Superdelegate thing is sickening

[Damocles]

Discussing may stir others to involvement. It's a valid activity. Plus destroying the mental prison of the interlaced thought matrix of deception is full time work in itself.

Discussing "may" do something, yet with the amount of "outrage" expressed against it in this thread you would figure they'd want to be assured.

Again, the only way to ensure "evil" will prevail is to do nothing.

Talk is cheap, if you don't like it get involved yourself, otherwise just quit your whining and expecting others to take up your mantle.

Discuss as you will, it "may" even get others who actually do something to become Superdelegates. If nerdboy can become a Superdelegate then too few people participate.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Discussing "may" do something, yet with the amount of "outrage" expressed against it in this thread you would figure they'd want to be assured.

Again, the only way to ensure "evil" will prevail is to do nothing.

Talk is cheap, if you don't like it get involved yourself, otherwise just quit your whining and expecting others to take up your mantle.

Discuss as you will, it "may" even get others who actually do something to become Superdelegates. If nerdboy can become a Superdelegate then too few people participate.

Free speech says I don't have to stop whining. Masons are conspirators against humanity.

 

[Timshel]

Exactly! I mean, geez! It's so exactly like that its amazing! Tens of thousands in crowds protesting the Superdelegates, and those Democratic Party Tanks just running them over!

Wow, you made one fantabulous analogy! It was all their fault too.

The point is, that an illegitimate and unfair process is not made legitimate by refusing or failing to participate. Many people feel the opposite, that participation legitimizes the process. One could easily argue that they are simply poor losers. Honestly, that argument is better though still wrong.

 

[Damocles]

Free speech says I don't have to stop whining. Masons are conspirators against humanity.

Quit whining.

 

[Damocles]

The point is, that an illegitimate and unfair process is not made legitimate by refusing or failing to participate. Many people feel the opposite, that participation legitimizes the process. One could easily argue that they are simply poor losers. Honestly, that argument is better though still wrong.

People are taking my comments too seriously. They are fascetious and meant to be so.

However, that awesome analogy of getting run over by tanks was priceless.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Quit whining.

Make me.

 

[Damocles]

The point is, that an illegitimate and unfair process is not made legitimate by refusing or failing to participate. Many people feel the opposite, that participation legitimizes the process. One could easily argue that they are simply poor losers. Honestly, that argument is better though still wrong.

Plus it is not "illegitimate". What would be illegitimate would be changing the rules now after the whole thing started.

 

[Damocles]

Make me.

ZOMG! BAN!!!

 

[Damocles]

And it ignores my statement:

"Anyway, I was talking about the candidates, such as HillBilly upset her win in FL will mean nothing...

so, Emo-boy.... Tell me again how much you love to be owned by me..."

 

[Timshel]

Plus it is not "illegitimate". What would be illegitimate would be changing the rules now after the whole thing started.

I am not arguing they should change the rules now, just that all of us have a right to complain about it whether we choose to participate in the parties process or not.

 

[Damocles]

I am not arguing they should change the rules now, just that all of us have a right to complain about it whether we choose to participate in the parties process or not.

The thing of it is they are acting as if this is the first time that Superdelegates were seated. It's been this way for a long time. Why didn't they complain before it may change who runs?

Complacency is the enemy of their argument about it now. They did nothing at all until they suddenly noticed it?

And again, this ignores my original post was not about the complacent members of the party, but about the candidates like HillBillary trying to change the rules and count delegates that were not included at the beginning of it all...

Ineffective whining after the fact is just sad. I'll call the whaambulance for ya.

 

[Timshel]

The thing of it is they are acting as if this is the first time that Superdelegates were seated. It's been this way for a long time. Why didn't they complain before it may change who runs?

Complacency is the enemy of their argument about it now. They did nothing at all until they suddenly noticed it?

And again, this ignores my original post was not about the complacent members of the party, but about the candidates like HillBillary trying to change the rules and count delegates that were not included at the beginning of it all...

Ineffective whining after the fact is just sad. I'll call the whaambulance for ya.

Maybe they did not notice it. I did not. Bitching and whining serve a useful purpose of notifying others of the problem.

 

[Damocles]

Maybe they did not notice it. I did not. Bitching and whining serve a useful purpose of notifying others of the problem.

I don't need to be notified. It's not my party.

And one more time, the original post that started all of this was not about the members of the party, but the candidates who want the rules changed now that it is close.

However, running around now whining about it is fixing nothing. Now that they know what are they going to do about it? So far the only suggestion is more whining because working to fix it would be "participating in evil" or some other excuse. They won't change their vote, they won't do anything that might actually force those who created this crap to listen, and they refuse to become "part of that system" yet their votes will perpetuate it.

What you have is ineffective whining that will change nothing at all.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

Does no one else share the view that the Democrats are endangering their almost certain victory in November if their Superdelegates select a candidate contrary to the wishes of primary voters?

 

[Epicurus]

Does no one else share the view that the Democrats are endangering their almost certain victory in November if their Superdelegates select a candidate contrary to the wishes of primary voters?

Unfuckingdoubtedly.

I can't see millions of Obama supporters showing up to cast a ballot in November for someone who unfairly stole the nomination from their candidate.

I am sure Howard Dean sees this, as well.

 

[Timshel]

I don't need to be notified. It's not my party.

And one more time, the original post that started all of this was not about the members of the party, but the candidates who want the rules changed now that it is close.

However, running around now whining about it is fixing nothing. Now that they know what are they going to do about it? So far the only suggestion is more whining because working to fix it would be "participating in evil" or some other excuse. They won't change their vote, they won't do anything that might actually force those who created this crap to listen, and they refuse to become "part of that system" yet their votes will perpetuate it.

What you have is ineffective whining that will change nothing at all.

Whining about it DOES help to fix it because it spurs others to act.

It's not my party either, yet I still get to bitch and criticize the process. If anything it makes me less likely to vote Dem. Maybe that will spur change maybe it will not, but remaining silent furthers nothing.

I did not hear anyway say that "participating is evil." I mentioned that argument, said it was better than yours, but still wrong.

If Obama wins real delegates, and the SD's turn this over to Hillary in the end, there should be books published & websites created listing every one of their names, where they hold elected office and when the next opportunity will be to vote for their opponent.

Sounds like he is suggesting action to affect change and participating in the process. It also acknowledges a first step of whining. We have this thing called free speech for a reason.

 

[Damocles]

Whining about it DOES help to fix it because it spurs others to act.

It's not my party either, yet I still get to bitch and criticize the process. If anything it makes me less likely to vote Dem. Maybe that will spur change maybe it will not, but remaining silent furthers nothing.

I did not hear anyway say that "participating is evil." I mentioned that argument, said it was better than yours, but still wrong.



Sounds like he is suggesting action to affect change and participating in the process. It also acknowledges a first step of whining. We have this thing called free speech for a reason.

It doesn't spur anybody to act. Seriously. If the party wonks face no consequences then there is no "spurring" going on. If you feel all that strongly about it, leave the party. They'll change their tune they like having the registration advantage.

And again, my point was that "just whining" does nothing. Not that whining doesn't start something. My question was "What are you going to do about it?" so far my answer is "whine, that's enough because somebody else will do something."

It's rubbish.

 

[Timshel]

It doesn't spur anybody to act. Seriously. If the party wonks face no consequences then there is no "spurring" going on. If you feel all that strongly about it, leave the party. They'll change their tune they like having the registration advantage.

And again, my point was that "just whining" does nothing. Not that whining doesn't start something. My question was "What are you going to do about it?" so far my answer is "whine, that's enough because somebody else will do something."

It's rubbish.

The post by Onceler did not suggest "just whining."

Even if he hadn't specifically mentioned action items, you have no basis to assume his participation will stop with whining. I wonder if you are projecting here?

Finally, some people only wish to participate to the point of "whining." I don't believe that Paine did much more than that in the US and his impact was substantial. "Whiners" may accomplish worthwhile goals by inspiring others to act and there could be numerous valid reasons why they can not or do not wish to participate further. It's rather arrogant of you to dismiss their impact and I could understand encouraging further actions, but it is wrong and counterproductive to your supposed goal to attack them for "whining" or listing their grievances.

 

[Damocles]

The post by Onceler did not suggest "just whining."

Even if he hadn't specifically mentioned action items, you have no basis to assume his participation will stop with whining. I wonder if you are projecting here?

Finally, some people only wish to participate to the point of "whining." I don't believe that Paine did much more than that in the US and his impact was substantial. "Whiners" may accomplish worthwhile goals by inspiring others to act and there could be numerous valid reasons why they can not or do not wish to participate further. It's rather arrogant of you to dismiss their impact and I could understand encouraging further actions, but it is wrong and counterproductive to your supposed goal to attack them for "whining" or listing their grievances.

Ergo, I was not talking to Onceler or to you, was I?

Does everybody have to take every fascetious comment seriously and pretend it is about them when it was clearly pointed out that it was about the candidates who wanted to change rules? What is up with you of late? You think I'm attacking you even when I'm not talking to or about you for some reason.

 

[blackascoal]

yeah, apparently in WI you "run" to be a superdelegate. He knocked off a couple others to get to be the superdelegate. Anyone care to wager how many of his college friends voted for him?

I am personally glad the Dems have these superdelegates. It provides amusement. If the supers shift the nomination to Hillary against the actual delegates majority, it will be really interesting to see what kind of backlash (if any) there is from the Dem voters.

John Mccain would be the next president if this happens .. and democrats will lose seats in the House and Senate that would have easily been theirs to win.