It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hillary To Bernie & Joe: 'I Already Have The Delegates For Nomination!'

page: 9
27
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Hillary IS lying. Recent polls showed she had about 60% of the "super delegates" but these can change their mind any time they like right up to the vote for the nomination.

As recently as Friday, she had 440 delegates, with 770 needed.

A far cry from "I have the delegates"




posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Because the delegates for the nomimation AND the delegates for President can vote any way they please, anyone in America who thinks their vote matters is sorely mistaken.

ONLY the delegates get to vote for President and the nominee. Everyone else's vote in inconsequential. Meaning about 10,000 people between Dems and Repubs are the only ones who actually vote directly for President.

"Best Democracy in the World" ? Don't make me laugh.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

grammie! Guess what!! I actually almost agree with you! (Although I would make it a Sanders/Trump ticket, not the other way around..I would insist on that
).....

so - I was thinking about this idea: How about 1st place gets President, and 2nd place (runner up) gets Vice President?




Turns out - that was actually the law originally per the Constitution - and it makes sense to me - BUT...... what actually happens is that it causes several problems.


Another reason a mixed presidential ticket might prove problematic is the line of succession. If a Democratic president should die in office, a number of party loyalists may feel disenfranchised if a Republican is allowed to assume the office without election. As moderate as a running mate of the opposite party may be, he or she would still be seen by many as a registered member of that party. Certain social programs or economic incentive packages endorsed by a former president may not survive under the leadership of the new one.

Originally, the president and vice president did not run together as part of a combined ticket.

Before 1804, when the 12th Amendment was ratified, whichever presidential candidate got the second highest number of votes from the electoral college became vice president. John Adams, a Federalist, was vice president to Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican. Even after this, a few candidates have run with running mates from other parties; for his second term, Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, chose Democrat Andrew Johnson as his vice president. The practice of a mixed ticket is very uncommon, however.

So, theres' that.


In modern politics, a mixed presidential ticket might survive voter scrutiny if both candidates were seen as moderates in their respective parties. There has been talk in previous elections of a moderate Republican being approached by a moderate to liberal Democratic presidential nominee, but to date nothing has proceeded past the talking stage.

While a mixed presidential ticket might be seen by the voting public as a sincere effort to bridge the gap between political parties, it might also be seen by party loyalists on both sides as a failure to produce a satisfactory same-party ticket or as little more than a noble but risky political experiment.it doesn't work.
Source

(I present this as my discovery, not to imply that you meant they would run as a SPLIT TICKET Rep/Dem - I KNOW you said specifically "as an Independent ticket". Okay? I'm just saying your idea inspired me to look up how it's done in the past. To think about it!)

Although there is nothing "legally" preventing a GOP hopeful from choosing a Dem running mate, the reasons that it doesn't happen are historical.

********************
So, that being established - about them running as the Independent ticket.

Them running together on a brand-new Independent ticket makes sense to me insofar as the whole idea of the two-party system is to make sure there is a balance - Congress is the venue where that happens, rather than the Oval Office.

So, the 1st place/runner up thing (like beauty queens so) doesn't work in politics.

Okay - bad idea.
So, why did they not team up to begin with? Well, for obvious ideological and personality-conflict issues (Trump is a bloviating jack-ass, and it seems to me Bernie would say "screw that, no way." And Sanders has described himself as an actual DEMOCRATIC socialist. While Trump sorta kinda says the same things, he is hugely offensive to millions of people, it would not behoove Bernie for them to run as a team - I think the immigration issue would be the brick wall between them.)

If it WERE Sanders/Trump, that would mean the immigration issue would be the (possibly only one) that would be a misfit from the get-go.

That kind of animosity and diametrically opposed ideology would be pregnant with tension from the get-go. Could even be an "assassination" - or "suicide by association" thing.

It's too late now, though - they both already thrown their chips in to the big ring of this circus. For them to dump their red and blue rings now would look suspicious.

Or is it?

(@ grammie: Good outside the box thinking!)

Watch for new thread!!



edit on 8/30/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
so - I was thinking about this idea: How about 1st place gets President, and 2nd place (runner up) gets Vice President?


That is the way it was initially. It would make for some interesting dynamics if members from both parties won a la Adams and Jefferson.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Exactly. I have a new thread all ready to post, but my mom called and I got distracted...so - watch as it comes to life!



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: babybunnies
Hillary IS lying. Recent polls showed she had about 60% of the "super delegates" but these can change their mind any time they like right up to the vote for the nomination.

As recently as Friday, she had 440 delegates, with 770 needed.

A far cry from "I have the delegates"


According to the OP article there are 4,491 total delegates. She needs 2,246 not 777. She had the early lead in super delegates against Obama and lost.

I'm not a fan of Hillary and I hope she doesn't get the nomination but I haven't seen anything to confirm the charge that she is saying she already has enough delegates locked up to win.
edit on 30-8-2015 by DelMarvel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Gully
She is a big fat liar. Nothing new.



She stayed with a man who ripped her soul to shreds
through cheating, in order to gain personal power.
When, as a lawyer, she could have left him and
supported herself.



Sorry, but you got THAT one so wrong. She doesn't have a soul.
edit on 8/30/2015 by WeAreAWAKE because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Enough with the GoT references already sheesh!

If it comes down to Trump or Hillary, I will use my last vote ever to write in Bernie.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Enough with the GoT references already sheesh!

If it comes down to Trump or Hillary, I will use my last vote ever to write in Bernie.


Never enough as long as Queen Hillary desires the Iron Throne!

And I hope that you are sincere and not just hiding a secret desire to install Queen Hillary as Ruler-Empress over the lands.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Truth is the most valuable thing to me.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Truth is the most valuable thing to me.


Same here!




posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Sanders is diplomatically turning up the heat on Debbie Wasserman-Shultz and the DNC:


Sanders: Dems ‘dead wrong’ on debates





The Democratic National Committee is “dead wrong” by limiting the number of debates available to presidential candidates, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said on Sunday.

“I think that that is dead wrong and I have let the leadership of the Democrats know that,” Sanders said on CNN’s “State of the Union.
“I think this country benefits, all people benefit, democracy benefits when we have debates and I want to see more of them,” he added. “I think that debates are a good thing."

Sanders said that in addition to officially sanctioned debates from the Democratic Party, candidates running for the White House should also be forced to debate environmental issues before a panel of environmentalists, as well as issues specifically important to young voters and to “working people.”

Sanders’s comments come after critical words from former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D), who on Friday accused the DNC of creating a “rigged process” to limit the number of debates to just four before the first round of voting takes place.

“I think it’s a big mistake for us as a party to circle the wagons around the inevitable front-runner,” O’Malley said earlier in the week.

Sanders appeared to agree on CNN on Sunday

“I think that rigging is a strong word,” he said. However, “I would like to see more debates.”

thehill.com...



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

Nah...you give way too much credit for intelligence to the average voter.

There are lots of Clinton apologists out there who will vote for her because they swallow her tripe.

Never, ever, underestimate the stupidity of the average voter.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join