*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Friday, May 20th, 2016 3:12pm PDT - promote requested by eric3579.

The fix is in but Bernie hasn't gotten the message.

A fucking crook against an honest socialist.

Trump will beat Hillary by a country mile. I don't think Trump can beat Bernie.


I would love to see Hillary take the orange suit perp walk over the email scandal. She is guilty as hell. I would vote for Trump just to see that happen.

If she wins then she is a free bird.

Oh FFS. Look, I wish Bernie was the nominee too, but it's not going to happen.

Clinton IS the nominee, whether you like it or not. That's not media bias (although that certainly put her in this position), that's MATH.

Bernie is nearly 200 delegates behind her in pledged delegates, never mind the super delegates.

He would need to absolutely trounce Clinton in California, where the polls are predicting the opposite.

It's sad and your electorate made the wrong choice (on both sides) but it's reality and Bernie supporters need to wake the fuck up and deal with it.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I'm with you.

However. She may have the nomination but Bernie holds the power. He could scuttle her general election prospects by a lack of endorsement or 3rd party run. She needs Bernie.

"Clinton Does Best Where Voting Machines Flunk Hacking Tests"

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/16/clinton-does-best-where-voting-machines-flunk-hacking-tests-hillary-clinton-vs-bernie-sanders-election-fraud-al
legations/

I fear you are making the same mistake the Clinton campaign makes. You think that if the candidate of choice for so many, Bernie, is no longer an option, his supporters will vote for the other Democrat....but Bernie's supporters are largely independents that don't support him because he's the Democratic candidate of choice, they support him DESPITE the fact that he's running as a Democrat.
Bernie is supported because of his perceived honesty and the documented stances he takes on various issues, mostly finance reform but many, many others. It is not the kind of support you can hand off to someone else, particularly not to someone that is the antithesis of the stances and values that garnered the support in the first place. Even if Sanders does endorse Clinton (I think he will, he said he would and he's seemingly a man of his word), I'm guessing a large part, likely the majority of his supporters still won't vote for Clinton, most of the young ones will just not vote at all, and some will vote for Trump out of spite or anger. That may hand the house and senate to the Republican's as well....so it's even worse than you think.
Not to mention the likely indictment(s) a few weeks before the election with no time or opportunity for her to defend herself against the charges. The Republicans control that process, it's insanity to think they won't abuse it.

She doesn't just need Bernie, she needs the independents that want Bernie's policies. I fear she will NEVER get them, they mostly despise her and distrust her immensely, which is one more reason the DNC pushing so hard for her makes no sense to me, it's a game they can only lose, even if they win.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Well, I'm a big Bernie supporter an I will hold my nose and vote for Clinton if I have to. I'm only assuming that others are pragmatic like me. I'll choose the lesser of two weevils.

I only hope there are enough like you that we don't end up with a president Trump. I also see her (Clinton) as the lesser of two evil weevils.

I'd point out that choosing the lesser of two evils for the last few decades is how we -got- here. We've taught the parties that they can offer up anyone, no matter how poorly qualified or corrupt, and that we'll still reward them with our votes.

No more. I'm not convinced that Trump is competent enough to do much real damage...no more than an orangutan would (and probably less than Bush did). But whatever damage he does, it's better than continuing to do the same fucking thing we always do, and give the 1% even more time to consolidate their grip on the reins.

I'm not sure I 100% agree about Trump's danger. Just his election could easily destabilize world markets and tank the world economy again, because markets HATE uncertainty, and he's uncertainty incarnate.
That said, he's not going to kill us all like some people are claiming.
Other than that, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

He might not kill you (as in US citizens), but he will almost certainly kill plenty of other people around the world.

TBF, that's been true of almost every US president, but Trump will be worse.

If you HAVE to?

You don't have to...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I don't think that "lesser of two evils" is the correct characterisation of voter behaviour over the last couple of decades. I'm sure you've seen Colbert's timely video on Nader. It's currently right over there in the sidebar ---->

Nader was an idealistic stand against the establishment for many people. The result was that it lost Gore the presidency and gave us Bush and Cheney for 8 years. In my opinion, the worst presidential period in my lifetime.

Vote idealistically if you want– me, I'll be holding my nose trying to fend off the apocalypse.

No, you don't HAVE to.
No one is putting a gun to your head.

But you do have to make a choice. You can:
a) hold your nose and vote for Hillary
b) vote for Trump out of spite
c) do nothing and abdicate responsibility

A is unpalatable, but B&C are nightmare scenarios.

You say that as though those are the only two candidates. And you would prefer a felon and compulsive liar? She's way more terrifying than Drumpf. Nothing he talks about he could ever get passed. Hillary has enough corporate sponsorship in her pocket that if she is elected (and I use that word lightly), certain doom and woe is upon us.

Hillary is the most consistent liar and has most inconsistently held positions (flip-flop) in US candidate history. It doesn't take much time to research this with as few words such as "Clinton lies" or "Clinton fraud" on YouTube.

There's plenty of short video's of compilations &/or speeches pointing out her pathological lies for those who just can't be arsed spending too much time actually looking into the matter.

For those who genuinely give a shit (or say they do), there are well detailed documentaries going into scary detail of just how unreliable and empty her words are, and always have been, for the sole reason that she (proven time and time again) says whatever she thinks is 'opinion-poll' best at the time, regardless of what she's said yesterday or will say tomorrow.

I hope Bernie somehow wins it, as he's the only decent human as a candidate. Although Trump may not be an ideal option for many, some of his shit wouldn't fly and you at least get a reliable direction of his intent.

Hilary is a fraudulent, power hungry pathological liar lacking consistency, who has more experience and skill in shadow politics than any candidate of recent history.

How can so many refer to her as the lesser of 2 evils, when none of you legitimately know what her positions are, as even experts state it can't be known from what she's said or done.

Sounds more like some of you are prepared to vote out of prejudices against Reps. Blind loyalty is pretending you know what you're doing, when you don't really care about the issue.

The claim that Nader cost Gore the election is based on the unproven assumption that Nader voters would have moved en-mass to Gore. It also rests on overlooking the real culprits, the US Supreme Court, who fucked with the counts and recounts just enough to give the election to Bush, when a full recount would have given Florida to Gore, -without- having to reassign Nader voters.

In short, the claim is utter bullshit. Yet more "fear" campaigning by the establishment.

Please. This false choice is what has us in the position we are in....because you ignore the actual proper way to vote, which is.....

d) vote for the candidate you think is BEST, not the one you think will win, not the terrible opponent of the disastrous.

Our system is not designed for people to vote against someone, but that's how it operates because of that misguided mindset.
It is not, and never has been either 'a' or 'b' or 'abdication', and the idea that those are the only options is not just wrong, it's horrendously destructive in many ways.
I refuse to vote for someone I think is terrible out of fear of someone I think is disastrous, that only ensures we all lose. Fear is the mind killer, and should be ignored and minimized when making important decisions, not relied on and exaggerated.

Worse than who? It seems that there's largely agreement that Hillary is (at least historically) more hawkish and more likely to over use the military than Trump (despite what he's said in the campaign, he's pretty clearly admitted that he's saying anything he thinks will get him elected and has no intent of following through with any of it, it's all just "suggestions")...of course, there's no telling what either would actually do in any situation since both are windsocks turning whichever way the wind is blowing at the time.
There is one major candidate that consistent, and is fairly consistently against unnecessary military actions, and since that's important to me I'll stick with him.

This is why we are it the predicament we are in today.

If people keep voting for someone who does not share their values just to stop someone who is a bit worse from getting elected this cycle will continue forever. "Spoilers" and "lesser of two evils" are tactics that keep people voting against their best interests.

If you vote for Hillary or Trump just because you think the other is worse, you are voting for a local maximum, and will be stuck with the rigged two party system forever.

Voting your conscience and losing to Trump is far better!!! Eventually a third party can form and whittle away at the two sided party. They can change their positions to stay in power or die off. Either way it gives us the ability to choose what topics being addressed, unlike the current system where year after year we are pitted against each other on the same topics which those in control have little interest in. Wallmart, Comcast et all have little interest in abortion gun control, or gay rights.

BREAK the fucking system. Do not vote for her to prevent Trump. It insures the continuation of the current system. Your voice will forever be inconsequential.

"Voting for the lesser of two evils only paves the way for the greater."

@newtboy and @ForgedReality
First up, I'm not saying I like Hillary, but let's be real here; Trump is much, much worse.

Hillary's a liar and a felon (citation needed, btw)?
Trump wants to bring back torture, to close the country to Muslims and deliberately bomb people's families. Yeah, he might not get to do any of that, but the fact that he WANTS to is fucking terrifying.
So, yes, she's undoubtedly the lesser of two evils.

As for voting for someone other than Hillary or Trump, as far as I'm aware, right now, there aren't any other candidates announced (assuming Hillary gets the Dem nomination, which she will, as I already explained because numbers).

A quick google doesn't show any other third party candidates (although it did reveal that Roseanne Barr once ran!) for this year. Bernie has said nothing about running as an independent, so right now your options are almost certainly Trump or Clinton.

But let's say for the sake of argument that Hillary gets the dem nod and Bernie decides to run as an independent.

Now in a sane political system, I would absolutely advocate voting for your favourite candidate, but the US election system is so fundamentally broken that voting for Bernie would hand Trump the election. That's the reality.

@Baristan
"Voting your conscience and losing to Trump is far better!!! Eventually a third party can form and whittle away at the two sided party. "

No, that doesn't happen. *related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Problems-with-First-Past-the-Post-Voting-Explained

A third party rises up, splits the vote of it's nearest rival and then disappears over the next couple of election cycles.

Your voice is already inconsequential. The US badly needs election reform.

It SUCKS, and by FSM, I really hope I'm wrong. Maybe Bernie will somehow snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, but it's just really unlikely.

But above all, you cannot elect Trump. If you really think he wouldn't be worse than Hillary, then I'm sorry, but you're fucking delusional.

Look, I REALLY wanted Bernie to win. I even checked if there was some way I could donate to his campaign as a non-US citizen. But it didn't happen. You (plural, US voters, especially democrats) had your chance and y'all done fucked it up and now you have to live with the choices you've made.

The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained has been added as a related post - related requested by ChaosEngine.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Yeah, I understand your point, gotta get worse to get better, go around the horn and remake the system. But four years is a mighty long time - and maybe things change irreparably.

I suppose you could think of Trump as chemotherapy. It's toxic but might be just what's needed to turn things around. But chemotherapy sometimes weakens the body so much that it can't fight anymore - and the body dies.

That's my concern. I think that 4 years of Trump chemo might kill us all.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

You're entitled to your opinion but the facts are what they are.

Gore lost Flordia by 537 votes. Nader had 97,421 votes in Florida. If you honestly think the Green's Party candidate votes would have gone to Bush if Nader wasn't there - then you're living in lala land. Sorry.

I think it depends on how you define "worse". I believe that Hillary is capable of being the shadowy, sleazy politician that knows the corrupt system, knows how to use/abuse it, and is 100% willing to bend it to her own goals.

Trump is a largely incompetent blowhard. He, like Hillary, says what he thinks he has to say to get the support of his base, and then flip-flops to suit his purposes. He isn't a Washington insider, he doesn't have the network of connections that Hillary does.

If Trump could be another Bush, Hillary could be another Nixon. I'm not convinced that Hillary is the lesser of two evils here.

And that's still working under the assumption that Trump would be as bad as Bush. Bush was bad, but without Dick Cheney and Karl Rove whispering in his ear, maybe he'd have been a merely incompetent president instead of a terrible one. For all the negative things that I think can fairly be said of Trump, I don't think that he's very likely to become someone's sock puppet like Bush.

I'm definitely not sure that Trump would be better than Hillary (for whatever definition of "better" one chooses), but I don't think it is cut and dry to the point of delusion for someone to see either of them as the bigger threat.

I get where you're coming from.

For me, it comes down to that for all Hillary's faults, at least she's not openly advocating the kind of lunacy Trump is (muslims, waterboarding, etc).

That chemo analogy is brilliant, I like it.

But I'm cautiously optimistic about what a dose of Trump-chemo could do for the US. For him to accomplish anything truly apocalyptic, he'd need a lot of help. I don't think he'd get it -- military might balk at his orders, legislature can utterly ignore him, etc. etc.

...Or, it could all go horribly wrong. But like I said, I'm cautiously optimistic.

Jill Stein(Green) and Gary Johnson(Libertarian)
are both running.
...


Yes a third party will split the vote. That is the point. It gives people the power to choose the issues. It forces a realignment of the parties. If the effected party doesn't change or adopt the third parties views, they will consistently lose. If they do change, then the third party can die out having been successful.

Parties have failed before. The US wasn't started with Democrat vs Republican. As I see it it's past time for both the Democratic and Republican parties to die out. The long term benefits from a realignment of the parties platform is well worth the temporary disaster of a Trump presidency.

I sincerely don't think Trump would be worse than Clinton. He is a buffoon with little support in the government, and would be unable to accomplish anything as president. Hillary on the other hand has the ability and will to continue the transfer of control over our government away from its citizens.

Trump winning would be a true embarrassment and a great motivation to switch from "first past the post" to another voting system. Hillary winning... more of the same BS ad infinitum.

I'll be voting for Jill Stein if Bernie isn't the Democratic nomination. Regardless of the outcome I'll know my vote, no matter how insignificantly small, supported the end of the Republican/Democrat duopoly.

I say that it's impossible to say that Trump is much worse or more evil....but you can make the assertion that his STATED PLANS are much worse than her STATED PLANS. It's important to note, however, that neither of them are at all likely to stick with anything they've said so far. Trump has already come out and said to ignore the entire primary season, it was all bluster and hyperbole to get him the nomination, and Clinton has a clear history of changing her position at the slightest breeze. Now we get a second season of different bluster and hyperbole (from both sides) to try for the presidency. Only once they're in office will we have any idea what they really plan on doing with their power. Neither Trump or Clinton have a record of consistency, so comparing them is impossible until after the fact.

The reason you don't see other candidates is that the primaries aren't over. Only the Democrats and Republicans play this game of 'the race is over...don't go vote, it won't matter' before the vote is over, even mathematically (which it still is not, BTW, contrary to your assertion. It is POSSIBLE, however unlikely, that Sanders could win despite the super delegates being in Clinton's pockets and the fix being in by the DNC, with only California's delegates, but they've duped you like millions of others into thinking it's been over for months now, and Clinton is our only remaining choice, and supporting Sanders now is like a vote for Trump, which is outrageously insulting BS).
Because Sanders has ALWAYS polled better than Clinton against Trump, if it's really a fear of yours that we might elect Trump, you should all be shouting at everyone possible to vote for Sanders on June 7th (EDIT: and warn them to not allow the poll workers to give them a provisional ballot which aren't counted, but insist on a democratic crossover ballot which will be). Clinton VS Trump is at best a toss up at this point (and she's not even indicted yet), Sanders VS Trump is consistently a landslide for Sanders. Just DUH, people. It's like...come on.

That video explains exactly why in the end, voting for the lesser of two evils leads to the greater. Without a third party popping up from time to time forcing parties to realign nothing will ever change. The same two parties keep swapping power. The spoiler effect is a necessary sacrifice, required to effect change in a first past the post system.

Ideally our senators would implement voting reform and end first past the post. Not likely to happen if they are all benefiting from the current system.

We'll have agree to disagree on the merits of Clinton and Trump.

As for the rest....

I haven't been "duped" by the media. The dem primary is over in all but name. Yes, it's not mathematically impossible for Bernie to win, but it's also highly improbable.

I've done the math.

Ignoring the super delegates, Clinton has 1768 vs Bernie's 1494.
There are 714 delegates still up for grabs, so Bernie would need to win 495 of them to be the popular pledged delegate candidate. That means Bernie needs to win 69% of the remaining delegates.

The vast majority(66.6% \m/) of those delegates are in the California primary where Bernie is projected to lose. Even the most optimistic poll has him losing by 2 points. If that happens it is mathematically impossible for him to win. Even if he manages a miracle and wins California by a few points, it's STILL mathematically impossible for him to win. He would have to win at least 53% of the vote in California to even stand a chance.

Finally, you're preaching to the converted. AFAIC, Bernie is so blatantly the obvious choice, I really can't understand why anyone wouldn't vote for him. Well, I can, it's because "boo! SOCIALISM!!! Oh teh noes!", but I find it depressing to accept. I've said before that in a sane political system, you would have a choice between a centre right candidate (Hillary) and Bernie.

And yes, Bernie beats Trump more than Clinton, but the democrats don't seem to have gotten that message.

I'm confused, in one paragraph you say the primary is over, but you go on to say it's not really over, it's just really over. If it's not over, it's not over, and FSM damit it's not over yet.
It was pretty improbable that he would win Alaska 82%-18%, but he did. IF he did that well in California, he could get no other vote on the 7th and still win. Improbable, maybe, highly improbable, no, certainly not this election, nothing is.
Even the exit polls have been wrong by well over 35% this year, and they are always more reliable than pre-voting polls. Bernie has HUGE support in California, I've not seen a SINGLE Hillary bumper sticker here in N Cali., despite what the (100% Clinton supporting) media has told you. Sanders winning 53% of California is not even improbable, it's within the margin of error for the polls you mention.

Hammer that message (that Sanders is a FAR better candidate for numerous reasons) into their skulls until the 7th and maybe he'll get enough of California to win...he's absolutely got my vote. Anyone who choses Hillary is rolling the dice on a Trump presidency, THEY are the ones putting us all in danger, not the Sanders supporters. What you absolutely should not be doing is claiming 'it's over so don't even bother trying'. That's simply a lie. Wait until after a nominee is named before saying anything of the sort. That the Clinton campaign has been saying it for months just shows their level of honesty....zero%.

Again, if a Trump presidency is something you fear, you should be shouting for Bernie with all your might right now....it's not over, not by far, and he is CLEARLY far and away the best choice, both for his platform and to defeat Trump.

I said it's "over in all but name".

Look, I completely back you for voting Bernie in the primary, and I hope to jebus he pulls it off, but I just don't think it'll happen.

Yes, but the thing is, it's not "over in all but name" at all. As you said (and I didn't check your math) he would only need 53% of California to be ahead....that's not much, and is totally within the range possibility.
Sadly, I also don't think it will happen, but I'm no where near ready to give up hope when there's still such a realistic possibility of having a president I could be proud of that would at least be trying to fix the process.
I see a Clinton nomination as a GIANT gamble with direction of the country for maybe decades to come, one where the odds are against them, and I can't fathom what the DNC is thinking being so risky when they have a 'safe' choice. It's just insane to me.

I will not vote for Hillary, nor can I vote for Trump.

I am most likely going to cast my vote for whomever the Libertarians pick this year.

We really need a good third party option for years like this one. Neither the Democrats nor Republicans seem to be able to give us a candidate that offers what voters really want these days.

I completely agree re the DNC, although I suspect it has more to do with House of Cards style coercion than anything else.

Just to be clear though, Bernie doesn't need 53% in California to be ahead, he needs 53% to not lose automatically. He needs 78% to be ahead.

I thought 53% sounded small.
78% is going to be difficult, but he has done it before, so not impossible.
He's my guy until he's not a candidate. I'm not sure Clinton can ever be MY candidate. Because I'm in California, it doesn't matter, the Democrat will win my state, so I'm free to vote with my conscience without fear that it hands the office to Trump.

EDIT: Of course, if the 'super delegates' vote like the people did, I think those numbers change. Bernie has earned nearly 1/2 the super delegates, but has not been 'awarded' many at all, 4 the last time I checked. If the super delegates choose the candidate, the DNC may be hammering in it's death nail.

Actually, I've ignored the superdelegates in my math because I've basically assumed that they will go with whoever has the popular vote at the convention, but since you brought them up....

There's one scenario no-one has considered yet; probably because it's extremely unlikely, but just for fun, let's say Bernie continues as projected and arrives at the convention trailing Hillary by about 200 delegates. Meanwhile, Trump has been attacking the ever-loving hell out of Hillary and her poll numbers in the general election are starting to look REALLY bad, as in Trump might/could/probably will/almost certainly will win.

So far, this is all pretty much what's going to happen.

But in this strange alternate dimension, the DNC pulls its head out of its collective arse and realises "holy shit, we could lose the white house! Hang on, Bernie polls much better against Trump!". Unable to convince Hillary to drop out, the superdelegates swing en masse to Bernie handing him the nomination AGAINST the popular vote.

How do you feel about this? On one hand, yay, #FeelTheBern, #FuckYouTrump and on to the white house and potentially the most significant change in US politics in decades (or not, who knows how much one president can actually do).

On the other hand.... there's no way around the fact that the DNC will have subverted the will of the people. If the situation was reversed, and the superdelegates gave the nomination to Hillary where Bernie (hypothetically) had more pledged delegates, well, there would be riots.

Interested to hear your thoughts on this scenario (unlikely as it is).

BTW, the fact that your vote is essentially meaningless (luckily for you, it happens to be meaningless in your favour) in your state is yet another symptom of just how very fucked the electoral college is.

Interesting. In that scenario, after I regain consciousness and pick my jaw up off the floor, I would both support the only decision that I think might save the party (one I don't belong to, BTW) and the reform movement and I would support Clinton supporters in their complaints that it was totally unfair. (EDIT: To that end, fixing the system should be job 1 to return 'fairness' to the process)

What I think we need most of all is campaign reform, not just finance reform but complete election rules reform from redrawing district boundaries on up. Sanders is the only one with a dog in that fight...or at least with a dog on the right side of that fight, so if using the current unfair rules to that end is the only option, I would forgive it just this once, but I would expect it to be fixed so it won't happen again.

Yes, in a way it's lucky my vote 'doesn't count'. In another, it's incredibly disheartening. This primary vote may be the first vote in a presidential campaign I will have ever cast that might make a difference, and also may be the last.

Completely agree.

CONVICTED PAEDOPHILE PLUNGES TO DEATH IN FAULTY GUARDRAIL SCANDAL

Interesting parallel above