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.

 

Bernie Sanders wins but loses

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 06:35 PM
link   
I was watching msnbc this morning and Joe Scarborough was ranting about how unfair and "rigged" the Democratic primary elections are. He said that the voters literally voted for nothing.


Because it doesn't matter who wins the election. The delegates can choose whoever they want despite the outcome of the elections. This is also true for Republicans but Scarborough feels less so about it.

He was practically berating a gentleman who I don't know but was a representative of the Democratic party saying it was a rigged process because Bernie Sanders won considerably and did not receive the appropriate delegates who chose Clinton despite election results. 14% was, if I remember correctly, his margin of victory but he still lost in terms of delegates.

And this rigged system is public knowledge and the representative of the Democratic party said it was a bad system but those are the rules. I guess even bad rules are enforced, publicized and the public doesn't do a damn thing about it.

It's time for election reform.




posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Goldman Sachs chief Lloyd Blankfein: Sanders candidacy a 'dangerous moment'


Of course the elections are rigged and corrupt, someone like Sanders is dangerous because he would tax the hell out of rich douchebags like this guy, that's why he doesn't get the delegates. Whereas "threats" like Trump get the delegates because he and the banks are bedfellows and friends.
edit on 4/11/2016 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Goldman Sachs chief Lloyd Blankfein: Sanders candidacy a 'dangerous moment'


Of course the elections are rigged and corrupt, someone like Sanders is dangerous because he would tax the hell out of rich douchebags like this guy, that's why he doesn't get the delegates. Whereas "threats" like Trump get the delegates because he and the banks are bedfellows and friends.


You do realize Sanders is running as A Democrat and Trump as a Republican.In the primaries. How would Trump get all the delegates from Sanders ? Please do not turn this into a hate Trump thread. The OP has posted a legitimate thread on even if Sanders wins the popular vote , he could lose the nomination.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Cruz is getting the delegates. Trump has a new campaign manager because apparently he just realized how things work if you can believe that.

That's the last thing I watched was about Trump losing and having to change his strategy from courting voters to courting delegates.

How a presidential candidate doesn't know ahead of time that you have to court delegates is something I wonder about. It seems staged.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

I didn't say Trump was taking delegates from Sanders only that Sanders doesn't get delegates while Trump does regardless of which party it is.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ElementalFreeze
As I have stated all along...Sanders was wooed by the Democratic Party just to put a legitimate (in appearance) candidate up against Clinton.They knew it would be a given from the start.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 08:37 PM
link   
I see both Trump and Sanders losing their party nomination but staying on the ballot as independents or another political party. Its not gonna be nice and clean for Hillary and Cruz/Ryan.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

I'm sure you're right. I know it and you know it but there are a massive amount of people who think that the Democratic process is fair and balanced. On a local and State level maybe, I'm not sure but it is probably different from state to state.

But presidential elections have been from the inception of the presidency been decided from behind the scenes and it is still that way today but they have had a couple hundred years to fine tune the intricacies of manipulating the candidacy.

And we just take it and nobody ever raises an objection so I was shocked to see Scarborough go on a mild tirade over it.

I have a new found respect for Morning Joe Scarborough and Breszinski's daughter, she got it on it too.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ElementalFreeze
Not debating that point one bit. Think its unfair ? No , put that in a more definitive term (fpr all sides)
know
And Sanders , even if I tend to lean conservative (few and far between) , I still like him and some of his views and points.




posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Personally I would like to see an end to the two party domination and more serious parties emerge that aren't a joke like the tea party. Independent candidates have never been anything but vote stealers not interested in winning.

A new political part, pure popular vote elections and abolition of the Federal Reserve would be a good start. Never gonna happen though.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

And the thing is, whatever they were taxed wouldn't impact their lives one bit. It wouldn't hamper their ability to live their lives just as they are living now -- but it could stand to potentially benefit so many Americans.

The fact is, those 100 or so top richest people in the world don't WANT the rest of humanity to improve. It endangers their position, or at least it is perceived that way.

Dumb, hypnotized masses make good consumers. George Carlin talked about this. They own everything and everything you you consume has been approved by these folks at the top of the pyramid.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ElementalFreeze
Unfortunately we as a people have to categorize everything. If you do not believe the way I do , you are in a different category , therefore the "enemy". That applies in life from Race down to whether you like chocolate cake or not. Strange , but true.





posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElementalFreeze
a reply to: Gothmog

Personally I would like to see an end to the two party domination and more serious parties emerge that aren't a joke like the tea party. Independent candidates have never been anything but vote stealers not interested in winning.

A new political part, pure popular vote elections and abolition of the Federal Reserve would be a good start. Never gonna happen though.


I agree in theory. But the 12 Amendment would need to be changed first, before we credibly put up more than 3 major options at the Presidential level. The 12th amendment is the one that says that if no presidential candidate gets a majority of Electoral Collage votes, the House of Representatives gets to vote to decide the President. Only the 3 candidates with the most Electoral College votes are eligible at this stage.

Though I definitely agree that it should be strictly a nationwide popular vote for the presidency. However, I also think that every citizen should automatically be registered as a voter once they hit 18 years old. And election day for the Presidency should be a national holiday.



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 03:52 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Every American is eligible to register and it is easy to do. Automatic registration is too fascist sounding for me. I think America should go on voter strike until they reform the system but that would initiate repercussions even if it was successful that would make things worse.

So now that I think about it, although I do see a need for reform that is a bad idea(strike). I have a good life and don't personally care about who wins although I am nostalgic for the Clinton era and do think that she is the most qualified of all the candidates and deserves to win. Plus the image benefits of electing a woman president are considerable. It would also piss off a lot of ignorant people which I am a fan of.

But if the people want Sanders then they should have their vote matter.



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ElementalFreeze



www.counterpunch.org...

Hillary Victory Fund.


"Collusion between the Clinton campaign and the DNC allowed Hillary Clinton to buy the loyalty of 33 state Democratic parties last summer. "

Sorry Bernie. Sorry Bernie voters they stole this months ago.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: ElementalFreeze

What would a voter strike do? They would run all states like they run Colorado - they would keep picking the candidates they want and ignore the rest of us just like they are doing now. A voter strike would accomplish nothing.

Holding a sign, standing outside the capitol building, accomplishes nothing.

Calling or writing your representatives to voice your concerns, accomplishes nothing.

Peaceful protest isn't working, hasn't worked, and will not work in the future.

The founding fathers gave us a recourse to employ once peaceful change doesn't work anymore. We have the right to bear arms for this reason. It's high time the masses start giving serious thought to this.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: peskyhumans

Nobody needs to go out there and "brandish weapons" or play "shoot em up".

All that needs to be done is for enough people out there to realize who the actual people in charge really are.

It isn't the government and it isn't big business, it's us.

I will almost guarantee though, that once we start communicating we know this and begin developing a plan of action, our lines of communication will be severed in short order and some (who know what kind of?....) event will be blamed for the disruption, when in actuality a switch was flipped off.

Welcome to the realization you are depended upon to remain loyal "moo cow consumers", while simultaneously surrendering almost all of your freedoms for the sake of convenience and security.

Now I wish I would have purchased that ham radio. Now I realize why it is required one possesses a license to use one.

Stuff's been wrong for a long time, it's just that nobody really noticed.

The only way to fix anything is by depriving those who provide you with all the things you have come to depend on of making that sale.

Then the "too big to fail" businesses and banks will get bailed out again, and the old stand by will be called back up once again in hopes that most people still have an attention span resembling a goldfish or a gerbil.

Leave your guns locked and loaded but stowed away in case others think chaos in the front yard is acceptable, which it isn't.

Don't go to report for the draft when called up.

Peaceful non-compliance.....

But then so many of us were tricked into being forced to pay for stuff wee don't need, like insurance....

Never Mind.........................................................................................................................................



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ElementalFreeze

We have to automatically register for Selective Service when we hit 18 (males). And they even make it as easy as possible to do so (they registered me at my high school right after I turned 18). So it's not like it can't be done.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: peskyhumans

Better yet, more members of the public can get involved in the process, support 3rd parties, start lobbying firms and political action committees, special interest groups, and the such.

Even if the majority of the public took up arms as you suggested, what happens after that? Suppose the armed public somehow "wins" whatever confrontation you're implying. What happens then and who'll make the decisions then? Anarchy and lawlessness suck, so someone's going to have to make the decisions to keep the peace. A subcontinent with 350 million people can't function on lawlessness. And no matter what term is used, those "decision makers" will still be the defacto government(s), which simply continues the cycle.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

When is the last time someone got chosen by the selective service? It's just a census in disguise and also a technical way to enact an alternative to the draft if it ever became necessary.

I have never heard of anyone getting into trouble for not signing up for the draft but I guess they do it automatically now but when I turned 18 my mother was all over me to do it and basically shoved a form in my face and said they would never call me anyway so I signed it because it was not automatic. News to me.

But you should have the right to NOT vote or be registered as a voter if one chooses not to. It's a right not a mandate, some people don't like politicians or paperwork or anything higher than the registry of motor vehicles and post office when it comes to government.

Plus you are required to pick a political party or at least pick no party and if they automatically register you to vote next they will pick your party for you too.

I hate automatic aka forced registration in any form, I have come to terms that I am literally a number with a name attached to it because social security helps people. Forced voter registration is pointless, it aint gonna make anybody vote who wouldn't have just sent in the form had they wanted to.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join