Sanders said he would endorse her only if she adopted some of his policies.
The tuition thing was one of the ones she agreed to take.
sell out
Posted 09 July 2016 - 02:01 PM
Sanders said he would endorse her only if she adopted some of his policies.
The tuition thing was one of the ones she agreed to take.
sell out
Posted 10 July 2016 - 07:29 PM
sell out
lmao
Posted 11 July 2016 - 08:54 PM
Sanders said he would endorse her only if she adopted some of his policies.
The tuition thing was one of the ones she agreed to take.
It's just so shitty that she just flip flops with no regards at all. First a $15 minimum wage was too high, now she's for it. First tuition free state college was unreasonable, now she's going to champion it. First she was against gay marriage, now she has rainbow H's every damn where. I hate politics sfm rn.
Posted 18 July 2016 - 08:34 PM
Reports are coming in that Melania Trumpās speech at the RNC ripped off Michelle Obamaās 2008 speech. OMG, thatād be hilarious if thatās true. XD
Posted 18 July 2016 - 11:16 PM
Reports are coming in that Melania Trumpās speech at the RNC ripped off Michelle Obamaās 2008 speech. OMG, thatād be hilarious if thatās true. XD
It is lol
Posted 19 July 2016 - 07:43 AM
Dear Steve King,
Peanut Butter. That is all.
XOXO
Posted 19 July 2016 - 03:12 PM
I wonder if Clinton wins, will Bill be reduced to presumptive and trite duties typically assigned to the First Lady?
Posted 19 July 2016 - 04:05 PM
I wonder if Clinton wins, will Bill be reduced to presumptive and trite duties typically assigned to the First Lady?
I hope so.
Posted 22 July 2016 - 11:49 AM
Now that's a candidate I can get behind.
Posted 24 July 2016 - 10:02 AM
According to the leaked DNC e-mails, Bernie didn't even have a chance:
https://www.theguard...-bernie-sanders
http://observer.com/...ined-democracy/
He won 46% of the pledged delegates despite his own party actively working against him. I wonder if not having that bias there would have pushed him over the top. I think it for sure would have affected the amount of super delegates.
I wonder how screwed Bernie's donors must feel now that their donations (and likely names) are going to Clinton, especially in light of all of this.
Posted 24 July 2016 - 10:10 AM
Hillary is such a snake...Well, to be fair, all politicians are snakes.
Totally worth my 4000th post.
Posted 24 July 2016 - 10:16 AM
Hillary is such a snake...Well, to be fair, all politicians are snakes.
Totally worth my 4000th post.
IMO, two-party systems don't allow people to register a strong enough protest vote against despicable behavior like this.
For example, in Canada there are three "major" political parties where the balance of power shuffles around them. If the left one pisses people off, they'll move to the center one. Right one pisses them off? Move to the center. Center one pisses you off? Move to the left one or right one depending on your political leaning. It keeps everyone on their toes. Even when majority governments form, the time between elections seem to be about as long as the presidential ones anyway.
Posted 24 July 2016 - 10:36 AM
IMO, two-party systems don't allow people to register a strong enough protest vote against despicable behavior like this.
For example, in Canada there are three "major" political parties where the balance of power shuffles around them. If the left one pisses people off, they'll move to the center one. Right one pisses them off? Move to the center. Center one pisses you off? Move to the left one or right one depending on your political leaning. It keeps everyone on their toes. Even when majority governments form, the time between elections seem to be about as long as the presidential ones anyway.
Posted 24 July 2016 - 10:52 AM
Yes and no. There's something more legitimate about a 51-49% win than a 34-33-33% win. IMO. Even the electoral college - though many people hate it - is designed to give you a definite winner.
With a 34-33-33 vote you get a minority government in power. That situation requires that they get the support from one of the other parties to pass bills in the House of Commons. It's not the case where the party that gets 34% has all of the say. If they cannot get enough support from another party for important votes (such as for the budget), an election is automatically triggered. The process is repeated until a clear winner is found (ie. majority government) or two parties agree to co-operate and form a coalition government.
The "lack of legitimacy" is addressed by still giving the minority government the freedom to govern, but providing an easy avenue to hold them accountable (most minority governments here do not last more than two years).
Posted 24 July 2016 - 11:03 AM
IMO, two-party systems don't allow people to register a strong enough protest vote against despicable behavior like this.
For example, in Canada there are three "major" political parties where the balance of power shuffles around them. If the left one pisses people off, they'll move to the center one. Right one pisses them off? Move to the center. Center one pisses you off? Move to the left one or right one depending on your political leaning. It keeps everyone on their toes. Even when majority governments form, the time between elections seem to be about as long as the presidential ones anyway.
Yes. Exactly.
Between voter suppression laws, gerrymandering and other tactics both parties engage in, it's just a shitty system for the voter to try to navigate. I remember like six five years ago I saw a video cartoon that broke down why two party systems are fundamentally flawed and unfair. It used animals as candidates lol. I can't remember what it was called. I'll have to try to find it.
Edit: I FOUND IT.
Posted 24 July 2016 - 04:08 PM
Yes and no. There's something more legitimate about a 51-49% win than a 34-33-33% win. IMO. Even the electoral college - though many people hate it - is designed to give you a definite winner.
Under the electoral college, if no candidate receives a majority of electors (270+), then the House of Representatives votes to select the winner. To me, that's one of the least legitimate aspects of our political system...
The animal guy (CGP Grey) also has a good video on the best replacement for first-past-the-post, ranked choice/instant runoff/alternative voting:
Posted 24 July 2016 - 06:27 PM
Under the electoral college, if no candidate receives a majority of electors (270+), then the House of Representatives votes to select the winner. To me, that's one of the least legitimate aspects of our political system...
The animal guy (CGP Grey) also has a good video on the best replacement for first-past-the-post, ranked choice/instant runoff/alternative voting:
It's funny to me that America invades countries under the guise of ~bringing them democracy~ when we're not even a democracy.
Posted 26 July 2016 - 03:14 PM
Welp. Looking forward to the debates.
Posted 27 July 2016 - 05:37 AM
I've decided to vote for Gary Johnson.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users