|
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 25 2016 09:53 ticklishmusic wrote:Unless Google deceives me, the AZ vote is 99% in... Also Sanders is suing the DNC for the data breach. Sigh.
Check CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, or any place not using precincts as their measurement. You might want to look at Maricopa county voter turnout expectations and results too though I didn't provide a detailed explanation of that part myself.
That you would even say something like "google tells me 99%" shows you haven't had a clue what you were even refuting let alone talking about this whole damn time.
I've only been saying this and even providing pictures since it happened. Yet I'm the one not getting it...
|
On March 25 2016 09:53 ticklishmusic wrote:Unless Google deceives me, the AZ vote is 99% in... Also Sanders is suing the DNC for the data breach. Sigh.
I can't really blame them for that, especially since according to the article it's more of a procedural move to make sure they don't lose the option of litigating. It's quite possible that shutting off the Sanders campaign's access was an overreaction/breach of contract, and especially suspect given that the DNC has been favoring Clinton pretty blatantly.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
|
|
On March 25 2016 09:35 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 09:06 Ghanburighan wrote:
A) DNC didn't organize the AZ primary, can't be their fault.
When you say this, is there some part of you that is bothered by the fact that I never made this claim, or are you completely at ease with yourself? I'm just curious.
What are you on about. I was replying to GH's post a bit above yours. Hence the division between points.
Also, you seem to have no argument besides this weak ad hominem.
|
On March 25 2016 10:23 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 09:35 Nebuchad wrote:On March 25 2016 09:06 Ghanburighan wrote:
A) DNC didn't organize the AZ primary, can't be their fault.
When you say this, is there some part of you that is bothered by the fact that I never made this claim, or are you completely at ease with yourself? I'm just curious. What are you on about. I was replying to GH's post a bit above yours. Hence the division between points. Also, you seem to have no argument besides this weak ad hominem.
That point wouldn't apply to anything I said either so I wouldn't use me as a shield for it.
|
On March 25 2016 08:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 08:33 Nebuchad wrote:On March 25 2016 08:30 oneofthem wrote:
lol not contested Do you contest that the only group which wasn't impacted by this, the early voters, favours Hillary? I mean counting 62 votes yesterday and none so far today and sayin ~21% is still out and saying some people who filled out provisional (because they didn't have enough standard) ballots have to go it and verify their ballots still (as registered democrats) despite being registered and voting, but just because the party didn't have enough ballots in the first place should be more than enough to throw up some red flags... It's stupid to even be arguing stuff like who it favors when the party has failed in practically every contested (and plenty Bernie blowout) voting state
We can quote here, you know... I highlighted your comments about the DNC. Want me to post preceding mentions as well?
So, please, stop your partisan bullshitting. Let's get this thread back on track.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
yes, please go back to discussing ted cruz's sex scandal
|
On March 25 2016 10:43 oneofthem wrote:
yes, please go back to discussing ted cruz's sex scandal
In light of this article, will Cruz win or lose votes from this?
|
On March 25 2016 10:42 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 08:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 25 2016 08:33 Nebuchad wrote:On March 25 2016 08:30 oneofthem wrote:
lol not contested Do you contest that the only group which wasn't impacted by this, the early voters, favours Hillary? I mean counting 62 votes yesterday and none so far today and sayin ~21% is still out and saying some people who filled out provisional (because they didn't have enough standard) ballots have to go it and verify their ballots still (as registered democrats) despite being registered and voting, but just because the party didn't have enough ballots in the first place should be more than enough to throw up some red flags... It's stupid to even be arguing stuff like who it favors when the party has failed in practically every contested (and plenty Bernie blowout) voting state We can quote here, you know... I highlighted your comments about the DNC. Want me to post preceding mentions as well? So, please, stop your partisan bullshitting. Let's get this thread back on track.
Sorry you can't understand what I'm saying. I'm saying arguing what you're arguing is dumb and missing the much larger point but you seem to think the party registration has no influence from the DNC which is a separate issue from the unconscionable lines in Phoenix.
The lines in other states and lack of ballots, etc.. certainly was a result of DNC convienently slanted incompetence at best and corruption at worst
But go on with whatever uninformed nonsense people were discussing where 99% of the vote being in was a starting point for some if not all.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 25 2016 10:55 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 10:43 oneofthem wrote:
yes, please go back to discussing ted cruz's sex scandal In light of this article, will Cruz win or lose votes from this?
dude would get rekt lmfao. donald baited out some lovey dovey stuff from cruz, family man etc. then he can run that segment together with the five mistresses
|
On March 25 2016 08:29 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 06:24 kwizach wrote:On March 25 2016 06:14 Nebuchad wrote:
Well no of course if you don't believe it affects Bernie more than Hillary you wouldn't have much to answer there. Your position is coherent if you make that ridiculous assumption. Your post was "That has not been my experience". There's nothing to reply to that. All right so don't reply. I apologize if my experience doesn't match what you want. I can only meet the Clinton supporters I meet.
I don't know who you met, or how many people you met, because you did not provide any information. That's why there is nothing to reply except "your experience apparently does not match the reality of the situation". Here is the said reality, since you obviously cut off the rest of my post to not reply to it: the Democratic party, Hillary Clinton and progressives have for years fought back against voter suppression by the GOP, and shared the criticism about the long lines voiced by Sanders supporters. Your "experience" won't change that.
On March 25 2016 08:29 Nebuchad wrote:
On top of what the Templar has mentioned which is not contested, the notion that independants who registered as democrats in due times and didn't get to vote wouldn't have favoured Bernie is... something else. As is the notion that it's not a number that would have mattered in a state where there are more independants than democrats.
I was addressing the issue of the lack of polling places resulting in long lines, not the registration issues. Here is what I said about the lack of polling places: "I can't know for sure which candidate lost the most votes because of it, but that's why all I said was that "minority voters [...] were probably hurt the most"". Again, instead of deliberately cutting this out of my post when replying to me, feel free to explain to me why that is a "ridiculous assumption". I'm waiting.
With regards to the registration issues, I have yet to see numbers to assess to what extent this was widespread. If I remember correctly, an investigation by a local branch of the DNC resulted in the discovery that the people who had complained to them were, in fact, registered as independents and had never actually gone through the process of registering as Democrats. That's apparently not the case of everyone complaining, but again I haven't seen any numbers to indicate how many people this affected. The lines and the small number of polling places seems to me to be an issue that affected more people.
|
Why are people still pretending this only happened in Arizona (regarding long lines)?
It happened in several states where the process was fully under the party control too.
Once you get past pretending this is the first time so strictly blaming republicans no longer makes sense you may be interested into looking into what they are trying to pull on Democrats, with cards to prove it, when they were given provisional ballots instead because they ran out of standard ballots.
No one defending Hillary or the DNC on voter suppression has shown even an inkling of knowing what they are refuting beyond random reddit comments and this thing about the registration changes which is standard voter suppression that's happened in many elections (and several other primaries) though is rarely followed up on and before cell phone cameras was hard to obtain evidence of (since the source documents were controlled by the parties who would be manipulating them).
It's not very different than the arguments about dashcam tapes that mysteriously don't capture/malfunction at key times and conveniently obscure any potentially damaging evidence from being procured from them.
In a similar way we have Clinton using these old tactics without appropriate consideration for cell phone cameras and alternative sources of information. Hence why after seeing them it follows the "well we don't have the context, and it's just a few bad apples" arguments that are all too familiar to folks like myself.
Or just straight denial and rationalizations as is the case with how the media has reported the Arizona results.
|
On March 25 2016 11:08 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 10:55 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 25 2016 10:43 oneofthem wrote:
yes, please go back to discussing ted cruz's sex scandal In light of this article, will Cruz win or lose votes from this? dude would get rekt lmfao. donald baited out some lovey dovey stuff from cruz, family man etc. then he can run that segment together with the five mistresses
Is the Cruz thing real or just National Enquirer?
On the subject of Cruz and rumors, I heard on a podcast or something that he owed thousands of dollars to some people at Princeton in poker debts and instead of paying them he reported them all to the IRS.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 25 2016 15:21 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 11:08 oneofthem wrote:On March 25 2016 10:55 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 25 2016 10:43 oneofthem wrote:
yes, please go back to discussing ted cruz's sex scandal In light of this article, will Cruz win or lose votes from this? dude would get rekt lmfao. donald baited out some lovey dovey stuff from cruz, family man etc. then he can run that segment together with the five mistresses Is the Cruz thing real or just National Enquirer?
Just National Enquirer and all sources that report on the story reference National Enquirer.
He really doesn't seem like a difficult person to get some dirt on though. The guy just seems so unlikable from everything I've ever heard about him.
|
|
|
On March 25 2016 15:47 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 15:21 IgnE wrote:On March 25 2016 11:08 oneofthem wrote:On March 25 2016 10:55 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 25 2016 10:43 oneofthem wrote:
yes, please go back to discussing ted cruz's sex scandal In light of this article, will Cruz win or lose votes from this? dude would get rekt lmfao. donald baited out some lovey dovey stuff from cruz, family man etc. then he can run that segment together with the five mistresses Is the Cruz thing real or just National Enquirer? Just National Enquirer and all sources that report on the story reference National Enquirer. He really doesn't seem like a difficult person to get some dirt on though. The guy just seems so unlikable from everything I've ever heard about him.
You mean it's easy to get people to believe dirt made public. This honestly seems like tabloid bs, most likely.
|
Introvert out of the woodwork to defend the reprehensible Cruz.
|
I find it completely impossible to believe 6 women on planet earth would actually have sex with Cruz. If you're going to make something up at least make it believable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
