EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3491
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On March 30 2016 03:09 SK.Testie wrote: No, I'm saying this because I've seen the cellphone video where it's a lot less than this video of locomotion. That is all. I don't readily have it on hand sadly but it should appear sooner or later. It gives a much clearer picture of what went on. I am not a victim blamer. I am saying in this case, given the evidence I have seen I highly doubt she is a victim. I think there's another video showing it as well, but skip to 42ish here. You can clearly see the movement is not a wrenching, it's not forceful, it's almost just briskly walking past while gently pulling her aside. Are you saying in that movement he was in such a rage that he SQUEEZED so hard that she bruised? This particular woman has no credibility and comes off as a complete liar in this case. Do you think he moved in slow motion in real life too or do you think video editing is some sort of pagan magic? | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/49z2dk/michelle_fields_is_lying_about_the_assault_here/ | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
Unless people actually think Trump doesn't consistently lie but that seems incredibly disconnected from reality. I thought people just liked that he was lying or thought he doing it to get points across or media coverage. | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24341 Posts
Now we know he'll likely gain a handful of delegates if/when the votes in AZ are counted. As long as he avoids a blowout in NY they will both be short (unless he wins big in CA) on pledged delegates, but Bernie will have won 20+ of the last ~25 contests. The question will be which nominee would result in less people supporting them. Clinton is lucky it's not Kasich getting the nomination, if it was, there'd be no question she shouldn't be the nominee. As an aside #ToneDownForWhat has been pretty funny and so was this | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12533 Posts
| ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On March 30 2016 03:36 Nebuchad wrote: No the reason why people are writing Sanders off is that he needs to win New York with at least a little margin and he's unfortunately not going to do that I think "Bernie can't do x" will be the xDaunt moment of the 2016 thread. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22566 Posts
On March 30 2016 03:27 GreenHorizons wrote: The only reason people are writing Sanders off is because of the order states vote in. The order maximized the lead Hillary could achieve and now it's only shrinking. He's only ~100 delegates behind where he needs to be now after he gained 70+ on Saturday. Now we know he'll likely gain a handful of delegates if/when the votes in AZ are counted. As long as he avoids a blowout in NY they will both be short (unless he wins big in CA) on pledged delegates, but Bernie will have won 20+ of the last ~25 contests. The question will be which nominee would result in less people supporting them. Clinton is lucky it's not Kasich getting the nomination, if it was, there'd be no question she shouldn't be the nominee. As an aside #ToneDownForWhat has been pretty funny and so was this Yes, if the order had been different then they would have said he needs X% out of the next states while only likely to get Y%... Oh wait that is exactly what people are saying now... woops will you look at that. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On March 30 2016 01:24 LegalLord wrote: I generally do. Though when low quality articles (and/or articles that contradict the point you make, your other specialty) like that litter the thread, it gets pretty hard not to notice. All that said, it is pretty clear that Hillary had it won after her huge wins in the South states. 1. The article that I linked was written by Obama's 2008 campaign manager, and he was sharing his views on what the rest of the campaign is likely to look like with regards to the states and delegates to be won and lost by the candidates. I introduced the article by saying his dispassionate analysis would probably be an interesting read for those still with doubts as to who will emerge victorious. Apparently, other posters than you did find it interesting. I'm not sure why you decided to bash me for posting it, but let me re-iterate that you can try a little bit harder and avoid reading my posts if they're of no interest to you. 2. Feel free to share examples of me posting articles contradicting the points I was making. You won't, of course. Apparently your intention was to take a cheap shot at me, so I hope you're satisfied with your performance -- it totally did not fall flat. Carry on  In other news, a piece about how a few conservative radio hosts are navigating through the Trump vs Cruz fight -- given how divisive the campaign has been, you can tell many are desperately trying to look like they're not taking sides: Sean Hannity has not publicly staked out a side, and has said that both Mr. Trump and Mr. Cruz are conservative choices. He tries to have both on his show as often as he can. “Who am I to come in and tell them to vote for this person?” Mr. Hannity asked in an interview, referring to his audience. “I don’t think I serve them well that way.” But he warned that any effort to deny Mr. Trump the nomination if he comes close to the 1,237 majority of delegates would be the downfall of the Republican Party. “If they try to steal this nomination or disenfranchise the voters, it would be the end of the Republican Party. I guarantee you, it’s over,” he said. “If it’s Trump” who is denied the nomination, “Trump supporters are walking. If it’s Cruz, Cruz supporters are walking. And they’re not coming back. And I’ll walk with them,” Mr. Hannity said. Laura Ingraham, who also said she would not be endorsing a candidate, shared a similar point of view in an interview, calling the stop-Trump effort “a little juvenile.” “There are a lot of purists out there who, if they don’t get everything checked off on their little bucket list,” then they say “take your pail and go home,” she said. “Come to the real world.” Mr. Beck, however, sees it differently, calling Mr. Trump “a clown.” Disagreement among conservative radio hosts is nothing new. But the searing divisions of this contest pose particular challenges to the hosts as they seek to hold on to their listeners — and address their grievances — in such a fractured climate. Source | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 30 2016 03:06 Jormundr wrote: Funny how oneofthem trusts Sanders more than Hillary. Just caught up, around page 75 he was saying that it would be ridiculous to assume that Hillary is going to do any of the things she says she'll do right now because she's obviously just lying to win the election. Contrast that with the fact that he thinks that Bernie is both sincere in his beliefs and capable of making them a reality. #Berninginthecloset i am a good judge of character | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24341 Posts
On March 30 2016 03:39 Gorsameth wrote: Yes, if the order had been different then they would have said he needs X% out of the next states while only likely to get Y%... Oh wait that is exactly what people are saying now... woops will you look at that. No, the entire narrative would be different if instead of behind he was tied/ahead. But I do find comfort in that the same folks who think Bernie never had a real chance are a lot of the same people who wrote Trump off months ago. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
The delegate gap is gonna go up along with the popular vote gap over the next couple of weeks. As I mentioned before, there is a slight chance Sanders ends up winning more contests in the end, but that's not a particularly meaningful stat to come ahead in. I also don't think it's logical to argue that candidates may not meet the bar which was set with superdelegates in mind without superdelegates. Btw the popular vote gap is probably about 2.3M, WA only closed the margin by ~92,000 so I'm being fairly generous here. Sanders wants the free media in NY. He's free to be salty in public about things or actually try to negotiate in good faith. I don't think it's a boon for him beyond the advertising bit though. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18436 Posts
On March 30 2016 03:27 GreenHorizons wrote: The only reason people are writing Sanders off is because of the order states vote in. The order maximized the lead Hillary could achieve and now it's only shrinking. He's only ~100 delegates behind where he needs to be now after he gained 70+ on Saturday. Now we know he'll likely gain a handful of delegates if/when the votes in AZ are counted. As long as he avoids a blowout in NY they will both be short (unless he wins big in CA) on pledged delegates, but Bernie will have won 20+ of the last ~25 contests. The question will be which nominee would result in less people supporting them. Clinton is lucky it's not Kasich getting the nomination, if it was, there'd be no question she shouldn't be the nominee. As an aside #ToneDownForWhat has been pretty funny and so was this https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/714822928425025536 Insofar as I understand the democratic primaries, the one who gets a majority of the delegates, including superdelegates, wins. Clinton is currently on track to get both the popular majority and the majority of delegates. You seem to be ignoring the fact that while Sanders definitely could win plenty more states, the likes of Wyoming, the Dakotas and Rhode Island are completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. What he needs to do is win big in NY, CA, PA and NJ (or at least in 3 out of 4). That just seems really unlikely. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24341 Posts
The delegate gap is gonna go up along with the popular vote gap over the next couple of weeks. We'll see about that. Clinton is currently on track to get both the popular majority and the majority of delegates. This is exactly what I'm saying couldn't be said if states voted in a different order. Though since Bernie made it past her peak I think it only works out better for him from here. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
Maybe I said months, but with that correction wanna bet on it? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24341 Posts
On March 30 2016 03:56 ticklishmusic wrote: Maybe I said months, but with that correction wanna bet on it? I'll bet her lead has peaked without hesitation. | ||
| ||
