Clinton's Money Laundering Scheme to Buy Superdelegates

Looks like the sole source of the OP Title accussation is Margot Kidder

yes, that Margot Kidder



The rest of your post is a separate topic about managing primaries. No? And the mechanics of a primary doesn't equate to voter turnout in general election. If Iowa caucuses make it hard for young voters (as you state, and I don't doubt), why would that translate to them not voting in the General Election? I don't see you point about the Democratic primary dying based on any of this. It's the Republican party that's have a rough run have being able to nominate an electable candidate...ie, they're having trouble creating coalitions.

 

"How can you not call me back?" Only line I remember from Superman IV.

 

These cats are gonna schedule a joint protest with the White Tears Super-Predators and riot in Philly on national TV. All Cruz needs is a crafty Jewish intellectual and the Nixon time loop starts again.

 

Yeah the Young Turks. Perhaps the best example of the under 35 crowd becoming untethered from the big six? corporate media sources that still dominate supporters of the status quo or at best tiny incremental changes, whether Repubs or Dems.

The Dem Party may be coming out of the dark years of GOP lite under the Clintons and their near clone Obama.

 

The Sanders Presidential run is starting to attract all the weirdos marginalized by the Democratic Party and those not normally involved in the political process, much like the Trump campaign. Conspiracy nuts, socialists, the mentally ill and unmotivated.

Margot Kidder as a source? There is a reason people like her are marginalized.

 

I agree with the bolded part, but what *usually* happens is that energized people like the Sanders supporters will move away from politics again, other than sharing angry diatribe leftist columns on Facebook for the next four years, instead of rolling up their sleeves, joining the grass roots party and really trying and working to make change. Bernie has never actually made change, sadly, and I don't expect the large number of his supporters to do so either. They probably won't even vote in the 2018 midterms which would be a key time to elect sensible people to the Congress.

I agree with you totally that the democratic party desperately needs deep change. (As does the GOP, but that's another story).

I would so so love to be proven wrong about this prediction of what change will come.

 

Be glad that you have already been proven wrong that "Bernie has never actually made change". See the recent changes in your candidate, Hillary's adoption of much of Bernie's platform on a weekly basis.

You might want to do some research on changes Bernie made in Burlington Vermont. I know it is smaller, but it was due to just the sort of routine daily work on electoral politics you tout

 

Okay, I will quality my statement from now on: outside of Burlington, Vermont, population 42,000, he has not been able to persuade other change agents to his point of view or cooperated with them at a major level to effect major change that could affect the lives of citizens broadly speaking.

This thread is still ridiculous, b/c Kidder. Sigh.

 

This is absolutely untrue from both a systematic and anecdotal point of view.

I don't find the original thread topic particularly enlightening beyond an obvious truth (money corrupts politics). But I don't get why people are using this thread to attack Bernie's legislative record, a record I would take over Hillary's (admittedly) brief tenure any day. If we're going to detour to that, it's fair game for me to point out the following-->

->he has not been able to persuade other change agents to his point of view or cooperated with them at a major level to effect major change that could affect the lives of citizens broadly speaking.<-

No.

From a systematic point of view: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-sanders-was-roll-call-amendment-king-1995-2/

Anecdotally (as your statement would only need one anecdote to debunk):

http://www.alternet.org/election-20...shing-through-major-reforms-will-surprise-you

 

You make it sound like being weird is a bad thing. This is the 21st century mang. Get used to it.

 

Thank you, Northside. Will read. Need better understanding of the terminology involved.

edit: I cannot find out what a "roll call amendment" really is. The top 20 hits are the same regurgitated Bernie article/political ad. Nor can I find out what his roll call amendments accomplished but would love to find out.

Sigh. I'm just going to stay out of this crap. It's obvious what's going to happen, what cannot happen, and what will get worse.

 

Here is a glossary: https://www.thecapitol.net/glossary/

A roll call amendment is a legislative amendment passed by roll call vote.

More on amendment of legislation:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-legislation-amendment.htm#didyouknowout

The Politfact article draws a clearer distinction:

This is a specific way of pumping Sanders up, but certainly his record does not stand as one of being a member of the Senate who cannot get things done, as he placed in the top 15% of the Senate in terms of amendments period:

And as mentioned, he did not pass a lot of bills, but was above the benchmark given the Congresses of the time.

For specific instances and impact of said amendments I would point to http://www.alternet.org/election-20...shing-through-major-reforms-will-surprise-you for a good list.

If you believe Alternet to be biased, I highly encourage the use of govtrack.us:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357

Keep in mind I'm doing this despite the report card on Bernie being a disaster for him, and despite it introducing different metrics for legislative efficiency in which he wouldn't shine (ex: getting cosponsors on his bills):

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357/report-card/2015

Overall, on balance I would not say Bernie has never gotten anything done for broad American constituencies.

Anyways, hope that helps.

 

There is nothing wrong with being "weird"... and nothing wrong with society being more accepting or understanding. The issue is people that lack credibility or have a history of mental illness that calls into question their credibility.

 

Fossack Monseca - it's all connected.

 

I've read through the article and there a few fallacies and mistatements of fact:
1. Super delegates have in other elections declared their support well ahead of the convention. They don't have to declare their support but neither are they forbidden from it.

2. [rquoter]Many people are speculating as to whether or not Superdelegates from States that have voted for Bernie will move their support away from Bernie.

Unfortunately, that will NEVER happen.[/rquoter]

Except in 2008 many super delegates voted for Obama even though they were initially supporting Clinton. Now that doesn't mean they will vote for Sanders but it does show that Super Delegates aren't the same as pledged delegates and frankly aren't much of an issue now except as in terms of endorsement.

3. Clinton is still leading in pledged delegates so the super delegates aren't really relevant unless the Sanders campaign expects them to make up the gap between him and Clinton.

4. Next I can agree with that Clinton are working the system of funding state parties in exchange for support. First this isn't money laundering as it is legal. Again many critics try to muddy the issue through use of terms implying malfeasance but not actually proving it. Leaving that aside though this ignores why political parties exist. The Democratic party exist to get Democratic candidates elected. It should come as no surprise that Democratic operatives will support a candidate who raises a lot of money for the party. The naivete of the Sanders' campaign and supporters is that they should expect support from an establishment they criticize and haven't done anything for. As I said before either Sanders is the outsider or not.
Being an outsider comes with a cost.

Yet Const candidate still won the 2008 race. If things were as fixed as people are claiming Hillary Clinton would've been the 44th President.

Quite possibly a moderate Republican would win. That said it's also quite possible a moderate Republican would beat Sanders too. Everything you cite is speculation based upon opinion. Based on the candidates we have now she has a very good chance of winning the general.

Further this continual argument that Sanders is better in the general does have merit but ignores that he continues to trail in the Democratic race. It also ignores that things like organization matters in the general too. For that matter most polls show Clinton either leading the Repub. or very close to him.

To be fair Sanders is doing better in polls but the general election is still a long way off and the GOP barely mentions Sanders in any of their attacks.

If Sanders and his supporters really think that he is the best candidate to win the general and it's only the DNC system blocking him he shouldn't have run as a Democrat.

Possibly but if that is the case then Sanders supporters should do things like show up and vote in off air elections. Fundraise for Democratic races and all the messy party building stuff that they criticize now.

Finally I'm going to add one thing regarding source material. Many love to bash the major media and call it biased. I won't deny bias on the part of the major media but that doesn't mean that small source media especially primarily on the internet is any less biased. In fact other sources without big budgets or review boards probably are more biased.

For example in your piece from the Daily Kos it says this:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...were-Literally-bought-by-the-Clinton-Campaign

[rquoter]Spread the Word!

The next time you hear or read someone challenging you to prove that the DNC and/or the State Parties are “in the tank” for Hillary, or possibly doing ANYTHING to help Hillary defeat Bernie, show them this diary or the original article — or even this article on AlterNet. It is clear that it is in the direct financial interest of all these groups to have Hillary win — our at least be seen to be helping her win, so that their gravy train of Clinton campaign cash does not derail.[/rquoter]

This article is basically admitting it's a hit piece on Hillary Clinton and in support of Sadners. How can anything be taken as objective in such a piece when it doesn't even attempt to hide its bias but trumpets it?

 

of course not. excuses are already written just got to find the one that fits.

 

Keep looking for that smoking gun..... money laundering? LOL