|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 23 2016 07:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2016 07:32 Mohdoo wrote:On March 23 2016 07:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 23 2016 07:26 Mohdoo wrote:On March 23 2016 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote: Meanwhile, former independents are being turned away in AZ because the party didn't update their voting rolls. It's so obvious this is bullshit I don't know how people can't see it. Didn't update voting rolls? I don't understand what you are saying, perhaps due to my own ignorance regarding Arizona's process. Voters who registered with the Democratic party this year haven't been added to the voter rolls and are being told they can't vote. To be fair, "this year" is only 3 months. After what date of registering are people not updated? Are people who registered in 2015 accounted for? How is updating done in other states? It's been an issue for over a decade in Arizona This will just be the biggest and most specific instance.
If this was an issue for more than a decade, doesn't that mean it isn't directed at Sanders?
|
I'm in a class for cyber security managers taught by the former CIO of the Army Reserves and he explained that when data is mishandled, as in the case of the Clinton email server, the person ultimately held responsible is the senior management, which in this case is Clinton, since she's secretary of state. How is she not in jail? Which part of the Democratic party is preventing the FBI from arresting her, and how are they doing so?
|
On March 23 2016 07:37 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2016 07:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 23 2016 07:32 Mohdoo wrote:On March 23 2016 07:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 23 2016 07:26 Mohdoo wrote:On March 23 2016 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote: Meanwhile, former independents are being turned away in AZ because the party didn't update their voting rolls. It's so obvious this is bullshit I don't know how people can't see it. Didn't update voting rolls? I don't understand what you are saying, perhaps due to my own ignorance regarding Arizona's process. Voters who registered with the Democratic party this year haven't been added to the voter rolls and are being told they can't vote. To be fair, "this year" is only 3 months. After what date of registering are people not updated? Are people who registered in 2015 accounted for? How is updating done in other states? It's been an issue for over a decade in Arizona This will just be the biggest and most specific instance. If this was an issue for more than a decade, doesn't that mean it isn't directed at Sanders?
Well I didn't specifically say it was "directed at Sanders". I said it was bullshit and people should be able to see it. It happens to be heavily influencing this particular election too.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 23 2016 07:39 plasmidghost wrote: I'm in a class for cyber security managers taught by the former CIO of the Army Reserves and he explained that when data is mishandled, as in the case of the Clinton email server, the person ultimately held responsible is the senior management, which in this case is Clinton, since she's secretary of state. How is she not in jail? Which part of the Democratic party is preventing the FBI from arresting her, and how are they doing so? prob obama lol
|
Is it that there are reports of unprocessed change of party forms, or is it that we know every single change since January has not been processed? It sounds like you are taking reports of people being turned away and using that to assume this is the case for some percentage of people and then assuming that percentage of people would have voted for Sanders.
|
On March 23 2016 07:18 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2016 07:04 Plansix wrote: And there is no way we would have a clear winner after one primary if they were all at once. We would need to do it several times to narrow the field. Begs the question, does the winner need to be clear? Is someone winning by 2% a terrible thing? General elections are won by slim margins.
If you have 3 candidates, you should really have a clear winner if you want to pick the candidate the majority prefer. That or do ranking voting instead of pick one.
Also, general elections are won by majority electoral college vote or else they're decided by House of Representatives, so they also need a clear winner (and even then I'm not a fan of not having ranking/run-offs in a three-party system).
On March 23 2016 07:39 plasmidghost wrote: I'm in a class for cyber security managers taught by the former CIO of the Army Reserves and he explained that when data is mishandled, as in the case of the Clinton email server, the person ultimately held responsible is the senior management, which in this case is Clinton, since she's secretary of state. How is she not in jail? Which part of the Democratic party is preventing the FBI from arresting her, and how are they doing so?
The FBI is figuring out how aggressive they should be given that they don't want to have to arrest every past S.O.S. for doing something similar-they want a "smoking gun" error that differentiates it from past misconduct and lets them make an example. That's my theory anyway.
|
On March 23 2016 07:39 plasmidghost wrote: I'm in a class for cyber security managers taught by the former CIO of the Army Reserves and he explained that when data is mishandled, as in the case of the Clinton email server, the person ultimately held responsible is the senior management, which in this case is Clinton, since she's secretary of state. How is she not in jail? Which part of the Democratic party is preventing the FBI from arresting her, and how are they doing so? Noted Democrat James Comey.
|
On March 23 2016 08:02 zf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2016 07:39 plasmidghost wrote: I'm in a class for cyber security managers taught by the former CIO of the Army Reserves and he explained that when data is mishandled, as in the case of the Clinton email server, the person ultimately held responsible is the senior management, which in this case is Clinton, since she's secretary of state. How is she not in jail? Which part of the Democratic party is preventing the FBI from arresting her, and how are they doing so? Noted Democrat James Comey. It should be noted that news outlets have been reporting that the FBI has been leaking that the Obama Administration has been interfering with the investigation/prosecution. My understanding is that the FBI will be done with its investigation in May, at which point we'll know where this is going.
|
On March 23 2016 08:02 zf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2016 07:39 plasmidghost wrote: I'm in a class for cyber security managers taught by the former CIO of the Army Reserves and he explained that when data is mishandled, as in the case of the Clinton email server, the person ultimately held responsible is the senior management, which in this case is Clinton, since she's secretary of state. How is she not in jail? Which part of the Democratic party is preventing the FBI from arresting her, and how are they doing so? Noted Democrat James Comey. His Wikipedia page says he's Republican
|
On March 23 2016 08:08 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2016 08:02 zf wrote:On March 23 2016 07:39 plasmidghost wrote: I'm in a class for cyber security managers taught by the former CIO of the Army Reserves and he explained that when data is mishandled, as in the case of the Clinton email server, the person ultimately held responsible is the senior management, which in this case is Clinton, since she's secretary of state. How is she not in jail? Which part of the Democratic party is preventing the FBI from arresting her, and how are they doing so? Noted Democrat James Comey. His Wikipedia page says he's Republican He is. That was scarcasm. See the post above. Several news organizations have reported that Comey will resign when DOJ refuses to indict Clinton. To be seen.
|
|
Man I hope Clinton gets arrested, I even heard rumors that Clinton was going to be pardoned by Obama if she gets convicted
|
On March 23 2016 08:25 plasmidghost wrote: Man I hope Clinton gets arrested, I even heard rumors that Clinton was going to be pardoned by Obama if she gets convicted
Is your rumor source a member of Obama's cabinet?
|
On March 23 2016 08:27 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2016 08:25 plasmidghost wrote: Man I hope Clinton gets arrested, I even heard rumors that Clinton was going to be pardoned by Obama if she gets convicted Is your rumor source a member of Obama's cabinet? I don't know, I read it somewhere, so I took it with a grain of salt, but it seems like something that could happen
|
On March 19 2016 06:36 Ghanburighan wrote:I'll be a sport about this, I think it's an interesting question and TL member ought to put their guesses where their fingers are (... err... you know what I mean). Welcome to the: Great delegate race!Here's a competition organised and sponsored by yours truly to determine who can guess final delegate counts most accurately on TL. The rules are as follows: Vote on the number of delegates each candidate will secure by the convention. Give an exact number (replies such as ~200 are interpreted as exactly 200, and the same goes for all similar obfuscation) At the end of this primary season, three different TL members will be awarded prizes. Those will be awarded to the persons who a) guess the GOP winner's delegate count most accurately, b) guess the Dem winner's delegate count most accurately, and c) have the most accurate average delegate distribution between Clinton, Cruz, Kasich, Trump and Sanders. If a person scores best in several categories, they will forfeit their prize in consecutive categories to whoever has the next best answer. If there's a tie, a coin will be flipped to determine the winner. No answers will be accepted after March 21st23rd at 00.00 GMT. (That means you have three days to participate!) Here's a link to the google form where you can submit your answers: http://goo.gl/forms/ql85HLl4lz I'll be the one awarding the prizes, so it's most likely to be steam gift cards, but there's room to negotiate so everyone will be treated fairly. + Show Spoiler +Why have awards in the first place, you ask? I believe that a little bit of incentive makes people work harder, and I want this to be a close race. Happy competing!
I'm sorry, I wrote the wrong date (when the next primaries were going to be held). I meant today at 00 GMT. So, you have 20 more minutes to submit responses.
Also, as there are no exit polls, I'll accept responses until it's clear what today's results will be.
|
On March 23 2016 07:45 Mohdoo wrote: Is it that there are reports of unprocessed change of party forms, or is it that we know every single change since January has not been processed? It sounds like you are taking reports of people being turned away and using that to assume this is the case for some percentage of people and then assuming that percentage of people would have voted for Sanders.
Well it's independents which have heavily broke Sanders. The bullshit isn't limited to this situation though. I was calling bullshit on intentionally excluding the plurality of voters from the nomination process where independents are excluded. After this election I wouldn't be surprised to see the "independent party" grow larger than both parties combined. Yet they won't have a say in many states for who is on the ballot in Nov.
That's patently dumb.
|
I'm kinda shocked to see something like this come from Piers Morgan. Here's part of it:
Trump told me countries must tighten their borders in light of these terror attacks, especially to anyone related to an ISIS fighter in Syria. Is he so wrong? He told me he wants law-abiding Muslims to root out the extremists in their midst, expressing his bafflement and anger that someone like Abdeslam was able to hide for so long in the very part of Brussels he had previously lived. Is he so wrong? He told me America must make it far harder for illegal immigrants to enter the U.S. and thinks European countries should follow suit. Is he so wrong? He told me he believes there are now areas of many major European cities which have become poisonous breeding grounds for radicalized Islamic terror. Is he so wrong? I didn’t feel I was talking to a lunatic, as many seem to view Trump. I saw a guy, a non-politician unfettered by PC language restraints, who is genuinely furious at the devastation which ISIS is wreaking, and seriously concerned for the security of his fellow Americans and indeed, the citizens of Europe.
|
United States42694 Posts
Er, everyone, left, right, middle, hates Piers Morgan in the UK. He pretty much got exiled to the US after his newpaper knowingly fabricated pictures of "abuse" by British soldiers in Iraq and then published them on his watch, leading to a backlash against the soldiers from the Iraqi population.
When the scandal broke he explained that while he knew that the photos were fakes he published them anyway because they depicted faked versions of the kind of abuse which could be real.
Piers Morgan being pro-Trump is entirely unsurprising to me. The only thing that surprises me is his continued relevance in America long after his own nation disowned him.
Honestly the more you know about the man the more you hate him.
|
No it's not Pierce....
The guy just said we need more torture. It's pretty well known to anyone who would do it (and many who have) that it's not productive. You end up chasing a lot of bad information and wasting a lot of resources.
Torture is like death penalty, in that we say it's for one thing, but it's really about retribution.
Considering his past positions it seems more like a cry for relevance than anything serious.
|
On March 23 2016 08:44 KwarK wrote: Er, everyone, left, right, middle, hates Piers Morgan in the UK. He pretty much got exiled to the US after his newpaper knowingly fabricated pictures of "abuse" by British soldiers in Iraq and then published them on his watch, leading to a backlash against the soldiers from the Iraqi population.
When the scandal broke he explained that while he knew that the photos were fakes he published them anyway because they depicted faked versions of the kind of abuse which could be real.
Piers Morgan being pro-Trump is entirely unsurprising to me. The only thing that surprises me is his continued relevance in America long after his own nation disowned him.
Honestly the more you know about the man the more you hate him. Would you be willing to consider an exchange for Piers Morgan? We'll happily take back Rich Hall or Terry Gilliam or anyone else you're dissatisfied with.
|
|
|
|