President 2016 Should Be..?

[UnknownLegend 5480]

On 4/7/2016 at 10:28 PM, Howard Dean said:

Oh savage samurai...

 

Insatiable flea!

 

Holy fuck I forgot about that picture.

[tazmanianxdude 360]

it should be obama running for that 3rd term cause you know he could totaly do that, but honestly who ever becomes our president really wories me because it will affect me a lot if a certain someone becomes president :/

[lemonade 1582]

Kanye West should've ran for president.

[fatb0y 1337]

13 hours ago, Ordinarygamer96 said:

I meant the rich do not spend their money in a way that benefits or lifts up the middle class anymore. They increasingly spend it in other countries or though investment schemes that increase their wealth but do nothing to help others. Increasingly when they create jobs they are lower paying jobs. America currently has amassed the highest concentration of wealth in history yet american's increasingly are paid less, work more, get less benefits, and are told they are lazy scum by media for protesting against that.

.... Mandating an increase in employee benefits, protections, and wages discourages businesses from maintaining a large domestic workforce.  So, unless there is something to incentivize the hiring of a domestic labor force, businesses really have no reason to.  Americans are guaranteed the freedom to contract between one another, if someone feels that they are not getting paid what they deserve, they should do something about it besides bitching and moaning. If no one is willing to hire you at the rate you feel you deserve, then it is likely you have overvalued yourself.  

 

Quote

Arguably america's strongest economic era was the 40's to 50's and that was partially due to higher taxes on the rich pumping money back into society and paying for infrastructure etc.Ever since america adopted the idea the rich could be relied on to maintain the economy the economy has tanked. 

 

I would argue that large government spending was the primary cause of the economic strength during that time.  Every social program created by the new deal needed to be administered and managed.  The administration of these programs alone, likely created many jobs.  WW2 also created many jobs, everyone in the military at the time was employed, and America also created a draft at the time because they wanted more bodies. The surge in personnel was accompanied by a surge in demand for all the things needed to go to war.  This ranges from guns, bullets, uniforms, ships, tanks, submarines, jets, which likely increased the demand for the raw materials needed to produce these things. Business associated with the making of these things likely increased their work force to meet production demands. 

 

America has never adopted the idea that the rich could be relied on to maintain the economy. America has always held to the belief that the market should self regulate with minimal government intervention.  The fact that rich individuals have an effect on the economy is completely unrelated.  

 

Quote

If i was to classify terror groups I would probably start with ones that are actually directly a threat to america and currently no terrorist group has the power to inflict a significant blow against america. We've had more people die the past year in mass shootings by normal american's than we have in 5 by any sort of actual terror group.

 

So you would classify terror groups based on an assessment of their threat potential to America, I assume classification would be divided along the spectrum of threat level instead of just threat and non-threat.  Besides the fact that many things would factor into an assessment of a group's threat level, those factors are likely abstract and NOT easily identifiable.  For example, the ideals at the core of a group's beliefs should affect its threat level.  How radical a group's constituent members are should affect its threat level. How well funded a group is should affect its threat level. A groups internal organizational structure should affect its threat level.  I don't know about you, but threat assessment ain't easy.  

 

But anyways, lets pretend that there is a super threatening terrorist organization of buddhist warrior monks. Describe for me an individual you believe might be a member of this organization.  

 

Also, for the past 5 years America is actively exerting control over regions that certain terror groups call home.  America is also actively targeting terror groups. Do you know what America didn't do for the past 5 years? they didn't target (insert name of mass shooter).  It only takes a dickhead with a gun to commit a mass shooting, but the question is, how do you identify these dickheads in order to prevent future dickheads? 

 

Quote

Terrorism is something history has proven cant be beaten with military force or oppression.

 

History did not prove that.  Each terrorist group is centered on some common belief bringing the group together.  You can "beat" the group by wiping out all of its members and destroying any records of its teachings and ideologies. This is potentially tantamount to genocide, so it shouldn't be done, but it can be done. This is however besides the point, terrorism by definition can't be beaten since it isn't a thing to be beaten.  Terrorism can only be prevented, since any dickhead with a gun and a particular point of view can be a terrorist.

 

Quote

It needs to be defeated by winning over the next generation which Trump's plan to block them from entering america or treating them all like potential suicide bombers would not do.

 

I believe this to be analogous to reasoning with a petulant child. Possibly appeasing a petulant child, but America has a backbone. 

[UnknownLegend 5480]

fatb0y gave me $60 for JCS access back in the day.  I'd say that's an example of the rich spending their money in a way that supports the middle class.

[trav 6834]

13 hours ago, fatb0y said:

Each terrorist group is centered on some common belief bringing the group together.  You can "beat" the group by wiping out all of its members and destroying any records of its teachings and ideologies. This is potentially tantamount to genocide, so it shouldn't be done, but it can be done. This is however besides the point, terrorism by definition can't be beaten since it isn't a thing to be beaten.  Terrorism can only be prevented, since any dickhead with a gun and a particular point of view can be a terrorist.

 

In other words:

 

On 4/14/2016 at 10:53 AM, Ordinarygamer96 said:

Terrorism is something history has proven cant be beaten with military force or oppression. It needs to be defeated by winning over the next generation

 

 

Do you guys even actually read what each other are saying? You both are arguing each other but you're on the same side.

 

[JFK 546]

Well in other news, Bernie just released his Tax Returns, though incomplete and missing the deductibles.

 

Apparently and somehow, he only paid an effective tax rate of 13.4%.

 

I think fatb0y should be asking him for tax advice, and eagerly.

[UnknownLegend 5480]

50 minutes ago, JFK said:

Well in other news, Bernie just released his Tax Returns, though incomplete and missing the deductibles.

 

Huh...I'm surprised he didn't claim Hillary as a dependent seeing as he provides her half of her ideas

[fatb0y 1337]

5 hours ago, Travesty said:

 

In other words:

 

 

 

Do you guys even actually read what each other are saying? You both are arguing each other but you're on the same side.

 

 

I'm not sure if I am being unclear or if your reading level is an actual travesty. 

 

[Nature 4]

Trump. He is going to make America great again

[Da Boss 21]

Hillary clinton,she seems the most reasonable and the most sane out of all of the other candidates,plus it would be interesting to see the media's and the people's reaction to a female president.

[Name 2616]

On 4/14/2016 at 10:32 PM, fatb0y said:

 

I don't understand how this is a problem? If you won the lottery a week before your death, wouldn't you want to decide who gets your stuff? I know I would. Besides, how does a person's wealth affect anyone else?

 

 

Those countries you refer to all have some form of socialist government. Do you know how America feels about socialism, and its ultimate goal? 

 

 

So because domestic terrorists are already inside the country, we shouldn't even try to prevent foreign terrorists from entering the country? That is just retarded.

 

Religion and race, if you were asked to research terrorist organizations, and then asked to classify the organizations into groups based on easily identifiable data, how would you do it?  

 

>how does a person's wealth affect anyone else?

 

I take it you don't understand even the basics of how an economy works. Money is not an infinite resource.

 

>some form of socialist government

 

America in its current state has some kind of socialist government, limited socialism is not an inherently bad thing, again, I feel like you hear the word "socialist" on the news and just spout it like a buzzword with no care to its actual definition

 

>we shouldn't even try to prevent foreign terorrists from entering

 

Holy shit you took what I said and repeated it back with the exact opposite meaning, we aren't keeping out terrorists, we're keeping out fucking refugees.

[Ian 325]

I pretty much dislike every candidate. Hillary is a liar, Bernie failed college economics, Trump is a foreign relations nightmare, and Cruz is almost too religious for my taste.

[fatb0y 1337]

On 4/17/2016 at 0:55 PM, Name said:

 

>how does a person's wealth affect anyone else?

 

I take it you don't understand even the basics of how an economy works. Money is not an infinite resource.

 

I realize that if a certain economy has a total wealth of 1 million dollars, of which I possess 600k, then everyone else can necessarily only possess 400k. But what I was referring to was, how does my having 600k affect other people from taking their piece of the left over 400k pie? lets say the distribution of wealth is 600k, 200k, 100k, and then everyone else has some piece of the remaining 100k. the 2nd and 3rd richest individuals in this scenario were still able to become extremely wealthy when compared to everyone else.

 

Also, I suppose my question can also be applied to the issue you have with inheritance.  How does a person inheriting wealth, affect other people from doing whatever it is that they are doing to become wealthy?  Should people be prevented from passing on money they rightfully earned to their heirs?  I don't think a person inheriting his wealth will affect another person from pursuing theirs. I also think people should be allowed to determine what happens to their hard earned wealth after they die. 

 

Our current system allows for the example below, please tell me where the current system is going wrong with the example below. 

 

A few years ago, you could sell an iphone for like $1000 in the first few months.  All someone had to do to make ~$400 is stand in line, pay, and then sell.  Now imagine everyone in a certain high school have equal wealth and are equal in every way, each students total wealth being $1000.  Suppose 1 student from this high school  bought an iphone and sold it, making $400 profit, and then decided to pay 4 of his classmates $100 each to queue up in his place to buy iphones. 4 students became $100 richer for relatively easy work, and 1 student became $1200 richer for selling 4 iphones@$300 profit.  Now, suppose this person decided that next time he should get 10 more classmates and the time after that 20 more classmates at the same rate of $100 per person.  This individual would have made 34 classmates at least $100 richer, and he would have made $15,600 overall. 

 

The person who organized his classmates into lining up for iphones is clearly the richest among his classmates, who all started out with $1000. The original 4 students are wealthier than most because they would have made $300 overall, 10 students would have made $200 and the 20 students who joined the latest would have only made $100.

 

Lastly, lets be real, you say that money is not infinite, which isn't exactly true, but lets suppose that it is.  Your statement makes it seem like average people have no chance of becoming rich, because a small group of people are rich.  That is not the reason average people will never become rich.  The reason most average people will never become rich is because they are average, regardless of external circumstances, they will never be in a position to achieve great wealth.  Some of them might, but most of them won't and never will.  This has less to do with the currently wealthy few, and more to do with the average individual.   

     

Quote

>some form of socialist government

 

America in its current state has some kind of socialist government, limited socialism is not an inherently bad thing, again, I feel like you hear the word "socialist" on the news and just spout it like a buzzword with no care to its actual definitionees.

 

My statement made no claims about whether socialism is a good or bad thing.  I asked if you knew how socialism is viewed in America. The merits of socialism has nothing to do with how socialism is currently viewed.  Also, I feel like you are the one that actually doesn't care about the definition of "socialist" since your use of the word is broad when it didn't have to be.  What kind of socialism are you referring to, do you mean a social democracy or democratic socialism?  You mention limited socialism, but what is being limited? are individuals being limited or is it the government? Maybe what is being limited is how much socialistic policies are used, instead of the nature of the policies themselves.   

 

Quote

>we shouldn't even try to prevent foreign terorrists from entering

 

Holy shit you took what I said and repeated it back with the exact opposite meaning, we aren't keeping out terrorists, we're keeping out fucking refug

 

Suppose there are 9 refugees and 1 terrorist. 

 

I decide to deny all of them entry into my country.  

You decide to let 6 of them into yours, randomly selected, to be fair to all 10 individuals seeking entry. 

 

Which country is guaranteed to have less terrorists, mine or yours? Yours might have let 6 refugees in, it could also have let in 5 refugees and 1 terrorist. 

My country on the other hand, will have let 0 terrorists in, guaranteed. 

[Name 2616]

12 hours ago, fatb0y said:

 

I realize that if a certain economy has a total wealth of 1 million dollars, of which I possess 600k, then everyone else can necessarily only possess 400k. But what I was referring to was, how does my having 600k affect other people from taking their piece of the left over 400k pie? lets say the distribution of wealth is 600k, 200k, 100k, and then everyone else has some piece of the remaining 100k. the 2nd and 3rd richest individuals in this scenario were still able to become extremely wealthy when compared to everyone else.

 

Also, I suppose my question can also be applied to the issue you have with inheritance.  How does a person inheriting wealth, affect other people from doing whatever it is that they are doing to become wealthy?  Should people be prevented from passing on money they rightfully earned to their heirs?  I don't think a person inheriting his wealth will affect another person from pursuing theirs. I also think people should be allowed to determine what happens to their hard earned wealth after they die. 

 

Our current system allows for the example below, please tell me where the current system is going wrong with the example below. 

 

A few years ago, you could sell an iphone for like $1000 in the first few months.  All someone had to do to make ~$400 is stand in line, pay, and then sell.  Now imagine everyone in a certain high school have equal wealth and are equal in every way, each students total wealth being $1000.  Suppose 1 student from this high school  bought an iphone and sold it, making $400 profit, and then decided to pay 4 of his classmates $100 each to queue up in his place to buy iphones. 4 students became $100 richer for relatively easy work, and 1 student became $1200 richer for selling 4 iphones@$300 profit.  Now, suppose this person decided that next time he should get 10 more classmates and the time after that 20 more classmates at the same rate of $100 per person.  This individual would have made 34 classmates at least $100 richer, and he would have made $15,600 overall. 

 

The person who organized his classmates into lining up for iphones is clearly the richest among his classmates, who all started out with $1000. The original 4 students are wealthier than most because they would have made $300 overall, 10 students would have made $200 and the 20 students who joined the latest would have only made $100.

 

Lastly, lets be real, you say that money is not infinite, which isn't exactly true, but lets suppose that it is.  Your statement makes it seem like average people have no chance of becoming rich, because a small group of people are rich.  That is not the reason average people will never become rich.  The reason most average people will never become rich is because they are average, regardless of external circumstances, they will never be in a position to achieve great wealth.  Some of them might, but most of them won't and never will.  This has less to do with the currently wealthy few, and more to do with the average individual.   

     

 

My statement made no claims about whether socialism is a good or bad thing.  I asked if you knew how socialism is viewed in America. The merits of socialism has nothing to do with how socialism is currently viewed.  Also, I feel like you are the one that actually doesn't care about the definition of "socialist" since your use of the word is broad when it didn't have to be.  What kind of socialism are you referring to, do you mean a social democracy or democratic socialism?  You mention limited socialism, but what is being limited? are individuals being limited or is it the government? Maybe what is being limited is how much socialistic policies are used, instead of the nature of the policies themselves.   

 

 

Suppose there are 9 refugees and 1 terrorist. 

 

I decide to deny all of them entry into my country.  

You decide to let 6 of them into yours, randomly selected, to be fair to all 10 individuals seeking entry. 

 

Which country is guaranteed to have less terrorists, mine or yours? Yours might have let 6 refugees in, it could also have let in 5 refugees and 1 terrorist. 

My country on the other hand, will have let 0 terrorists in, guaranteed. 

 

Not gonna quote these individually so I'll just reply by topic:

 

iPhone scenario: False premise, your scenario assumes all students already have $1000 which is an inaccurate basis for comparison to society

 

Socialism: Point ceded, but frankly how America feels about socialism is fueled by ignorance so it's still not a ground to stand on when a lot of people are using it as such

 

Refugees: Which country is guaranteed to have less? Neither. They could both easily have 0. Also by making it a hypothetical scenario you are implying that 1 in 10 refugees is a terrorist. Also, numerous studies have shown that immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes than residents in the US. So my theoretical country now has a theoretically lower crime rate than yours.

 

"Lastly, lets be real, you say that money is not infinite, which isn't exactly true, but lets suppose that it is.  Your statement makes it seem like average people have no chance of becoming rich, because a small group of people are rich.  That is not the reason average people will never become rich.  The reason most average people will never become rich is because they are average, regardless of external circumstances, they will never be in a position to achieve great wealth.  Some of them might, but most of them won't and never will.  This has less to do with the currently wealthy few, and more to do with the average individual.   "

 

The game has never been to make everyone rich. It's been to make everyone make enough money to get by without drowning in stress, turning to payday loans, or pawning off personal belongings to make it by.

[fatb0y 1337]

9 hours ago, Name said:

iPhone scenario: False premise, your scenario assumes all students already have $1000 which is an inaccurate basis for comparison to society

 

 

The example wasn't intended to accurately reflect society. The scenario was made in response to what I interpreted you to be advocating, a more egalitarian redistribution of wealth (I may have interpreted incorrectly).  The $1000 premise is the result of an egalitarian redistribution of wealth, among the student population.  

 

Which is to say that in my scenario where everyone starts equal (which you seem to want), eventually someone becomes much wealthier than everyone else (which you seem to be against).

 

In the given scenario would you force one person give up a large percentage of his wealth just to make everyone else more equal wealthy even after he had increased the wealth of 34 others? 

 

Quote

Socialism: Point ceded, but frankly how America feels about socialism is fueled by ignorance so it's still not a ground to stand on when a lot of people are using it as such

 

Fair enough

 

Quote

Refugees: Which country is guaranteed to have less? Neither. They could both easily have 0. Also by making it a hypothetical scenario you are implying that 1 in 10 refugees is a terrorist. Also, numerous studies have shown that immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes than residents in the US. So my theoretical country now has a theoretically lower crime rate than yours.

 

My example was narrowly conceived, but the point was that if a country made a blanket refusal to allow people from a certain region to immigrate, then terrorists from that region would also be prevented from immigrating as well as any refugees and tourists and others from the region.

 

Also, your theoretical country could have a lower crime rate, or it could have a higher crime rate.  Immigrants being less likely to commit serious crimes, just means that they commit less serious crimes, like murder.  However, they could be more willing to commit petty crimes than residents.  If they are, then your country's crime could be higher.  In any case, it doesn't really matter. 

 

In reality, America's borders are not all that tightly controlled, and america takes in over 200k refugees each year, they just aren't from the middle east.  

 

Quote

The game has never been to make everyone rich. It's been to make everyone make enough money to get by without drowning in stress, turning to payday loans, or pawning off personal belongings to make it by.

 

Everyone includes a wide variety of people, my disagreements with social welfare programs are directed at the programs indiscriminate availability to all.  I believe that some people are more deserving of assistance than others.  Ultimately, I do agree that there should be some form of relief to assist people with basic living expenses.  However, I disagree with everyone being entitled to such relief. 

 

Out of everyone, there is going to be a group of people who are simply unlucky, and no matter how much they try, their lives are just a series of shitty circumstances.  I believe these people deserve some assistance to help them along in life.  These people did not contribute to putting themselves in their current situation, and so should be assisted to escape it.  

 

There is also another group of people whose shitty circumstance and overall impoverished condition results from their own inability to be prudent.  I believe that these people absolutely do not deserve assistance.  This group actively contributed to putting themselves into their current situation, and acted thoughtlessly.  These people dug the holes they are currently in, whereas the first group were born in their holes.  If a person made an effort to become impoverished, others shouldn't interfere.   

[Musicfreak 181]

Everyone remember to go out and vote for Donald if you live in one of the primary states today!

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

I want everyone that votes for Trump to pledge to work on the farms for 6 dollars an hour 50 hours a week. Then they can say they understand the consequences of their decisions

[JFK 546]

Sanders Stannis making his last stand in the North after losing in the South.

 

https://youtu.be/LAwRng7pom8?t=3m

 

11 minutes ago, Ordinarygamer96 said:

I want everyone that votes for Trump to pledge to work on the farms for 6 dollars an hour 50 hours a week. Then they can say they understand the consequences of their decisions

 

An easy blowout for the Democrats in November. He will never win over the majority from anyone that's not an older white guy. There's only so many white guys you can win over that can make up for pissing off everyone else.

[Dr Pepper 1491]

a little old but still a good watch

[Name 2616]

On 4/20/2016 at 3:55 AM, fatb0y said:

 

The example wasn't intended to accurately reflect society. The scenario was made in response to what I interpreted you to be advocating, a more egalitarian redistribution of wealth (I may have interpreted incorrectly).  The $1000 premise is the result of an egalitarian redistribution of wealth, among the student population.  

 

Which is to say that in my scenario where everyone starts equal (which you seem to want), eventually someone becomes much wealthier than everyone else (which you seem to be against).

 

In the given scenario would you force one person give up a large percentage of his wealth just to make everyone else more equal wealthy even after he had increased the wealth of 34 others? 

 

 

Fair enough

 

 

My example was narrowly conceived, but the point was that if a country made a blanket refusal to allow people from a certain region to immigrate, then terrorists from that region would also be prevented from immigrating as well as any refugees and tourists and others from the region.

 

Also, your theoretical country could have a lower crime rate, or it could have a higher crime rate.  Immigrants being less likely to commit serious crimes, just means that they commit less serious crimes, like murder.  However, they could be more willing to commit petty crimes than residents.  If they are, then your country's crime could be higher.  In any case, it doesn't really matter. 

 

In reality, America's borders are not all that tightly controlled, and america takes in over 200k refugees each year, they just aren't from the middle east.  

 

 

Everyone includes a wide variety of people, my disagreements with social welfare programs are directed at the programs indiscriminate availability to all.  I believe that some people are more deserving of assistance than others.  Ultimately, I do agree that there should be some form of relief to assist people with basic living expenses.  However, I disagree with everyone being entitled to such relief. 

 

Out of everyone, there is going to be a group of people who are simply unlucky, and no matter how much they try, their lives are just a series of shitty circumstances.  I believe these people deserve some assistance to help them along in life.  These people did not contribute to putting themselves in their current situation, and so should be assisted to escape it.  

 

There is also another group of people whose shitty circumstance and overall impoverished condition results from their own inability to be prudent.  I believe that these people absolutely do not deserve assistance.  This group actively contributed to putting themselves into their current situation, and acted thoughtlessly.  These people dug the holes they are currently in, whereas the first group were born in their holes.  If a person made an effort to become impoverished, others shouldn't interfere.   

 

I can respect these opinions. I'll reply to the first one because it's the only one I take issue with:

 

In your scenario, everyone starts equal. That is a great ideal but not the reality. America has never been an even playing field, even from its beginnings. The upper class of today is largely influenced by previous upper classes, and for that reason, pure capitalism does not work for our society, we need a limited capitalism system that involves some socialist tendencies. This is all my opinion, of course.

[Reaper0470 1123]

[slyfox 202]

Whelp....

 

GOP News: 

"Lyin' Ted" drops out of the race for the GOP nomination, leaving only Donald Trump vs John Kasich.  A smart move imo from Cruz, since Kasich is the only person who (according to the polls) can beat Hillary Clinton.  He will hope to go to a contested convention, since all of the independent delegates will pledge their allegiance with the GOP, who are backing the current Ohio governor, John Kasich.  He is a pretty center guy, leaning to the right a bit, but will most likely lead this country better than Hillary.  

Polls: Trump 45 Delegates (52.9%) 

Cruz 0 Delegates (36.9%) 

Kasich 0 Delegates (7.6%) 

 

With Trump currently having just 1,041 of 1,237 needed and 520 available, the road to a contested convention this July is quite possible.  Trump is expected to win states like Nebraska and West Virginia, but other states may come out in Kasich's favor.  

 

DNC News: 

Are you feeling the Bern? Sanders comes back and wins by a slight margin over Hillary Clinton in Indiana during an evenly matched primary.  It is really hard to tell what the outcome of the DNC is going to be, but it still looks like the nomination is going to be up for grabs.  

Polls: Sanders 42 Delegates (53.3%) 

Clinton 36 Delegates (46.7%) 

 

Seeing that Clinton only needs about 182 Delegates for the nomination (currently at 2,201 total at time of writing/these won't count until the convention), a Clinton nomination could be the outcome since the loyalty-free super delegates, 520 of them, have chosen to support her, while only 39 support Sanders.  1,165 delegates are still anyone's for the taking, and states like California, New Jersey, Oregon, and others such as DC in the future, Sanders could pull a comeback over the DNC's powerhouse.  

 

Whoever you may support, don't forget to use your right as an American and Vote.  Too many people died for this right for your opportunity to change your country. 

[Reaper0470 1123]

33 minutes ago, slyfox said:

Seeing that Clinton only needs about 182 Delegates for the nomination (currently at 2,201 total at time of writing/these won't count until the convention), a Clinton nomination could be the outcome since the loyalty-free super delegates, 520 of them, have chosen to support her, while only 39 support Sanders.  1,165 delegates are still anyone's for the taking, and states like California, New Jersey, Oregon, and others such as DC in the future, Sanders could pull a comeback over the DNC's powerhouse.  

I hate seeing news stories and people talking about how Clinton is going to win because of superdelegates. People don't seem to realize they aren't set in stone yet. Most comments I've read on news stories from Clinton supporters show that they believe the superdelegates can't be changed and Bernie should drop out. I'm not very political, but if I can research enough to know what's going on and how superdelegates work why can't Clinton supporters?

[centran 4457]

I hate seeing news stories and people talking about how Clinton is going to win because of superdelegates. People don't seem to realize they aren't set in stone yet. Most comments I've read on news stories from Clinton supporters show that they believe the superdelegates can't be changed and Bernie should drop out. I'm not very political, but if I can research enough to know what's going on and how superdelegates work why can't Clinton supporters?

Support delegates will normally side with the majority vote. However Bernie made an interesting point of those in States he already won should flip. I wonder if the face would be closer if they did.

He still won't get the pledged delegates though. Almost every state had been close and since it isn't winner takes all he would need a miracle to win the pledged right now.