enemies for more than 20 years. They're the same kooks that tried to push the Vince Foster story back during the original Clinton administration. They've never succeeded in actually pinning anything on the Clintons, decades and millions of dollars later.

I can't wait to see the hoops you try to jump through when she ends up going down.

[Caolela]

Eh, Clinton's been interrogated before and it didn't mean much. And I'm honestly starting to doubt seeing her slay puppies and kittens on live TV would be enough to make her flock ask any questions.

Unfortunately I have to agree, and it's been the same kind of maniacal, brainwashed support we saw from the Bushites for those 8 years. The CIA in the mainstream media has done a real job on the American psyche.