Repugs Don't Have To Nominate tRUMP; Dems Don't Have To Nominate HRC

[Bret Cahill]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/unconventional-18-inside-book-details-000000315.html

The symmetry goes further:

tRUMP is making a mockery of the GOP causing Repugs to lose down ballot.

HRC is making a mockery of the Dems causing Dems to lose down ballot.

tRUMP is jerryspringering mob rule on the economy against minority rights.

HRC is jerryspringering minority rights against majority rule on the economy.

There's a 3rd obvious symmetry. What is it?

_______________________________________________________________________________



Bret Cahill

[nickname unavailable]

bernie runs as a independent.

>
> Bret Cahill

[Desconhecido]

Bret Cahill wrote:
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/unconventional-18-inside-book-details-000000315.html

> The symmetry goes further:
> tRUMP is making a mockery of the GOP causing Repugs to lose down ballot.
>
> HRC is making a mockery of the Dems causing Dems to lose down ballot.
>
> tRUMP is jerryspringering mob rule on the economy against minority rights.
>
> HRC is jerryspringering minority rights against majority rule on the economy.
>
> There's a 3rd obvious symmetry. What is it?

That the only voters who are going to show up
for this election are the ones that went to
all the trouble to get a new valid voter ID

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

nickname unavailable wrote

>
> bernie runs as a independent.

So. I heard that the Gary Johnson/Koch Brothers/Cato Instit/Libertarians have recently also made it onto the ballots of "all 57 states"
(as the saying goes)

[nickname unavailable]

in many states that will be true.

[Bret Cahill]

> https://www.yahoo.com/news/unconventional-18-inside-book-details-000000315.html
>
> The symmetry goes further:
>
> tRUMP is making a mockery of the GOP causing Repugs to lose down ballot.
>
> HRC is making a mockery of the Dems causing Dems to lose down ballot.
>
> tRUMP is jerryspringering mob rule on the economy against minority rights.
>
> HRC is jerryspringering minority rights against majority rule on the economy.
>
> There's a 3rd obvious symmetry. What is it?

Trump won the GOP primary by 2X more votes than the next Republican yet the legacy media constantly entertain the most duct taped rationales for a brokered convention that according to Sabado would destroy the GOP and according to armed groups end with a blood bath.

HRC won the Dem primary by marginally more votes than the 16 pt lead most popular candidate, yet it's verboten for the legacy media to even discuss the purpose of super delegates let alone any possibility of an open convention where any possibility of violence has never been mentioned.

The media apparently assume the average Dem voter can't do 4th grade level math and 5th grade political strategy.

The reality is the media can no longer prop up the oligarchy and it will not take much of a pop to send yuge bloody chunks of media fanny sailing all over the place.


Bret Cahill

[Bret Cahill]

> > https://www.yahoo.com/news/unconventional-18-inside-book-details-000000315.html
> >
> > The symmetry goes further:
> >
> > tRUMP is making a mockery of the GOP causing Repugs to lose down ballot.
> >
> > HRC is making a mockery of the Dems causing Dems to lose down ballot.
> >
> > tRUMP is jerryspringering mob rule on the economy against minority rights.
> >
> > HRC is jerryspringering minority rights against majority rule on the economy.
> >
> > There's a 3rd obvious symmetry. What is it?
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
>
> bernie runs as a independent.

Sanders is smarter than Nader.

Without the GOP first breaking up -- apparently they are joining tRUMP -- that could only work with another meltdown. The notion that a 3rd party can somehow play a role when most Dems are clueless about how the media corrupt the party in the first place is up there with the gun nut fantasy that individualist ownership guns can influence policy when most are too lazy to vote.

If you can't get the goobers to risk a few minutes voting then you aren't going to get very many nutters to risk their lives for a violent take over of gummint.

Bundy proved this true which delivered a devastating blow to the nutter fantasy.

Similarly if you can't even make the simple case to the super delegates that they should do their historical duty and pick a winner then how are you going to make the case to the rank and file to join 3rd party to get tRUMP elected?

The search for purity in position papers has gotten more people killed.

There are a lot smarter things to do.

HRC refused to debate?

Fine!

A debate between tRUMP and Sanders will marginalize HRC and show the super delegates that, if they don't get on the stick, the Dems won't be running anyone in 2016 just like they didn't run anyone in 2000 or 2004.


Bret Cahill

[mog...@hotmail.com]

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 8:10:30 AM UTC-4, Bret Cahill wrote:
> > https://www.yahoo.com/news/unconventional-18-inside-book-details-

>
> HRC won the Dem primary by marginally more votes than the 16 pt lead most popular candidate, yet it's verboten for the legacy media to even discuss the purpose of super delegates

If Bernie, Cruz or Kasich were to get nominated now, it would smack of too little democracy. Even non-profit media knows that. (not just capitalized media)

[Bret Cahill]

> > > https://www.yahoo.com/news/unconventional-18-inside-book-details-

> > HRC won the Dem primary by marginally more votes than the 16 pt lead most popular candidate, yet it's verboten for the legacy media to even discuss the purpose of super delegates
>
> If Bernie, Cruz or Kasich were to get nominated now, it would smack of too little democracy.

That would certainly be true for Kasich and Cruz as they not only were overwhelmingly rejected by their own party, they couldn't beat Sanders in the general either. They have no democratic arguments whatsoever going for them yet the legacy media keep trying to claim, long after Reince has accepted tRUMP, that popular government would somehow be served if the GOP brokered tRUMP out in favor of these candidates who are far less popular in their own political party than Sanders in the Democratic Party.

In contrast Sanders is far and away the most popular general election candidate.

In what kind of "democracy" do the media tell the most popular G.E. candidate to get lost and don't come back?

"Not now not later not ever."

"And don't even _think_ about doing anything with the super delegates. That's not even on the table."

Democratic Party super delegates are there _specifically_ to nominate a general election winner -- a brokered convention is not even necessary -- yet _not one single editorial_ will enlighten the public about the super delegates.

The 0.1% media keep harping on "Hillery fighting 2 fronts" which is of course exactly what they said in 2000 and 2004 and a compliant party listened.

Anyone in the legacy media remember what happened in 2000 and 2004?

Of course not.

They'll never ever ever mention the fact that running unopposed in the primary caused 3 concession speeches to the most inarticulate apolitical slacker in the history of the republic.

What's interesting is Bill Clinton said Sanders "has a right to stay in the race." Why are the "two vibrant political parties" media trying to shut down primaries and keep me from voting?

tRUMP and Sanders have yugely exposed legacy media fanny and it's going to get popped so hard in 2016 you'll never see it again in U.S. politics.

There are too many verboten issues "merely" omitted by the legacy media for them to survive the info age.

> Even non-profit media knows that. (not just capitalized media)

If you don't like super delegates you should have either made an effort to eliminate the super delegate or at least explain super delegates to the goobers.


Bret Cahill

[nickname unavailable]

bernie will most likely try to upend her at the convention. she will be ready for that. the more the neo-liberals lose, the more they will double down.
when they lose at the national level, they will at least have the satisfaction, that it was lost with purity.

> Bret Cahill

[nickname unavailable]

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 8:21:39 AM UTC-5, Bret Cahill wrote:
> > > https://www.yahoo.com/news/unconventional-18-inside-book-details-000000315.html
> > >
> > > The symmetry goes further:
> > >
> > > tRUMP is making a mockery of the GOP causing Repugs to lose down ballot.
> > >
> > > HRC is making a mockery of the Dems causing Dems to lose down ballot.
> > >
> > > tRUMP is jerryspringering mob rule on the economy against minority rights.
> > >
> > > HRC is jerryspringering minority rights against majority rule on the economy.
> > >
> > > There's a 3rd obvious symmetry. What is it?
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> >
> > bernie runs as a independent.
>
> Sanders is smarter than Nader.
>
> Without the GOP first breaking up -- apparently they are joining tRUMP --

i predicted that. i also predicted it would be the democrats that might break up first before the republicans. i said that when i found out what bill clinton was in the 1990's.

that could only work with another meltdown. The notion that a 3rd party can somehow play a role when most Dems are clueless about how the media corrupt the party in the first place is up there with the gun nut fantasy that individualist ownership guns can influence policy when most are too lazy to vote.
>

the neo-liberal wing is not clueless, its the rank and file that's clueless.

> If you can't get the goobers to risk a few minutes voting then you aren't going to get very many nutters to risk their lives for a violent take over of gummint.
>
> Bundy proved this true which delivered a devastating blow to the nutter fantasy.
>

he now says he is confused as to why he is in jail.

> Similarly if you can't even make the simple case to the super delegates that they should do their historical duty and pick a winner then how are you going to make the case to the rank and file to join 3rd party to get tRUMP elected?
>

the rank and file are small without the independents. even then many rank and file simply will not vote neo-liberal again.
the reason why the neo-liberals lose all of the time, because you have to give the rank and file a reason to vote, and they have no reason to vote. just see from 1994 on wards.

> The search for purity in position papers has gotten more people killed.
>
> There are a lot smarter things to do.
>
> HRC refused to debate?
>
> Fine!
>
> A debate between tRUMP and Sanders will marginalize HRC and show the super delegates that, if they don't get on the stick, the Dems won't be running anyone in 2016 just like they didn't run anyone in 2000 or 2004.
>

it would be the smart thing to do, but it won't happen. trump is to smart for that.


>
> Bret Cahill

[nickname unavailable]

it worked for the train wreck.

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> The 0.1% media keep harping on "Hillery fighting 2 fronts"
> which is of course exactly what they said in 2000 and 2004
> and a compliant party listened.

No. From 2000-2007, the Clinton's were at work getting out of debt, not running for prez.

[Bret Cahill]

And apparently they didn't run in 2008 either.

[nickname unavailable]

they were busy collecting their bribes.

[Ted&Alice]

Still running your dicksucker, Brett?

[nickname unavailable]

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 8:56:45 PM UTC-5,

> i Still want to be your dicksucker, Brett?

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

Bret Cahill wrote:
> nickname unavailable wrote:
> > ...

> > bernie runs as a independent.
>
> Sanders is smarter than Nader.

Neither, because both were both helped by and helped counter political parties.

[Bret Cahill]

> > > bernie runs as a independent.

> > Sanders is smarter than Nader.

> Neither, because both were both helped by and helped counter political parties.

The super delegates exist solely to counter the GOP. They do this by nominating a Democrat who can win in the general.

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> The super delegates exist solely to counter the GOP. They do
> this by nominating a Democrat who can win in the general.

Still having trouble with the math, huh? Let me explain again. There are four people on the ballot:
1) HRC 2)Trump 3)Johnson. 4)Bernie

Everyone knows that Hillary Rodham win this scenario comfortably.

<< or >>

There are three or people on the ballot:
1) HRC 2)Trump 3)Johnson

Hillary Rodham also wins this scenario comfortably.

[nickname unavailable]

you forgot stien, in that case, hillary does not win. she may not win even under your scenario. it will be all she can do to win the nomination, let alone the presidency.

[Bret Cahill]

> > The super delegates exist solely to counter the GOP. They do
> > this by nominating a Democrat who can win in the general.
>
> Still having trouble with the math, huh?

Good to see you 'fessin' up.

The math is simple:

There are 2 major political parties.

One party has already nominated its candidate which was the overwhelming favorite _of that party_. The 1st runner up garnered < 1/2 the votes as the nominee.

The other political party is lucky in that it still has 2 candidates it can nominate with super delegates.

One is 16 points ahead of other party's nominee and holding like a rock.

The other is 0 points ahead of other party's nominee and already in a tail spin.

If you are loyal to your party you make the effort to nominate the stronger candidate, no matter what the 0.1% sponsored media are intoning or gush hyping.

If you are a mole for the GOP then you nominate the Dem candidate that makes John Kerry and Al Gore look like Thomas Jefferson.

[nickname unavailable]

if hillary is lucky, she might even win a close one in california.

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> There are 2 major political parties.

Not anymore presidentially, now that Johnson is also on in all 57 states and territories. This is fact.

[nickname unavailable]

he might take as many democrats as republicans. i see it as a wash. if you want to blunt him though, bernie is your guy. i see bernie crossing three lines, the democrats, the republicans, and now the libertarians.
in the end, if its hillary we all lose, if its hillary, trump might win, so it makes no difference to me and millions like me. if its not bernie, we are done for.

[Bret Cahill]

> > There are 2 major political parties.
>
> Not anymore presidentially, now that Johnson is also on in all 57 states and territories. This is fact.

Are rite in candidates really at such a great disadvantage?

Let me go git mah primary ballot 'n take a look.

<one minute later>

Nope. There's a rite in spot rite after "Hillary Clinton."

It seems that in this day 'n age if voters are functional enough to git to the mail box then they are functional enough to rite in a candidate's name.

No chads whatsoever.

[Bret Cahill]

For some reason that seems to be such a long time away.

All kinds of things is happin' ever day -- legacy media freaking out, tRUMP going sh-t chicken debatin' the Bern.

Ah may wait another week before feelin' the Bern.

Let me consult the neighbor's cat.

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> The major party conventions' rules committees haven't met yet, so that ballot hasn't been approved,yet.