Is it time to end the DNC Nomination sham?

[Truth Detector]

Isn't it time to admit that the DNC nomination process is rigged and a sham?

Bernie beats Shrillary by 22 points with the voters, but thanks to Super Delegates invested in the status quo, Bernie gets fewer delegates.

Why bother even having votes?

Why is Bernie not yelling at the top of his lungs about the chicanery of this process?

Why no leftist media outrage?

The answer is obvious; even Bernie knows his candidacy is a sham but the Dems need to put on the show to give gullible liberals the appearance of choice.

[Common Sense]

Yes, it's all a conspiracy.

[Truth Detector]

Yes, it's all a conspiracy.

I see the topic is above your comprehension level. No surprise.

[Common Sense]

I see the topic is above your comprehension level. No surprise.

You're saying it's a conspiracy. I am simply poking fun at your assertion. Carry on.

[Truth Detector]

You're saying it's a conspiracy. I am simply poking fun at your assertion. Carry on.

Please look up the definition of "sham" and "conspiracy" and get back to me when you have a clue about the difference. DUH.

[Standing Wolf]

The various assorted nomination processes for the various states have been established over the years and the rules codified, etc., and in the case of New Hampshire those rules were in place long before this election, the last one or the one before that. DNC officials didn't rush in and do anything that they were not legally entitled to do - it's all part of the way it works, and the RNC works similarly. The nomination process is no more an exercise in pure democracy than the eventual election will be. If either Party were interested in doing it that way, they'd simply have all Party members vote for their favorite candidate and whoever won the popular vote would be that Party's Presidential nominee. Scrap the entire time- and money-wasting state primary system all together.

[HoneyBadger]

Isn't it time to admit that the DNC nomination process is rigged and a sham?


It has been from the start. They tried to present an image of reform in the 60's but party leaders pressed for the creation of superdelegates in case "the little people" tried to nominate someone the party bigwigs found objectionable.

[Chris]

Isn't it time to admit that the DNC nomination process is rigged and a sham?

Bernie beats Shrillary by 22 points with the voters, but thanks to Super Delegates invested in the status quo, Bernie gets fewer delegates.

Why bother even having votes?

Why is Bernie not yelling at the top of his lungs about the chicanery of this process?

Why no leftist media outrage?

The answer is obvious; even Bernie knows his candidacy is a sham but the Dems need to put on the show to give gullible liberals the appearance of choice.



How do you propose to stop it?


TBed by OP.

[Private Pickle]

Isn't it time to admit that the DNC nomination process is rigged and a sham?

Bernie beats Shrillary by 22 points with the voters, but thanks to Super Delegates invested in the status quo, Bernie gets fewer delegates.

Why bother even having votes?

Why is Bernie not yelling at the top of his lungs about the chicanery of this process?

Why no leftist media outrage?

The answer is obvious; even Bernie knows his candidacy is a sham but the Dems need to put on the show to give gullible liberals the appearance of choice.

DNC sham? What boggles my mind is that you can recognize the DNC sham but not the obvious sham of the RNC. Why is that? Actually never mind...I already know the answer...

[Truth Detector]

The various assorted nomination processes for the various states have been established over the years and the rules codified, etc., and in the case of New Hampshire those rules were in place long before this election, the last one or the one before that. DNC officials didn't rush in and do anything that they were not legally entitled to do - it's all part of the way it works, and the RNC works similarly.

I am aware of all this; so why the sham that Bernie even has the slightest chance?


The nomination process is no more an exercise in pure democracy than the eventual election will be. If either Party were interested in doing it that way, they'd simply have all Party members vote for their favorite candidate and whoever won the popular vote would be that Party's Presidential nominee. Scrap the entire time- and money-wasting state primary system all together.

I don't recall the Republican Party having super delegates that can trump the voters or caucuses that were decided by a lucky six out of six coin flips.

So the sham is purely on the Democratic side.

We do not live in a pure Democracy but rather, a Republic of States. Do you know why we have an electoral process for electing Presidents? It's a very good reason and what makes our Constitution and founders so brilliant.

[Truth Detector]

It has been from the start. They tried to present an image of reform in the 60's but party leaders pressed for the creation of superdelegates in case "the little people" tried to nominate someone the party bigwigs found objectionable.

^Spot on.

[Truth Detector]

How do you propose to stop it?

Am I proposing anything to stop it? I think it is great that the DNC process is exposed for the fraud that it is.

[Truth Detector]

DNC sham? What boggles my mind is that you can recognize the DNC sham but not the obvious sham of the RNC. Why is that? Actually never mind...I already know the answer...

I have a great idea; why don't you start a thread about the RNC sham with an example of it, and we can have that debate rather than pollute and deflect this thread off topic in your predictable fashion?

[Matty]

I have a great idea; why don't you start a thread about the RNC sham with an example of it, and we can have that debate rather than pollute and deflect this thread off topic in your predictable fashion?


Guess what? You are being trolled! Usual suspects!

[Truth Detector]

Guess what? You are being trolled! Usual suspects!

Yep; it it continues there will be thread bans.

[Chris]

Am I proposing anything to stop it? I think it is great that the DNC process is exposed for the fraud that it is.

Yes, you are. It's implied in your titular question: "Is it time to end the DNC Nomination sham?"

So how do you propose to end it?

[domer76]

Isn't it time to admit that the DNC nomination process is rigged and a sham?

Bernie beats Shrillary by 22 points with the voters, but thanks to Super Delegates invested in the status quo, Bernie gets fewer delegates.

Why bother even having votes?

Why is Bernie not yelling at the top of his lungs about the chicanery of this process?

Why no leftist media outrage?

The answer is obvious; even Bernie knows his candidacy is a sham but the Dems need to put on the show to give gullible liberals the appearance of choice.

Why do you care? You're on the opposite side of the aisle. The Dems have decided this is the best process for them and it apparently works. They've won the popular vote the last 5 of 6 elections. I suspect THAT'S what pisses you off more than anything else

[Matty]

By a winner takes all system!

[Matty]

Why do you care? You're on the opposite side of the aisle. The Dems have decided this is the best process for them and it apparently works. They've won the popular vote the last 5 of 6 elections. I suspect THAT'S what pisses you off more than anything else


He is not required to answer your stupid question in order to start a thread! Or is he?

[nic34]

Please look up the definition of "sham" and "conspiracy" and get back to me when you have a clue about the difference. DUH.

The one you should be worried about with "sham" and "conspiracy" is at the top of the other parties' polls right now.

That peddler is selling you a terrific bill of goods and you don't even question it. But that's OK, he has TOP people you know. LOL :laugh:

[Private Pickle]

I have a great idea; why don't you start a thread about the RNC sham with an example of it, and we can have that debate rather than pollute and deflect this thread off topic in your predictable fashion?

Nah...I'm not a Democrat shill but please proceed with your hyperbole...

[domer76]

He is not required to answer your stupid question in order to start a thread! Or is he?

Nobody is required to answer, dolt. But it's the truth.

[Matty]

Nobody is required to answer, dolt. But it's the truth.



You just called me a name, but it won't be taken seriously.

[Truth Detector]

Why do you care? You're on the opposite side of the aisle. The Dems have decided this is the best process for them and it apparently works. They've won the popular vote the last 5 of 6 elections. I suspect THAT'S what pisses you off more than anything else

What makes you think I care? I am asking the question; isn't it time to end the sham? Bernie, no matter how many votes he gets, can be trumped in every state so why pretend he is a candidate with any chance in hell?

Unlike the Republican process where the votes actually count and the winner actually gets the delegates.

[Matty]

What makes you think I care? I am asking the question; isn't it time to end the sham? Bernie, no matter how many votes he gets, can be trumped in every state so why pretend he is a candidate with any chance in hell?

Unlike the Republican process where the votes actually count and the winner actually gets the delegates.


Careful his his highness will call you a dolt. It's a liberal thang.

[domer76]

What makes you think I care? I am asking the question; isn't it time to end the sham? Bernie, no matter how many votes he gets, can be trumped in every state so why pretend he is a candidate with any chance in hell?

Unlike the Republican process where the votes actually count and the winner actually gets the delegates.

You don't care? You STARTED the fucking thread!

This process has been in place while yours and Matty's mommas were wiping your asses. They have decided it works for them. You call it a sham because of your distaste for Clinton. Bernie knew the rules going in. Or at, least he should have. I guess he could have had a say in the process if he had been a Democrat all along, but he wasn't.

[Mark III]

You don't care? You STARTED the $#@!ing thread!

This process has been in place while yours and Matty's mommas were wiping your asses. They have decided it works for them. You call it a sham because of your distaste for Clinton. Bernie new the rules going in. Or at, least he should have. I guess he could have had a say in the process if he had been a Democrat all along, but he wasn't.


The Republicans have superdelegates too. Not sure how they use them.

The superdelegates in the Democratic Party are not obligated to vote for Clinton, and can change their minds. I'm not sure how this is fairly described as a "fix" , although, since Sanders didn't get much superdelegate support it is understandable why his supporters wouldn't like it.

[domer76]

Careful his his highness will call you a dolt. It's a liberal thang.

I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

You partisan hacks exhibit this false outrage when it isn't even your party. You have no dog in this hunt, yet you bawl like two babies.

I don't give a shit how the Republicans choose their candidate, because I don't give a damn what they stand for these days. I'd just as soon they pick a name out of a hat.

[Truth Detector]

Nah...I'm not a Democrat shill but please proceed with your hyperbole...

Then why do you emotionally erupt like one?

[Truth Detector]

You don't care? You STARTED the $#@!ing thread!

You keep missing the point; but it is consistent with your trolling style.


This process has been in place while yours and Matty's mommas were wiping your asses. They have decided it works for them.

No; it works for the corrupt leaders. It didn't work that great for the voters in New Hampshire.


You call it a sham because of your distaste for Clinton.

Wrong; I called it a sham because regardless of the massive azz kicking Hillary got, Bernie still got the LEAST delegates.

I assure you my distaste for Bernie's Marxism runs much deeper than the corrupt lying partisan hag.


Bernie new the rules going in. Or at, least he should have. I guess he could have had a say in the process if he had been a Democrat all along, but he wasn't.

Yes he did; but the people who supported him didn't expect the Super Delegates to flip them all the bird did they?

The fact that Bernie isn't even a registered Democrat adds to the sham that is this year’s DNC nomination process.

[Truth Detector]

The Republicans have superdelegates too. Not sure how they use them.

The superdelegates in the Democratic Party are not obligated to vote for Clinton, and can change their minds. I'm not sure how this is fairly described as a "fix" , although, since Sanders didn't get much superdelegate support it is understandable why his supporters wouldn't like it.

I didn't say it was a "fix"; I said it was a sham in that the voters clearly preferred Bernie and the party elite Super Delegates chose to flip them all the bird.

[Truth Detector]

I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

You partisan hacks exhibit this false outrage when it isn't even your party.

Nothing more ironic than seeing you call others partisan hacks. Seriously??? :rofl:


You have no dog in this hunt, yet you bawl like two babies.

The only one "bawling" like a baby would be you. What "dog" do Liberals have with the Republican process showing Trump in the lead? Yet we have leftists starting threads about the Republican Process every few minutes on the forum. Hypocrite.


I don't give a $#@! how the Republicans choose their candidate, because I don't give a damn what they stand for these days. I'd just as soon they pick a name out of a hat.

Tell someone who cares. :biglaugh:

[Tricia]

domer76 has been TBed at the request of the OP

[Common Sense]

The system is fairly open. Flawed but open. Super delegates are a reality in both camps.

It's not rigged or a sham...it just is what it is.

[Truth Detector]

The system is fairly open. Flawed but open.

How is this process "open?" There's nothing "open" about a group of specially selected delegates who can trump the voters in a nomination process simply because they think that the WINNER is unellectable.

Why bother if the outcome is all but decided regardless of what the voters say?


Super delegates are a reality in both camps.

This thread isn't about "both" camps. It's about how a nominee who won a massive landslide in the vote didn't get the majority of delegates because of a system that can trump the will of the voters.


It's not rigged or a sham...it just is what it is.

Perhaps in your partisan world it isn't; but for the HUGE majority of DNC voters in New Hampshire it is an OBVIOUS sham when their guy actually lost after getting more than 60% of the vote. That in and of itself is the definition of a "sham."

verb (used without object), shammed, shamming.

8. to make a false show of something; pretend.

[Common Sense]

How is this process "open?" There's nothing "open" about a group of specially selected delegates who can trump the voters in a nomination process simply because they think that the WINNER is unellectable.

Why bother if the outcome is all but decided regardless of what the voters say?



This thread isn't about "both" camps. It's about how a nominee who won a massive landslide in the vote didn't get the majority of delegates because of a system that can trump the will of the voters.



Perhaps in your partisan world it isn't; but for the HUGE majority of DNC voters in New Hampshire it is an OBVIOUS sham when their guy actually lost after getting more than 60% of the vote. That in and of itself is the definition of a "sham."

verb (used without object), shammed, shamming.

8. to make a false show of something; pretend.


Super delegates are still delegates. They are free to choose who they wish.

My partisan world? Take a look in a mirror.

[Cigar]

Have at it ...

But you may have to Log-Off the internet though ...


TBed by OP.

[Private Pickle]

Then why do you emotionally erupt like one?

I don't. I think that's wishful thinking on your part...

[donttread]

The various assorted nomination processes for the various states have been established over the years and the rules codified, etc., and in the case of New Hampshire those rules were in place long before this election, the last one or the one before that. DNC officials didn't rush in and do anything that they were not legally entitled to do - it's all part of the way it works, and the RNC works similarly. The nomination process is no more an exercise in pure democracy than the eventual election will be. If either Party were interested in doing it that way, they'd simply have all Party members vote for their favorite candidate and whoever won the popular vote would be that Party's Presidential nominee. Scrap the entire time- and money-wasting state primary system all together.

Perhaps we need an Amendment then

[texan]

Isn't it time to admit that the DNC nomination process is rigged and a sham?

Bernie beats Shrillary by 22 points with the voters, but thanks to Super Delegates invested in the status quo, Bernie gets fewer delegates.

Why bother even having votes?

Why is Bernie not yelling at the top of his lungs about the chicanery of this process?

Why no leftist media outrage?

The answer is obvious; even Bernie knows his candidacy is a sham but the Dems need to put on the show to give gullible liberals the appearance of choice.


Why inhave nothing to do for a few months.

[Truth Detector]

Super delegates are still delegates. They are free to choose who they wish.

Doesn't answer the question; per usual.


My partisan world? Take a look in a mirror.

Cry harder.