| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
dr wu23 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20637
|
 Posted: June 07 2016 at 14:36 |
 The T wrote:
The Superdelegate system is intelligent and necessary. It is set to prevent cases like Donald Trump from happening in the Democratic Party by giving final power to party officials who can go outside of a poorly chosen candidate by the electorate. Political parties are private, they can set the rules they want and it's just normal that they want to hold some type of control on case the electorate (which was given a voice in primaries relatively recently) screws up. Just ask Republicans how much they would love to have superdelegates right now. And anyway, the discussion is moot: never have superdelegates yet gone against the electorate will.
And, most importantly, Hillary Clinton has BEATEN Sanders fair and square even in pledged delegates.
Yes, Sanders has revealed himself to be a politician driven by his ego first. I'm not comparing him to nobody. Please read well.
|
IMO the superdelegate system is neither intelligent nor necessary....let the people decide based on actual voting......isn't that democracy after all...? (And here I thought you were a liberal for the people...? ) But you are right about one thing she has beaten him with pledge delegates (and it is a private political party....more's the pity since as always the rich control it). And Clinton's ego and Trump's as well is far bigger than Sanders imho.....and they are both far less interested in real meaningful change.
|
|
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin
|
 |
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: June 08 2016 at 00:12 |
The super delegate idea is totally unnecessary. They have never decided an election, they always back the candidate that has the lead. 2016 is no different. Without super delegates, Clinton still would've won. Sooooo.....we need them why?
You even say yourself, they have never gone against the will of the electorate. So literally, they are pointless. Why they exist, is the discourage...I think. I can't think of any other reason. Let's be glad, in a way, Sanders never was a threat to take the lead. If he did, like Obama did in 08, the party would then have to make a choice and if they went against the will of the people...well like I said, they should be glad it was never something they had to deal with.
You say how much do Republicans wish they had superdelegates, but here's the thing...you said yourself they always back the will of the people. Imagine the outrage if they didn't. Trump was on his way to getting the most delegates....via the will of the people. We would love it if he was denied, but imagine the total outrage of the people's will being denied.
I really hate to be harsh to Teo here, but I do have to agree with Dr Wu...he also made a comment to me, (not here on PA) that said: nowhere in the rules does it say this process has to be a democracy. Sorry man, but I was and am still very floored by that. You literally admitted our process to choose a candidate to be PotUS doesn't need to be a democracy. To be fair though, he is far from alone. I have seen soooo many comments along the lines of that or "he had no chance so why whine?" or "OK so let's say he won Kentucky, (or brooklyn or whatever) it would've had no impact on the overall picture" this is all 100% correct BUT I'm disturbed how people are SO dedicated to party politics, they will throw away democracy, overlook abuses etc etc just to support their party.
I know I know Trump is terrible. We all know that. I know this will be the response, must stop Trump at all costs. Just saying, it's sad how that has allowed so many people to be totally steamrolled over time.
Edited by JJLehto - June 08 2016 at 00:21
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: June 08 2016 at 00:43 |
TeleStrat wrote:
There's been quite a bit of discussion recently on cable news about the Sanders supporters and what they will do when Clinton officially becomes the Democratic nominee.The commentators feel that some will support Clinton, some will support Trump (against Clinton) and some will just stay home. Any opinions on this? Any opinions on who Clinton may select for VP?
|
I think all the above, plus others. A good number of Sanders supporters, my guess is the Democratic ones opposed to Independents/newcomers, will back Clinton.
A good number will stay home.
Some will, very sadly and disturbingly, back Trump.
Some will also go to Gary Johnson and some will go to Jill Stein.
The names generally thrown around as expected candidates for her VP are: - Julian Castro. Current Sect of the HUD. This is usually name #1 I see. Has obvious ties to Obama, is young, has a liberal record but is also "safe" He also has drawn some criticism from progressives for selling thousands of foreclosed homes at discount prices to Wall St firms.
- Mark Warner or Tim Kaine, both senators from VA. Moderate, safe, boring...usually the type of pick Clinton would go for  and they're from a swing state.
- Cory Booker, senator from NJ. Young, exciting, rising star, progressive record but has Wall St/Finance ties and is deff "safe" He can tout his record as having cleaned up Newark (though it's a dubious claim and I wonder if Trump would pounce on it) and can also ring the "true liberal" bell. Has little experience though and is a bit of a wild card, which I dont really see Clinton being prone to.
- Sherrod Brown, senator from OH has a dedicated progressive record, (Im a big fan) and is a loyal Democrat. From a swing state.
- Elizabeth Warren. Obvious reasons: Unabashed progressive, a "bridge" between the mainstream of the party and Sanders movement, could help bring some questioning Sanders supporters on board. Seems she has little interest, and I may prefer her staying in the senate despite my earlier hope she would be the VP pick.
I wanna say Castro, Warner or Kaine are the obvious choices but who knows.
Edited by JJLehto - June 08 2016 at 02:05
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: June 08 2016 at 00:57 |
|
^^It's late, tomorrow I'll address more points, but just one point:
Yes, it doesn't have to be a democracy to elect the candidates of the two major parties. Democracy needs to be there to elect from those candidates. But political parties here and everywhere are not public (as in owned by the people) organizations, they can and in most countries do select their candidates and then they present them to the people at large for them to vote.
Of course when you only have two stupid parties it feels quite restrictive to only have two choices. That's why what I think iis necessary is to have a multi party system with at least 2 more options (I'd think there could probably be 4 more really). But the point stands that the election of nominees is only in recent history something that is given to the population at large to decide on.
Republicans would have used superdelegates if they had them. Just now many people who initially (reluctantly) kind-of endorsed Trump are starting to back down after more of his idiotic racist remarks. Its my opinion that the GOP would've used something akin to superdelegates if they had them in their Convention. Yes, at the risk of alienating a large segment of their voters but trying to save their party for the future.
The good thing is Clinton, who is far from ideal, I agree, but it's 2728283 times more prepared and qualified than Trump (and probably than Sanders in many ways) crushed the Vermont senator tonight.
Sanders will maybe keep fighting on trying to do exactly what you say superdelegates never do: change their mind. That's his whole strategy now: use this scourges of democracy to... subvert democracy. He hasn't won after all.
|
|
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: June 08 2016 at 00:59 |
By the way, I mentioned this before but want to repeat it. I think what gave us Trump is something no one talks about: Winner take all primaries. Talk about something the GOP is gunna regret!! If they used all proportional voting, like the Dems, it would have absolutely been a contested convention. We all thought it may would be, until the winner take all states came. Trump swept this to victory, once he hit these states was when his gap became realistically impossible to overcome. Cruz and Kasich maybe would've stayed till the end as well to suck up more delegates.
It's also undemocratic and dumb. I hope the GOP reconsiders that aspect of their system.
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: June 08 2016 at 01:05 |
|
^That is true. In many states Trump didn't win with extremely large margins yet he took all the delegates. Here in FL, we'll he actually trashed wonder-kid Rubio.
|
|
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: June 08 2016 at 01:33 |
Nah, Sanders is staying in to keep applying pressure. I hope no one really believes he thinks that. I can't believe anyone believes that, we all know he was never gunna convince any supers to flip, and I think he very surely knows this as well.
It was like Ron Paul 2012 did he really think he would win the nomination, by simply winning all the delegates at the convention like he said? No. But ya know, when trying to build a movement and influence the party (over trying to be nominated) can't just say "Well OK everyone give up" Despite the claims of Sanders being so mean, he's actually run a very "general ideas" campaign and frankly her battle with Obama in 08 was way nastier. Sanders I think was never running to truly be the nominee. We all forgot that Sanders was never expected to be anything more than a Ron Paul. He just did better than anyone (I'd say including Sanders) expected, so maybe people think he actually believes he'll somehow woo all the supers and win...I think he knows very well he's not going to.
Crushed is a bit much...he lost NJ badly, which was expected, but he won ND and MT, lost SD by 2 points, and lost NM by 3 points where btw all polls had him losing pretty badly. He did indeed lose CA very badly but like I've said here and elsewhere: I have never once said Sanders was robbed, or that she won unfairly. Just I am disturbed how rabidly and passionately people, liberal people, will ignore even defend very questionable actions, oddities and etc Yes damn it, I and anyone with a brain knows Trump sucks and she's less terrible, but that end says any means is justified? Some reform better come from all this. If we must accept this as necessary to stop Trump, it doesn't mean we have to accept it forever.
I won't get into an "x is better than y!" thing, but I will say...can't accept Clinton is clearly more qualified than Sanders. He has been in Congress for 25 years, both houses, has executive experience (mayor of Burlington isnt much, but it's something and he did a damn good job) and has been involved with both healthcare debates, including helping write ACA, and actually has helped push meaningful legislation through Congress via amendments. Unsexy, unknown yet effective.
Clinton of course was a Senator and Sect of State. I will never deny this or the fact she is perfectly qualified. Just to say she is clearly moreso? Especially when some things she got done was a vote for Iraq, pushing for war with Syria, helping push TPP
Edited by JJLehto - June 08 2016 at 01:49
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: June 08 2016 at 01:42 |
The T wrote:
^That is true. In many states Trump didn't win with extremely large margins yet he took all the delegates. Here in FL, we'll he actually trashed wonder-kid Rubio. |
Yeah man, SC he won 33% of the vote and got 100% of the delegates. Im blanking but there are indeed many other examples where he failed to get 50% and yet won all the delegates or most. Absolute lunacy. In a way it's their version of superdelegates, keeps a populist at bay, but is worse because it's even more undemocratic and has backfired royally this time
Granted I still say all this is 100% their fault and it goes back to 2009 and earlier. They started a fire and kept adding fuel to it, it now is burning down their party and they can't grasp why it's happening. They fed the tea party and have LONG used racism, so all the problems they now face are ultimately on them.
Edited by JJLehto - June 08 2016 at 01:52
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: June 08 2016 at 09:42 |
^^I can agree Brian, in fact lately I've gotten frustrated not so much with Bernie (who I like a lot) but with many of his followers, and that has sadly made me at moments reflect it on Bernie himself. They have painted him as a saint and he isn't one (nobody who is in politics can be one - actually I think nobody period can be one). If he keeps on for a while to move the agenda more and more to the left, without being overtly offensive, ok. I'm worried he, because of pressure from some of his followers, will continue on an aggressive offensive which can damage the reasonable candidate and make the election of the Angry Orange a more likely possibility.
Really, the #BernieOrBust movement is what made me lose it with Bernie. When I actually hear him speak like recently in Maher's tv show I remember I actually like the guy and a lot.
Experience? Ok, let's say they both have at least decent qualifications.
The Republican Party did this all on themselves. With the help of their media (talk radio, Fox). They kept of feeding hate and insanity to a large number of people throughout the years (more so after the first black president was elected) and eventually what they were feeding had to grow up (as in get bigger, not really as in become adult).
Edited by The T - June 08 2016 at 09:44
|
|
|
|
emigre80
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 25 2015
Location: kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 2223
|
Posted: June 08 2016 at 11:04 |
When everyone complains about the superdelegates, let's remember what they were designed to do - save the conventions from the sort of brawls that irrevocably damage the party going into a general election, while allowing Democrats to preserve themselves from the idiocy of winner-take-all primaries (how much less democratic can you get?). For one thing, it stops the fights from happening on the convention floor, and leaves the conventions for platforms and the kind of party unity needed to win general elections. In a contest with two candidates, no issue - the SDs go with the candidate that got the most votes. In a contest with 3 or more candidates dividing the vote? Do they decide on electability? Perhaps one candidate did very strongly in the South, and garnered lots of support there, but his/her views are anathema to the general electorate. This would enable them to vote for a candidate that reflected the party as a whole. It's not unimaginable, in these days of polarization, to get to a 40-30-30 vote spread between 3 candidates. You can argue that the person who got 40% of the vote should be the winner, except it's possible for that 40% to have come from women and minorities only, because that candidate's platform advocates rounding up all wealthy white men and executing them for crimes against humanity. (An absurd example, I know, I'm just trying to illustrate a point here) Would it be responsible for the SDs to vote for this person, who is, in addition, opposed by 60% of the party? SDs are meant to be merely rubber stamps in an election like this. There is no chance that Sanders can flip them to overthrow a candidate that the majority of the electors have voted for. Their real function is to figure out what to do when the electorate is truly split, and perhaps split in the ways that will irrevocably damage the party. Which is why the superdelegates are long-term party leaders, who have a lot invested in the future of the party. Do I agree with the concept of superdelegates generally? I can see arguments against them, but if the Republican party had primaries where delegates were handed out proportionately and superdelegates, Trump would not be its nominee today. With that thought, suddenly superdelegates seem like a great idea.
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: June 08 2016 at 19:24 |
Teo is right that in many countries you do not get to vote for the presidential/prime ministerial candidate of the party. Like India or UK. But in those countries, we vote for the PARTY that we want to see in office, not A person who should be head of state, in a manner of speaking. Sometimes, it does get kind of presidential like in 2014 when Congress backed Rahul Gandhi (so the vote for Modi was really a vote for Anybody But Gandhi which the liberal media won't tell you). But that's usually not the case and parties have been known to not project a prime ministerial candidate and still win elections.
There may be countries which have a presidential system of governance and still do not let the public decide on who would be the candidates for the respective parties through a primary. I am not aware of which ones, maybe in Europe?
Edited by rogerthat - June 08 2016 at 19:46
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: June 09 2016 at 00:02 |
I get the frustration with some Sanders supporters but (this goes for anything btw: music, movies, artists) can't let the fanbase ruin the person. Especially since, as we know, the bad apples do spoil the bunch, and the media really does emphasize the worst of all people while neglecting the normal/good. No one, well no sane person, wants to see the trolling, the sexist comments, the over the top nuttery especially since it does reflect on all. By default I'm now a 'Bernie Bro' and that feels real f**kin great. 
Indeed man, they both are experienced and really I never cared at all for that whole debate. Just I try to dispel what I see as falsehoods. I don't want to make issues a "Bernie vs Hillary" better than xyz battle, but I will when provoked. For example, I think Hillary will be as fine as Sanders in pushing gay rights and I dont want it to be a divisive issue. But some Clinton fans make it an issue...ya know? "Where was Bernie!?" Me: Well, he voted against DOMA, one of very few people to do so. He's long been a champion of gay marriage. "Well....f**k you!" or "haha! No! Clinton is way better" "OK, sorry but she voted against DOMA, was against gay marriage until not tooo long ago, and outright lied in her claim we needed DOMA to prevent an amendment, here's non partisan proof" "BERNIE BRO GO HOME! haha what has he ever done?!"
Or people have some nerve questioning his record on civil rights, or some actually questioned his dedication to healthcare reform. I had one person rebut every comment I made with "Where was he?" Even posting proof that Clinton herself acknowledged the strength of Bernie's health plan, or that he helped write ACA...the response was just "Where was he??? What has he done?" I am fair, many Bernie fans are OTT and annoying as hell, I'd say many are delusional and some simply want an alternative over anything concrete. I just ask for fairness that many Clinton supporters are not exactly kind either, trying to belittle the man's long career and etc Truce?
As for the Repubs causing their own mess, hell yeah man no doubt about that. Boehner and co used the Tea Party to their benefit, but I think they either miscalculated how fervent and obstructionist they are...or simple never gave it thought. The Tea Party really was a growth from Ron Paul's campaign, originally angry at the Bush bank bailouts...it was CNBC and Fox and the GOP that hijacked it, but as big names keep dropping like flies and the party can't even pass its own budgets without Dem help...clearly the hijackers have now been taken hostage I still can't grasp how insane it is that the Speaker of the House didn't just resign his position, but his seat, mid term, due to pressures from his own party. Or Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader was ousted in his own primary..by a total outsider to boot. It's madness how intense the Tea Party is, and that people like Boehner, McConell even Paul Ryan are now moderates and not being obstructionist enough...
Edited by JJLehto - June 09 2016 at 00:27
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: June 09 2016 at 00:38 |
Final note for now on SDs. I get they can play a role in a contested convention, and I agree that's a good thing, but do we need them the entire process? Since they have never determined a primary yet, we haven't gone to a contested convention in ages, and as you say they exist for truly deep divides...can't we just do the process without them, and wheel em out if need be? It's true, they had no impact on this primary, Clinton would've won and Sanders lost without SDs but there would've been a helluva lot less anger So yeah, why not bring em out only in the cases that warrant it
Anyway, I do hope electoral reform comes from all this. At the very least I think the process should be streamlined, clear and no more day of rule changes. I have had Clinton supporters agree with this. Other things can be debated, like having caucuses, allowing independents etc etc but maybe another post 1968 sit down needs to happen and hammer this all out. Some things are political, like the voting rights act and how, shocker, Dem participation was down in Republican states due to their gutting of voting rights, or maybe we should reconsider allowing certain felons to vote.
Also it's sad that stories like Brooklyn happened where tens of thousands of people were denied their right to vote simply because the office fell "6 months to a year" behind registration, or that people who were "inactive" showed up to polls to be told they were removed from the list. People coming out after a long time are who we need to be included not excluded. Make sure each polling station is staffed and supplied, all the unsexy things that I feel need to happen.
Edited by JJLehto - June 09 2016 at 00:43
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: June 09 2016 at 09:02 |
On a quick note, how awesome the Republican Party is, that the Speaker of the House, upon another round of incredibly racist remarks by their candidate, basically said (paraphrasing): "Trump's comments are racist and unacceptable. They don't represent what the Republican Party is about. I reject those comments.... ..... And by the way I still support Trump and will vote for him".
The GOP is a sad caricature of a party.
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: June 09 2016 at 09:04 |
JJLehto wrote:
By default I'm now a 'Bernie Bro' and that feels real f**kin great.
|
I never thought of you as a 'Bernie Bro'. In fact I've yet to find one in real life (not that I have much chances of meeting one anyway). 
|
|
|
|
emigre80
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 25 2015
Location: kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 2223
|
Posted: June 09 2016 at 10:15 |
The T wrote:
On a quick note, how awesome the Republican Party is, that the Speaker of the House, upon another round of incredibly racist remarks by their candidate, basically said (paraphrasing): "Trump's comments are racist and unacceptable. They don't represent what the Republican Party is about. I reject those comments.... ..... And by the way I still support Trump and will vote for him".
The GOP is a sad caricature of a party. |
Or, as someone put it on Twitter, "Trump is racist, but it's much more important that he wants to dump Obamacare, so we can live with his racism." Moral bankruptcy, anyone? The next time I hear a petulant Sanders supporter state he will vote for Trump, I may well explode.
|
|
emigre80
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 25 2015
Location: kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 2223
|
Posted: June 09 2016 at 10:18 |
JJLehto wrote:
Final note for now on SDs. I get they can play a role in a contested convention, and I agree that's a good thing, but do we need them the entire process?Since they have never determined a primary yet, we haven't gone to a contested convention in ages, and as you say they exist for truly deep divides...can't we just do the process without them, and wheel em out if need be? It's true, they had no impact on this primary, Clinton would've won and Sanders lost without SDs but there would've been a helluva lot less anger So yeah, why not bring em out only in the cases that warrant it
Anyway, I do hope electoral reform comes from all this. At the very least I think the process should be streamlined, clear and no more day of rule changes. I have had Clinton supporters agree with this. Other things can be debated, like having caucuses, allowing independents etc etc but maybe another post 1968 sit down needs to happen and hammer this all out. Some things are political, like the voting rights act and how, shocker, Dem participation was down in Republican states due to their gutting of voting rights, or maybe we should reconsider allowing certain felons to vote.
Also it's sad that stories like Brooklyn happened where tens of thousands of people were denied their right to vote simply because the office fell "6 months to a year" behind registration, or that people who were "inactive" showed up to polls to be told they were removed from the list. People coming out after a long time are who we need to be included not excluded. Make sure each polling station is staffed and supplied, all the unsexy things that I feel need to happen.
|
I don't see any practical way to hang superdelegates in a closet and only bring them out when we need them. I think they are either part of the process or they aren't. Of course county clerk offices need to be fully staffed and supplied. That would mean a well-funded government. Let's all vote in November and make that happen.
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: June 09 2016 at 11:37 |
^ I mean, the supers are just our congress, governors, state officials etc etc they are always there. If there was a brokered convention, just turn to the people who would have been the SDs? Though I'm also for looking into a way to handle it without them at all.
Yes, that is 100% true, my fear is though it's something that should not be left to chance. We can't know how things will be 4 years from now and each state has their own legislature of course, so I would like to see it a federal initiative unrelated to the elections themselves. Like a bill making sure every 3rd year I guess there's staff hired to process info, and funding to each state for making sure stations are staffed. It's unacceptable places were running out of ballots. I'm just spitballing ideas but yeah I'd love a bill that automatically funds and ensures each election has what it needs. I can already see the selling point now, when the right or whoever would object: So you want to a price tag on our democracy?? The T wrote:
JJLehto wrote:
By default I'm now a 'Bernie Bro' and that feels real f**kin great.
|
I never thought of you as a 'Bernie Bro'. In fact I've yet to find one in real life (not that I have much chances of meeting one anyway).
|
Well thank you, and that's exactly the point No one likes those few, and they really are few, but if you listen to how people talk about his supporters, we all are one. So whenever people talk about how bad his supporters are I cringe a little bit.
Related to my "I dont think he's sincere about his gran plan" point, Bernie keeps posting these "year we've had" type things and emails, stressing how we all need to keep up the fight for progress but in a generic way, and when he says "the fight continues" it's usually coupled with talk of the future and bottom up progress. Honestly, sounds to me like he's preparing to drop out. At the very least, is warming up the car for his exit whenever the time comes, but yeah....I think he's 1000% aware he's lost, was never actually gunna try to woo any SDs, and is preparing to finally bow out. My guess is he'll endorse Clinton as well.
Edited by JJLehto - June 09 2016 at 13:06
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: June 09 2016 at 11:52 |
Yeah, I'm glad to see a few people are now rescinding their endorsement of Trump, but it was dumb to do so at all. You KNOW he's gunna make more racist and insane comments, it's like they were surprised Kudos to the few who are refusing to endorse him.
Paul Ryan....yeah, hate the guy. Legitimately. He gets 0 credit from me for all his "This is racist and unacceptable!" stuff, since he 1: is still backing Trump 2: his "takers and makers" comments were (even if he didnt mean it) kinda racist to me. At least in enforced the image many people have of: You know who are the ones sitting on welfare being lazy livin off that guvment teat. That's the GOP issue with Trump: He's too blatant! He doesn't imply racism like they have used for decades.
Edited by JJLehto - June 09 2016 at 13:07
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: June 09 2016 at 13:55 |
|
Just now Sanders, after meeting with Obama, said he will do everything in his power to stop Trump from becoming president. His whole speech sounded like that of someone who will continue pushing his agenda but who also know it's time to start moving on and focus on stopping real danger from becoming reality. I'm glad about this.
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
American Politics the 2016 edition
