oligarchy rather than a democratic republic

[98valk]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-13/2016-year-americans-found-out-their-elections-are-rigged

The superdelegate process is complicated, as we’ve noted before, but they have one essential function: to prevent candidates like Bernie Sanders from winning the Democratic nomination.

Don’t believe me? Here’s a video of Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz explaining superdelegates:

[Robert]

Those videos or proof of a corrupt system are about the most clear, honest, straight forward living proof that the US citizens are getting shafted. When you hear it from the very party leaders that we don't decide it doesn't get much clearer than that. We have been hijacked by a corrupt system that is no longer afraid to tell the people your screwed. 

[Moonshot_1]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-13/2016-year-americans-found-out-their-elections-are-rigged

The superdelegate process is complicated, as we’ve noted before, but they have one essential function: to prevent candidates like Bernie Sanders from winning the Democratic nomination.

Don’t believe me? Here’s a video of Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz explaining superdelegates:

There is a myth, perpetrated by the media for the most part, that the primaries are for all the American people to vote for their candidate.

It is not for the all American people but just for the respective political party.
How the political parties manage the primaries are their business.

Imagine the political party as a club. You join the club. You work hard at making it a success locally. You  become a regional and state leader of your club after a decade. You become a nationally known and respected member of the National club after another decade.

You have strived for a shot at becoming a national leader and at that pivotal moment, some yahoo celebrity who just joined the club six months ago makes a move on the leadership position that you were entitled to and bumps you out.

Should the political parties have rules that make it harder for the celebrity yahoos to gain a foothold in their leadership? Absolutely. To have members work hard for decades, make untold sacrifices for the country and party, whatever party, just to be undercut by some celebrity that just waltzes in would have a significant detrimental effect on the party and enthusiasm of it's membership.

So to have rules that makes the hurdles unusually high for outsiders or some celebrity yahoo is appropriate.

The political party simply needs to answer to it's membership.

  

[98valk]

hilldemom will be runner for president.

read about her trillion dollar tax plan that attacks the middle class and the 25% tax on guns.

“We will take America without firing a shot ... we will bury you!
“We can’t expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have communism.
“We do not have to invade the United States, we will destroy you from within.”

This is a quote attributed to the late Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
 Abraham Lincoln,
 Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/abrahamlin143183.html

[Alpha Dog]

For the first time in my memory, healthy doses of the American people are realizing the fix is in and their votes often do not count, especially on the Dem side with all those super delegates that were awarded to jumpsuit H before it all started. Poor old Corporal a chicken in every pot, and college degree, and child care, and health, and phone, refrigerator and stove and auto and house, and anything else you could want Sanders has been too stupid to bring this out, until recently.  I think he is just a shill having his moment in the sun before he lapses into a coma. Heck he will not even hit Jumpsuit H on her biggest weaknesses, emails, Bengasi and failures as Sec. of State, Clinton Crime foundation and a myrid of such actions.   On the Repub side shenigans also abound to make sure neither Trump or Cruz gets to 1237.  At the moment Cruz is their useful idiot due to him being so far behind.  Had it been the other way they would use Trump as the useful idiot to use their built in rules to make sure we can see another Romney or McCain or Bush or Dole.   Carl Rove says we need a new fresh face.  His idea of a fresh face has been another Bush ( Wow - now that would be a fresh face.  After all we have only been seeing Bushes for 30 years and he can not get enough of them )

Moonshot layed to out very well. The political party answers to its vested members and not the American public.   I would add this.  When political parties are entrusted with the welfare and safety of this nation as basically the 2 sole members it should not be this way.  If it is to be this way all the laws that restrict entry by other parties or individuals should be wiped away for anyone to run and screw these parties that have shown over the course of 200 years they are only vested in the welfare of their party and not the American people.

[Moonshot_1]

"The political party answers to its vested members and not the American public."

Wouldn't quite lay it out like that. The statement is true when it comes to internal policies of the respective party. But in the general election the public does have a direct say in who they vote for and the political parties answer to the American public at that time.

The primaries are just political theater where the sausage is made.
The General Election is where we get to eat it.

[Alpha Dog]

"The political party answers to its vested members and not the American public."

Wouldn't quite lay it out like that. The statement is true when it comes to internal policies of the respective party. But in the general election the public does have a direct say in who they vote for and the political parties answer to the American public at that time.

The primaries are just political theater where the sausage is made.
The General Election is where we get to eat it.

Do you think they can make a better sausage one of these days?  I am not very fond of bad Blood Sausage.

[Moonshot_1]

"The political party answers to its vested members and not the American public."

Wouldn't quite lay it out like that. The statement is true when it comes to internal policies of the respective party. But in the general election the public does have a direct say in who they vote for and the political parties answer to the American public at that time.

The primaries are just political theater where the sausage is made.
The General Election is where we get to eat it.

Do you think they can make a better sausage one of these days?  I am not very fond of bad Blood Sausage.

Absolutely. But it would require that the public demand it at the ballot box. As long as the public elects bastards and scoundrels the sausage will taste like crap. Unfortunately we've become accustomed to it.

The politicians are not really the problem if the public has the opportunity to vote them out and chooses not too.

And Portuguese Blood Sausage rocks by the way! Have it for Thanksgiving. Used to get regular Portuguese Sausage and rice for breakfast at McDonalds in Hawaii many many years ago.

[G-Man]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-13/2016-year-americans-found-out-their-elections-are-rigged

The superdelegate process is complicated, as we’ve noted before, but they have one essential function: to prevent candidates like Bernie Sanders from winning the Democratic nomination.

Don’t believe me? Here’s a video of Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz explaining superdelegates:

There is a myth, perpetrated by the media for the most part, that the primaries are for all the American people to vote for their candidate.

It is not for the all American people but just for the respective political party.
How the political parties manage the primaries are their business.

Imagine the political party as a club. You join the club. You work hard at making it a success locally. You  become a regional and state leader of your club after a decade. You become a nationally known and respected member of the National club after another decade.

You have strived for a shot at becoming a national leader and at that pivotal moment, some yahoo celebrity who just joined the club six months ago makes a move on the leadership position that you were entitled to and bumps you out.

Should the political parties have rules that make it harder for the celebrity yahoos to gain a foothold in their leadership? Absolutely. To have members work hard for decades, make untold sacrifices for the country and party, whatever party, just to be undercut by some celebrity that just waltzes in would have a significant detrimental effect on the party and enthusiasm of it's membership.

So to have rules that makes the hurdles unusually high for outsiders or some celebrity yahoo is appropriate.

The political party simply needs to answer to it's membership.

  

But THAT'S the whole point to this wonderful republic we live in.  NOBODY IS ENTITLED TO LEAD IT.  I've heard it a thousand times regarding Clinton,....that it's her turn, her time, heir apparent, etc. 

We let gov't get involved in electing itself, so what happened of course, it got very expensive.  So now only professional politicians or rich people can run for mid to high level positions. 

[rocketray]

SOME INTERESTING SPOTS..YOU TUBE"HOW TO BE A CROOK  BY LARKEN ROSE"  GOOGLE "WHAT PART OF THE MEDIA DO THE ROTHSCHILDS  OWN" "JOHN ROBERTS 1 BILLION IN VATICAN BANK".HILLARY CLINTON INVITE BILDERBURG GROUP"....THEN  SPEND A LONG TIME AT "THEMONEYMASTERS.COM"

[Moonshot_1]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-13/2016-year-americans-found-out-their-elections-are-rigged

The superdelegate process is complicated, as we’ve noted before, but they have one essential function: to prevent candidates like Bernie Sanders from winning the Democratic nomination.

Don’t believe me? Here’s a video of Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz explaining superdelegates:

There is a myth, perpetrated by the media for the most part, that the primaries are for all the American people to vote for their candidate.

It is not for the all American people but just for the respective political party.
How the political parties manage the primaries are their business.

Imagine the political party as a club. You join the club. You work hard at making it a success locally. You  become a regional and state leader of your club after a decade. You become a nationally known and respected member of the National club after another decade.

You have strived for a shot at becoming a national leader and at that pivotal moment, some yahoo celebrity who just joined the club six months ago makes a move on the leadership position that you were entitled to and bumps you out.

Should the political parties have rules that make it harder for the celebrity yahoos to gain a foothold in their leadership? Absolutely. To have members work hard for decades, make untold sacrifices for the country and party, whatever party, just to be undercut by some celebrity that just waltzes in would have a significant detrimental effect on the party and enthusiasm of it's membership.

So to have rules that makes the hurdles unusually high for outsiders or some celebrity yahoo is appropriate.

The political party simply needs to answer to it's membership.

  

But THAT'S the whole point to this wonderful republic we live in.  NOBODY IS ENTITLED TO LEAD IT.  I've heard it a thousand times regarding Clinton,....that it's her turn, her time, heir apparent, etc. 

We let gov't get involved in electing itself, so what happened of course, it got very expensive.  So now only professional politicians or rich people can run for mid to high level positions. 

You miss the point.

You are correct that No one is entitled to lead this republic.
But I am speaking of the internal politics of a political party.

As it relates to Hillary Clinton, she has made her way through the ranks of the Democrat party and earned a shot at within their Party. The DNC has made it tough, if not near impossible for the likes of a Bernie Sanders to deny her that. Bernie is and always has been and run as a socialist not a democrat. Since he hasn't been a democrat he is going to have to pull the rabbit out of the magic hat to get the nomination and he might have a shot at that.

Same kind of dynamic works in the GOP. The outsider has to leap some mighty high hurdles.
Mr. Trump is doing that.

[DK]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-13/2016-year-americans-found-out-their-elections-are-rigged

The superdelegate process is complicated, as we’ve noted before, but they have one essential function: to prevent candidates like Bernie Sanders from winning the Democratic nomination.

Don’t believe me? Here’s a video of Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz explaining superdelegates:

This is completely correct.

Going a bit further, the Parties set their rules to enable selection of viable candidates capable of winning in the general election.

Love him or laugh at him, Bernie Sanders hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of winning the general election.

There is a myth, perpetrated by the media for the most part, that the primaries are for all the American people to vote for their candidate.

It is not for the all American people but just for the respective political party.
How the political parties manage the primaries are their business.

Imagine the political party as a club. You join the club. You work hard at making it a success locally. You  become a regional and state leader of your club after a decade. You become a nationally known and respected member of the National club after another decade.

You have strived for a shot at becoming a national leader and at that pivotal moment, some yahoo celebrity who just joined the club six months ago makes a move on the leadership position that you were entitled to and bumps you out.

Should the political parties have rules that make it harder for the celebrity yahoos to gain a foothold in their leadership? Absolutely. To have members work hard for decades, make untold sacrifices for the country and party, whatever party, just to be undercut by some celebrity that just waltzes in would have a significant detrimental effect on the party and enthusiasm of it's membership.

So to have rules that makes the hurdles unusually high for outsiders or some celebrity yahoo is appropriate.

The political party simply needs to answer to it's membership.

  

[DK]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-13/2016-year-americans-found-out-their-elections-are-rigged

The superdelegate process is complicated, as we’ve noted before, but they have one essential function: to prevent candidates like Bernie Sanders from winning the Democratic nomination.

Don’t believe me? Here’s a video of Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz explaining superdelegates:

There is a myth, perpetrated by the media for the most part, that the primaries are for all the American people to vote for their candidate.

It is not for the all American people but just for the respective political party.
How the political parties manage the primaries are their business.

Imagine the political party as a club. You join the club. You work hard at making it a success locally. You  become a regional and state leader of your club after a decade. You become a nationally known and respected member of the National club after another decade.

You have strived for a shot at becoming a national leader and at that pivotal moment, some yahoo celebrity who just joined the club six months ago makes a move on the leadership position that you were entitled to and bumps you out.

Should the political parties have rules that make it harder for the celebrity yahoos to gain a foothold in their leadership? Absolutely. To have members work hard for decades, make untold sacrifices for the country and party, whatever party, just to be undercut by some celebrity that just waltzes in would have a significant detrimental effect on the party and enthusiasm of it's membership.

So to have rules that makes the hurdles unusually high for outsiders or some celebrity yahoo is appropriate.

The political party simply needs to answer to it's membership.

This is completely correct.

Going a bit further, the Parties set their rules to enable selection of viable candidates capable of winning in the general election.

Love him or laugh at him, Bernie Sanders hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of winning the general election.


 

[Daddie O]

In every poll, Bernie beats Trump by a larger margin than Hillary does.

[MP]

In every poll, Bernie beats Trump by a larger margin than Hillary does.

With the Dems wanting more and more "free chit", it is no wonder Bernie is leading.  He is promising more "free chit" than Hillary.  That is what the Dem party has come down to.  Who can promise the most "free chit" wins.

Never mind it cannot be paid for, and is destroying the country.

[dinosnake]

In every poll, Bernie beats Trump by a larger margin than Hillary does.

With the Dems wanting more and more "free chit", it is no wonder Bernie is leading.  He is promising more "free chit" than Hillary.  That is what the Dem party has come down to.  Who can promise the most "free chit" wins.

Never mind it cannot be paid for, and is destroying the country.

You see, it depends upon the math.  If the government would pay the Social Security trust fund the $2.786 trillion that is owed to it in the form of bonds

http://useconomy.about.com/od/monetarypolicy/f/Who-Owns-US-National-Debt.htm

then it would have the money to pay out to its beneficiaries, now wouldn't it?  There is no "crisis" of Social Security, except that it is owed a huge amount of money due to previously investing its surplus in U.S. government bonds, that said government currently does not have the money to pay BACK.  So, for our politicians, that's a "crisis"...that they created themselves.

Maybe if we stopped creating tax loopholes and benefits for a section of the country that in no way deserves it, like corporations and the wealthy, and had every single entity pay a fair share instead of our currently unbalanced system, we could afford giving aid to those who truly need it in desperate times.  Can any reasonable person explain why industries get government subsidies then, later, are allowed to off-shore their profits to avoid paying taxes on the income they acquired thanks to the help of those very same subsidies (oil industry, defense contractors, etc etc)?

[Firefighter]

I can't see how you keep blaming corporations for everything. The corporations do not cost us, even if they paid no taxes. The corporations provide tax dollars and jobs so then more tax dollars, and in most cases counter welfare.

Your politians and their expensive programs are what keep us in debt. Trying to enroll more people in wellfare or other programs. The incentive is to be unemployed. How or better why do the unemployed receive income tax checks?

 Social security, as with all other government programs start off sounding like they mean well but overtime get out of control. SS was supposed to supplement the elderly who had worked and contributed all their life. It was not to be a stand alone retirement plan, and not pay out to people born with disabilitys or their three kids etc. etc. If our politicians would just police these programs instead of always adding more garbage to them, we would not be in so much trouble.

[Moonshot_1]

In every poll, Bernie beats Trump by a larger margin than Hillary does.

With the Dems wanting more and more "free chit", it is no wonder Bernie is leading.  He is promising more "free chit" than Hillary.  That is what the Dem party has come down to.  Who can promise the most "free chit" wins.

Never mind it cannot be paid for, and is destroying the country.

You see, it depends upon the math.  If the government would pay the Social Security trust fund the $2.786 trillion that is owed to it in the form of bonds

http://useconomy.about.com/od/monetarypolicy/f/Who-Owns-US-National-Debt.htm

then it would have the money to pay out to its beneficiaries, now wouldn't it?  There is no "crisis" of Social Security, except that it is owed a huge amount of money due to previously investing its surplus in U.S. government bonds, that said government currently does not have the money to pay BACK.  So, for our politicians, that's a "crisis"...that they created themselves.

Maybe if we stopped creating tax loopholes and benefits for a section of the country that in no way deserves it, like corporations and the wealthy, and had every single entity pay a fair share instead of our currently unbalanced system, we could afford giving aid to those who truly need it in desperate times.  Can any reasonable person explain why industries get government subsidies then, later, are allowed to off-shore their profits to avoid paying taxes on the income they acquired thanks to the help of those very same subsidies (oil industry, defense contractors, etc etc)?

No argument that the Government has mismanaged Our Country's finances for decades.
No argument that the Government's use of the Social Security funds are a terrible abuse of political power and despicable.

Your solution is to have corporations and the wealthy pay more taxes to the Government you yourself have argued is corrupt and continues to create the "crisis"!

Frankly I have far more confidence in our Corporations and wealthy than the Government when it comes to the wise and prudent expenditures of the Country's wealth.


Industries get Government subsidies because the Government wants the respective industry to do some specific thing. The specific things varies from industry to industry. Some might be an attempt at social engineering, economic engineering, or a simple and corrupt political payoff. The respective industry does it because they get the subsidy.

They are "allowed" to "off shore" their profits because it is their money and they can.

[G-Man]

Corporation Do NOT Pay Taxes

Wow, why can't some folks get this one very simple point.  If you raise the taxes on a business, any business, big or small, mom and pop or Pfizer............ One of two things happen, they cut costs (jobs) and/or raise the price of the product (higher prices to the consumer).

Taxes, like every other expenditure simply becomes the cost of doing business.  A drug company gets sued, the price for their drug(s) increases or they ship jobs to India.  Raise its taxes, it's gonna do the exact same thing.  GE is already doing it, at the same time the CEO of GE was named Job Czar.