Super Delegates…to the Rescue (of Hillary Clinton)!
With great power comes great...electability (tough luck, Bernie Sanders).
In the Great Hall of Democracy, there are assembled the Democratic Party's greatest heroes, created from the establishment elite.
Party leaders! Fundraisers! Lobbyists! And…Jimmy Carter!?!?
They are the Super Delegates, 700 electors chosen by party leaders who can vote at the national convention for whichever Democratic candidate they choose, regardless of whom primary and caucus voters actually selected.
Their mission? To fight grassroots candidates that might represent the party's base, to right that which is wrong (according to privileged insiders), and to serve all mankind! Well, no, just Hillary Clinton in the current election season, OK?
Borne out of frustration with the rise of outsider candidates and catastrophic general-election losses for Democrats, according to The New York Times, the superdelegate system "seemed infused with a desire to deny future nominations to political reincarnations of the Jimmy Carter of 1976."
Currently, Clinton has 467 superdelegates pledged to her, while Bernie Sanders has just 26 on his side. Carter, whose disastrous presidency and loss in 1980 helped give rise to the current system, remains uncommitted, although last year he called Clinton the "inevitable" candidate for his party and said he'd "be glad to support her when she gets the nomination."
More recently, the 91-year-old one-termer told CBS News that when it came to Republicans, he would "choose Trump." The billioniare developer "has proven already that he's completely malleable. I don't think he has any fixed opinions that he would really go to the White House and fight for."
About 1 minute.
Written, produced, and edited by Austin Bragg. Animation by Bragg and Jason Keisling.
Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channel to get automatic updates when new stories go live.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"he (Carter) would "choose Trump." The billioniare developer "has proven already that he's completely malleable. I don't think he has any fixed opinions that he would really go to the White House and fight for."
Everything wrong with the political class in two lines.
From a libertarian point of view, a non-activist president seems like a good thing, doesn't it?
Plus he condemned the Iraq War, and the GW Bush administration in general, and echoed Ron Paul's solid points on bringing troops home from Germany, Korea and Japan, or at least making them pay more for their defense.
If you ignore his rhetoric and language, Trump's positions on most things non-Mexican and non-Muslim are to the left of Clinton. A majority of Americans are okay with the wall idea as well as giving extra scrutiny to immigrants from Muslim countries, especially everywhere outside big liberal coastal cities. Trump could suck a lot of Sanders voters if he emphasizes his other policies. I could still be wrong, but I think Trump would beat Hillary in every battleground state. Horrifying either way.
Muslims have earned extra scrutiny, to say the least.
What, all of them? Every single one has done something to earn extra scrutiny? All billion plus of them?
Obviously not. Not all Nazis were bloodthirsty Jew haters in pursuit of world domination, Oscar Schindler was a good dude. But their affiliation with the Nazi Party and it's underlying ideology is certainly grounds to be suspicious of the person. And Nazis, when not in power, aren't exactly renowned for bombing schools, perpetrating random knife attacks and all around murdering non-believers. Unlike Muslims, whose devoutness directly correlates to their support for the aforementioned atrocities.
Suspicion of Muslims is perfectly reasonable, sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending that this group (characterized by their shared ideology) are not any kind of threat to anyone, is perfectly unreasonable.
Yes
They choose to believe in that "religion," so obviously they are suspect.
I'm not so sure it's accurate to say that most Muslims choose their religion. In many countries where they live, there isn't much choice. In a free society, religion is a choice. It is less so when you can get killed if you change your religion.
Of course, that doesn't excuse any kind of religiously motivated violence. But it's not quite so simple as saying that they chose their religion.
The suspicion is understandable, but unfair to a lot of people. I'm just glad I don't have to try to come up with a reasonable and just policy about it. There is no good or easy answer.
Perhaps the NAP could be used?
Sure, in my ideal world. But there are a whole lot of people out there who don't care so much for the NAP that you have to contend with and a whole lot of utilitarians.
Yet, good AND easy.
*slaps Zeb*
How could a non-activist dismantle anything?
By letting it decay.
"non-activist" doesn't explain enough.
I would prefer an activist who wants less government and has some respect for the Constitution and Rule-of-Law.
Wouldn't we all, here at least. But that describes Clinton and Sanders even less well than it describes Trump.
It's better than the wrong kind of activist, anyway. And in a more libertarian system, that's what you'd want.
He's dead on right about Trump. Not that I give a crap what Jimmy Carter thinks about anything.
"Wonder-Retard powers -- ACTIVATE! Elect the form of -- Joe Biden!"
Seriously, why can't they draft Biden and arrest Hillary? At least Joe would be a hugely entertaining president.
Hillary's best bet is to have Trump for her VP candidate, because she'd never be arrested.
Just imagine the impeachment insurance that Trump would have to draft as VP.
Cruz. Apparently he'd be worse than Trump b/c he's a true believer in far right economics according to faceprogderp whereas Trump is malleable with no principles.
I suppose the plague and WWII would have been more "entertaining" if TV had existed. No thanks.
Because not even Joe Biden would grope Hillary.
Hell, even Bill Clinton won't grope Hillary.
*shudder"
HUUUUGELY entertaining.
The GOP will have this setup soon after Trump if Romney has any say in it and the Dems will be getting rid of theirs to keep the Berntards from fleeing because the Dems have a rigged system. It is ugly but beautiful world we live in.
I bet the Republicans wish they had thought of this system 2 years ago....
The gop would be fine with proportional delegate representation. Sure, it makes a brokered convention likely, but that just makes it exciting!
Not counting super-delegates, Clinton currently has 775 to Sander's 552. Everything I've seen/read indicates this trend of her winning a solid lead will continue.
So... why are we worried about super-delegates "thwarting the will of the people" again? At this point them throwing their support behind Sanders would be "thwarting", not them throwing their support behind Clinton.
You don't think there's an effect on the amount of votes sanders gets because people who would be inclined to vote for him think it's a wasted vote because of this corrupt system set up by Democrats?
(takes a look at polling for Sanders vs. delegates for Sanders)
No, I don't.
So you're fine with the "party of the people" putting their hand on the scale to make sure no one puts McGovern up against Nixon again? It would be a catastrophe if Democrats started looking after regular people instead of cool Silicon Valley and Wall Street types. Is it any wonder why Democrats can't win poor White people any more?
There's no evidence that anyone is "putting their hand on the scale". Clinton is winning, in both polls and the voting booth, without super-delegates. There is no evidence that super-delegates are suppressing voter turn-out.
And all of that remains true regardless of what I'm "fine" with.
Or, to put it another way: you can deal with the facts, or you can make personal attacks. Your choice.
*You're* the socialist here. Are you fine with your party rigging their nomination so that they *can* put their hand on the scale?
Are we? Fuck no - but we're not Democrats so we don't really get a say in what the 'party of the people' do anymore than they get a say in whatever the Libertarians get up to.
Except for getting on the ballot.
Right.
And getting in the national debates.
So just the two then. Getting on the ballot and getting in national debates.
Oh, and getting any free media. They kinda control the national media, so there is that. Ok then, getting on the ballot, getting in national debates and media coverage.
But other than that... I mean really, they have no say in what the libertarians get up to....
It is not "corrupt" at all. It prevents some Rasputin-like charlatan such as Sanders or Trump from taking the nomination based on false claims and bullshit. Both are full of each..
Fuck both - who alike claim the US car industry was "destroyed". We manufacture more cars/light trucks here than the year NAFTA was negotiated.
TPP for free trade - 18,000 US tariffs eliminated.
Does that include all the cars Toyota, Nissan, Honda, and BMW make here?
Yes, and it also includes the fact that the global car market has doubled since pre-NAFTA. It's a pretty stupid argument to try to make.
Who needs more than 23 models of cars?
Three generations of Chevrolets are enough
If there is only one other choice, the "wasted vote"thing doesn't really apply. If Clinton will inevitably win, you might as well make your protest vote. It's not like voting third party in the general election.
so the logic goes "I like bernie, but hillary's going to win, so I'll vote for her to avoid wasting my vote"?
maybe "logic" is too strong a word
Feelingz. Not logic.
No, the logic goes... "Oh well, it is all over and Hillary has it won, so I'm not going to bother heading down to vote."
Somehow we don't worry about US Senators "thwarting the will of the people", when small states get 2 and giant states also get 2.
Part of what makes us a Republic not a democracy...dipshit.
1. You agree with CE, dipshit.
2. Republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive. Democracy is part of being a republic. You could even say they mean the same thing since the roots of both words mean the same thing. One is Greek and the other is Latin.
Do you deny that the Founders differentiated between a democracy and a republic?
It's pretty clear that majority rule was not their intent. And in that respect, recognizing that distinction is very appropriate.
Classical political theorists recognised three basic forms of government - monarchy, aristocracy and democracy (rule by one, by "the best" and by the people.) Each also had a degenerate form, respectively tyranny, oligarchy and mob rule.
A Republic was a government which combined all three pure forms, as with the Roman Consuls/Senate/Assembly setup. The hope was to gain the virtues of each while minimising their vices (via checks & balances, separation of powers etc.) The Republican form was also expected to forestall the degeneration thought inevitable in the pure forms.
The US was set up as a Republic by men very well acquainted with the classical theories of government. And it's still structured as one, though the details have changed (the President/Senate/House triumvirate has evolved into a President/Supremes/Congress combination.)
Too bad they hadn't come with the idea of a soviet yet.
/proggie
Mob rule.
/Aristotle
Because small states should tip to the will of the big states because they don't know better right?
Hey dipshit, big states get there say in the house with more reps.
BUT DEMOCRACY
I live in California, so my vote is worth a lot less then the vote of someone in, say, Wyoming. Personally I'm not that bothered by it (certainly not bothered enough to live in Wyoming), but there are some people who think the original compromise would never have been acceptable if we had the population gap between states then that we do now.
But mostly I find there are few people who are only concerned with "thwarting the will of the people" when they feel like it's *their* will being thwarted, and are just dandy with other people's will being thwarted.
Then again, I'm not the one complaining about either the Senate or Super-Delegates, so maybe I'm just a lot less concerned with pure democracy and like republics.
Yep.
I live in California, so my vote is worth a lot less then the vote of someone in, say, Wyoming.
The original intent was that you didn't get a vote at all. The House represents the people of the various states, the Senate was supposed to represent the states themselves, which is why Senators were elected by the state legislatures. And that's why the smallest state got the same vote as the biggest state, the same way you and I get the same one vote Bill Gates and Warren Buffett get despite the fact that Bill and Warren are the ones getting stuck with the check.
The original intent was that the federal government would be a weak organization with a few defined powers to make sure that a bunch of largely autonomous state governments didn't thwart interstate commerce or get invaded by outside powers. And those states were voluntarily participating in the union, and could leave at will.
So, since each state was a separate government, each got the same representation in this governing body lightly overseeing that they didn't act despotically.
Then several coup d'etats gradually overthrew this system, starting with Lincoln, and installed a tyrannical central government.
Many people do.
I would just point out that there are many leftists who complain about this.
Reasonable Democratic Challenge Hour: Name me a war that HRC has not been for.
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/1.....e_sanders/
Go into the comments and read out old friend Tony's take. Namely, to get what we want we need to triangulate so that we can vote for a politician that doesn't support-- and never has-- our aims over probably the most principled and honest politician since, well, I don't know when. Lincoln?
Hey. I am an honest Pyrate. When I point a pistol at you and say "Stand and Deliver". I am being completely honest about robbing you. Just like Bernie !!!!! =D
Lysander Spooner agrees that you're more honest than the government. A low bar.
Uh, none?
I don't get what you're doing here. Did you get confused and think you're posting at Salon?
Hush now, if amsoc wants to bust Tony's chops a bit, he's welcome to.
With the presidential election all but being handed to them, the Democratic Party's...
Why do people keep thinking this? I mean, Romney was a shoo in, right?
the most principled and honest politician since, well, I don't know when. Lincoln?
Uh. Wow.
Bernbots: more delusional than Paulbots?
Was a typo. They meant principaled.
"...the most principled and honest politician since, well, I don't know when. Lincoln?"
You misspelled Lenin; but yes, he was very upfront about what he wanted for his country, and Russia hasn't been the same since.
Super delegates for Hillary Clinton; did you know she supports the War on Womyn who Smoke Weed?
Yes, she does.
She is very sexist.
She also supports the War on Womyn that accuse Bill of sexual impropriety and the War on Womyn still in utero.
We need to start a change.org petition to allow Democratic Delegates to smoke pot on the convention floor
So Hillary get indicted and drops out. The Dems draft Biden to save them and all the Bernie supporters go nuts when they lose to a guy who wan't even in the race, so they stay home, electing Trump
If Obama tries to protect her and declines to indict Hillary, expect enough FBI brass including Comey to resign and start talking on TV about all the evidence they have against her. This would confirm what we've all known about her lifetime aversion to the truth, electing Trump.
Not a single member of the FBI, brass or otherwise, would resign because of Obama protecting Clinton.
Career bureaucrats who've climbed to the top of their agency ladders simply do not have that sort of integrity.
I'll take that bet. Comey threatened to resign in protest over wire-tapping issues when he was Deputy AG. if he decides to press charges and gets squashed, he'll do it again. If he quits and spills the beans on Clinton, her campaign will become an even bigger mess.
http://thehill.com/policy/nati.....estigation
I would love to see that.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Agreed. That would be the most shocking development in politics in my lifetime.
Clinton - Sanders
Pledged delegates 1,021 678
Superdelegates 467 26
Clinton wins with or without the superdelegates.
Superdelegates will not decide this.
What will is the Republicans nominate their candidate first.
After a very careful and weighed decision, they will nominate the one who is better projected under tons of consideration who can beat the Republican.
Anything else would be stupid. You're all Democrats, you're all on the same team, and the Republican candidates, THIS is the silent majority. I never knew how awful so many of my fellow countrymen were.
You're all Democrats
Citation needed.
Check your knowing-what-website-you're-on privilege, some guy!
Google it!
UP 12th result 2016
UP 12th results 2016
??Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
+_
+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.BuzzSelf90.com
Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??
Clik This Link inYour Browser??
? ? ? ? http://www.CashJoin60.com
Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??
Clik This Link inYour Browser??
? ? ? ? http://www.CashJoin60.com
Ho
Here's what I wonder:
(1) Bernie isn't a member of the Democrat Party. How is he even eligible to run for its nomination in the first place?
(2) Since he's not a member, what's stopping him from going third party?
(2) Since he's not a member, what's stopping him from going third party?
His love of life?
Is Trump a Republican? I mean really, since when?
It's pretty awesome how both parties are getting shredded from the inside by candidates who joined said parties just so they could run. I shed not a tear for either.
+1 Michael Bloomberg.
1987-99, 2009-11, 2012-present
1987-99
1990:
Trump's party affiliation is always in flux.
The big thing "stopping" him is the same reason he decided to run as a Democrat and Trump decided to run as a Republican: ballot access and the difficulty in running a national campaign without a party structure. Face it, if Trump and Sanders hadn't been running with the Ds and Rs, they wouldn't have gotten nearly as much attention. No debates, no sniping with other candidates for the nomination, and so-on. By running as Ds and Rs, they instantly got access to a huge platform.
And at this point, to lose the nomination and still be on the ballots as an independent would be hugely difficult due to ballot access laws including "sore loser" laws.
"sore loser" laws
Which are truly bullshit. If you have enough signatures gathered (or whatever) to demonstrate support, you should be on the ballot, period.
Laws put in place by establshment Rs and Ds.
Trump has the cash and name recognition to run as on a third party ticket, ala Ross Perot.
But who has access in all 50 states? Libertarians .... and Greens? Anybody else?
Do the Superdelgates need the jobs these spambots are pushing?!
I was texting a friend today and I said how depressing it must be if you were a Bernie supporter. The more Bernie won, the further behind he got. The more he lost, the further behinder he got.
Kind of like Bernie Sanders' finances. The more money Bernie makes the more in debt he gets.
You must not be on teh faysboux. Bernie is being scammed out of votes in every state, also, the important states haven't had their primaries yet, also, Kansas always predicted the Dem nominee, also, the REVOLUTION is still happening.
The Democratic Party's rigged primary system is designed to keep the party establishment in control.
So why did Hilary lose to Obama in the first place?
Crushing incompetence.
It's an excellent question.
Obama was fast-tracked as an establishment Democrat after his 2004 DNC speech. The Democrats have been desperate for an electable black candidate since the 1990s so when one popped up that wasn't from the race hustling industry, they dove at the chance. Hillary, traditionally strong with black voters didn't want to stand essentially opposed to black voters. I believe she put her own ambitions on hold, knowing the tide would be against her for the next 4 years, 8 years max if Obama gets re-elected.
For the Democrats, it's about "turns". Whose "turn" is it to get a Supreme Court seat, whose "turn" is it to be a governor, whose "turn" is it to be President. It wasn't even so much Obama himself, but it was a black man's "turn" to be president. Now it's Hillary's Turn, and look how tightly she's clenched this thing, even where Sanders "won".
Dole and McCain got their "turns".
"So why did Hilary lose to Obama in the first place?
Obama was elected at a time when American were woefully weary of the Iraq War.
Obama presented himself as being against the Iraq War. He was one of only a few Democrats who could present himself that way. Remember, after 9/11 and before Obama came into office, the Democrats were a rubber stamp for George W. Bush. They signed off on every single thing he did. Warrantless wiretapping, the whole nine yards.
When people say that Hillary is more of a neocon than Bush was, they aren't exaggerating. Hillary's primary criticism of Bush in that era was that George W. Bush wasn't going far enough. And that didn't play well once everybody became sick of the Iraq War. Hillary had voted for it in 2002.
It wasn't until John Murtha came out against the war that some Democrat politicians started to oppose it publicly. Before then, doing so was considered political suicide. That's why Obama stood out. There were very few Democrats who had not enthusiastically supported the Iraq War--and he was one of the few.
The opportunity for them to have the first black president be a democrat was too hard to pass up. This is a party that thrives on identity politics. They'll be bringing up that fact for centuries.
Let's not forget the money. Unions spent a few hundred million on him and received several hundred billion in kickbacks via the "stimulus". In other words, politics as usual.
It's gotta be really bad for the Reason writers that they're not going to be to finally come out of the closet as Bernie supporters.
The rigging of delegate and convention rules by the Democratic and Republican parties is a major stain on our Republic.
The electoral college is a vestige of giving slave states in the South extra votes. At least it originally served a purpose--albeit an evil one.
I don't see any reason for the nominating convention rules other than to overrule the voters. The only purpose of super-delegates I can see is to overrule the voters. That's why they're there.
It's bad enough that they won't do what we want them to once they get into office. Even worse if we can't get the people we want in office. That's one of the reasons why I don't see elections as bestowing legitimacy. Legitimacy has something to do with the will of the people, and just because you won an election doesn't mean what you want to do is the will of the people. At best, it might mean you represent the will of the super-delegates.
It is fucked up but the fact is that a party is not the government. They have leaders and members. The leaders make the rules. It's not a true democracy. Money talks, bullshit walks. No one is forced to be a member of the party. If the members don't like the nomination process they are free to join or start their own party. That could be what happens this year. A member revolt. I think it would be outstading if that happened in both parties. Probably won't last long as power tends to consolidate in it's quest to grow stronger which is why politics has such strange bedfellows.
Also, doesn't do much good to start another party if none of the money follows.
The real issues are the legal impediments to starting a new party and mounting serious competitive campaigns. The FEC and campaign finance reform are specifically intended to thwart third parties and preserve the hegemony of the GOP/DNC.
This is why there are third party runs going on inside the party primaries right now (Trump/Sanders). The parties may complain but this is exactly the result of their own policies and their corruption of the electoral system.
The real difficulty is single member districts.
You'll always have two dominant parties with single member districts.
That's why the parties may have changed what they stood for over time, but they're still called the same things.
If libertarians ever get major party influence, it probably won't be because everyone voted LP. It'll probably be because one of the two main parties co-opted the LP platform.
Either that or because we get rid of single member districts and move to proportional representation.
The only purpose of super-delegates I can see is to overrule the voters.
The super-delegates are there to look out for the interests of the party. This isn't simply a matter of electing a President, it's a matter of electing a President who represents the interests of the party - and the interests of the party are not necessarily the same as the interests of the voters. Think about it - if the GOP were interested strictly in nominating somebody who would win and represent the will of the voters, in 2012 they would have nominated Barack Obama. He won, and he won because more voters supported him than supported Mitt Romney. So if the party wants to put a thumb on the scale, well, it's their party. However much they may pretend or say they represent the will of the people, they don't and they don't really have to defend the idea that they represent the will of the party.
http://easterday2016quote.com/.....mages.html
http://wrestlemania32watchonline.com
I've made $76,000 so far this year working online and I'm a full time student.I'm using an online business opportunity I heard about and I've made such great money.It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it.
Open This LinkFor More InFormation..
??????? http://www.selfcash10.com
This is just one of the many reason why I left the Democratic Party for the Libertarian Party. I like the nomination process of the Libertarian Party much better.
That and they are actually Pro-Peace (instead of just paying lip-service), great on Civil Rights, and Privacy Rights.
Gary Johnson 2016!
+1
I escaped the GOP plantation.
After the Bushpigs wrecked everything they touched I said never again.
If Bruce Bartlett (GOP) had been elected instead of Bush/Cheney things would be vastly different. But the Wahabbi Christians took over the GOP like Goldwater warned us would happen.
This might be hard to believe, with a name like "Palin's Buttplug", but Palin's Buttplug is actually a GOP hating troll.
I hate both parties. But since this is a TEAM RED! hangout is just seems I hate the GOP alone to you guys.
Did you ever pay off on your bet?
It's in the mail.
It hates libertarians, that's why it's here. It's also a Hillary supporter.
It also hates facts, logic, and reality.
Is it wrong that I like to imagine PB on a GOP plantation
Swing lowwwww, sweet chaaaaariiot.
When you were slaves, you sang like birds!
It depends on whether he pays his gambling debts.
Speaking of delegate counts, I've been hearing a lot about Republican delegates lately. I've gleaned the following--somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
My understanding is that Republican delegates are all legally bound to vote for the candidate they were pledged to on the first ballot. Laws and rules vary by state, but my understanding is that if no candidate wins outright and there's a brokered contested convention, then after the first ballot, about 50% of the delegates are free to vote for whomever they please. After the second ballot, my understanding is that about 80% of them are free to vote for whomever they please.
It's not like the Republican delegates assigned by party chair . . . um . . persons across the country are likely to be super anti-establishment. So if there's a contested convention, then doesn't that mean Cruz wins?
That would seem to suggest that if The Donald doesn't win outright, then he loses, and all Cruz needs to do is play for a tie. You might think Kasich would benefit in that scenario, too, being the only establishment candidate left, but I think that would be really hard to sell not just to Republicans but to the American people. If they're gonna go with Kasich, they might as well go with Jeb Bush.
I remember and article in which it discussed that the Republican party might choose someone who didn't even run. So It might not be Cruz after all.
Either way though I think the Republican Party is going to fracture hard this election. If Trump gets the nomination, like 37% of Republicans polled said they would look for a third party. However if they nominate someone who didn't even run, I can only see this fracturing the whole party.
I agree, that's why I think Kasich isn't likely to benefit from a contested convention.
But I think the local party chairs who assign delegates are likely to assign pro-Trump people, either. Those guys are either Tea Party now or establishment. If it takes a second or third ballot, then my money would be on Cruz.
"But I think the local party chairs who assign delegates are likely [unlikely] to assign pro-Trump people, either."
Fixed!
Yeah I agree, they are screwed no matter what happens. The Pax Americana perpetual war wing is the dominate establishment wing. Those guys don't want Trump or Cruz mainly because they're not sure that they can control them. They would definately prefer Bush ir Rubio. Similar to progs, they believe the ends justify the means. They would have no problem changing whatever rules they need to declare a pro-empire guy as the republican candidate.
I heard mention on the radio yesterday that Cruz is starting to poll favorably over Clinton so they should keep that in mind. If they could get Kasich to drop and they put all their money behind Cruz, it's still possible he could win outright. Trump seems to be losing some steam except with his hardcore supporters Might be the compromise they need.
Actually, it appears he's dipped against Clinton. He was beating her earlier in the month.
Yeah, it was the Fox News poll I heard on the radio. If the DNC screws Bernie and the GOP screws Cruz (probably won't be necessary), that would seem to make a lot of voters ripe for the picking by a 3rd party. If the Libertarian party could not take advantage of a situation like that in a material way then that would be pretty sad. Not saying they would need to win, but you would hope they could muster more than a few percent like normal.
"Nick Gillespie, libertarian moment paging Nick Gillespie. Please pick up the white courtesy phone."
This is outrageous. A bird landed on Bernie's podium. Surely this is a sign from God the universe that Bernie is the chosen one.
Of course it's a sign from God that Obama was right when he recently said there's not much difference between capitalism and communism.
If there's a God and he chooses our politicians for us, then he's a vengeful, hate-filled God with a sick sense of humor.
It's even worse than that. He gave us free will and we chose the assholes ourselves.
Made in his image. //Looking around. Not impressed.
Who was it that suggested looking at the planet and realizing that if God made the Earth for creatures He was making in His own image, God is obviously a fish? Why would God make a planet for His Chosen Ones and make most of it inhospitable or downright uninhabitable by them?
And when we die, we expect to find Him laughing.
Fucking birds shit all over my car yesterday. Something should be done about this flying rat menace!
Is it a Prius?
I can see why they'd shit on a Prius. Why not shit on a Prius?
Altima. Stupid birds.
Is it one of those Altimas with the hybrid drive system?
Nope, it does have the CVT transmission which I do like. I do get really good mileage on long trips. In town probably average for a mid-size. When I bought this I looked at a Buick with the hybrid drive system. I would have bought that except the battery took up half the trunk. Could not even fit one of those really large suitcases in it. Considering our vacations are usually road trips and I'm hauling hiking and photography stuff too, wasn't going to work. Unfortunate because one of the smoothest rides I've ever had.
Yes, and I know that the T stands for transmission so adding the word it is redundant but not everyone would know what I was talking about.
ATM machine is my favorite in the department of redundancy department.
I can't drive CVTs or automatics. Just manual transmission.
"ATM machine is my favorite in the department of redundancy department."
Do you enter your PIN number?
I have an Altima too. And so does Banjos.
Also, VIN Number is a good one for redundancy.
Had an Altima with the 3.5 in it. Fairly quick car. Worst I've ever driven in the the snow, so I traded it in for the Rogue.
I have a legitimate squirrel and crow problem right now. They fight each other right outside my window, and it's fucking LOUD. I've found 2 dead crows and 3 dead squirrels in the last month.
There is trouble in the forest
There is trouble in the trees
For the squirrels want more sunlight
and the crows ignore their pleas
You might have to make them all equal
by hatchet, axe, and bb gun.
I had a squirrel problem a few weeks ago. The Ruger 10/22 with the 25-round mags and a red dot on top makes tree rat control short work.
I was down in Refugio the other day on business. And when I'm there we always end up popping of a few rounds in this guys back 40. He has an arsenal of about 500 firearms.
Anyway, this time he had finally finished the silencers he had been working on for the 10/22. About a 3" drop per 100 yards, but eerily quiet. It was awesome.
That sounds like paradise
It couldn't be from God because they don't believe in silly superstitions. So it must be a sign from the spirtual earth mother witch.
They should just call this year's democratic primaries 'The crook and the commie'.
You forgot to make those plural. The crooks and the commies.
Ah! Comment date fights!! I was wondering how there were so many comments.
Damn!
Lazy fucking interns got me.
They all on spring break? Getting their mexican pot ass sex party on?
Mexican pot ass sex party? Yeah? Fuck yeah.
That's what I'm saying:)
Me too.
"Who Will give me water
For the tears I must weep?"
So the Maiden wed to God cried with loud lament,
"That for my sweel Jesus I may rightly mourn."
Earth with trembling shook,
and the sun concealed his face with darkness;
for the light unwaning that shines from thee,
with thy body sank to darkness and the grave.
*
You think?
I try to.
Bless your heart, keep at it!
What do you mean by *?
Breakfast of Champions?
So what's that looks like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP6zYiIziUg
I thought the the Breakfast of Champions was Trobicin.
* Dramatization. Did not actually take place.
Thanks.
Rather than type the words that Eddie is attempting to hijack the conversation towards religion (it happens so often) I simply note the occasion with an asterisk. Saves time.
Thanks. I'll use that in the future (and not-too-distant, I'm sure).
You'd think eddie would ask to get paid for the propaganda.
So I was right, you are calling him an asshole.
Well...
...yeah.
Now if we could just get people to do that to all the PB trolling or not reply at all.
"Community" takes property, lefty twit gratified:
"Disputed tree in Inner Richmond is staying right where it is"
[...]
"Vanessa Ruotolo, a neighbor who spearheaded the landmarking effort, said she was gratified by the council's decision."
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/.....087532.php
Bitch Ruotolo has no skin in the game.
Her neighbor might skin her later, so maybe she does.
Urban Forestry Council? Jesus H Christ.
If that happened to my property, I guarantee you that the tree would be dead of "natural causes" by the end of the month. Along with every other tree on the entire block.
Um, how about ALL of the says?
You didn't plow that.
We voted on it. There.
Democracy is two Urban Forestry Council members, one psychopathic bitch, and a homeowner voting which tree can't be cut down.
If he really was doing it to put up somar I bet the rest of the nannies don't yet have solar and are jealous.
You're taking "owner" a bit too literally.
The property owner needs to call this guy. He's kind of a fixer of that type situation.
http://www.foxsports.com/colle.....yke-112615
Im making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do,
============ http://www.richi8.com
Faycal Cheffou: Mystery 'third Brussels bomber pictured on airport CCTV' is arrested and charged by police
Hilarious. First he's on TV, looking "assimilated," asking for religiously-accommodating welfare for Muslim "refugees." Then he's committing a terror attack.
So many sociopaths
"The suspect, who worked as a freelance journalist"
I look forward to the salon and huffpo articles freaking out about all of the inevitable prejudice to their revered profession.
I look forward to the actual prejudice.
That would be nice, maybe more people would stop believing everything they read
"...His report is critical of authorities serving meals to the asylum seekers during hours when Muslims would be fasting throughout Ramadan..."
I hope it was bacon with a bourbon chaser.
American left opening up trade with communist countries. Shutting down trade with U.S. States.
http://hotair.com/archives/201.....ivacy-law/
I remember back when I was in school, the Berkeley City Council and mayor kept trying to conduct foreign policy. They wrote letters to heads of state and passed ridiculous resolutions.
It was amazing. They had no idea that they were assholes. No idea.
Even funnier is that Cuba is not exactly known for gay rights. IIRC they dealt with AIDS by putting everyone who was HIV+ into camps.
But Che is cool. NC is redneck. Facts don't matter.
I still don't understand why the ability to choose what bathroom you go into only applies to the trans community, are they the only non-rapists?
"Much of the influence industry's goal is to get a slice of the $4 trillion federal budget."
Ya think? What might be the solution to that?
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/new.....42192.html
*wonder if that means "carney", "chuck-e-cheese manager", or "go go dancer"
Huh. I work on "Wall Street" - or at least that part of it that has been farmed out to Jersey City - and me and my company don't got no "influence". Oh, you mean their crude prejudice might not be entirely accurate?
Looks like at 1:37 in video the kid in the red shorts charges and stabs a kid who you see running away with a bloody neck at about 1:50. I'm guessing that was the murder.
http://heavy.com/news/2016/03/.....d-youtube/
Too bad vertical video is inadmissible.
I believe they just charged everyone
This is why God invented pump action shotguns.
True dat. Wait...racist!
Racist? Not really, I believe in equal distribution of pellets. There's enough for everyone.
I like how you can hear someone yelling at the driver who's attempting vehicular homicide not to hit the blue suv.
Clearly a result of McConnell indictaing he will block Obama's lame duck SCOTUS nominee.
Kids these days.
GOP convention would get much more interesting if the petition to allow guns inside the venue gets some traction.
PROTESTER INTEMEHDAYSHUN
We've known for a long time that an armed society is a polite society; maybe the protesters would be more humane if they occasionally ventured into an armed society from time to time.
ISIS is an armed society. Civilized people have managed to figure out how to be polite without the threat of violent death for hundreds of years.
Do these petitions require that the signatories publish their names? I'd assume this is an effort by protestors if anything.
the author of that piece seems to offer that same possibility
Nice.
Sounds like a very good deal to me dude, I kinda like the way that sounds.
http://www.Anon-Net.tk
In Los Angeles news: Guy tries to rob taco truck, gets shot by taquero
HILLARY SHOULD EXPOSE JOHN KASICH:
Why are they making such a fuss over Hillary's email server while Governor John Kasich permits Ohio to violate Civil Rights & illegally seize thousands of family homes for State Pensions & Partners of Kasich's Past Employers?
Expose this by Tweeting: "John Kasich's American Hustle" & a link to the story on Linkedin.
Make this viral in social media to show your support for Hillary.
Documented evidence is available for reporters & Hillary Clinton's Campaign
Sarc?
Stupidity?
How can you tell?
Incidentally, I don't understand why Bernie doesn't expose Hillary for being a spouse batterer.
By all reports she hit Bill either with a book or a lamp so hard that it made him bleed all over the place.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....laims.html
How can you tell?
Incidentally, I don't understand why Bernie doesn't expose Hillary for being a spouse batterer.
By all reports she hit Bill either with a book or a lamp so hard that it made him bleed all over the place.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....laims.html
Squirrels like this violence.
Not okay.
I'm sure everyone would be (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) very upset at her for doing that. No one, male or female, cares about the double standard toward spousal abuse.
And if voters can't get upset about her support for the Iraq War--Cindy Sheehan, where are you?--or turning Libya into yet another breeding ground of Islamist violence and a foothold for ISIS, they won't get on her case over clocking her horny sociopath of a husband.
Also, she accepted donations from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State.
Tulpa version 7.5?
That video was terrible.
Before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that...my... brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here ...
Clik This Link inYour Browser??
? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com
Marvelous article! I need individuals to know exactly how great this data is in your article.
nice things and it is inspirations for many youth
http://aadharcardstatusinfo.com/
love this.
university time table download
university date sheet pdf