Trump DEFENDS Bernie!!!!!

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

18 minutes ago, Lance said:

Trump wont win. Why is he still even trying.

Because he has the popular vote, and will have influence on the potential voters if he doesn't get the nomination.

Ideally, he'd split up and run independently. His ego all but demands it. Some conspiracy theorists say that it's his plan all along. That would ensure the win for the Democrats.

Pray for it. 

[SISTERV 3,887]

2 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

"Standing against the corruption".

This isn't corruption. Every judge has inherent bias. It's impossible not to be. They are still humans.

The entire point is that the president can choose to nominate judges that are more amenable to their own social policies. For example, the Republicans are known for selecting judges who are virulently anti-gay. Democratic nominees want them not to be as such.

Please, educate yourself. I am not insinuating you are stupid. I am insinuating you are misinformed.

Again, learn the difference, and stop taking every post I make so offensively.

And yes, you are naive if you think anyone can erase "corruption" (how is this corruption?). If God couldn't do it to Adam and Eve, what makes you think anyone can?

I think you forgot what was originally said by yourself. Of course we are humans. But there is a REASONABLE difference in

-embracing the idea of having an activist court with judges who are publicly known to side with an extreme (in your case, like you just said, that people need to support progressive judges to enact social policies we want)

-or-

-appointing judges who have minimal political leanings, have a history of prosecuting equally on both sides, and are known to have minimal interest in a particular political party (THIS GOES FOR BOTH SIDES)

You said you want the former. And that is the difference. I understand humans have leanings, but we should never be actually trying to have an activist court. The judicial branch of government should be balanced. (For crying out loud, their symbol is a balance). Never used to push ANY agenda, good intended or not. 

 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

7 minutes ago, SISTERV said:

I think you forgot what was originally said by yourself. Of course we are humans. But there is a REASONABLE difference in

-embracing the idea of having an activist court with judges who are publicly known to side with an extreme (in your case, like you just said, that people need to support progressive judges to enact social policies we want)

-or-

-appointing judges who have minimal political leanings, have a history of prosecuting equally on both sides, and are known to have minimal interest in a particular political party (THIS GOES FOR BOTH SIDES)

You said you want the former. And that is the difference. I understand humans have leanings, but we should never be actually trying to have an activist court. The judicial branch of government should be balanced. (For crying out loud, their symbol is a balance). Never used to push ANY agenda, good intended or not. 

 

....

"Should" 

Too bad it doesn't work that way. If Republicans do it (and they do), then Democrats have to do it too. Hell it even applies to Congress. Haven't you notice them cockblock every progressive bill ever made?

Enough of this. The whole point of parties is to represent their constituents. Placing members of Congress and judges who are empathetic to the concerns of those constituents is the only way to get their voice heard fairly. If this isn't democracy, I don't know what is. It's clear you don't know what corruption means.

[Mikey Monster 1,561]

He only says that cuz he knows Hillary is a challenge and he thinks he can beat Bernie 

[MJHolland 12,725]

2 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

Superdelegates exist for a reason (google them), and they have never EVER gone to the democratic nominee who has won less popular votes. Hillary is ahead by 2.5 million votes. Superdelegates are icing on the cake.

They were created because party leaders didn't like Carter. They're undemocratic in nature.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

17 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

They were created because party leaders didn't like Carter. They're undemocratic in nature.

Given that their only reason for existence is to prevent something like Trump, then no. Unless you believe safeguards are undemocratic, as if the people's judgement can't be questionable (Trump).

Friendly reminder that this competition is hosted by a private organization called the Democratic National Party. If you don't like this system, then run as an independent. If you're trying to enforce your own perspectives on them, you're the one being undemocratic. Just saying.

In any case, from a practical perspective, they are only there to reinforce the winner. They have never supported someone who has less popular vote or lost the swing states. 

So discussing them is pointless. If you want to play the game, know the rules.

Ironically, Bernie has stopped complaining about them now that there is a slight possibility they may support him. "Using" the establishment I see? Quite establishment.

[Whispering 18,865]

The difference here being that Trump leads the Republican Party with the popular votes and with state delegates. He will end up with the most in both categories at the convention. 

Bernie is not leading and has a next to impossible chance be leading at the Democratic convention. 

Completely different situations. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

9 minutes ago, Whispering said:

The difference here being that Trump leads the Republican Party with the popular votes and with state delegates. He will end up with the most in both categories at the convention. 

Bernie is not leading and has a next to impossible chance be leading at the Democratic convention. 

Completely different situations. 

Minor details for some Bernie supporters. 

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

9 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Minor details for some Bernie supporters. 

Well you know we apparently live in a fact free times nowadays...    

[PaperIz 7,354]

Yall are wild. This thread is a total mess.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

6 minutes ago, PaperIz said:

Yall are wild. This thread is a total mess.

Please. I'm as composed as Hillary during the Beghazi trial.

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

36 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Please. I'm as composed as Hillary during the Beghazi trial.

Yasssssssssssss!  

[MJHolland 12,725]

12 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

Given that their only reason for existence is to prevent something like Trump, then no. Unless you believe safeguards are undemocratic, as if the people's judgement can't be questionable (Trump).

Friendly reminder that this competition is hosted by a private organization called the Democratic National Party. If you don't like this system, then run as an independent. If you're trying to enforce your own perspectives on them, you're the one being undemocratic. Just saying.

In any case, from a practical perspective, they are only there to reinforce the winner. They have never supported someone who has less popular vote or lost the swing states. 

So discussing them is pointless. If you want to play the game, know the rules.

Ironically, Bernie has stopped complaining about them now that there is a slight possibility they may support him. "Using" the establishment I see? Quite establishment.

Thanks for telling a former DNC employee how/what the DNC works/is. Don't talk down to me.

[MJHolland 12,725]

10 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

Please. I'm as composed as Hillary during the Beghazi trial.

Yeah because it's totally funny to joke about a terror plot that the SoS and her office were totally ignorant to that ended up killing multiple American hero and an American Ambassador and then our embassy was captured. Oh, and then the SoS lied to the American public and said that it wasn't a terror plot to make the administration look like it wasn't totally ignorant to a terror plot on 9/11's anniversary, while she was simultaneously emailing her daughter (which she deleted but the Benghazi panel recovered, evidently) that the attack was in fact a premeditated plot and not a spur of the moment thing.

Yes, so so funny.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

6 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

Thanks for telling a former DNC employee how/what the DNC works/is. Don't talk down to me.

Hardly talking down to you. I don't know your credentials, and your posts suggest you lack a basic understanding of super delegates.

I don't care if you worked at the DNC. How is that supposed to matter if you are still misinterpreting things? In fact it makes your opinion all the more incredible.