May 30, 2016

Super Delegates Have Done Exactly What Samantha Bee Said They Would Do, i.e. Put A 'Brake On A Non-Establishment Candidate'... Why Is That OK? OR Samantha Bee & Rachel Maddow Prove They Don't Understand Super Delegates... Are They Too In Love With Hillary To See The Truth?


Daily Show: Trevor Noah Totally Humiliates America's Corrupt Political Establishment, By Comparing It With Brazil!

Clear Proof That MSNBC Didn't Cover The Iraq War As A Media Should (Same Goes for CNN & Fox News)

Daily Show: Hasan Minhaj Exposes How Rich People & Corporations Can Dodge Taxes (loopholes created by the political establishment through "negotiation" between the two parties... if this is how they negotiate then clearly we don't need them doing any deals)

First I show how Samantha Bee has lost it and then I show how Rachel Maddow has lost it. Both appear to be older women who have decided to forgo thought in favor of their candidate for gender purposes, i.e. they want a women president and they are willing to betray the people (or just become dumb by shutting off their minds) for her.

First a look at how the delegates were distributed in a State that Bernie Sanders won by a large margin;

The Latest: Wyoming splits delegates 7-7 to Clinton, Sanders

Thus the "Democratic" Party puts the brakes on Bernie's delegates ( & thus his momentum) AGAIN! Now I'll explain;

I've been thinking about the "Super Delegates are to protect us from Trump" argument that Samantha Bee has been promoting and it occurs to me that that is like Hillary's 'Vote for me and Wall Street money because of 9/11' tactic. i.e. it's a standard fear tactic designed to stop people from think and start them reacting to you as if you are telling the truth (it's how the Iraq War happened). Let me explain...

Video: Samantha Bee Answers All of Your Superdelegate Questions

I thought I should work my way backwards to try and make the illogical reasoning of this particular Hillary & Democrat party talking point obvious to people who are not too emotionally involved in the outcome so as to not think anymore;

At 4:55 - Samantha Bee says 'If Super delegates don't subvert of the people what is thier purpose?'. She answers this herself as, 'Super Delegates are like driving instructors putting the brakes on democracy' (she's wrong... they do subvert the will of the people... they ONLY don't subvert the will of the people if the braking effect of the super delegates is not enough to overcome an opponent to the democratic party)

What exactly are Super Delegates there to put brakes on anyways?

Answer; They are there to put a brake on the voters choice as much as they can and if that doesn't work THEN they submit to the voters choice. In other words, if the non-establishment candidate manages to beat the establishment candidate to such a point that even the braking effect of the super delegates doesn't work THEN the "Democratic" party submits to the will of the people TILL THEN they choose to run the government like they choose 

Here are some articles PROVING that Super Delegates affect the momentum of the candidate through the public's perception (this is something the media does often, i.e. act like views of the people don't come from the media... if you call it news and the people don't know better then they will think it's news and react accordingly... media knows they can push people in whatever direction they want and create public opinion to back thier bosses policy desires. Obviously, telling people that one candidate is leading by showing a high delegate count AND adding delegates to the total of the LOSING candidate WILL affect people's perception as look as they have eyes and use those eyes to look at a TV screen. Anyone who doesn't think so if fooling themselves... but this is just a blog, here are some articles);

Article: “This system is so rigged”: Outrage as undemocratic superdelegate system gives Clinton unfair edge over Sanders Sanders won 8 of the 9 past primary contests by double digits, but Hillary got more delegates. Even MSNBC is angry

Hundreds of unelected party elites known as superdelegates or unpledged delegates have enormous sway in the primary election.
Superdelegates comprise approximately 15 percent of total delegates, and 30 percent of delegates needed to win the party’s nomination.
This unelected party nobility, which overwhelmingly backs Hillary Clinton, entrenches establishment politics and can undermine the candidate democratically chosen by the party’s mass base.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chair of the Democratic National Committee and a close ally of Clinton, has herself openly admitted that the superdelegate system exists to undermine grassroots democracy within the party.
In a Feb. 11 interview, CNN’s Jake Tapper asked Wasserman Schultz, “What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it’s all rigged?”
“Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists,” the DNC chair calmly explained, in a moment of shockingly blunt honesty.
Superdelegates can change the candidate they endorse at a later stage in the primary, and do not have to officially decide until the Democratic National Convention in July. Yet, even if Sanders gets more of the popular vote in the primary, there is still a very real possibility that the unelected party elites make Clinton the party’s nominee instead.
Despite the blatantly undemocratic nature of the superdelegate system, leading media outlets have frequently lumped superdelegates into the total delegate counts in their reports on the primary, making it look like Clinton has a larger lead than she does.
In reality, Sanders has approximately 45 percent of the pledged delegate count (that is to say, of the delegates that are actually earned through votes).
The contest is quite close, but major news sources like the Associated Press have consistently included superdelegate counts in their graphs.

Article: Joe Scarborough is right, and that’s terrifying: The Democratic Primary has been an undemocratic mess This morning, the MSNBC host railed against a Dem primary stacked in Hillary Clinton's favor. He has a point

When Joe Scarborough is absolutely right about the Democratic Party, that is a very bad sign.
While discussing the Wyoming caucuses on his show “Morning Joe” today, Scarborough expressed dismay at the fact that although Bernie Sanders won by nearly 12 points, Hillary Clinton has nevertheless picked up the most delegates (11 to 7). “Why does the Democratic Party even have voting booths?” Scarborough exclaimed in barely concealed outrage. “This system is so rigged!”
It’s hard to argue with the man’s logic. Sanders has won eight of the last nine primaries, which in a normal election year would be considered a sign of unstoppable momentum. In national polls, he is statistically neck-and-neck with Clinton, and he has whipped up unprecedented enthusiasm among young voters. All of this is rendered more impressive when you consider that the party establishment has attempted to stave him off from the get-go, with the debatesthemselves being scheduled so as to place him (and all other challengers to Clinton, for that matter) at a distinct disadvantage, and with only a handful of elected Democrats even endorsing his campaign.
This brings us to the reason for the discrepancy between Sanders’ impressive performance among voters and his massive disadvantage among party delegates – namely, the fact that superdelegates are overwhelmingly opposed to him.

Going back to the video;

So, Bee claims that the idea is that these Super Delegates can vote for any candidate... then why are they all voting for Hillary? Because that's the one they are there to 'put thier foot on the brakes' for, dummy.

Bee's answer is that...

At 4:45: 'If Bernie gets more votes than Hillary her Super Delegates will drop her faster than she drops her fake Southern accent when she leaves South Carolina' 

It doesn't matter if the Super Delegates change sides AFTER their chosen candidate is beaten thoroughly DESPITE the braking effect of the Super Delegates BECAUSE THE SUPER DELEGATES SHOULDN'T BE THERE TO BEGIN WITH. THE PARTY DOES NOT DICTATE WHERE THE COUNTRY WILL GO, THE PEOPLE DO. Or at least, that's how it should be. All logic and morality dictate that. Tradition doesn't make things right, just ask the victims of female circumcision. As soon as the Super Delegates chose the party "presumptive nominee" before a vote was cast they showed that the Democratic Party doesn't stand for democracy OR the people, it only stands for itself and they have since then proven that,

Back to the video;

At 4:50 - Samantha Bee accepts Hillary and her parties talking points as true and complete because Obama was able to beat the odds stacked against him because he confronted Hillary on her & her husbands constant lies about him. Just the fact that Hillary & Bill use lies as their primary political strategy besides Super Delegates should give people pause. But not these old women who want a woman for President even if she is a proven liar. Makes ALL their beliefs on politics suspect, i.e. they can't be trusted to make good/right/truthful/accurate decisions about politics.

Reminder of HOW Obama overcame the "braking effect" of the super delegates & won in 2008;

Obama: "Hillary Clinton Will Say ANYTHING To Get Elected" (2008 Radio Add) PLUS Other Obama Take Downs Of Hillary Clinton From 2008 Which Reveal What A Lying Scumbag She Really Is!

REMEMBER: President Obama ACCURATELY Compared Hillary Clinton To George Bush (GOP Establishment) On Foreign Policy     (She later proved this assertion)

Another person betraying intelligence and the people is Rachel Maddow. First off, she ALWAYS uses the same strategy the rest of the traitorous media uses of adding Super Delegates to the total deceiving the viewers like a Republican;

I guess she figures it's what men deserve cause 'if you give them an inch they take a mile them bastards'.

(I guess now she gets how people get themselves caught up in helping the establishment till they become traitors themselves... one lie always leads to another one), i.e. the tactic she uses is that putting the Super Delegates (designed to brake any non-establishment candidates momentum so the party elite who benefit from this system are not de-throned) on screen in the candidates totals has an effect on the viewers mind. This is a normal tactic for GOP and Fox news, i.e. to use EVERY tactic to win an election even if they have to lie and cheat to get there. In fact, I think it's safe to say the Maddow is walking the path of the GOP Establishment.

Who do Maddow & Sam Bee think they are? Our parents? Do they think the democratic party is our parent? Listen Sam & Maddow, if you think yall need to be 'the adults here' I just want yall to know YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DO THAT. YOU ARE NOT OUR PARENTS AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS NOT THE NATIONS PARENT. STOP SAYING THIS SUPER DELEGATES BRAKING TRICK IS FOR OUR OWN GOOD WHEN YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO MAKE THAT DECISION FOR US - not to mention the fact that it's just plain wrong.

Now here is an article by the Maddow show which is so incompetent that it should be taken down and they need to apologize for being so stupid;

Bernie Sanders sharpens his pitch to Democrats

On Friday, Bernie Sanders repeated a familiar complaint: “It’s strange and undemocratic that 450 superdelegates backed [Hillary Clinton] even before we got into the race.”
This isn’t exactly the easiest case to make. For one thing, it’s really not that odd for many Democratic insiders to throw their support behind the former Secretary of State, senator, and 2008 runner-up before the primaries got underway. For another, when it comes to the challenges facing the Sanders campaign, superdelegates are practically irrelevant: the senator is trailing among pledged delegates. His deficit among superdelegates is the least of his troubles.

This FIRST paragraph from Maddow's page on MSNBC shows that MSNBC made the right decision to hire her. Here Steve points out that Bernie has less PLEDGED delegates than Hillary Clinton while LEAVING OUT THE WHOLE BRAKING EFFECT THE SUPER DELEGATES HAVE WHICH SAMANTHA BEE DID A GOOD JOB OF NOT EXPLAINING (above).

Clearly Steve is as dumb as Rachel or they are both subverting democracy for thier own motives (they are probably just stupid, MSNBC fired people for being anti war when Bush was calling them traitors for opposing him... clearly MSNBC, & NBC have no problem with Maddow and that is a bad sign. I would ask for Rachel and Steve to be fired but they are actually in good company now, now that they are joining the corporate media in betraying the people. I'm sure they will do very well there in the future).

Another extract;

The underlying request is itself pretty audacious: Sanders wants party insiders to overlook election results and elevate the second-place candidate over the first-place candidate based on his “electability” pitch. But how likely is it that Democratic officials will want to do him a history-changing favor while he chastises them?

These people piss me off so much it's hard not to swear at them.

Frankly, the democratic party has too much power to subvert democracy and should be taken apart. They are NOT our parents and they have NO moral authority after the scams they have pulled (listed in this post). Steve really does need to shut up and stop supporting traitors. (more proofs listed below)

OTHER TREASOUNOUS TACTICA BY THE "DEMOCRATIC" PARTY (treason here is defined as making war on the people's choidce to push through the political elites choice)

This is another tactic the Democratic Establishment were thinking of trying that was straight out of the GOP playbook from 2012, i.e. silence opposition like Bush silence opposition to the Iraq War by calling opponents traitors (when it was them who are the traitors). Maddow hasn't been fully indoctrinated in tactics for betraying the people or she isn't fully on board yet (I think she went dumb cause Hillary is a woman and she has a crush on her), so Maddow protested this tactic of silencing free speech. Since the party was faced with a very public opposition in the media it backed down. Maybe next time Maddow will go full traitor, for the moment she's just proving that she is stupid and doesn't understand what's going on...

Democrats reconsider state convention rules after Nevada fracas - Raymond Buckley, New Hampshire Democratic Party chair and president of the Association of Democratic Chairs, talks with Rachel Maddow about new proposed rules for state Democratic conventions in the wake of Nevada's contentious convention.

This unconstitutional tactic (which people say doesn't apply to the Democratic party cause it's a private organization) may be tried later. I would like to mention that NO private organization has ANY right to be intermediary for the people and try and put brakes on the people's voice OR minds with the super delegate system or keeping Bernie out of the public's eye through blackouts and weird debate dates scheduled for times when no one would watch. The cover ups are so visible that none of the corporate media stooges have credibility anymore. I think maddow was the last one and she's gone. Now the corporate media is totlly useless and should be tried for treason. Of course, they didn't get tried for thier Iraq War coverups so this is just a pipe dream of what would happen if justice still existed in America.

Treasonous Activities

Politics 2016

Rachel Maddow

Media's Iraq War Cover-Up

No comments:

Post a Comment