RugbyRebels

zer0 wrote:

I think that's possibly the stupidest meme I've ever seen.

Eugene's got a hard on for the mass murdering, racist, war criminal harpy.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

zer0 wrote:

I think that's possibly the stupidest meme I've ever seen.

Love the shit out of this one though

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

zer0 wrote:

I think that's possibly the stupidest meme I've ever seen.

It also ignores the fact that 3 million more democrats have voted for Hillary than Sanders. Despite the mechanics of the nomination system, which seem designed to cause as much confusion as possible and allow for conspiracy theories, she has attracted more votes, at least amongst her own party.

Quite why the process has to be this dis-jointed, for both parties, is a mystery. Why not just a straight forward popular vote, state by state?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... votes-san/

Confusion and conspiracy theories.

Yep. That must be it.

In retard world.

UGagain wrote:Confusion and conspiracy theories.

Yep. That must be it.

In retard world.

Note the neoconservatives now lining up for Hillary.

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

zer0 wrote:

I think that's possibly the stupidest meme I've ever seen.

It also ignores the fact that 3 million more democrats have voted for Hillary than Sanders. Despite the mechanics of the nomination system, which seem designed to cause as much confusion as possible and allow for conspiracy theories, she has attracted more votes, at least amongst her own party.

Quite why the process has to be this dis-jointed, for both parties, is a mystery. Why not just a straight forward popular vote, state by state?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... votes-san/

Which is the key take away. Sanders is polling with independents above 70% - a group that makes up 45% of the US voting population, while Democrats make up just around 29%. Where independents have been allowed to vote, Sanders has done well; but the DNC process almost goes it of its way to make it impossible for people to have their say. In NYC, along with over 100,000 "lost ballots", polling issues, not allowing independents to vote, and making the cutoff date for registering to vote hundreds of days before the primary and before the campaigning had even begun, in the end only 19% of the voting population were eligible to vote. That is not Democratic.

What happened in Nevada is not democratic. The chairperson of the DNC is supposed to remain neutral, but this time has openly supported Shillary from the start - thats not democratic. Creating a joint DNC and Hillary fundraising committee, telling donors that funds raised are to be evenly spread around the Democratic party and then actually siphoning off over 99% of the funds directly into the Hillary campaign is not Democratic (in fact I would argue its almost fraud).

Sanders has constantly attacked the system. He won't win the nomination but he has the backing of over 45% of voters to fight to change that system.

UGagain wrote:

UGagain wrote:Confusion and conspiracy theories.

Yep. That must be it.

In retard world.

Note the neoconservatives now lining up for Hillary.

Wrong. Im no Hillary fan.

jared_7 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: I think that's possibly the stupidest meme I've ever seen.

It also ignores the fact that 3 million more democrats have voted for Hillary than Sanders. Despite the mechanics of the nomination system, which seem designed to cause as much confusion as possible and allow for conspiracy theories, she has attracted more votes, at least amongst her own party.

Quite why the process has to be this dis-jointed, for both parties, is a mystery. Why not just a straight forward popular vote, state by state?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... votes-san/

Which is the key take away. Sanders is polling with independents above 70% - a group that makes up 45% of the US voting population, while Democrats make up just around 29%. Where independents have been allowed to vote, Sanders has done well; but the DNC process almost goes it of its way to make it impossible for people to have their say. In NYC, along with over 100,000 "lost ballots", polling issues, not allowing independents to vote, and making the cutoff date for registering to vote hundreds of days before the primary and before the campaigning had even begun, in the end only 19% of the voting population were eligible to vote. That is not Democratic.

What happened in Nevada is not democratic. The chairperson of the DNC is supposed to remain neutral, but this time has openly supported Shillary from the start - thats not democratic. Creating a joint DNC and Hillary fundraising committee, telling donors that funds raised are to be evenly spread around the Democratic party and then actually siphoning off over 99% of the funds directly into the Hillary campaign is not Democratic (in fact I would argue its almost fraud).

Sanders has constantly attacked the system. He won't win the nomination but he has the backing of over 45% of voters to fight to change that system.

The process is unnecessarily convoluted and that makes it open to mistakes, our indeed abuse. A simpler process would be more transparent and fair. In an age before modern technology I get why voters elected representatives to the final event, but IIRC, the current process only dates back to the 1960s (?) so why no have a direct vote? A convoluted system doesn't mean its been subverted entirely and that the votes cast for Hillary suddenly aren't valid, but it does make it more open to abuse and accusation of abuse.

On point, why should independents vote in the election for a party presidential candidate? Surely this process is for registered Democrats only?

Sandydragon wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
It also ignores the fact that 3 million more democrats have voted for Hillary than Sanders. Despite the mechanics of the nomination system, which seem designed to cause as much confusion as possible and allow for conspiracy theories, she has attracted more votes, at least amongst her own party.

Quite why the process has to be this dis-jointed, for both parties, is a mystery. Why not just a straight forward popular vote, state by state?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... votes-san/

Which is the key take away. Sanders is polling with independents above 70% - a group that makes up 45% of the US voting population, while Democrats make up just around 29%. Where independents have been allowed to vote, Sanders has done well; but the DNC process almost goes it of its way to make it impossible for people to have their say. In NYC, along with over 100,000 "lost ballots", polling issues, not allowing independents to vote, and making the cutoff date for registering to vote hundreds of days before the primary and before the campaigning had even begun, in the end only 19% of the voting population were eligible to vote. That is not Democratic.

What happened in Nevada is not democratic. The chairperson of the DNC is supposed to remain neutral, but this time has openly supported Shillary from the start - thats not democratic. Creating a joint DNC and Hillary fundraising committee, telling donors that funds raised are to be evenly spread around the Democratic party and then actually siphoning off over 99% of the funds directly into the Hillary campaign is not Democratic (in fact I would argue its almost fraud).

Sanders has constantly attacked the system. He won't win the nomination but he has the backing of over 45% of voters to fight to change that system.

The process is unnecessarily convoluted and that makes it open to mistakes, our indeed abuse. A simpler process would be more transparent and fair. In an age before modern technology I get why voters elected representatives to the final event, but IIRC, the current process only dates back to the 1960s (?) so why no have a direct vote? A convoluted system doesn't mean its been subverted entirely and that the votes cast for Hillary suddenly aren't valid, but it does make it more open to abuse and accusation of abuse.

On point, why should independents vote in the election for a party presidential candidate? Surely this process is for registered Democrats only?

Agree, the process should be much simpler.

On your last point, that is the bone of contention. Some say you're right, they should be picking their own candidate to push the policies they want to push. Others say they should be choosing the candidate that is most likely to win and pulling outsiders into the party.

Because America has an engrained two party system, how are the 45% of independents supposed to have their voice heard? What you have at the moment is 29% of the population picking one candidate, and 24% of the population picking another, whilst the largest group is kept on the outside and then has to pick between two candidates neither were keen for in the first place. And before you say they can run as an independent, remember that the way congress and the senate is structured it is almost impossible for an independent to a) first of all gather the funding to run for themselves, and then b) be anything other than a lame duck once in office as both houses are filled with party members you don't align with.

Clinton represents a closed DNC who is beholden to big money. Sanders represents opening the party up to young people and outsiders and getting people interested in politics again. That is what the original meme, whilst not articulated correctly, shows.

jared_7 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

jared_7 wrote:
Which is the key take away. Sanders is polling with independents above 70% - a group that makes up 45% of the US voting population, while Democrats make up just around 29%. Where independents have been allowed to vote, Sanders has done well; but the DNC process almost goes it of its way to make it impossible for people to have their say. In NYC, along with over 100,000 "lost ballots", polling issues, not allowing independents to vote, and making the cutoff date for registering to vote hundreds of days before the primary and before the campaigning had even begun, in the end only 19% of the voting population were eligible to vote. That is not Democratic.

What happened in Nevada is not democratic. The chairperson of the DNC is supposed to remain neutral, but this time has openly supported Shillary from the start - thats not democratic. Creating a joint DNC and Hillary fundraising committee, telling donors that funds raised are to be evenly spread around the Democratic party and then actually siphoning off over 99% of the funds directly into the Hillary campaign is not Democratic (in fact I would argue its almost fraud).

Sanders has constantly attacked the system. He won't win the nomination but he has the backing of over 45% of voters to fight to change that system.

The process is unnecessarily convoluted and that makes it open to mistakes, our indeed abuse. A simpler process would be more transparent and fair. In an age before modern technology I get why voters elected representatives to the final event, but IIRC, the current process only dates back to the 1960s (?) so why no have a direct vote? A convoluted system doesn't mean its been subverted entirely and that the votes cast for Hillary suddenly aren't valid, but it does make it more open to abuse and accusation of abuse.

On point, why should independents vote in the election for a party presidential candidate? Surely this process is for registered Democrats only?

Agree, the process should be much simpler.

On your last point, that is the bone of contention. Some say you're right, they should be picking their own candidate to push the policies they want to push. Others say they should be choosing the candidate that is most likely to win and pulling outsiders into the party.

Because America has an engrained two party system, how are the 45% of independents supposed to have their voice heard? What you have at the moment is 29% of the population picking one candidate, and 24% of the population picking another, whilst the largest group is kept on the outside and then has to pick between two candidates neither were keen for in the first place. And before you say they can run as an independent, remember that the way congress and the senate is structured it is almost impossible for an independent to a) first of all gather the funding to run for themselves, and then b) be anything other than a lame duck once in office as both houses are filled with party members you don't align with.

Clinton represents a closed DNC who is beholden to big money. Sanders represents opening the party up to young people and outsiders and getting people interested in politics again. That is what the original meme, whilst not articulated correctly, shows.

Ah, I see your point about independents. I think the issue would be better solved by allowing for easier access to the race by independents and leave it to the Democrats and Republicans to pick their own candidates. I suppose in theory anyone can run, except not everyone has the resources available to make a bid viable.

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:

UGagain wrote:Confusion and conspiracy theories.

Yep. That must be it.

In retard world.

Note the neoconservatives now lining up for Hillary.

Wrong. Im no Hillary fan.

I can't imagine why not. A Russophobic, islamophobic, zionist racist warmonger who serves the rich and only the rich.

She's your perfect match.

UGagain wrote:

Could that just be because its unpopular to like Shillary? I don't know, I just remember reading somewhere polling and public opinion tends to be more progressive than it actually is as its "uncool" to say you're conservative.

jared_7 wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Could that just be because its unpopular to like Shillary? I don't know, I just remember reading somewhere polling and public opinion tends to be more progressive than it actually is as its "uncool" to say you're conservative.

certainly happened in our general election wrt what the polls were saying, and to some extent in the Scottish referendum where it was cool to say you wanted out.

Banquo wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Could that just be because its unpopular to like Shillary? I don't know, I just remember reading somewhere polling and public opinion tends to be more progressive than it actually is as its "uncool" to say you're conservative.

certainly happened in our general election wrt what the polls were saying, and to some extent in the Scottish referendum where it was cool to say you wanted out.

The exit polls were reasonably accurate, though, it's the pre-election polling that was miles off.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

jared_7 wrote:
Could that just be because its unpopular to like Shillary? I don't know, I just remember reading somewhere polling and public opinion tends to be more progressive than it actually is as its "uncool" to say you're conservative.

certainly happened in our general election wrt what the polls were saying, and to some extent in the Scottish referendum where it was cool to say you wanted out.

The exit polls were reasonably accurate, though, it's the pre-election polling that was miles off.

true, sorry wasn't really paying attention. polls schmolls. I remember the shock on the faces from all sides when the first exit polls started to come through.

depends on the accuracy of the sampling. Looks like they have a systemic problem in under-estimating Hillary votes. If they are using an old model for the numbers of black people registered/likey to vote then that would certainly cause it and with those large discrepancies being in predominantly southern states that would seem to me to be a likely cause.

Or its all a big conspiracy because god knows polls are never wrong and a widespread conspiracy for millions of votes is much more likely than the sort of sampling error that pollsters often make.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:depends on the accuracy of the sampling. Looks like they have a systemic problem in under-estimating Hillary votes. If they are using an old model for the numbers of black people registered/likey to vote then that would certainly cause it and with those large discrepancies being in predominantly southern states that would seem to me to be a likely cause.

Or its all a big conspiracy because god knows polls are never wrong and a widespread conspiracy for millions of votes is much more likely than the sort of sampling error that pollsters often make.

Again, it doesn't really matter, as it's an organisation, not the state. They can do what they like. But the more things like this, the more likely Bernie will run as an independent, and the more likely he would be to win...Doesn't matter if it's true or not.

The whole press campaign around Bernie is definitely something Corbyn's team should look at and learn from. It's been excellent.

Stom wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:depends on the accuracy of the sampling. Looks like they have a systemic problem in under-estimating Hillary votes. If they are using an old model for the numbers of black people registered/likey to vote then that would certainly cause it and with those large discrepancies being in predominantly southern states that would seem to me to be a likely cause.

Or its all a big conspiracy because god knows polls are never wrong and a widespread conspiracy for millions of votes is much more likely than the sort of sampling error that pollsters often make.

Again, it doesn't really matter, as it's an organisation, not the state. They can do what they like. But the more things like this, the more likely Bernie will run as an independent, and the more likely he would be to win...Doesn't matter if it's true or not.

The whole press campaign around Bernie is definitely something Corbyn's team should look at and learn from. It's been excellent.

But it's not translating to actual numbers when it counts, now is it?

I thought Bernie had already promised not to run as an independent, struggling to find that statement on t'internet though.

J Dory wrote:I thought Bernie had already promised not to run as an independent, struggling to find that statement on t'internet though.

I'm pretty sure he did. Pretty helpful in getting Democrats to vote for you if you've spent most of your career as an independent. He'll still run. I can't imagine it's possible to legally stop someone from running, no matter what promises they have made. There's a decent chance we could get a couple of independents running - Sanders to the left of Clinton and Bloomberg to the sane of Trump. Would make it a much more interesting election.

Stom wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:depends on the accuracy of the sampling. Looks like they have a systemic problem in under-estimating Hillary votes. If they are using an old model for the numbers of black people registered/likey to vote then that would certainly cause it and with those large discrepancies being in predominantly southern states that would seem to me to be a likely cause.

Or its all a big conspiracy because god knows polls are never wrong and a widespread conspiracy for millions of votes is much more likely than the sort of sampling error that pollsters often make.

Again, it doesn't really matter, as it's an organisation, not the state. They can do what they like. But the more things like this, the more likely Bernie will run as an independent, and the more likely he would be to win...Doesn't matter if it's true or not.

The whole press campaign around Bernie is definitely something Corbyn's team should look at and learn from. It's been excellent.

Bernies clearly setting himself up as the underdog and supporters are preparing a narrative that the democratic nomination has been unfairly taken from him - despite him not really being a democrat. I think there are limited lessons for Corbyn as he hasn't actually managed to win and is getting fairly caned in the popular vote. He's great at spinning failure but that's not really the point of Corbyn.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

J Dory wrote:I thought Bernie had already promised not to run as an independent, struggling to find that statement on t'internet though.

I'm pretty sure he did. Pretty helpful in getting Democrats to vote for you if you've spent most of your career as an independent. He'll still run. I can't imagine it's possible to legally stop someone from running, no matter what promises they have made. There's a decent chance we could get a couple of independents running - Sanders to the left of Clinton and Bloomberg to the sane of Trump. Would make it a much more interesting election.

No need for Bloomberg to run, he and Clinton are two peas from the same pod. He was only going to run if Sandera got the Dem nod

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Stom wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:depends on the accuracy of the sampling. Looks like they have a systemic problem in under-estimating Hillary votes. If they are using an old model for the numbers of black people registered/likey to vote then that would certainly cause it and with those large discrepancies being in predominantly southern states that would seem to me to be a likely cause.

Or its all a big conspiracy because god knows polls are never wrong and a widespread conspiracy for millions of votes is much more likely than the sort of sampling error that pollsters often make.

Again, it doesn't really matter, as it's an organisation, not the state. They can do what they like. But the more things like this, the more likely Bernie will run as an independent, and the more likely he would be to win...Doesn't matter if it's true or not.

The whole press campaign around Bernie is definitely something Corbyn's team should look at and learn from. It's been excellent.

Bernies clearly setting himself up as the underdog and supporters are preparing a narrative that the democratic nomination has been unfairly taken from him - despite him not really being a democrat. I think there are limited lessons for Corbyn as he hasn't actually managed to win and is getting fairly caned in the popular vote. He's great at spinning failure but that's not really the point of Corbyn.

Corbyn is actually electable you mean.