On 2/11/16 8:10 AM, Tim wrote:
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 7:06:11 AM UTC-6, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 2/11/16 8:03 AM, Tim wrote:
Looks like Bernie got a lesson on delegate re-distribution..

he gets 15

I have a strong feeling that the concept of "super delegates" was not
news to Bernie or any other professional politician. Not everyone lives
in the bubble of ignorance.

he gets 15 and she gets 17 and she didn't have to work for it. lol



D'uh. Read up on "super delegates" and report back when you break out of
the bubble. Here's a hint: "super delegates" are not chosen on the basis
of popularity with the voters.

As for "work for it," well, that's another bubble for you, if you are
presuming that Hillary and Bernie were not working really hard to win
the New Hampshire primary.

On 2/11/2016 8:14 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 2/11/16 8:10 AM, Tim wrote:
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 7:06:11 AM UTC-6, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 2/11/16 8:03 AM, Tim wrote:
Looks like Bernie got a lesson on delegate re-distribution..

he gets 15

I have a strong feeling that the concept of "super delegates" was not
news to Bernie or any other professional politician. Not everyone lives
in the bubble of ignorance.

he gets 15 and she gets 17 and she didn't have to work for it. lol



D'uh. Read up on "super delegates" and report back when you break out of
the bubble. Here's a hint: "super delegates" are not chosen on the basis
of popularity with the voters.


That's the point Harry. Bernie clobbered Hillary in NH's primary
setting a record for what, coming in 22 points ahead? Yet, Hillary
walks away with the majority of the NH delegates in her nomination
quest. Talk about the "establishment".

On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 08:14:32 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

D'uh. Read up on "super delegates" and report back when you break out of
the bubble.

It simply points out how little the parties value the votes of their
constituents. People who think the country is ruled by the ballot box
are the ones in the bubble. The question is whether Bernie's quest to
reduce the power of the 1% will extend to his own party apparatchiks.

On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 08:06:08 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 2/11/16 8:03 AM, Tim wrote:
Looks like Bernie got a lesson on delegate re-distribution..



I have a strong feeling that the concept of "super delegates" was not
news to Bernie or any other professional politician. Not everyone lives
in the bubble of ignorance.

===

Harry, your own bubble of ignorance is so vast that you can't tell
where it begins or ends.

On 2/11/2016 8:18 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 08:06:08 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 2/11/16 8:03 AM, Tim wrote:
Looks like Bernie got a lesson on delegate re-distribution..



I have a strong feeling that the concept of "super delegates" was not
news to Bernie or any other professional politician. Not everyone lives
in the bubble of ignorance.

===

Harry, your own bubble of ignorance is so vast that you can't tell
where it begins or ends.

There is no beginning or end, it's a sphere.
I do hope Bernie gets the word out that the all powerful control the
outcome of democratic voting. The same "all powerful" that Krause CLAIMS
to despise.

On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 09:08:53 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote:

On 2/11/2016 8:18 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 08:06:08 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 2/11/16 8:03 AM, Tim wrote:
Looks like Bernie got a lesson on delegate re-distribution..



I have a strong feeling that the concept of "super delegates" was not
news to Bernie or any other professional politician. Not everyone lives
in the bubble of ignorance.

===

Harry, your own bubble of ignorance is so vast that you can't tell
where it begins or ends.

There is no beginning or end, it's a sphere.
I do hope Bernie gets the word out that the all powerful control the
outcome of democratic voting. The same "all powerful" that Krause CLAIMS
to despise.

Funny how that seems to fall by the wayside when his sweetie is the beneficiary.
--

Ban liars, tax cheats, idiots, and narcissists...not guns!

On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 05:03:33 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:

Looks like Bernie got a lesson on delegate re-distribution..

LOL!
--

Ban liars, tax cheats, idiots, and narcissists...not guns!

On 2/11/2016 2:00 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

So, who won the NH Democratic primary? One would think that Bernie won,
having received 60 percent of the vote.

Not so, it seems. The DNC doesn't want Bernie so they have
manipulated the delegate count by apply their "super delegates" votes
in favor of Hillary. Basically, the DNC is saying, "Screw you voters
.... *we* will decide who becomes the Democratic nominee."

What is a "superdelegate" you ask?

Superdelegates are political insiders. They consist of state officials,
national officials, Democratic (in this case) Committee members and
others with "special" interests in a specific candidate.
They can cast their vote any way they want to regardless of who wins the
popular vote.

A Democratic candidate needs 2,382 total delegates to win the
nomination. Of those, 712 are superdelegates. Hillary, despite a
virtual tie with Sanders in Iowa and a major popular vote loss in NH,
still is far ahead of Sanders in committed delegates. She currently has
394 delegates compared to 44 for Bernie. 360 of Hillary's delegates are
"superdelegates".

This is a joke and a mockery of what are supposed to be elections
determined by voters. The DNC will decide who their candidate is.


THAT SHOULD **** OFF EVEN THE STAUNCHEST SANE DEMOCRAT.

On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 08:55:01 -0500, Justan Olphart
wrote:

THE STAUNCHEST SANE DEMOCRAT

Isn't that a contradiction of terms?

On 2/11/2016 12:01 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 08:55:01 -0500, Justan Olphart
wrote:

THE STAUNCHEST SANE DEMOCRAT

Isn't that a contradiction of terms?


You can't toss ALL democrats into the barrel of rotten apples. There are
a few honest thinking democrats left.