I'll Never Vote for Hillary Clinton

A man hitting a woman in the face vs. a grown up taking a sign from a little girl and ripping it up = both bad. In my opinion, civil discourse in this election season has all but disappeared.

Ralph Nader: Former Green Party Candidate Says Hillary Clinton Is 'Going to Win By Dictatorship'
In an interview with U.S. News, Nader criticized the Democratic Party primary process, referring to superdelegates as "cronies." He also said Donald Trump has raised important issues in his campaign.

And they only have to control 40% of voters rather than 100%. Baseball bats are much more effective with 40%.

I pay very close attention to Ralph Nader and than vote exactly the opposite of what he says. I cant believe how far to the Lash side you have fallen.

Your construction of a straw man in response to my comments on the status quo of our current political dynasty, as it exists today, is an invalid argument.

What we have is the appearance of democracy, but the reality is that our country is governed by an oligarchy controlled by huge money interests. That's not "popular hysteria"; that's the truth. The evidence is overwhelming. Start with Bill Clinton's administration and educate yourself about all the regulatory controls over big business that were dismantled. That loss of regulation led to companies becoming "too big to fail" and the economic disasters of 2008.

We spent billions of taxpayer dollars to "bail out" the richest of rich. And no lesson was learned and no safeguards were put in place to prevent this financial melt-down from repeating itself. Simultaneously, our elected representatives have ignored the plight of the poorest of the poor, the working poor, and the shrinking middle class. The rich keep getting richer and more powerful and the chasm between the haves and the have nots is growing. Average citizens do not have a voice in their government. We have the appearance of democracy, but when the curtain is pulled back, we can all see that it's a farce. You might think willful blindness is the best policy for yourself, and try to convince others to join your false sense of bliss, but it's not the best policy for our country and our people.



I'm sure I can find many youtube videos of police brutality all over the United States. That's a distraction.

We're not talking about two extremes on the opposite ends of a political spectrum. There is a lot of latitude in between the two extremes. We need to find equilibrium--a place where the deck isn't stacked against working people.



Why are Social Security and Medicare at risk? Why aren't the regulations that were necessarily placed on big business after the Great Depression still in place? Why were those safety mechanisms dismantled? Did you even review the materials on the links I provided to the Clintons' embrace of "neoliberalism"? Your attempt to evade the conversation doesn't make the conversation go away.

I understand that you are engaged in "fear mongering". Forget everything else, you say, because Donald Trump is scary. Donald Trump's rise is a symptom of our nation's much greater problems. We need to address and resolve the underlying cause that led to this egomaniac's rise in the public eye.

I wouldn't vote. But then they aren't the only two candidates.

Debra Law wrote:


You very eloquently repeat the complaints about the present system - the same complaints out of which Bernie has made a whole career. But whenever Bernie or anyone who claims Bernie as their champion gets done with the litany of (very salient, by the by) arguments outlining how the present system is fucked and those that are a part of the status quo are fuckers, this question seems always to remain, lingering... What are you proposing as a course of action? What are you saying we should DO now? Since Bernie is NOT going to be the nominee, I think the only practical things you and people like-minded could suggest that a caring, conscientious person DO now is sit home on election day, or throw their vote away in more creative ways like voting for Jill Stein, or writing in Bernie. Am I right about that? No? Then what are you saying we should DO...NOW?



That's purty talk, but how does it translate into something that can be done in the present reality? You've got the browbeating of Hillary supporters down, and the listing of Hillary and Bill's crimes against humanity, and the lengthy sermons about the roots of America's downfall, and you do a great job at all that. But what do you have for a useful suggestion about what can be done?




You erect a pretty sturdy strawman yourself. No one is saying "forget all that". Donald Trump IS scary. And now that he is knocking on the doors of real power, how does your noble admonition to "address and resolve" the cause of the rot that led to Trump translate into any action beyond flapping our self righteous digital gums?

I am waiting until after the Dem convention to make my choice. If Sanders is totally out of it then, I am leaning Green, but open to other options.

Hillary is such an obvious choice over Trump that she and he are tied in national polls. I wonder why that is?

Changing superdelegate rules would still leave Sanders behind


CNN) — Bernie Sanders, in response to Hillary Clinton's significant delegate lead, has called for wholesale changes to the Democratic Party's primary system, suggesting that is it both un-democratic and tilted in favor of the former secretary of state.

The use of superdelegates, essentially free-agent delegates comprised mostly of Democratic Party stalwarts, many of whom are already backing Clinton, is the primary complaint.



But based on CNN's analysis, major changes to the ways Democrats allocate their delegates, or even abolishing superdelegates, would still result in Clinton holding a large lead over Sanders and close to winning the nomination.

(see graph at source)


Playing for pledged delegates

At this point, Sanders cannot clinch the nomination based on the amount of pledged delegates remaining alone -- he would need to win 102% of the remaining pledged delegates available to reach the magic number of 2,383, according to CNN estimates.

But he still has a mathematical chance of winning more pledged delegates than Clinton, which would help him persuade enough of the 700-plus superdelegates to put him over the top. Since their inception in the 1980s, superdelegates have by and large supported the candidate with the most pledged delegates going into the convention."

"It is a steep hill to climb, and I acknowledge that, but we have the possibility of walking into the Democratic convention with a majority of pledged delegates," Sanders said last week in California.

To accomplish that, Sanders will need to win about 67% of all remaining pledged delegates in the final 11 primaries, according to CNN estimates.

That would be a significant jump from his performance in the previous 46 contests, where he has won only about 45% of the pledged delegates.

Sanders could pull this off by crushing Clinton in the remaining primaries by a 2-to-1 margin. But he's only been able to accomplish that in eight contests, and he hasn't hit that level of support since March.

Looking at the calendar, Sanders could run up his numbers in Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. But those states, combined, offer fewer delegates than two upcoming contests where Clinton is expected to perform well: Puerto Rico and New Jersey. So for Sanders to finish with a majority of pledged delegates, he would likely need a blowout of epic proportions in California.


Award all superdelegates to the winner of their state

The key complaint from critics of the nomination process is about the 700-plus superdelegates, free agents who can vote for anyone of their choosing.

They are primarily Democratic members of Congress, governors, mayors and union officials and loyalists.

Clinton has endorsements from 521 superdelegates, and Sanders only has 41, according to CNN's count as of May 16. Given the choice between a longtime party leader, and a political insurgent who only became a Democrat last year, the party elite has clearly rallied behind Clinton.

This commanding lead among superdelegates has pushed Clinton toward officially clinching the nomination. But it has also led to complaints from Sanders that the system is unfair.

"I would hope very much that the superdelegates from those states where we have won with big margins or, in fact, where Secretary Clinton has won with big margins, to respect the wishes of the people of those states and vote in line with how the people of that state voted," Sanders said last week at a speech in Washington.

If the superdelegates from each state were to be awarded as a bloc to the candidate who wins each primary, Sanders would benefit, but still face an uphill climb."

Clinton would have 379 superdelegates, to Sanders' 164. Following these rules, Sanders would have to win about 70% of the remaining pledged delegates to clinch the nomination.

Right now, Sanders has 13 superdelegates in states Clinton won, according to CNN's delegate estimate. Sanders aides have told CNN they will not ask superdelegates from those states to back Clinton. This includes states like Florida, Mississippi and North Carolina, all states Clinton won by double digits.


Award superdelegates proportionally based on state results

What if superdelegates were treated like pledged delegates, divided up proportionally, based on the popular vote in each state?

The Maine Democratic Party recently voted to implement this proposal starting in 2020. Sanders praised the decision and said he hopes "other states follow Maine's example."

It's a scenario that benefits Sanders even more than awarding them all to the winner. That's because he would earn a chunk of delegates from states like New York and Illinois, where he got close, but did not beat Clinton.

Clinton would have 287 superdelegates, and Sanders would have 256. Even with these rules, Sanders would still need about 66% of remaining pledged delegates to clinch the nomination.


Get rid of superdelegates altogether

Superdelegates have become a political problem for the second contested Democratic contest in a row. In 2008, Barack Obama took the overall lead in pledged delegates and used that to convince more and more superdelegates to back him, and Hillary Clinton eventually ended her run.

In both 2016 and 2008, the question is about fairness. Why should a group of several hundred party regulars be in a position to potentially limit or overturn the will of the voters?

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said the superdelegates are meant to essentially reinforce the position of the winner in pledged delegates.

"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 grass-roots activists," she told CNN's Jake Tapper in February. "We are, as a Democratic Party, really highlight and emphasize inclusiveness and diversity at our convention, and so we want to give every opportunity to grass-roots activists and diverse committed Democrats to be able to participate, attend and be a delegate at the convention."

So what would happen if superdelegates were eliminated from the 2016 race? According to the math, the results would be about the same of awarding them proportionally.

Eliminating the superdelegates would lower the threshold needed to clinch the nomination to 2,026 delegates. Clinton would still be leading Sanders by nearly 300 delegates.

Under this scenario, Clinton would still only need to win about 33% of the remaining delegates to become the Democratic nominee.

http://www.sansmemetics.com/2016-the-year-americans-learned-their-elections-are-rigged/

Pay attention.

I'm sure whichever explanation places the blame on Clinton

That's because Bernie's electibility is a myth.

It's like when Gungasnake was insisting that conservatives were going to bury Obama in 2008. In polls, a "general conservative" did very well against Obama, but any named candidate got creamed.

Bernie is this year's equivalent. Nobody's seen the negative side, because Hillary's been very careful not to smear him.

And isn't it just so cute and touching that Trump keeps making pro-Bernie statements? Man, I guess those Republicans really must think Bernie's a great guy!

She has called him a sexist. She is too smart to do it all openly, but, from the berniebro bullshit on she is there to see it gets done.

Quote Debra Law:

Money has always talked. If you're that upset, go look at some real totalitarian governments before running down this one.

Quote Debra Law:

Typical super-progressive using Republican arguments. The Glass Steagall repeal didn't have an effect until SEVEN YEARS after Clinton left office. That's seven years to do something about a piece of legislation after the President has retired. No President is perfect, the people in office after the President leaves are paid full time salaries to fix these things.

As far as Clinton's term, the country GAINED 16 Million Full Time jobs while Bill Clinton was in office, average weekly earnings went up for everyone but especially for African Americans, the gap between whites and blacks went significantly down. Welfare offices were closing in towns, because they had no applicants. The very thought that you would imply some equivalence between Bill Clinton's term and what came after just shows that you commit yourself to a hypothesis and just use news input to try to confirm it.

Quote Debra Law:


The following is a graph of concentration of wealth vs productivity by workers. Look at the years 1993-2000. See how Bill Clinton's time is about the only time since 1981 that workers' share of the wealth rose in tandem with their productivity? But that's not worth voting for, oh no. To folks like you, the facts don't really matter, only your favorite narrative does.



Quote Debra Law:

That's actually what primaries are all about. If it's not worth your time to go down to town hall and change your party registration, you don't get to vote in the primaries. I don't consider that "oligarchy" .

Quote Debra Law:

Because Super Progressives like Naderites placed their vote in a fashionable third party candidate which allowed a rightie to take office, and emboldened the Right to take a "hell no" attitude toward working with the Democrats. Otherwise, the repeal of the Glass Steagall act would have been dealt with effectively, and we would not have had the greatest setback since The Great Depression.

Quote Debra Law:
I post facts which might lead some readers to doubt your analysis. I do not think this counts as "evading the conversation".

Quote Debra Law:

The thought of Donald Trump as President should have a rallying effect to most people who consider themselves progressive. But I've also challenged your assertions with facts, which you don't seem to want to deal with. Instead, you want to press forward your narrative, damn the facts, full speed ahead.

Lol. I watched the debates. He was a complete ass on several occasions. And I've seen attacks by BernieBros.

It's politics at a national level. If he's not prepared to deal with minor stuff like this in the primary season, how can you say he's prepared for the presidency?

I am worried some of the more frantic Bernie supporters will disrupt the convention with their chair throwing and hollering out curse words we will have to shut it down instead of having a night to highlight our platform.

Nevada Democrats: Sanders campaign has violent streak

He was an ass, in your opinion. In fact, he is the only candidate with even half a worthy agenda. I thought you wrote that you think similar to me, despite the difference on whom to vote for. I call bullshit.