IGX

milosz wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote:
Super delegates are irrelevant? Seems like the party put an awful lot of Hillary effort into this irrelevancy.

Are you retarded? What part of "Hillary has won a majority of the popular vote and elected delegates" do you not understand? Are numbers confusing?

Super delegates haven't cast a single ballot, they aren't the source of her majority.

Now the Senate is anti-democratic too?

In that the Senate and EC were designed to be anti-democratic and have always been so? Yeah, dumbass.

I see your point about the super delegates but you can't ignore the fact that many have announced their intention to vote for her, and the press is eager to report delegate counts that reflect that. It seems pretty obvious that the intention is to keep Bernie voters from showing up.
Then you have shenanigans such as the decision to purge 126,000 registered democrats from the rolls in Brooklyn.
Now imagine if republicans had done that in, say, Georgia.
I agree that Hill probably wins based on popular vote, but it isn't as if the democrats don't have a track record of corruption in large cities and theft of elections. JFK/Chicago comes to mind, of course.

bernie would have a better chance with the democratic establishment if he had been a democrat.

instead he steadfastly been an "independent," preaching to all from this superior perch.

Milos calling people idiots and retards when he just made a thread asking: "I'm a fat drunk. Will a 5x5 lifting routine cure me?"

milosz wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote:
Super delegates are irrelevant? Seems like the party put an awful lot of Hillary effort into this irrelevancy.

Are you retarded? What part of "Hillary has won a majority of the popular vote and elected delegates" do you not understand? Are numbers confusing?

Super delegates haven't cast a single ballot, they aren't the source of her majority.

Now the Senate is anti-democratic too?

In that the Senate and EC were designed to be anti-democratic and have always been so? Yeah, dumbass.

Perhaps you're confused and think the Democrat primary is over.

Voters don't choose the nominee, the delegates do so Super Delegates are hugely important to party leadership. Based on Dem primary voting to date have delegates been distributed fairly and proportionately? The answer according to many Dems is NO and they're angry about it. Are these Dems dumbasses?

FWIW once Rand Paul dropped out I stopped caring about the nominee of either party and see little good coming from Trump or either of the Dems still standing.

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:

Yes I Have Balls wrote:Reagan Democrats have had a name for the last 40 years. They're called Republicans.

Umm, no.
Blue collar, unionized New Yorkers don't typically support republicans in my experience. Trumps brand of populism is bringing in democrat voters. Look at his publicly stated views over the years and he is obviously a typical NYC liberal who is unafraid to express his xenophobia.

Pretty good read.

The kind of conservative blue-collar whites who would once have been “Reagan Democrats” are now mostly Republicans. As The Washington Post’s Phillip Bump notes, working-class whites are almost 10 percentage points more likely to identify with the GOP than they were in 1980.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... at/475608/

Herv100 wrote:Milos calling people idiots and retards when he just made a thread asking: "I'm a fat drunk. Will a 5x5 lifting routine cure me?"

Knowing you're a retard is half the battle.

DrDonkeyLove wrote: Perhaps you're confused and think the Democrat primary is over.

It really and truly is. Bernie can't get past the post regardless of outcomes - the only way he becomes the nominee is if Hillary gets arrested and drops out. That ain't happening.

I voted for Bernie. I'm sad that he won't get the nom. I won't vote for Hillary in the general. But Jesus fucking Christ, deal with reality.

Voters don't choose the nominee, the delegates do so Super Delegates are hugely important to party leadership.

This is an absolutely meaningless sentence. "Super delegates" ARE the "party leadership."

Let's go back to your first statement regarding super delegates, which is where you don't seem to grasp reality:

Interesting that the Dems rigged the system so their predetermined candidate will win via Super Delegates regardless of the will of their voters.

How does the system differ in 2016 from 2008 (when the predetermined candidate lost) or, in fact, any time since 1984?
(Hint: superdelegates have been part of the process for 30 years.)

Second - superdelegates are, thus far, in line with the will of the voter? Why? Because Hillary has won a majority of pledged delegates and the primary popular vote. How is this a difficult concept to grasp?

If Hillary was behind in pledged delegates and votes and superdelegates (who are not put in place by a shadowy cabal, of course - Democratic Congressmen are elected by, presumably, Democrats and the party leadership is beholden to the party) pushed her over the line - that would be an issue. That isn't what's happening.

Based on Dem primary voting to date have delegates been distributed fairly and proportionately? The answer according to many Dems is NO and they're angry about it. Are these Dems dumbasses?

Which Dems are these who are saying the pledged haven't been "distributed fairly and proportionately"? Which states and exactly how aren't they fair and proportionate?

here is an actual example of how superdelegates operate:

bernie won the vt dem primary big.

democratic superdelegates--long-time party people like sen pat leahy and gov peter shumlin--pledged their troth to hillary.

bernie pleading for the support of superdelegates when, first, he has gotten fewer votes than hillary, and second, when he hasn't previously stood with the party is a wondrous combination of delusion and arrogance.

milosz wrote:I won't vote for Hillary in the general.

Good choice

milosz wrote:But Jesus fucking Christ, deal with reality.

You win; Hillary will win the nomination fair and square. I wonder how many angry Berners will accept that reality.

Are the same people saying Trump has absolutely no chance in the general election the same people who have been saying for the past two years he had absolutely no chance to get out of the GOP primary or another group of commentators?

I never thought Trump would get this far but I didn't count on the GOP trotting out so many unappetizing candidates.

Protobuilder wrote:Are the same people saying Trump has absolutely no chance in the general election the same people who have been saying for the past two years he had absolutely no chance to get out of the GOP primary or another group of commentators?

yes. on both sides.

There were too many candidates to make a bet on anyone, but I certainly didn't count Trump out. The GOP let their id run rampant from the minute a black guy got elected President, either Trump or Cruz was going to be the logical result of that.

People act shocked by a populist nationalist's popularity but you see similar popularity in parliamentary democracies for candidates/parties of the left and right like Bernie and Trump, we've just subsumed them into a two-party system with rare exceptions.

Protobuilder wrote:Are the same people saying Trump has absolutely no chance in the general election the same people who have been saying for the past two years he had absolutely no chance to get out of the GOP primary or another group of commentators?

I didn't think he had a chance in hell of winning the nomination all last year. I started having doubts the last few months, but up until this past week I thought for sure that it would remain close enough for a brokered convention.
At this point I realize that anything is possible, and the least likely things are more possible than ever.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/03/donald-trump
This is a good read. Maybe someone can copy and paste the text for Proto.

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/03/donald-trump
This is a good read. Maybe someone can copy and paste the text for Proto.

Can you tweet a summary? Too hard to read on my phone.

nafod wrote:

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/03/donald-trump
This is a good read. Maybe someone can copy and paste the text for Proto.

Can you tweet a summary? Too hard to read on my phone.

"The most important thing to understand about Trump is that he is not the start of anything new but the culmination of a long degenerative process that has been at work for the entirety of the 21st century."

And it's not just the GOP, but the Democratic Party as well.
He can't really be much worse than Bush and Obama have been.

Company Overview

Yellowcake Resources Inc. offers uranium exploration services and is based in Canada. Yellowcake Resources Inc. is a subsidiary of Jetcom Incorporated.
Canada

Key Executive for Yellowcake Resources Inc.
Mr. Brian Patrick McDonough BSc.

Wha dat?
Wha nst pres gonnna ax that feller wher 500+ tons a yellow cake cum from he got now?

Trump needs $$$$ to fund his GE run. Here come the big $$ donors and they're bringing their big $$$ positions with them as Trump continues to vacillate on cutting entitlement funding.

So much for that.