OK...I read it as "Hillary won" the primary election, or pledged delegate votes needed as well as more than enough unpledged delegates pledges, which she did, but not the nomination since he went on to say it was possible she wouldn't get it if, say, she died or dropped out before the convention.

I agree it would be smart for them to re-think their strategy and go with a better candidate to beat Trump if that's the main goal, and I'm afraid that Clinton is unpopular, secretive, and such an easy target for attacks that she can easily lose to a megalomaniacal demagogue, but I also see it would alienate >1/2 of democrats that want Hillary and make the party look terribly undemocratic if they did that...which they may be, but they sure don't want to prove that they are.

I agree with everything you said except that he wasn't right.
He didn't say she's the nominee, he said she has all the votes she needs to win the nomination at the convention, baring something disqualifying her before then or all the super delegates deciding to completely thwart the will of the people and vote for Sanders, contrary to their current declarations. That is correct. It's not 100% "over", but something drastic and fairly unprecedented would be required to switch the outcome at this point.

Actually he's not right, she's not yet the nominee because the super delegates haven't yet cast their votes. They do that at the convention in July. All we have is a 'snapshot' of which way each super-delegate was leaning way back when they were asked which was, in many cases, before Bernie was even on the radar.

By 'claiming' the win, she's doing the same thing that boxers do at the end of a fight that is going to decision... they put their arms up and pretend they know they won, it looks better when you actually do win to have been confident before it was confirmed, and it may even make a judge second guess himself.

but it's not over if Bernie holds on until the convention.

D'oh.
You are correct sir. They don't make it easy to follow now. Even the websites that showed the count without the super delegates listed the 2383 number to win. I looked at 3 sites before writing my above comment, they all gave me the wrong impression.

EDIT: In my defense, they have been claiming she's the presumptive nominee since before the first primary, and again after every single primary day, so I mistakenly assumed this was just more of the same. However, it is correct that she's not the nominee yet, but she is the presumptive nominee with the votes to win, both pledged and non pledged. The actual vote won't happen until the convention.

But there is still SLIGHT hope that, now that she's the "presumptive nominee", the Republicans will jump the gun and indict her before the convention, giving the Democrats a reason to pick Sanders. Paper thin hope, tissue paper thin, but there is a single grain of hope left.

Hasn't SHE also been filmed mocking Trump at her rallies...another person with disabilities, but his are purely mental.

EDIT: Also, is his mocking a disabled man really the most important flub he's made? Wouldn't disputing some of his policies be more to the point and make more of a difference. I mean, we already know he's a douchebag, and that's a selling point for most of his followers, not a deal breaker. Explain how his tax plan doubles the national debt, raises taxes on all non millionaires, and ends all social programs many of his followers use to live, while drastically lowering tax rates on millionaires and making it easier for them to hide money and move businesses out of the country, contrary to what he tells them in his rallies. I see this as a huge part of the problem this election, it's become all about personality, nothing of substance at all, because neither main candidate wants to discuss their plans or history.

EDIT: The following statement has been found to be inaccurate.

Um...keep in mind that she's NOT the nominee yet, people. It's another lie from her campaign, repeated by all media organizations.
A candidate needs 2383 PLEDGED delegates to win the nomination. She has 2184. Because there seems to be some question among Clinton supporters, 2184 < 2383. She's 199 short. That doesn't mean Sanders has much chance, it means the claim that "she won the nomination" is a BOLD FACED LIE that apparently 90% of Americans are gullible and ignorant enough to buy. Don't be a sucker and fall for then repeat another lie. Wait for the convention before calling her the nominee. She didn't win yet.

Actually, I think most Sanders supporters would say the entire primary process has been a "mockery of democracy". (although that contention starts from the misunderstanding that the primaries are supposed to be purely democratic...they aren't, the parties are private clubs not government organizations, so they're under no requirement to be democratic)
That "mockery" starting with the super delegates declaring their votes for Clinton before a single actual vote was cast, and continuing through the media pretending they don't understand that super delegates are not counted in the delegate count to "secure the nomination" and claiming that Clinton has had it secured for a while now, even though they know clearly that they are repeating a lie, because until they actually vote at the convention, super delegates can change their minds, so their "votes" aren't actually votes yet....which is why they are never counted in the pre-convention vote totals, except this time.... it's a con game that they're winning. Similar to Trump, they're banking on the American people's ignorance and gulibility, and it's working.

That said, you have a good point. Either the super delegate system is terrible and undemocratic and should be eradicated, or it's a good tool for choosing the best candidate and should continue....but many respond as if they think it all depends on who it's benefiting today and they flip flop like a mud skipper. Those people can be ignored, because their 1/2 vote for counters their 1/2 vote against, as I see it.

I love him, hate political correctness, media is ignoring the over 400 rapes and murders dubbed "the femicide" in Juarez in border, none of the perps caught, they run into US get welfare, timestamps, HUD housing and pay zero taxes.

Liberals enjoy sheltering rapists with tax money but every day more found dead in Juarez as young as 6.


I hate political correctness, and voting Trump. Already voted him in primary and my neighbor is Guatemalan he became a US citizen legally and his entire family and cousins voted Trump at primary but Guatamalans tend to hate what cartels are going at border and know exactly what's going in more than any kids online believing what is said on television..

Hell the exit poll in my town was awesome Trump got 62% black vote , 78% Guatemalan vote (large population)

Folks are absolutely fed up with hypersensitive sissies , we need blunt directness .

I'd rather have Bill Hicks, as a President :-P

But when John Cheeseof Monty Python says political correctness and liberalism in America has gone too far and he's joined all other comedians in banning tours at colleges and he hopes Trump will end political correctness sissiness you know the country is about to destroy the Democrats just like they did in 1968.

In 1968 the time called "white riot" but whites and blacks rioted and Democrat convention shut down and Democrats lost the next 10 elections. Over political correctness.

Proof that history has repeated itself. The liberals collapse every 60 years. 60 years before this Richard Henry Pratt the man who invented the word "racism" out of thin air as a slur when he invented political correctness and attached individualism, claiming individualism is racist, that all cultures should be forcefully eradicated and forced to mix , be caused the genocide of Indians and extinction of dozen languages until violently stopoed.


1968 white riot ending all Democrat for decade
https://youtu.be/epxmX_58tOo


Think tank Industry social change political correctness rule maker director gives speech how just like Germany and Sweden to destroy America
https://youtu.be/nFAQNjqH1zA


I do hope Trump can win and stay blunt, cuss out the retard media and idiot corporate owned government and at least get folks back to those of us of generation X who were adamantly Anti political correctness, to quote Rage Against The Machine "fuck you, I won't do what you tell me"



-grin-

When you veer into talking about changing the Geneva Conventions I think your argument loses logic. Without getting into whether military action is actually justified in the first place, maybe it's worth admitting that there are some thing the US military simply can't do and therefore shouldn't try to?

To suggest that the US should forego international norms to achieve its goals feels like it's channeling the neo-conservative myth of the US as this omnipotent superpower that it never was, and certainly isn't now. What evidence is there that acting like the terrorists (which once you give up international norms you will eventually get to) would actually help achieve its objectives in the first place?

The Bush administration basically took that approach with torture (the "well they did it to us!" approach). When the news of secret rendition, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo broke (as it inevitably would), we know that almost certainly recruited a whole bunch of new terrorists. Meanwhile torture confessions led to a whole bunch of wild goose hunts.

Civilian resistance has been around since the dawn of armies invading foreign lands. International norms geared around state v. state warfare don't really address them, not because they didn't envisage them but because occupying and pacifying foreigners was never a good idea in the first place. Drone strikes, surgical strikes on the likes of Bin Laden should be a rare exception but once you start 'normalizing' them, and giving occupying soldiers wider latitude with civilians that's when you start getting into serious trouble.

I think you will find that most veterans, and currently serving men and women, simply want a clear objective that allows them to win the conflict and return home. Unfortunately the nature of terrorism means that while we follow long held rules that prevent collateral damage, or seek to limit it, the enemy we are fighting do not.

Just as we learned to our sorrow in Vietnam, as the British learned in fighting the IRA, the Russians in fighting the Mujaheddin, and we are learning again in our current battles, terrorists do not feel the need to adhere to the laws of warfare. They use civilians to support them, protect targets, or provide them escape methods. They attack civilians gleefully, knowing we cannot respond in kind.

While I do not support Trump, I do think we seriously need to have a new Geneva Convention to clarify how to treat terrorists and their civilian supporters. I think that is what the ex-Seal meant at the heart of his argument, that fighting terrorists using the old "Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, we have rules here" is an absolute losing proposition. Even Obama found that we needed to work outside the rules sometimes to be successful, hence his invasion into a sovereign allied nation to kill or capture Bin Laden, and his current extremely heavy use of drone attacks on suspected targets.

As far as the second veteran, I feel it is absolutely valid to question his integrity. He could have claimed CO status prior to going to conflict or simply not joined the military in the first place. Instead, he decided to claim it after experiencing combat, something my friends who have served noticed happening in the first gulf war. You really don't want a recap of some of the things they called people who left the service after seeing combat.

@newtboy

What gave the impression that you think Hillary should drop out is because you are calling for a "debate" at the convention EVEN IF she has it locked up. Why would she do that?

IF IF IF IF she has it locked up, I really want Sanders to use the political muscle he has accumulated to help shape the Dem platform. That is what he says he wants to do, and that is what I hope he does.

Get federal minimum wage increase as a plank in the platform (and good grief, tie it to consumer price index so we can stop having to beg for it every 20 years or so.)

This won't happen, but I would LOVE a tiny tax on all investment transactions. I don't need to have it tied to education, but it wouldn't bother me if it was. If we had that tiny tax, it would stop some of the horrendous volatility in the market as this folks chase fractions of a point going up and down. It's stupid what they do with computers and has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with chasing a buck in a virtual market (nothing being created except hard-ons -- tax those hard-ons, baby. Tax 'em.)

What other planks would you like to see in the Dem platform? Those are two that come to mind.

Sorry, I don't speaks no langijizz. ;-)
No, again, I don't expect, or even want her to drop out. I don't know what gave that impression. I expect, and want, a reasoned debate about which is better, and which is more likely to win. There may be some unknown on either side that would change minds if they discuss it rationally.
Bernie has continued to say often that he's going to the convention and not dropping out, even if Clinton locks it up. I don't think he's planning on pulling out, but yes, stranger things have happened. Wait until >3 days AFTER that day to ask his supporters to vote for Clinton would be my suggestion.
He has been far more successful than anyone expected 9 months ago, and she's been far less successful. Yes. ;-)

I don't expect Clinton to give up. It would be nice, but I think there is a <0.00001% chance of that happening. What I do expect is for her to go to the convention and debate about which is the better candidate in the current climate. I think that answer is clear, and if the process was fair that would be what's happening...I still have hope that it will...at least until June 7th.
I lose it when I hear that 'it's over', which Clinton has said for months now, now from Sanders supporters before it's really over.
I'm sorry if I offended in any way.

I'm also upset when independents are expected to tow a party line of a party that they don't belong to and that excluded them in large part, or be blamed for the outcome. Since Sanders brings so many new people to the party that otherwise wouldn't vote Democrat should NEVER be a negative for him only a positive, and that blame game is an attempt to do just that, paint them and him negatively.

I sure hope he does win California big and turns it all around, or at least wins the convention.

Help me Bernie Wan, you're my only hope.

No, I do realize that they are both pro-Sanders (in a way), but that's why I'm mystified that either would suggest giving up at this point, or suggest that it's reasonable to think that his supporters would ever be hers in large enough numbers to matter. They should know that's not reasonable to think about many, if not most of them, and should also know that clearly the fight isn't lost yet, but every person that turns away from voting for Sanders to be the nominee is one vote closer to president Trump as I see it.
If they want to have that discussion after the convention, I would find much less fault with it.

No, I actually try hard to not read ANY biased stuff on either side, since it's all time wasting propaganda with an agenda...but I understand why you might think that. That does mean I have not read much from Clinton's camp either, so it's no surprise I missed it.

Yes, I agree that many charges thrown don't hold water, but some do, some might, and many more appear to because of her dismissive way of addressing concerns. I do push back when I hear claims against her that are pure fantasy, I'm not a Sanders fan AND a lie fan, I'm a Sanders fan because I hate lies, even when they help my cause.
BUT
Because most people don't give her that much, it doesn't matter what reality is, she's thoroughly painted as a dishonest self serving windsock, and nothing is going to change that perception for the masses, and it's the perception that matters come election day. You can be sure the worst smear campaign ever is coming at her, and she can't stand up to it by being dismissive. She's already tied for most disliked candidate EVER!

No, I think they should go to a contested convention and calmly debate who is the better candidate to win, and nominate that candidate, like they normally would. I just think that candidate is obvious, and it's not the one the DNC is going to let win.
(EDIT: There's a reason that the person who's 1 delegate ahead doesn't just 'win', because that person might be unelectable even if they're the favorite. That's why the threshold for victory is way more than 1/2 +1)

I'm doing my best, by contradicting anyone who says it's over. It's not an easy road, but there is a road to his victory, and an easier road to that debate on who's better to both win, and to serve the voters. I contend that both answers are Sanders.

Yes, I think the world is in horrendous shape on nearly every front, and I want it to be different....I want it, and us, to be better. I think everyone should. If you don't continuously try to be better, you undoubtedly are getting worse.
I think of myself as a realist idealist. I want people to try to do the right thing, but I understand that not only can all people not agree what that right thing is, but that it's actually not the same for everyone, and sometimes one person's 'right thing' denies another person's 'right thing'.
I don't look for purity, but when it's presented, I don't turn away either. Purity is a rare commodity, one that should be cherished if found. I see it in Sanders.

In the end she needs Sanders' supporters. Her job as a leader, is to reach out to Sanders and his supporters and get them behind her. I still think she and the DNC need to give him the primary Prime Time spot during the convention, and they need to give other members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus a large percentage of the time during the convention. That move, along with a good progressive VP candidate (I think Dennis Kucinich for reasons I've detailed before) would go a long way to helping secure the nomination. And as pointed out by @newtboy, her supporters in '08 were Democrats, so it isn't nearly the same story as what Sanders is doing now. The Democrats will continue to vote for her, it is the independents that you need to turn out and vote against Trump. Trump is doing better than expected at getting the Republicans behind him, and their hatred of Clinton can't be understated. Not to mention of course fears of indictment and other issues ahead of Clinton, such as the likely hood the Republicans would try to impeach her first thing... even if they don't impeach her, they'll stonewall congress like they have against Obama anyhow. They need to get the independents out to vote against the Republicans and have a Senate change as well, and I don't see them really working to that end yet, which mystifies me to no end.