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.

 

DWS asked to explain how HRC lost NH primary by 22% but won an equal number of delegates

page: 1
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+3 more 
posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Once again DWS aka Debbie Wasserman Schultz is facing the heat again. I a recent interview she explains how super delegates are there to stop a successful grass roots campaign, Yes she actually says that! Well the look on her face says it all, she is upset to be asked such a direct question. Once again it would seam the DWS has been part of team HRC from the start.





Prior to the Democratic presidential debate in Milwaukee last night, CNN’s Jake Tapper had the audacity to ask the DNC chair about this. The expression on Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s face is priceless when Tapper asks her to explain to “voters new to the process” who might feel “this is all rigged” because of the superdelegates.

Tre Goins-Phillips of TheBlaze summarizes the evasive yet unintentionally revealing answer:

The DNC chairwoman explained to Tapper that the unpledged delegates, or the superdelegates, are a completely separate category from the pledged delegates, which Clinton and Sanders were competing for in the Granite State.

So far, so good. But then:

“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 grassroots activists,” Wasserman Shultz said, adding that the Democratic Party “highlights inclusiveness and diversity at our convention” and wants to give activists “every opportunity” to participate, which she says it what the superdelegates are for.


source





edit on 12-2-2016 by AlaskanDad because: added image




posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   
The democrat party doesn't want Bernie sanders as their representative. He's was an independent senator, not a democrat. What's that say if they choose a man the wasn't even a member of their party?
They want Clinton.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Because the Superdelegates are bought and fully paid for by HRC and her cronies?

The U.S, the home of Demcracy. How confusing is Democracy?


+2 more 
posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad


“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 grassroots activists”


Holy crap.

It's like these parties don't even try to look ethical anymore.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

So in other words the super delegates are already committed to Hillary because Clinton is the DNC's unofficial candidate? Correct me if I'm wrong, so if I understand this right, Clinton could lose by 100% of the votes but still get her committed delegates for the state she lost? Maybe this is why the DNC declared Bernie as unelectable from the start? Definitely sounds rigged to me. What ever happened to the idea who ever gets the majority of votes win? Are we still living in America?

The media should be questioning this practice, but I won't hold my breath. The two party system is corrupt.


edit on 12-2-2016 by WeRpeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: WeRpeons

Superdelegates are actually independent of the state delegates. Also, since superdelegate numbers aren't counted until the end of the primaries, superdelegates can also change their position. So theoretically, Bernie could still grab those superdelegates that are currently being counted for Hillary. At least that was how it was explained to me a few days ago.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   

To be delivered to The Democratic superdelegates
The race for the Democratic Party nomination should be decided by who gets the most votes, and not who has the most support from party insiders.

That's why we're calling on all the Democratic superdelegates to pledge to back the will of the voters at the Democratic Party convention in Philadelphia.

There are currently 26,329 signatures. NEW goal - We need 30,000 signatures!


No link as petitions against ATS T&C

Just google it!



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Superdelegates have never voted against the popular vote. If Bernie won the popular vote there is no reason to think they would still vote for Hillary...it would be utterly unprecedented and destroy the illusion of democracy. The "Hillary won more superdelegates" idea is being spread by her campaign and supporting media interests in order to maintain the fiction that Bernie's campaign, and thus going out to vote for him, is futile. Pretty clever too, using the obscure complexity of the election process as a weapon against the new voters that are much more likely to be Bernie supporters than Hillary. I give her props for her campaign's A-plus deceitfulness!

www.pastemagazine.com...



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
...theoretically...


I could theoretically win the lottery.

The election appears to be wholly in the bag for the Hilldog. Bernie Sanders, the Ron Paul of the Democratic Party.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It still doesn't sound like they're on an even footing. Why even have delegates? Just go by the vote count? Just think of all the money they would be saving by not having a stupid democrat or republican convention!



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

I'm signing it! Bernie's right, it time to start a political revolution!



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Just more proof that our system is currently rigged from top to bottom.

As far as I'm concerned, every super-delegate that is makes endorsements counter to the will of the voters is just labeling themselves as establishment politicians.

They may as well hang a sign around their neck or have it tattooed on their foreheads.

Guess who will be the next target of our political revolution?



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Abysha


Holy crap.

It's like these parties don't even try to look ethical anymore.


It's no more or less ethical than it's been since it came into being. So if you think the primary system is bad now, you should understand that it's been this bad as long as it has existed.

What's really interesting is that it used to be even worse.

Originally, the members of Congress would simply nominate a member of their respective parties. Then in the 1830's, parties started using national conventions where delegates would choose the party nominee. However, the delegates for the national conventions were chosen by the party bosses at the state conventions. The first primaries where regular citizens could vote weren't held until the early 20th century.

Now we have this mashup of varying state laws. The fact that there are laws to preserve and promote partisan politics at all I find ludicrous.

Worse still the dates are all staggered so that Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina have disproportionate influence over the whole convoluted system despite being the 30th, 41st, 35th, and 24th most populated states respectively.

It doesn't make any sense except in the context of maintaining a the two party status quo.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Rigged system.

It appears to me that the establishment will not let Bernie win the nomination.

Our presidential candidates are selected not elected. I just hope more wake up and truly protest the rigged electoral process we have.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Wow. Straight from the horses' mouth. You heard itAmericans. No candidates for you. Superdelegates eill quell anybody you try to campaign for...

Our gov is fully rogue at this point.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   
I think it was FDR that told youse the process was rigged a long time ago.......nothings changed......



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   
And people will still argue these two parties arent in it to keep power...

just another reason why I wont vote for the lesser of two evils, vote for people you believe in folks stop feeding the system.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   
You mean taking away the reward that someone worked really hard for and giving it to someone else is wrong?

It just sounds like Bernie got a dose of his own medicine.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
...theoretically...


I could theoretically win the lottery.

The election appears to be wholly in the bag for the Hilldog. Bernie Sanders, the Ron Paul of the Democratic Party.


Going by the number of delegates needed, you can also win the nomination without a single superdelegate.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It still doesn't sound like they're on an even footing. Why even have delegates? Just go by the vote count? Just think of all the money they would be saving by not having a stupid democrat or republican convention!



Oh I'm not saying it's fair or right or balanced. I'm just explaining the process and that not all is lost just yet. It's certainly a VERY stupid system.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join