I didnt hear anything about an invitation from the pope? Wasnt Bernie invited to the vatican?
Printable View
I didnt hear anything about an invitation from the pope? Wasnt Bernie invited to the vatican?
Idk if you're following this Sanders of a guy but he has been very consistent for over 50 years that he's been politically active. Like, freakishly consistent. As in saying the same sentences for 50 years straight. He even refused to speak as that joo convention, and he's among them.
I can see a book, after all he dropped a hot indie folk spoken word mix-tape. I see him doing a follow up with some Killer Mike where they make arm flailing videos in their wives basements and erase footage of her wedding when they run out of space. Produced by The Sheepish Lord of Chaos.
Hypocrisy: Hillary denounces Panama's 'outrageous tax havens', yet many named in documents are Clinton donors
https://www.rt.com/usa/340480-clinto...panama-papers/
Lol. The irony
LOL
I liked this bit in the third link
Funny how these Clinton fans are the usually the same ones blasting right wing Trump supporters for their aggressive tactics.Quote:
Such a tactic would be unlikely to win the hearts of any Sanders supporters who Hillary Clinton will need in a general election. Even the perception among Bernie’s progressives that this was a plot by Brock will, in all probability, push many into the growing ‘Bernie Or Bust’ Movement. These fed up voters now represent a large enough slice of the Democratic base to cost Clinton victory in a close race.
And 2016 promises to be close. Clinton, whose favorability ratings continue to tank, is only up on average by 8.5 points over Republican front-runner Donald Trump, according to RealClearPolitics. A recent poll saw that number shrink to three. Hillary Clinton’s camp might not feel it needs Bernie’s progressives, but it absolutely does.
Though there is plenty of circumstantial evidence, logically speaking, the negatives of this scenario seem to outweigh the benefits.
What I dont understand is why only have one representative from each party anyway. Why not have 4 or 5 from each party that JUST the public get to vote for and these delegates or whatever have no say, just the people. Which ever party gets the most votes and which ever representative gets the most votes within that party is the president. It really is the lesser of two evils with Trump v Hillary and honestly that is the worst way to vote.
I find the whole US elections really overly confusing as it is, why not simplify it, give people more of a choice and leave those choices simply down to the people?
What do you mean that's basically how it works. The primaries are people choosing the person they want.
Its based on the popular vote and it recognized the states individuality.
But you can't have every state worth the same thing due to population differences.
Yeah but why bother have these primarys? Why not forget about individual states altogether and just have a number of people to choose from on voting day and each states count their own votes and add them all up. Why do delegates and super delegates get a big say, why not just the population?
This is kind of like what I mean:
https://www.rt.com/usa/341153-rigged...voting-system/
the US is a federation and every state has to be respected as a sovereign entity to an extent, so it's fits the system more. It gives each state a chance to have the candidates visit them and kiss their ass/speak on their unique issues.
Of course they don't go to all of them, but it's done a good job spreading out their messages and campaigns, or else they'll all be in California talking about weed and trannies for the whole election cycle.
^Not a chance.
lulz
The Queen of England promises to “take back” America if Trump is elected !!!
http://www.everynewshere.com/queen-e...trump-elected/