Sanders throws his support behind Clinton

wat issues yuh talking about....skunt Bernie was never serious..from the get go.  he was a set up to harvest the protest vote and mislead it..hamstring it and set it back...then betray it which is what he has done

and dat is what I told the Kwami impse from the start.

LOOK AT THIS HERE GOOGS:  ALL ALONG THE WAY IT WAS CLEAR THAT BILLARY WAS STEALING THE VOTES AND COMMITTING ALL MANNER OF ELECTION FRAUD.  BERNIE CUD HAVE STOPPED IT ALL BY LEGAL ACTION.  HE CUD HAVE PUT INJUNCTIONS ON EVERY RESULT, SUED THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN FOR ALL THEY HAD DONE.  EVERY RULE THAT GAVE CLINTON MORE DELEGATES THAN HE EVEN WHEN HE WON WERE FRAUDULENT AND CAUSE FOR INJUNCTIONS

SANDERS DID NOTHING AT ALL TO STOP CLINTON CRIMINALITY....NOTHING.  IF HE HAD COME OUT TO WIN WHY NOT..IF HE WAS SERIOUS ABOUT WINNING WHY NOT ::confused:: ::confused::[/color]

and if sanders was serious about winning why such a timid campaign..why not attack Hillary where it counted.  he never did.  he always handled Hillary with kid political gloves ::confused:: ::confused::

in the end googs it was not about winning for Sanders but advancing for next time the socialist support and program his candidacy had surfaced.  he had to continue to the end, fight Hillary no holds barred, advanced the program so it would be in good shape to go forward and win next time.

but that is the point I just made:  SANDERS CANDIDACY WAS TO SMASH THAT SOCIAL FORCE AND PROGRAM ...NOT TO STRENGTHEN IT. 

THAT IS WHY HE CAME OUT AND SUPPORTED CLINTON OPENLY IN BETRAYAL OF ALL HE HAD SAID AND DONE TO THAT POINT.  THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF IT ALL.

SANDERS DID NOT WANT TO WIN, NEVER CAME OUT TO WIN BUT TO DO ALL HE HAS DONE  IN FACT ..TO PHUCK THE PROTEST VOTE

You doh know wat yuh talking about.  hush yuh mout'

you want the piece of bake and sal'fish or wat ::confused:: it really nice you know   you want me to tell you whats in it ::LOL:: ::LOL:: ::LOL:: ::LOL:: ::LOL::

you know not what you speak of!!  as usual!!

They both knew the rules of the game BEFORE entering the race!  So what if Hillary had the super delegates at the start of the race?  Those super delegates saw her as the strongest candidate! I don't think Berne's poll numbers were even double digits!

Give Bernie credit...he rose from single digits to heights no one ever imagined!  however, he still could not make it to the end because IMHO he could not capture the moderates.  He was far too left!

So for him to further his agenda, he had to team up with Clinton...and that was the smart move on his part.

You may want him to take his bat/ball and go home but would kill his agenda right on the spot! 

Quote:They both knew the rules of the game BEFORE entering the race! 

who made those rules..according to what legal advice ::confused:: ::confused::

the rules worked out in ways that made people scratch their heads..how in the hell is that possible in this first past the post political system..which is winner takes all, or most ::confused:: ::confused::

and what is this super delegate business in a democracy ::confused::  don't you see how that challenges everything we know about democracy...how can one delegate be more have more weight in any way than another another.

again the question who made those rules and according to what legal advice...who were the lawyers involved with the DNC in making those rules..and when were they made..was there always super delegates, what is the reasoning behind thir creation in a democracy.

all questionable..  you can protest those rules and begin playing by them as you have no choice at the moment.  and as they work out to mean specific things in practice, and they prove undemocratic they can be challenged in court..forcing a legal interpretation of then that would be THE guide... not what was written in a DNC boardroom

if you are going to question the rules of how delegates are assigned for the Democratic Party, that has to be prior to an election! 

questioning the rules after you lost is just a sign of a sore loser and thank god Bernie did not do that.  He would have lost all his creditability.

Quote:Give Bernie credit...he rose from single digits to heights no one ever imagined! 

all ah dat is limited nonsense.  Sanders is 77 or something like dat.  he has been around forever in the american congress.  why did he choose to run this time..why wait until he is so old to carry out an ambition for president he may had had long time now ::confused:: ::confused:: ::confused::

sanders had no such ambition..never wanted to be president.  he is an old fart who was tasked by the power that be to expose in the people, the depth of the antipathetic leftist sentiment in america, against the capitalism and for a socialist revolution in america.

the state of america always does things like that..they do not depend entirely on university studies of the same phenomena to tell dem wats goin' orn.

what you have been looking at in the Bernie Sanders campaign is a very sophisticated anti populist program carried out right in our faces, against the people, to know what they are thinking so they can act against it

OK Maps, its all one big conspiracy!!!

you win!

[quote author=Goog Lee, P.I. link=topic=105234.msg703538#msg703538 date=1468865205]
if you are going to question the rules of how delegates are assigned for the Democratic Party, that has to be prior to an election! 

questioning the rules after you lost is just a sign of a sore loser and thank god Bernie did not do that.  He would have lost all his creditability.


[/quote]

no it does not have to be prior the election.  it can be in the middle, or as soon as the the undemocratic ways they function is observed.  it can be at the end of the election, or next year or 10 years...

the fact is on the ground and can be challenged as soon as someone or group(s) takes up the glove

that is nonsense you talk there.  if the rules are illegal or thought to be, that is what they are. 

legality does not depend on when and if anyone wins or loses an election.  the rules can be challenged and if they are found to be illegal then the results of the election are null and voided and a new election is to take place..under different rules as directed by the legal decision

[quote author=Goog Lee, P.I. link=topic=105234.msg703546#msg703546 date=1468865527]
OK Maps, its all one big conspiracy!!!

you win!


[/quote]
it always is impse.  don't try fallback on that jackass conspiracy game to escape this..that I am a conspiracy nut..or conspiracy is nuttiness.

is wood in yuh rarse.  circle-up and come again :-[ :-[

Quote:no it does not have to be prior the election.  it can be in the middle, or as soon as the the undemocratic ways they function is observed.  it can be at the end of the election, or next year or 10 years...

you don't get it, do you!!!?

if you start questing policies after you lost, what the helll does it look like?? sour grapes!!!

you cannot change things from a weak position...things get changed faster and better when one is in a position of strength!

whinning and belly aching doan usually work in politics...maybe in your world!

Quote:you don't get it, do you!!!?

if you start questing policies after you lost, what the helll does it look like?? sour grapes!!!

it is you who doh get it.  what you convey is not even the frame in which the election  took place.

what the hell are you talking about?

man lawsuits by the ranks have been filed against the election process already.  there is a major on going motion from the Sanders campaign as we speak.

the situation is one of constant challenge to the way things are done..constant roil, debate, articles all over the media in opposition to the way it is done. 

wat friggin sour grapes you talking about...you actually looking at what is going on..has gone on?