If I could vote in any primary I wanted at will, I'd be registered as independent (unaffiliated). But in NY you can only vote in a primary within your registered party, which is why I am a registered dem.

I know... but it does tend to discourage some rather fun political games that are possible in so-called 'open primary' states such as Texas.

Such as: 'Organized effort by one party to vote in the other party's primary for a total loser so that your party's candidate is a shoe-in to win the General Election.'... Loads of fun!

Which can go "both" ways. so might it not tend to cancel out, eh?

Very true, Sarge... That COULD be the reason we ended up with Trump... ROFL.

I mean, after all... If it goes both ways, BOTH parties nominate total GOOBERHEADS... Which is pretty much what we got... Trump & Clinton...

One way or the other, though... It is the Democrat Party's fault that Trump got Elected.

No, it was the fault of the people that voted for "45", the Democratic Party had nothing to do with that. Your comment is akin to blaming the victim.

No, Bobby... Be honest, and not just some devil's advocate. The Victim is the entire nation, maybe even the World (to hear some talk). The Offender is the Democrat National Committee.

The D.N.C *could* have supported the nomination of the relatively mild populist candidate... Bernie. They knew which way the wind was blowing. They knew that enough of the People wanted someone other than an Establishment Candidate. Their decision to support the candidacy of the Establishment candidate (H. Clinton) cost them the election for President/Vice President. Plus the coattail effect might even have tipped Congress towards Democrat majorities.

The 2016 election was the Democrat's to lose... and boy, did they screw the pooch. The DNC has saddled us with that orangutan-orange-rug-wearing fascist dictator wannabe for the duration of his Presidency.

Think about it... An outsider running on the promise to 'drain the swamp' of Washington D.C. of Establishment Corruption and to 'put the USA first' and to 'look out for the forgotten little guy of the working class' to 'Make America Great Again'... Vs. the Establishment candidate running on the promise of 'more of the same'... Since most people are adverse to voting for a party other than the Democrats or the Republicans (such as the candidate I supported) what choice is there? Enough people in the right places voted Trump to make Trump the President.

The Democrat Party (as well as the Republican Party -- they do the SAME thing) is guilty of putting the interests of Party above the interests of the Nation. Of this, the DNC IS GUILTY... and is the root cause of the 'crime' of Trump's election. With Sanders, they might have won the whole ball of wax.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

The Swedish-Iranian actress tipped to share an Oscar for best foreign film fears she will be blocked by Donald Trump’s 'Muslim ban'.
http://www.thelocal.se/20170129/swedish-oscar-nominee-fears-being-trump-ban
But Bahar Pars, who was born in Iran but came to Sweden as a child, said she intended to board the plane nonetheless.

The Democrat Party (as well as the Republican Party -- they do the SAME thing) is guilty of putting the interests of Party above the interests of the Nation. Of this, the DNC IS GUILTY.

Welcome to the world of modern western politics.

Each & every one of them are constantly teaching a harsh lesson in Mind over Matter:

They don't Mind

WE don't Matter

One way or the other, though... It is the Democrat Party's fault that Trump got Elected.

No, it was the fault of the people that voted for "45", the Democratic Party had nothing to do with that. Your comment is akin to blaming the victim.

No, Bobby... Be honest, and not just some devil's advocate. The Victim is the entire nation, maybe even the World (to hear some talk). The Offender is the Democrat National Committee.

The D.N.C *could* have supported the nomination of the relatively mild populist candidate...

No they could not. In 2010 HRC purchased the DNC lock stock and barrel because of her 2008 defeat. She never shut down her 2008 campaign and it showed when in 2010 it was time to elect the next DNC. By the end of 2010, long before Bernie even decided to run HRC was the candidate.
Do you know who a super delegate is? Or who the DNC is?

---

No they could not. In 2010 HRC purchased the DNC lock stock and barrel because of her 2008 defeat. She never shut down her 2008 campaign and it showed when in 2010 it was time to elect the next DNC. By the end of 2010, long before Bernie even decided to run HRC was the candidate.
Do you know who a super delegate is? Or who the DNC is?

Precisely, Gary. Thank you for saying that. So, you are in effect saying that it is H. Clinton's fault Trump got elected... ROFL.

But, 2010 is not the first time she did that. She did it in 2006 in time for her 2008 run as well... but they didn't stay bought that time, and O'bummer got elected.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

No they could not. In 2010 HRC purchased the DNC lock stock and barrel because of her 2008 defeat. She never shut down her 2008 campaign and it showed when in 2010 it was time to elect the next DNC. By the end of 2010, long before Bernie even decided to run HRC was the candidate.
Do you know who a super delegate is? Or who the DNC is?

Precisely, Gary. Thank you for saying that. So, you are in effect saying that it is H. Clinton's fault Trump got elected... ROFL.

But, 2010 is not the first time she did that. She did it in 2006 in time for her 2008 run as well... but they didn't stay bought that time, and O'bummer got elected.

Of course it's all *her* fault and I'm sure you've got all the wikileaks links to provide support for your assertions.

Gary said that HRC did her best to ensure she'd be the Democratic Party candidate in 2016, not that the election of "45" was her fault. While the make up of the DNC may have helped her, it did not win her the nomination, that was down to the people that voted for her in the primaries and caucuses. By the end she had a greater lead over Sanders (3.7m) than she did over "45" in the general election; HRC's nomination had nothing to do with super-delegates, the DNC's hands were tied, their base had spoken, just as it spoke in November, i.e. in greater numbers than the person she ran against.

While it appears that the Clinton campaign made some mistakes on the campaign trail, it seems unlikely any candidate could have been prepared for the last minute intervention of the FBI saying "wow there might be something noteworthy here" only a week later to say "nah, nothing to see". You could see the effect of that unprecedented intervention in the poll trackers (e.g. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/), her numbers sank. So much for being the establishment candidate.

The truth is there's plenty of blame to share around for Clinton not winning the EC vote, the media (for not treating "45" seriously at the beginning, and giving him so much airtime throughout the campaign), Comey, Wikileaks (likely aided by Russia), and, of course, the Clinton campaign itself, for apparently not paying close enough attention to the way some states were trending. Finally, and most culpable, every person that voted for "45", you can be certain that HRC was not of their number.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Obama's "chosen" on the way out?

Knew they were fired anyway, so might as well make headlines. Might look good on a job application to some places.

---

No they could not. In 2010 HRC purchased the DNC lock stock and barrel because of her 2008 defeat. She never shut down her 2008 campaign and it showed when in 2010 it was time to elect the next DNC. By the end of 2010, long before Bernie even decided to run HRC was the candidate.
Do you know who a super delegate is? Or who the DNC is?

Precisely, Gary. Thank you for saying that. So, you are in effect saying that it is H. Clinton's fault Trump got elected... ROFL.

But, 2010 is not the first time she did that. She did it in 2006 in time for her 2008 run as well... but they didn't stay bought that time, and O'bummer got elected.

Of course it's all *her* fault and I'm sure you've got all the wikileaks links to provide support for your assertions.

Gary said that HRC did her best to ensure she'd be the Democratic Party candidate in 2016, not that the election of "45" was her fault. While the make up of the DNC may have helped her, it did not win her the nomination, that was down to the people that voted for her in the primaries and caucuses. By the end she had a greater lead over Sanders (3.7m) than she did over "45" in the general election; HRC's nomination had nothing to do with super-delegates, the DNC's hands were tied, their base had spoken, just as it spoke in November, i.e. in greater numbers than the person she ran against.

While it appears that the Clinton campaign made some mistakes on the campaign trail, it seems unlikely any candidate could have been prepared for the last minute intervention of the FBI saying "wow there might be something noteworthy here" only a week later to say "nah, nothing to see". You could see the effect of that unprecedented intervention in the poll trackers (e.g. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/), her numbers sank. So much for being the establishment candidate.

The truth is there's plenty of blame to share around for Clinton not winning the EC vote, the media (for not treating "45" seriously at the beginning, and giving him so much airtime throughout the campaign), Comey, Wikileaks (likely aided by Russia), and, of course, the Clinton campaign itself, for apparently not paying close enough attention to the way some states were trending. Finally, and most culpable, every person that voted for "45", you can be certain that HRC was not of their number.

You are still missing the point, Bobby...


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/24/bernie-sanders-serves-lawsuit-democratic-national-/

Sen. Bernard Sanders isn’t willing to give up his lawsuit against the Democratic Party just yet.

His presidential campaign informed a federal court Thursday that it had finally served the Democratic National Committee with the lawsuit, filed late last year after the DNC cut off Mr. Sanders‘ access to the party’s voter data files.

I am not talking about the General Election, but the Democrat Party nomination process.

Had the DNC not put Sanders behind the 8-ball from the git-go, he would likely have captured enough delegates in the nomination process to be the nominee... And Sanders would have mopped the floor with Trump's orange toupee in the General election.

The DNC's opposition to Sanders enabled Trump's victory.

But possible changes to the pledged delegates to the Democrat National Convention due to Democrat National Committee bias aside...

If the superdelegates (party leadership) had accurately gauged the political winds that were blowing at the time and supported Sanders, he would have been the nominee (and almost certainly would be '45' now instead of the Trumphole).

Clinton got 2205 of the pledged delegates to 1846 for Sanders. They needed 2383 to win the nomination, so neither one won it outright on pledged delegates. The Superdelegates were the deciding factor.

Sanders got 43 1/2 of them leading to a total of 1889 1/2, putting him only 493 1/2 delegates short.

Clinton got 570 1/2 of the superdelegates. If only 493 1/2 of them had supported Sanders instead (leaving Clinton with 77 of them), Sanders would have won the Democrat nomination, and almost certainly would have won the General election, and by the coattail effect likely would have further lessened the Republican majorities in the House and Senate, if not eliminated them.

The Democrats need to stop blaming anyone but themselves for the Trumpitis we have at the moment.

So... your points:

1. Clinton did NOT win the Democrat nomination because of those that voted for her in the primaries, etc. The DNC (and the rest of the Democrat party leadership) put her there... She certainly WAS the establishment candidate.

2. If Sanders had been the nominee, the FBI statement would have been meaningless.

3. Clinton not winning the EC vote... again, meaningless if Sanders was the nominee.

Think about it... Sanders was campaigning to the same group that Trump was... The working class that has been decimated and given the shaft by 'politics as usual'. Many of these had traditionally been Democrats. The Democrat party has thrown them 'under the bus', at least as far back as Bill Clinton (he supported and signed NAFTA), and likely before.

Think about it, man...

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

These days, regardless of type of job, if pne is working full time and under some amount I can't imagine to name, it feels like "working class". It seems "white collar" and "blue collar" lines are far beyond blurred. And I'm sure some will disagree with me. But I'll guarantee a good percentage that think I am wrong and are classical working class are making more than me. Perhaps a lot more.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

You are still missing the point, Bobby...

3.7 million more votes in primaries and caucuses seems to be the point you're missing.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/24/bernie-sanders-serves-lawsuit-democratic-national-/

Sen. Bernard Sanders isn’t willing to give up his lawsuit against the Democratic Party just yet.

His presidential campaign informed a federal court Thursday that it had finally served the Democratic National Committee with the lawsuit, filed late last year after the DNC cut off Mr. Sanders‘ access to the party’s voter data files.

And a month later http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-dnc-lawsuit-campaign-222659

I am not talking about the General Election, but the Democrat Party nomination process.

The won that Clinton won? Decisively.

Had the DNC not put Sanders behind the 8-ball from the git-go, he would likely have captured enough delegates in the nomination process to be the nominee... And Sanders would have mopped the floor with Trump's orange toupee in the General election.

You have access to an alternate universe in which this happened? If not you cannot know this to be true.

The DNC's opposition to Sanders enabled Trump's victory.

Again, unknowable.

But possible changes to the pledged delegates to the Democrat National Convention due to Democrat National Committee bias aside...

If the superdelegates (party leadership) had accurately gauged the political winds that were blowing at the time and supported Sanders, he would have been the nominee (and almost certainly would be '45' now instead of the Trumphole).

Clinton got 2205 of the pledged delegates to 1846 for Sanders. They needed 2383 to win the nomination, so neither one won it outright on pledged delegates. The Superdelegates were the deciding factor.

Just as they do in general, the Superdelegates voted predominantly for the person that won the most pledged delegates, i.e. the person that won the primaries and caucuses. It's also unknowable what effect a Superdelegate revolt might have had on Democratic Party support in the general election, there may have been a large group of people rightfully feeling disenfranchised.

Sanders got 43 1/2 of them leading to a total of 1889 1/2, putting him only 493 1/2 delegates short.

Clinton got 570 1/2 of the superdelegates. If only 493 1/2 of them had supported Sanders instead (leaving Clinton with 77 of them), Sanders would have won the Democrat nomination, and almost certainly would have won the General election, and by the coattail effect likely would have further lessened the Republican majorities in the House and Senate, if not eliminated them.

The Democrats need to stop blaming anyone but themselves for the Trumpitis we have at the moment.

Democratic Party supporters voted in greater numbers for their candidate than any other party's supporters and they are to blame? No, the blame lies with those that supported "45".

So... your points:

1. Clinton did NOT win the Democrat nomination because of those that voted for her in the primaries, etc. The DNC (and the rest of the Democrat party leadership) put her there... She certainly WAS the establishment candidate.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on why Clinton won the nomination. Though remind me, is the FBI part of, or separate from, the establishment?

2. If Sanders had been the nominee, the FBI statement would have been meaningless.

Agreed. Does that make the FBI intrusion into the election acceptable? Do you believe that intrusion had no effect on the outcome?

3. Clinton not winning the EC vote... again, meaningless if Sanders was the nominee.

Unknowable.

Think about it... Sanders was campaigning to the same group that Trump was... The working class that has been decimated and given the shaft by 'politics as usual'. Many of these had traditionally been Democrats. The Democrat party has thrown them 'under the bus', at least as far back as Bill Clinton (he supported and signed NAFTA), and likely before.

Think about it, man...

What makes you think I haven't? It's quite possible that if Sanders had won the nomination he could've gone on to win the general election; I don't believe he would, but it's possible. To my mind, it's far more likely that he'd have been discredited for being a self-confessed socialist. We've seen how frothy some can be about Democratic Party candidates and their supposed socialist tendencies, imagine what it would have been like if there really were a socialist running for the White House.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

You are still missing the point, Bobby...

3.7 million more votes in primaries and caucuses seems to be the point you're missing.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/24/bernie-sanders-serves-lawsuit-democratic-national-/

Sen. Bernard Sanders isn’t willing to give up his lawsuit against the Democratic Party just yet.

His presidential campaign informed a federal court Thursday that it had finally served the Democratic National Committee with the lawsuit, filed late last year after the DNC cut off Mr. Sanders‘ access to the party’s voter data files.

And a month later http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-dnc-lawsuit-campaign-222659

I am not talking about the General Election, but the Democrat Party nomination process.

The won that Clinton won? Decisively.

Had the DNC not put Sanders behind the 8-ball from the git-go, he would likely have captured enough delegates in the nomination process to be the nominee... And Sanders would have mopped the floor with Trump's orange toupee in the General election.

You have access to an alternate universe in which this happened? If not you cannot know this to be true.

The DNC's opposition to Sanders enabled Trump's victory.

Again, unknowable.

But possible changes to the pledged delegates to the Democrat National Convention due to Democrat National Committee bias aside...

If the superdelegates (party leadership) had accurately gauged the political winds that were blowing at the time and supported Sanders, he would have been the nominee (and almost certainly would be '45' now instead of the Trumphole).

Clinton got 2205 of the pledged delegates to 1846 for Sanders. They needed 2383 to win the nomination, so neither one won it outright on pledged delegates. The Superdelegates were the deciding factor.

Just as they do in general, the Superdelegates voted predominantly for the person that won the most pledged delegates, i.e. the person that won the primaries and caucuses. It's also unknowable what effect a Superdelegate revolt might have had on Democratic Party support in the general election, there may have been a large group of people rightfully feeling disenfranchised.

Sanders got 43 1/2 of them leading to a total of 1889 1/2, putting him only 493 1/2 delegates short.

Clinton got 570 1/2 of the superdelegates. If only 493 1/2 of them had supported Sanders instead (leaving Clinton with 77 of them), Sanders would have won the Democrat nomination, and almost certainly would have won the General election, and by the coattail effect likely would have further lessened the Republican majorities in the House and Senate, if not eliminated them.

The Democrats need to stop blaming anyone but themselves for the Trumpitis we have at the moment.

Democratic Party supporters voted in greater numbers for their candidate than any other party's supporters and they are to blame? No, the blame lies with those that supported "45".

So... your points:

1. Clinton did NOT win the Democrat nomination because of those that voted for her in the primaries, etc. The DNC (and the rest of the Democrat party leadership) put her there... She certainly WAS the establishment candidate.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on why Clinton won the nomination. Though remind me, is the FBI part of, or separate from, the establishment?

2. If Sanders had been the nominee, the FBI statement would have been meaningless.

Agreed. Does that make the FBI intrusion into the election acceptable? Do you believe that intrusion had no effect on the outcome?

3. Clinton not winning the EC vote... again, meaningless if Sanders was the nominee.

Unknowable.

Think about it... Sanders was campaigning to the same group that Trump was... The working class that has been decimated and given the shaft by 'politics as usual'. Many of these had traditionally been Democrats. The Democrat party has thrown them 'under the bus', at least as far back as Bill Clinton (he supported and signed NAFTA), and likely before.

Think about it, man...

What makes you think I haven't? It's quite possible that if Sanders had won the nomination he could've gone on to win the general election; I don't believe he would, but it's possible. To my mind, it's far more likely that he'd have been discredited for being a self-confessed socialist. We've seen how frothy some can be about Democratic Party candidates and their supposed socialist tendencies, imagine what it would have been like if there really were a socialist running for the White House.

Remember those 3 'surprise' States that Trump won in the EC? Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania? Guess who won two of those in the Democrat Primaries? Yep, Sanders won Michigan with 49.8% of the vote vs. Clinton's 48.3%, and Wisconsin (with 56.6% for Sanders vs. Clinton's 43.1%). Both of those states were CLOSE contests in the General election. How many Trump voters cast their votes on the basis of anti-Hillary Clinton? How many Trump voters voted for him because he campaigned directly to the disaffected working class? (Sanders campaigned to them as well). Quite a number of those likely would have voted Sanders. How many others across the nation would have done the same? Likely quite a number, especially in the traditionally Democrat 'rust-belt' area where the working class has been hit the hardest. Trump carried most of those States.

It would likely have been enough to put Sanders in the White House instead of the Trumphole.

And the FBI isn't part of the "Establishment". The "Establishment" is Party, not Government. The Republican party Establishment (party leadership) allowed the populist RINO Trump. They won the General Election. The Democrat party Establishment (party leadership -- aka the Super-delegates) fought the populist DINO Sanders. They lost the General Election.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

That's twice I spilt my coffee today :-)

Turkeys voting for Xmas

What makes you think I haven't? It's quite possible that if Sanders had won the nomination he could've gone on to win the general election; I don't believe he would, but it's possible. To my mind, it's far more likely that he'd have been discredited for being a self-confessed socialist. We've seen how frothy some can be about Democratic Party candidates and their supposed socialist tendencies, imagine what it would have been like if there really were a socialist running for the White House.

Remember those 3 'surprise' States that Trump won in the EC? Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania? Guess who won two of those in the Democrat Primaries? Yep, Sanders won Michigan with 49.8% of the vote vs. Clinton's 48.3%, and Wisconsin (with 56.6% for Sanders vs. Clinton's 43.1%). Both of those states were CLOSE contests in the General election. How many Trump voters cast their votes on the basis of anti-Hillary Clinton? How many Trump voters voted for him because he campaigned directly to the disaffected working class? (Sanders campaigned to them as well). Quite a number of those likely would have voted Sanders. How many others across the nation would have done the same? Likely quite a number, especially in the traditionally Democrat 'rust-belt' area where the working class has been hit the hardest. Trump carried most of those States.

It would likely have been enough to put Sanders in the White House instead of the Trumphole.

And the FBI isn't part of the "Establishment". The "Establishment" is Party, not Government. The Republican party Establishment (party leadership) allowed the populist RINO Trump. They won the General Election. The Democrat party Establishment (party leadership -- aka the Super-delegates) fought the populist DINO Sanders. They lost the General Election.

The Establishment "The Establishment generally denotes a dominant group or elite that holds power or authority in a nation or organization..", it's now clear that you meant "The DNC Establishment"; the FBI is certainly a part of "The Establishment" in general ("a group that holds power or authority in a nation)".

As for what the outcome might have been if Democratic Party supporters had made Sanders their candidate instead of Clinton, despite your assertions, it's unknowable, or "pure speculation"; thus maintaining as you do, that choosing Clinton cost the Democratic Party the election is likewise unknowable. What is known is that Clinton's polling numbers tumbled after the FBI intervention, whether that would have happened without the intervention is unknowable, though it seems unlikely, the polling numbers been fairly static the week prior to Comey's statement, and there was little other negative news for the Clinton campaign at the time.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

If President Trump visits this country he'll have to play by our rules if he f - ing likes to or not

House of Commons Speaker John Bercow has said he would be "strongly
opposed" to US President Donald Trump addressing the Houses of Parliament during his state visit to the UK.

Mr Bercow told MPs "opposition to racism and sexism" were "hugely important considerations".

He was applauded by SNP MPs after his comments.

President Trump was invited to make a state visit after meeting Theresa May in Washington last month.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38884604

Suck it up buttercup !!

---

Life is what you make of it :-)

When i'm good i'm very good , but when i'm bad i'm shi#eloads better ;-) In't I " buttercups " p.m.s.l at authoritie !!;-)

And the worst part of this all is listening to the yapping of the snowflakes...............
Sheesh.

---

"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."

Oh my. How many Rodney Kings will there be not that Sessions is AG?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/08/politics/jeff-sessions-vote-senate-slog/

(oh wait that is cnn, so it must be fake news!)

---

Oh my. How many Rodney Kings will there be not that Sessions is AG?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/08/politics/jeff-sessions-vote-senate-slog/

(oh wait that is cnn, so it must be fake news!)

By drawing attention to Sen. Elizabeth Warren's speech by blocking her, only made sure more people knew got to know about it.

---

---

#resist

Bad comparison. There are three times more IQ points in the bottom picture.

---