Nader: Clinton winning by 'dictatorship'

[brendablethyn 536]

Ralph Nader says Hillary Clinton is "going to win by dictatorship" in her Democratic primary race against Bernie Sanders.

"Twenty-five percent of superdelegates are cronies, mostly. They weren't elected," Nader, an activist and former Green Party presidential candidate, told U.S. News in a story published Friday .

"They were there in order to stop somebody like Bernie Sanders, who would win by the vote."

Nader told U.S. News he thinks Sanders "made very few mistakes" during his White House bid and would present a bigger challenge to presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump in November.

"[H]e couldn't do anything about the superdelegates. But he almost won and he would've won," Nader said. "He would've defeated Trump easily, much more easily than [Clinton] would've defeated him."

"He doesn't produce gaffes. He's very consistent and he's scandal-free. What politician 35 years in office is scandal-free?"

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/279847-nader-clinton-winning-by-dictatorship

[Riot Poof 2,236]

I've been hearing a lot of shady business going on with Hillary's campaign... 

I'd still vote for her if she becomes the Democratic candidate, but I hope Bernie pulls through!

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, brendablethyn said:

Ralph Nader says Hillary Clinton is "going to win by dictatorship" in her Democratic primary race against Bernie Sanders.

"Twenty-five percent of superdelegates are cronies, mostly. They weren't elected," Nader, an activist and former Green Party presidential candidate, told U.S. News in a story published Friday .

"They were there in order to stop somebody like Bernie Sanders, who would win by the vote."

Nader told U.S. News he thinks Sanders "made very few mistakes" during his White House bid and would present a bigger challenge to presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump in November.

"[H]e couldn't do anything about the superdelegates. But he almost won and he would've won," Nader said. "He would've defeated Trump easily, much more easily than [Clinton] would've defeated him."

"He doesn't produce gaffes. He's very consistent and he's scandal-free. What politician 35 years in office is scandal-free?"

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/279847-nader-clinton-winning-by-dictatorship

Ralph Nader spoiled the 2000 Election and helped the Right win by not helping Gore, same thing Senile Sanders is doing. More proof you are uninformed.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Riot Poof said:

I've been hearing a lot of shady business going on with Hillary's campaign... 

I'd still vote for her if she becomes the Democratic candidate, but I hope Bernie pulls through!

Hillary is being slandered by White Men, conservative and Independent. He's not even close to winning, he needs 800 delegates and Hillary needs less than 180. Educate yourself.

[DiscoHeaven23 35,007]

More people have still voted for Hillary in the primaries, she doesn't even need the superdelegates to win, so good try Nader. 

[brendablethyn 536]

Hillary's win has been undemocratic unfortunately. She doesn't have a mandate. 

[Riot Poof 2,236]

1 minute ago, BoysBoysBoys652 said:

Hillary is being slandered by White Men, conservative and Independent. He's not even close to winning, he needs 800 delegates and Hillary needs less than 180. Educate yourself.

Liberal white men have been slandering Hillary too. I once sat next to this white Bernie stan who utterly came for Hillary's existence. Hell, many Tumblr users (of all races, genders, and political affiliations) have been coming for Hillary.

And please don't come for my education level when I ain't even done nothing to you.

"Democratic rules do not refer to bound delegates. The delegates are seemingly only loosely pledged to a candidate based on the results of the primaries and caucuses." - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/02/16/everything-you-need-to-know-about-delegate-math-in-the-presidential-primary/

SO, it would appear that there is a chance that some of Hillary's delegates could switch to Team Bernie. It's highly unlikely, but it's not impossible, since they aren't legally obliged to vote for Hillary. Unless Washington Post is somehow... wrong.

Educate myself? I just did. Maybe you should as well. Get some manners too, while you're at it.

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Riot Poof said:

Liberal white men have been slandering Hillary too. I once sat next to this white Bernie stan who utterly came for Hillary's existence. Hell, many Tumblr users (of all races, genders, and political affiliations) have been coming for Hillary.

And please don't come for my education level when I ain't even done nothing to you.

"Democratic rules do not refer to bound delegates. The delegates are seemingly only loosely pledged to a candidate based on the results of the primaries and caucuses." - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/02/16/everything-you-need-to-know-about-delegate-math-in-the-presidential-primary/

SO, it would appear that there is a chance that some of Hillary's delegates could switch to Team Bernie. It's highly unlikely, but it's not impossible, since they aren't legally obliged to vote for Hillary. Unless Washington Post is somehow... wrong.

Educate myself? I just did. Maybe you should as well. Get some manners too, while you're at it.

 

Liberals aren't the problem White men are. White Gays are a problem too, they think they're more entitled than other gays just because you're a homosexual doesn't mean you have the same perspective as a black person in white america.

Delegates and Superdelegates go with the winning candidate, Bernie is behind 800 and Hillary only needs less than 180, there's no chance for him to win. Like I said, go back to arithmetic level math.

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, brendablethyn said:

Hillary's win has been undemocratic unfortunately. She doesn't have a mandate. 

Please inform us how her fair wins and the fact that Democrat means power of the people, and the fact she is winning by people's votes, makes her win undemocratic? You literally talk out of your hole. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

Says Ralph Nader who gave us Bush/Cheney  A kii.

[Whispering 18,865]

3 hours ago, brendablethyn said:

Hillary's win has been undemocratic unfortunately. She doesn't have a mandate. 

Obama didn't either. Bernie wouldn't have one either. So, what should happen? Let's not have a nominee at all? 

Hillary is going to win the nomination, because she has the most pledged delegates, just like Obama. 

[Luc 4,776]

3 hours ago, BoysBoysBoys652 said:

Liberals aren't the problem White men are. White Gays are a problem too, they think they're more entitled than other gays just because you're a homosexual doesn't mean you have the same perspective as a black person in white america.

Delegates and Superdelegates go with the winning candidate, Bernie is behind 800 and Hillary only needs less than 180, there's no chance for him to win. Like I said, go back to arithmetic level math.

Relevance to the topic, or just taking the opportunity to change subject towards some opinion you have on something totally unrelated? 

 

Anyways. I don't think we should trust someone like him. The whole The Greens party in the US is completely pointless and only makes the left less likely to win.

Other than that, Sanders doesn't have a majority of Democrat voters behind him. He also lacks super delegates, but that's not the main issue. A majority of Democrats prefer Hillary, and that's why Hillary has won the primaries. Now stop the anti-Hillary stuff and support her as the most liberal presidential candidate possible, rather than contributing to a Republican win.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 hours ago, Whispering said:

Obama didn't either. Bernie wouldn't have one either. So, what should happen? Let's not have a nominee at all? 

Hillary is going to win the nomination, because she has the most pledged delegates, just like Obama. 

Hillary's win has been undemocratic

Coming in defense of someone who has won most of the contests from caucuses, the most undemocratic voting measure there is. Just look at the difference between the Nebraska primary and caucus  

[Goosey 3,017]

6 hours ago, brendablethyn said:

"Twenty-five percent of superdelegates are cronies, mostly. They weren't elected," Nader, an activist and former Green Party presidential candidate, told U.S. News in a story published Friday .

"They were there in order to stop somebody like Bernie Sanders, who would win by the vote."

This is precisely true, and it shouldn't be a surprise. Overturning the popular vote is the whole point of superdelegates. 

 

[Goosey 3,017]

5 hours ago, BoysBoysBoys652 said:

Delegates and Superdelegates go with the winning candidate, Bernie is behind 800 and Hillary only needs less than 180, there's no chance for him to win. Like I said, go back to arithmetic level math.

No, they don't. They usually do, but Democrat superdelegates are unpledged. They can vote for whoever they want. Usually they have voted for the winning candidate, but the fact is, the superdelegates are there to overturn the popular vote if they think it necessary. For example, if the popular vote is about to elect a divisive or "non-competitive" candidate, the superdelegates can pick someone more "suitable" instead.

 

The driving idea behind the creation of this new group of delegates was to prevent highly contested nomination processes from producing a non-competitive candidate at the expense of the Party as happened in 1968 and 1972. As Commission Chairman Jim Hunt noted in a speech at the JFK School of Government in 1981: “We would then return a measure of decision-making power and discretion to the organized party and increase the incentive it has to offer elected officials for serious involvement.” Party elites would keep the long-term health and goals of the party in mind when casting their votes as unpledged delegates.

In a recent interview about superdelegates with CNN’s Jake Tapper, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz argued, “Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists.” 

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/162801