Bernie Sanders next president of USA

[Smyrna]

One note 2 you: the GOP doesn't have Superdelegates!

Yeah they do actually, just not as many.

Of course GOP are terrified of Trump being the nominee - but I really do not think they can brush him aside. He is just to popular among his voters.

Trump has 70% disapproval nationally - real popular, lol.

When it comes to Sanders vs Clinton, I totally agree with you that Sanders is a far more popular nominee, and should have won, if it where not for the stupid election system you have, and all the shenanigans going on before and during the election.

If he's more popular than Clinton, why did he lose so badly (I mean, we're talking a few million votes here)? To date, there have been no proven "shenanigans" - it's just more squawking from the sore losers of this year's election, I'm afraid.

For someone who claims to be a big proponent of democracy, you sure seem to have a problem accepting the peoples' choice for President of the United States. Maybe instead of blaming everyone under the sun for Bernie's loss, people like you should think about why they lost and make changes to ensure it doesn't happen again.

To start: Please post your source for the complete falsehood posted above (70% disapproval nationally).
Second- again, do you think typing something simply makes it true? I do not feel like Googling and posting the stats from a reputable .org or something other but Sanders is ONLY losing because the VAST MAJORITY of Super Delegates voted Hillary BEFORE many of the primaries had even happened yet.
Lastly- I am a Trump supporter anyway so not sure why you think I am up in arms over Sanders.
I do realize I have posted some strongly worded sentiments but here is why: It becomes very hard to avoid being boorish when you see so many opinions marketed as facts based on nothing except what they 'think.' Guess what- no one gives a shit what you think unless you have proof to back it up. When you hear people make 'informed' opinions without actually being informed it can be trying. Like your ridiculous 70% post above. It is so stupidly inaccurate as to make me feel you are simply trying to piss off people through misleading the sheep.


Once this damn game finishes download I expect I will no longer drop in here anyway.

[momuuu]

The USA is burdened with presidential candidates which all have more than a 50% disapproval rating haha. It seems more people picked Clinton over Bernie, but more people would pick Bernie over Trump, which is very possible mathematically.

[spanky4ever]

The USA is burdened with presidential candidates which all have more than a 50% disapproval rating haha. It seems more people picked Clinton over Bernie, but more people would pick Bernie over Trump, which is very possible mathematically.

Not letting independents vote in NY (3 millions ppl)
-and the uncounted votes in California (1,4 millions),
-Voter suppression in Puerto Rico (guess what - the voting in Puerto Rico is not counted yet!)
-and all the closed primaries - guess what? I think Sanders would have won with good margin.
-And the handing over a "provisional ballot" to independent voters in California - that probably will not be counted.
-the announcing by 400 superdeletates endorse Clinton, way before any election took place.
-the favoring by DNC of Clinton, evident from February 2015
-the mass closing of polling stations, where ppl had to stand in line up to 5 hours

If you add them up, you could ask if there where more voters picking Clinton

There has been so many suspicious elections - and favoring Clinton.
[video]https://youtu.be/SDPsG-1fo4w[/video]

[spanky4ever]

I just read this article. I hope its true, and that the counting of provisional ballots will give Sanders the win.

An historic lawsuit has been filed after the widespread cover-up of Sanders’ landslide victory at the primary election earlier this week.

The lawsuit will require the counting of all the provisional ballots, millions of which have been left uncounted, which Sanders says gives him a huge win in the state.

Make no mistake, Bernie Sanders supporters lost their ballots, their democratic rights, by the millions on Tuesday. Now proof is starting to emerge.

The California primary wasn’t an election, it was a coup featuring shady and downright illegal tactics usually associated with dictatorships in undemocratic states – media collusion, voter suppression, fraud, and a system fundamentally rigged in favor of the establishment choice.

https://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... pFcBrabHwQ

[Papist]

To start: Please post your source for the complete falsehood posted above (70% disapproval nationally).

Here you go: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/15/politics/ ... e-ratings/

second- again, do you think typing something simply makes it true? I do not feel like Googling and posting the stats from a reputable .org or something other but Sanders is ONLY losing because the VAST MAJORITY of Super Delegates voted Hillary BEFORE many of the primaries had even happened yet.

To quote you: "do you think that typing something makes it true?". Sanders is down hundreds of PLEDGED delegates and millions of votes, something you and @iwillspankyou

notification

don't talk about much. If Bernie had the overwhelming support of the American people, he would have won the pledged delegates and it wouldn't have mattered that Hillary had the SD's

Lastly- I am a Trump supporter anyway

Wow, what a surprise...

so not sure why you think I am up in arms over Sanders.

Because you have made a number of comments suggesting this, in the globalism thread mainly.

I do realize I have posted some strongly worded sentiments but here is why: It becomes very hard to avoid being boorish when you see so many opinions marketed as facts based on nothing except what they 'think.'

Translation: I can't handle it when people disagree with me, so I start calling names and launching personal attacks.

Guess what- no one gives a shit what you think unless you have proof to back it up. When you hear people make 'informed' opinions without actually being informed it can be trying. Like your ridiculous 70% post above. It is so stupidly inaccurate as to make me feel you are simply trying to piss off people through misleading the sheep.

Maybe you should have waited for me to post my evidence before you started ranting. Because now it's you who looks like an ill-informed sheep.

Once this damn game finishes download I expect I will no longer drop in here anyway.

How will we ever survive without you dropping in to swear at and attack those who disagree with you?

My OP wasn't directed at you anyways, so I'm not sure why you responded to it like it was an attack on you personally.

[gibson]

One note 2 you: the GOP doesn't have Superdelegates!

Yeah they do actually, just not as many.

Of course GOP are terrified of Trump being the nominee - but I really do not think they can brush him aside. He is just to popular among his voters.

Trump has 70% disapproval nationally - real popular, lol.

When it comes to Sanders vs Clinton, I totally agree with you that Sanders is a far more popular nominee, and should have won, if it where not for the stupid election system you have, and all the shenanigans going on before and during the election.

If he's more popular than Clinton, why did he lose so badly (I mean, we're talking a few million votes here)? To date, there have been no proven "shenanigans" - it's just more squawking from the sore losers of this year's election, I'm afraid.

For someone who claims to be a big proponent of democracy, you sure seem to have a problem accepting the peoples' choice for President of the United States. Maybe instead of blaming everyone under the sun for Bernie's loss, people like you should think about why they lost and make changes to ensure it doesn't happen again.

To start: Please post your source for the complete falsehood posted above (70% disapproval nationally).
Second- again, do you think typing something simply makes it true? I do not feel like Googling and posting the stats from a reputable .org or something other but Sanders is ONLY losing because the VAST MAJORITY of Super Delegates voted Hillary BEFORE many of the primaries had even happened yet.
Lastly- I am a Trump supporter anyway so not sure why you think I am up in arms over Sanders.
I do realize I have posted some strongly worded sentiments but here is why: It becomes very hard to avoid being boorish when you see so many opinions marketed as facts based on nothing except what they 'think.' Guess what- no one gives a shit what you think unless you have proof to back it up. When you hear people make 'informed' opinions without actually being informed it can be trying. Like your ridiculous 70% post above. It is so stupidly inaccurate as to make me feel you are simply trying to piss off people through misleading the sheep.


Once this damn game finishes download I expect I will no longer drop in here anyway.

Sanders was still behind by 300ish delegates not counting super delegates. One could make the argument that media distorted the numbers by counting the super delegates too early, making people think Clinton was a shoe in so they didn't vote for Sanders. How much of a difference would it have made? Not even close to enough I think. Now if Sanders had been a well established candidate who had the same kind of name recognition that the Clintons do, I think he would have won based on the fact that he comes across as a much more genuine, caring, and honest person to most people. Sadly, thats not the way American politics work. You need money, connections, "Brand recognition" if you will, or be some sort of minority that white male Americans have mistreated in the past. Oh well, he made it farther than he had any business making it really, and hopefully is paving the way for the future.

[Mvp618]

Gary Johnson for president.

[spanky4ever]

@gibson

notification

:

Sanders was still behind by 300ish delegates not counting super delegates. One could make the argument that media distorted the numbers by counting the super delegates too early, making people think Clinton was a shoe in so they didn't vote for Sanders. How much of a difference would it have made? Not even close to enough I think.

ALL of the irregularities and the super delegates announcing too early (in fact - not early - but before any casted a single vote!) would have made a big difference. I surly hope the lawsuit is real, and that all the voters will be counted.

I want to ask you, being american. Have there ever been so many suspicious election, and so many complaint about voter suppression before??

[spanky4ever]

Both Clinton and Trump has disastrous disapproval rates - they are both terrible candidates. This poll is from today:
Clinton approve: 36, disapprove 34
Trump approve: 25, disapprove 51

https://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... oJIVA8EDIA

The only candidate that has more than 50% approval ratings, are Sanders.

[spanky4ever]

Sanders would beat Trump with very large margins. If Clinton does not get Sanders supporters on board, she might loose to Trump. Its a pretty risky game the democrats play, when supporting Clinton.

Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump in a new Quinnipiac University poll of Connecticut residents by seven points, but many voters find both candidates unappealing.

The poll also found Democrat Bernie Sanders running far stronger against Trump. The Vermont senator would beat the billionaire businessman, 54 to 35 percent, according to the survey.

https://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... C200dIQaDg

[spanky4ever]

Btw Trump is inviting Sanders voters. Clinton on the other hand are not. The "never Clinton" are a big group and she will never get those votes anyway.
[video]https://youtu.be/XIGpmNr0RfU[/video]

Personally, if I where American, I would vote for Jill Stein.

[gibson]

@gibson

notification

:

Sanders was still behind by 300ish delegates not counting super delegates. One could make the argument that media distorted the numbers by counting the super delegates too early, making people think Clinton was a shoe in so they didn't vote for Sanders. How much of a difference would it have made? Not even close to enough I think.

ALL of the irregularities and the super delegates announcing too early (in fact - not early - but before any casted a single vote!) would have made a big difference. I surly hope the lawsuit is real, and that all the voters will be counted.

I want to ask you, who are american. Have there ever been so many suspicious election, and so many complaint about voter suppression before??

No, there hasn't been hardly anything suspicious this election. But every election cycle the losing side always claims that the winning side cheated to win. Sanders lost fair and square. It would be a lot more productive if you focused on the present or future rather than the past.

[spanky4ever]

@Gibson

notification

iwillspankyou wrote:
@gibson

notification

:
Sanders was still behind by 300ish delegates not counting super delegates. One could make the argument that media distorted the numbers by counting the super delegates too early, making people think Clinton was a shoe in so they didn't vote for Sanders. How much of a difference would it have made? Not even close to enough I think.


ALL of the irregularities and the super delegates announcing too early (in fact - not early - but before any casted a single vote!) would have made a big difference. I surly hope the lawsuit is real, and that all the voters will be counted.

I want to ask you, who are american. Have there ever been so many suspicious election, and so many complaint about voter suppression before??
No, there hasn't been hardly anything suspicious this election. But every election cycle the losing side always claims that the winning side cheated to win. Sanders lost fair and square. It would be a lot more productive if you focused on the present or future rather than the past.

I guess you did not read my post above? There are a lot of suspisios things in this election. If you only watch mainstream corporate media, you would not know cos they didn't report it.

[zoom]

The USA is burdened with presidential candidates which all have more than a 50% disapproval rating haha. It seems more people picked Clinton over Bernie, but more people would pick Bernie over Trump, which is very possible mathematically.

It's bound to happen in an oligarchic two-party system.

[gibson]

@Gibson

notification

iwillspankyou wrote:
@gibson

notification

:
Sanders was still behind by 300ish delegates not counting super delegates. One could make the argument that media distorted the numbers by counting the super delegates too early, making people think Clinton was a shoe in so they didn't vote for Sanders. How much of a difference would it have made? Not even close to enough I think.


ALL of the irregularities and the super delegates announcing too early (in fact - not early - but before any casted a single vote!) would have made a big difference. I surly hope the lawsuit is real, and that all the voters will be counted.

I want to ask you, who are american. Have there ever been so many suspicious election, and so many complaint about voter suppression before??
No, there hasn't been hardly anything suspicious this election. But every election cycle the losing side always claims that the winning side cheated to win. Sanders lost fair and square. It would be a lot more productive if you focused on the present or future rather than the past.

I guess you did not read my post above? There are a lot of suspisios things in this election. If you only watch mainstream corporate media, you would not know cos they didn't report it.

The only thing you mentioned was the Super delegates. And it's not really surprising that they all committed to hillary because when the election cycle started the only people who even knew that Bernie Sanders existed where people who lived in Vermont. Clinton was the only candidate essentially.

[spanky4ever]

@Gibson

notification

Show hidden quotes

iwillspankyou wrote:
@gibson

notification

:
Sanders was still behind by 300ish delegates not counting super delegates. One could make the argument that media distorted the numbers by counting the super delegates too early, making people think Clinton was a shoe in so they didn't vote for Sanders. How much of a difference would it have made? Not even close to enough I think.


ALL of the irregularities and the super delegates announcing too early (in fact - not early - but before any casted a single vote!) would have made a big difference. I surly hope the lawsuit is real, and that all the voters will be counted.

I want to ask you, who are american. Have there ever been so many suspicious election, and so many complaint about voter suppression before??
No, there hasn't been hardly anything suspicious this election. But every election cycle the losing side always claims that the winning side cheated to win. Sanders lost fair and square. It would be a lot more productive if you focused on the present or future rather than the past.

I guess you did not read my post above? There are a lot of suspisios things in this election. If you only watch mainstream corporate media, you would not know cos they didn't report it.

The only thing you mentioned was the Super delegates. And it's not really surprising that they all committed to hillary because when the election cycle started the only people who even knew that Bernie Sanders existed where people who lived in Vermont. Clinton was the only candidate essentially.

I mentioned a lot of things - and I will repeat it for you:
Not letting independents vote in NY (3 millions ppl)
-and the uncounted votes in California (1,4 millions),
-Voter suppression in Puerto Rico (guess what - the voting in Puerto Rico is not counted yet!)
-and all the closed primaries - guess what? I think Sanders would have won with good margin.
-And the handing over a "provisional ballot" to independent voters in California - that probably will not be counted.
-the announcing by 400 superdeletates endorse Clinton, way before any election took place.
-the favoring by DNC of Clinton, evident from February 2015
-the mass closing of polling stations, where ppl had to stand in line up to 5 hours

If you add them up, you could ask if there where more voters picking Clinton

You could argue that it was "legal" not to allow 3 million independent voters in NY if they didn't register 6 months in advance. My response to that is that it was a dirty trick, and that there are no obvious reason other than voter suppression.

[gibson]

Not letting independents vote in NY (3 millions ppl)

This has been a NYC democrat rule for ages. It wasn't put in place to screw Bernie Sanders lol. It wasn't dirty. It makes perfect sense that a PRIVATE party would restrict voting to party members only and have a deadline several months out so that people who were not part of the DNC couldn't switch at the last minute and than switch right back.

-and the uncounted votes in California (1,4 millions)

This is an issue, but unrelated to Sanders. It's not like they picked out tons of sanders votes and discounted them. It's people who voted by provisional ballet. Liberally these votes would have gone 50/50 to Sanders and Clinton. More likely than not they would have swung the election even more in Clintons favor.

Voter suppression in Puerto Rico

This is possibly the only legitimate complaint. However the amount of delegates puerto rico has is irrelevant. Even is Sanders got every single delegate it wouldn't have changed a thing

and all the closed primaries - guess what? I think Sanders would have won with good margin.

Refer to the first point. Its not voter suppression to not allow non party members to vote in party primaries lol. If people wanted to vote, all they had to do was change their affiliation to the democratic party. They could change it back to independent right after they voted lol.

And the handing over a "provisional ballot" to independent voters in California - that probably will not be counted.

Yes this is an issue, but as I already said, it didn't inherently screw Sanders and is just as likely to have helped him than hurt him.

the announcing by 400 superdeletates endorse Clinton, way before any election took place.

The superdelagate system is kind of stupid, however, the democratic party has had it for ages, it's not like it was put in place to screw Sanders. And its really no surprise what so ever that a majority of the Democratic party chose to vote for someone who is from their own party rather than an independent democratic socialist who is not actually a democrat.

the favoring by DNC of Clinton, evident from February 2015

Once again, of course the democratic party wants clinton to win. She's a democrat. Sanders isn't. Why is anyone surprised?

the mass closing of polling stations, where ppl had to stand in line up to 5 hours

Once again, this is an issue. In a few States the DNC didn't seem as prepared as they should have been. But once again, it's not like this inherently screwed Sanders. It's just as likely to have helped him as hurt him.

You could argue that it was "legal" not to allow 3 million independent voters in NY if they didn't register 6 months in advance. My response to that is that it was a dirty trick, and that there are no obvious reason other than voter suppression.

Once again, this was completely legal, not a dirty trick, and not voter suppression. Any well informed person living in the state of New York knew that you had to be a registered democrat to vote in the democratic primary. A quick google search would tell you when you had to register as a democrat by. 5 more minutes and you could be registered. Ignorance, stupidity, and/or indifference is why those people were not able to vote. And for the last time, its been a NYC democratic party rule for ages, it wasn't like it was put in place this year to screw Sanders.

[spanky4ever]

@Gibson

notification

if your are ok with the way this election turned out, I wont bother to debate you any more, have been up and down this arguments to many times. Im exhausted - and give up. Good luck with the election though. Hope you will be satisfied.

[gibson]

I mean I wanted Sanders to win, but just because I support him doesn't mean that when he loses to I turn to all sorts of conspiracy theories about how the DNC purged Sanders votes and the like. I'm willing to admit that he lost fair and square, but if you can provide any actual evidence that he got cheated I'm not unwilling to consider the possibility. But up until now its just been a lot of butt hurt young people who refuse to believe that they can't get what they want.

[spanky4ever]

Sanders most likely will not be the nominee, but the revolution continues! You could join 2 @gibson

notification

[video]https://youtu.be/MrN7-E6LsIc[/video]

Sanders video message to supperters:
https://youtu.be/VqAhcuihMHM
https://youtu.be/wWnH05uWu3Y

[spanky4ever]

Clinton is now bragging about her rich donors to tease Trump. So if somebody had any doubt about her corporate connections - here it is: (what a stupid move though) Watch and cry
[video]https://youtu.be/PJErIRjAdEs[/video]

[noissance]

@iwillspankyou

notification

I don't get why you are so against corporations, by definition they can ignore morals doing entirely legal things. Corporations aren't altrusitic, as their main motive is profit. The only reason why companies want to tackle social or environmental issues is for their own benefit or their public image. If you can't understand this simple concept, go back to school. Businesses take scientific research and make it into a real product at affordable prices (to their target groups). You also presume too much about the american population, by saying BERNIE THIS BERNIE THAT, but the real reason bernie lost was because a majority of democrats simply don't agree with him. Them most effective way to go against corporations is not by playing the blame game with their puppets, but through boycotting.

[Papist]

@Gibson

notification

if your are ok with the way this election turned out, I wont bother to debate you any more, have been up and down this arguments to many times. Im exhausted - and give up. Good luck with the election though. Hope you will be satisfied.

You mean you have lost this argument multiple times, mainly because you have nothing to back up the alleged "fraud" except speculation. Again, how about you evaluate why you really lost, and make sure sure you don't make the same mistakes again?

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[spanky4ever]

It always makes me happy when new posters come to off topic!

Yeah - you are totally right. I am tired of the topic by know - and will leave it.
I will thank you and all those who have posted here so we had some good discussion. But that is in the past, and it seems the issues we have discussed, keeps coming back again and again.

To you @noissance

notification

i will only say this: I dont have anything against corporations, only wish you had more of them coming back to USA to produce the stuff there. The issue this is all about is: Corporate MONEY IN POLITICS - an issue that has been discussed several times in this thread (and I will not repeat myself). If you do not think its a problem that corporations, big banks, wall street etc. are donating big sums to support a politician who is running for president, senate or congress?? then I will not try to convince you on the contrary. If your are just a little suspicious that it could be problematic, you can google it!

I started this thread and I have learned so much about US politics and economics by participating in it - and I will thank you all
Bye now