And from my admittedly outsider perspective it seem clear as a Summer day is long that the Clinton machine and Wasserman-Shultz (and POTUS I suppose) have determined that Hillary is the nominee. Everything else is just window dressing. Hope the Bernie crowd figures that out... Goldman Sachs wants their Hawkish gal in office.
BedellBrave (02-11-2016)
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
He also likes to revise history, which doesn't hurt his chances. Still though Carson comes across to me as an affable person, even if you don't agree with him. Rubio seems nice enough too on a personal level, he just reminds me of a college QB who does great in college games but when he gets to the pros and a smart defensive coordinator changes the looks, the coverages, the blitz packages, etc., when somebody hits him with something he hasn't seen/heard before he just kinda freezes and looks confused. I think, like a college QB he'll grow out of that, if he survives (in politics) long enough. Cruz just looks like a villain in a movie who hasn't shown his true nature yet. He's still in that "hey look at me, I'm the good guy here", sort of like Snidely Whiplash without the 'stache.
BedellBrave (02-11-2016)
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
BedellBrave (02-11-2016)
Not to sanction the (D) process but these have been the rules of the game. I frankly don't understand how delegates are awarded in my state let alone each state.
The Super Delegates have been in place for , to my knowledge, at least the past two election cycles. Didn't hinder Obama !
Let me remind you, Gore received more popular votes than Bush43 and (D) House of Rep candidates received more votes than (R) nationally.
There are so many antiquated voting process - where to start. Electoral College, Gerrymandering districts , voting access etc etc etc.
Personally I am more troubled by voting restrictions and registration access . Every citizen should have an unquestioned vote. (or two)
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
I don't know. Because of the quaint, archaic, and non-transparent process, I think it's safe to assume that neither one of us knows. According to what's been reported, each candidate won coin flips approximately commensurate with what one would expect. Due to the fuzziness of the reporting, I can't say for sure. But that's the difference, isn't it? Neither one of us can say for sure, but I'm not willing to make a snarky allegation about something that I can't back up with facts.
My bottom line is, I think, not unlike yours. I think that we are going to end up with a choice of candidates in the general election who are, coincidentally or not, those favored of Wall Street and the monied interests.
However, that doesn't mean that I'm going to choose a narrative that fits my preconceived notions absent any evidence. I have decidedly mixed--even ambivalent--feelings about the Clintons that are based wholly upon things that I have observed and can be considered objectively true.
I'm content with those reasons, thanks, and don't need them validated by conspiracy theories.
As for electoral reform? Yes, please. As much and as soon as possible. It's been one of the biggest concerns of mine for years. Voter access, ease of voting, campaign finance reform, redistricting...all of it needs a look.
The system is more transparent than it was pre-Watergate (which prompted a number of reforms), but that doesn't necessarily make it more open. I think of the super-delegates as secular bishops. They may give one side or the other a leg up on the competition, but as 2008 showed, they are no slam dunk for the establishment.
I wouldn't call it so much a conspiracy, but rather a deeply desired coronation plan within the powers that be in the DNC. It's fairly out in the open.
I recognize that I'm much less the fan of Hillary than you as a D would be. You've got a more vested interest in seeing your team win.
Last edited by BedellBrave; 02-11-2016 at 02:36 PM.