|
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 31 2016 08:58 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2016 08:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 31 2016 08:28 Jormundr wrote:Washington voters may not get to feel the Bern.
Because of an error by the D.C. Democratic Party, Sen. Bernard Sanders’ name is not on the ballot, according to a report by WRC-TV, the local NBC affiliate.
Both the Vermont senator’s team and the campaign of rival Hillary Clinton submitted the required $2,500 registration fee and other paperwork but the party did not notify the D.C. Board of Elections by a key deadline.
The registration deadline was March 16, but the party did not send the board Mr. Sanders’ registration information until the 17th, according to the affiliate. As a result of this error, Mr. Sanders’ eligibility to appear on the ballot is being contested, WRC explained. SourceIt seems like all of a sudden the DNC and all of its local affiliates are consistently having trouble with people whose name isn't Hillary Clinton. Sanders campaign didn't file paperwork on time Their fault Show nested quote +Both the Vermont senator’s team and the campaign of rival Hillary Clinton submitted the required $2,500 registration fee and other paperwork but the party did not notify the D.C. Board of Elections by a key deadline.
Maybe read. edit: it's rather weird to assume btw that a campaign "forgets to file paperwork". Did that ever happen before? Honestly asking?
I read that "the party" as in "the Democratic party". Seems odd to use "the party" to refer to "Sanders' campaign" in that sentence. But I'm not sure how the process to get on the ballot works.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 31 2016 09:11 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2016 09:02 oneofthem wrote:On March 31 2016 08:56 Jormundr wrote:On March 31 2016 08:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 31 2016 08:28 Jormundr wrote:Washington voters may not get to feel the Bern.
Because of an error by the D.C. Democratic Party, Sen. Bernard Sanders’ name is not on the ballot, according to a report by WRC-TV, the local NBC affiliate.
Both the Vermont senator’s team and the campaign of rival Hillary Clinton submitted the required $2,500 registration fee and other paperwork but the party did not notify the D.C. Board of Elections by a key deadline.
The registration deadline was March 16, but the party did not send the board Mr. Sanders’ registration information until the 17th, according to the affiliate. As a result of this error, Mr. Sanders’ eligibility to appear on the ballot is being contested, WRC explained. SourceIt seems like all of a sudden the DNC and all of its local affiliates are consistently having trouble with people whose name isn't Hillary Clinton. Sanders campaign didn't file paperwork on time Their fault Clinton supporters can't read confirmed. On March 31 2016 08:41 oneofthem wrote:
jim webb is a more srs candidate than bernie.
and bernie will obviously on the dc ballot lol. these are nonissues. Jim "Hillary promised me a book deal if I drown out bernie with white noise" Webb Suuuure lmao the same webb who would vote for trump over hillary? I mean she lied about the book deal, dude has a right to be mad.
webb pretty mad at hillary before he ran. look at his fp stance
|
On March 31 2016 09:02 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2016 08:56 Jormundr wrote:On March 31 2016 08:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 31 2016 08:28 Jormundr wrote:Washington voters may not get to feel the Bern.
Because of an error by the D.C. Democratic Party, Sen. Bernard Sanders’ name is not on the ballot, according to a report by WRC-TV, the local NBC affiliate.
Both the Vermont senator’s team and the campaign of rival Hillary Clinton submitted the required $2,500 registration fee and other paperwork but the party did not notify the D.C. Board of Elections by a key deadline.
The registration deadline was March 16, but the party did not send the board Mr. Sanders’ registration information until the 17th, according to the affiliate. As a result of this error, Mr. Sanders’ eligibility to appear on the ballot is being contested, WRC explained. SourceIt seems like all of a sudden the DNC and all of its local affiliates are consistently having trouble with people whose name isn't Hillary Clinton. Sanders campaign didn't file paperwork on time Their fault Clinton supporters can't read confirmed. On March 31 2016 08:41 oneofthem wrote:
jim webb is a more srs candidate than bernie.
and bernie will obviously on the dc ballot lol. these are nonissues. Jim "Hillary promised me a book deal if I drown out bernie with white noise" Webb Suuuure lmao the same webb who would vote for trump over hillary?
Webb wants to clean the stables of government. Down with Hillary.
|
On March 31 2016 09:14 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2016 08:58 m4ini wrote:On March 31 2016 08:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 31 2016 08:28 Jormundr wrote:Washington voters may not get to feel the Bern.
Because of an error by the D.C. Democratic Party, Sen. Bernard Sanders’ name is not on the ballot, according to a report by WRC-TV, the local NBC affiliate.
Both the Vermont senator’s team and the campaign of rival Hillary Clinton submitted the required $2,500 registration fee and other paperwork but the party did not notify the D.C. Board of Elections by a key deadline.
The registration deadline was March 16, but the party did not send the board Mr. Sanders’ registration information until the 17th, according to the affiliate. As a result of this error, Mr. Sanders’ eligibility to appear on the ballot is being contested, WRC explained. SourceIt seems like all of a sudden the DNC and all of its local affiliates are consistently having trouble with people whose name isn't Hillary Clinton. Sanders campaign didn't file paperwork on time Their fault Both the Vermont senator’s team and the campaign of rival Hillary Clinton submitted the required $2,500 registration fee and other paperwork but the party did not notify the D.C. Board of Elections by a key deadline.
Maybe read. edit: it's rather weird to assume btw that a campaign "forgets to file paperwork". Did that ever happen before? Honestly asking? I read that "the party" as in "the Democratic party". Seems odd to use "the party" to refer to "Sanders' campaign" in that sentence. But I'm not sure how the process to get on the ballot works.
Yeah, it's the democratic party. Basically, if you want to be precise, neither Hillary nor Bernie should pop up. Both were too late, and they were submitted together.
edit: if you believe the democratic party, that is. The D.C. board said bernies submission arrived a day after hillaries.
|
On March 31 2016 09:11 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2016 09:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 31 2016 08:56 Jormundr wrote:On March 31 2016 08:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 31 2016 08:28 Jormundr wrote:Washington voters may not get to feel the Bern.
Because of an error by the D.C. Democratic Party, Sen. Bernard Sanders’ name is not on the ballot, according to a report by WRC-TV, the local NBC affiliate.
Both the Vermont senator’s team and the campaign of rival Hillary Clinton submitted the required $2,500 registration fee and other paperwork but the party did not notify the D.C. Board of Elections by a key deadline.
The registration deadline was March 16, but the party did not send the board Mr. Sanders’ registration information until the 17th, according to the affiliate. As a result of this error, Mr. Sanders’ eligibility to appear on the ballot is being contested, WRC explained. SourceIt seems like all of a sudden the DNC and all of its local affiliates are consistently having trouble with people whose name isn't Hillary Clinton. Sanders campaign didn't file paperwork on time Their fault Clinton supporters can't read confirmed. I read an earlier article saying that was the case, so my b. Saw it was WT, assumed it was a trash article. Can I go ahead and make a generalization that Bernie supporters are assholes? Ty Also shouldn't cite the Washington Times tbh, though that seems to be a Sanders supporter source of choice along with RT and Breitbart If an article cites its sources properly, i don't see why one wouldn't quote it. Of course, it's easier to ignore the article, rather than trying to rationally explain why this happened - but if one thing is clear in this election, supporters of presidential candidates, as much as the candidates themselves, are a bunch of truth-twisters. That goes for all parties involved. To be clear: Show nested quote +D.C. Democratic Party Chairwoman Anita Bonds told The Washington Times that the party’s primary plan, which included the paperwork for all candidates, was submitted by 7 p.m. on the 16th. The D.C. Board of Elections offices closes at 4:45 p.m. It's not a made up message, it's confirmed that both submissions were made together. Yet one was "too late", the other one wasn't. Doesn't matter how shitty the WT is, if they get the facts straight and the (undisclosed by you btw) other source doesn't.
I could have been more careful, but my experience is the WT is more than willing to stretch the truth and spin things and is generally lousy journalism, thus I trust it less. I think that's a pretty decent assumption to make, this is a broken clock is still right a couple times a day situation. I made a mistake in this situation, yeah, but I maintain that WT is lousy.
Also worth pointing out that both candidates are late, but some private citizen filed against Bernie. Someone could do the same to Hillary. I'm sure they'll resolve the issue no harm no foul and both candidates will appear on the ballot.
|
On March 31 2016 09:26 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2016 09:11 m4ini wrote:On March 31 2016 09:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 31 2016 08:56 Jormundr wrote:On March 31 2016 08:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 31 2016 08:28 Jormundr wrote:Washington voters may not get to feel the Bern.
Because of an error by the D.C. Democratic Party, Sen. Bernard Sanders’ name is not on the ballot, according to a report by WRC-TV, the local NBC affiliate.
Both the Vermont senator’s team and the campaign of rival Hillary Clinton submitted the required $2,500 registration fee and other paperwork but the party did not notify the D.C. Board of Elections by a key deadline.
The registration deadline was March 16, but the party did not send the board Mr. Sanders’ registration information until the 17th, according to the affiliate. As a result of this error, Mr. Sanders’ eligibility to appear on the ballot is being contested, WRC explained. SourceIt seems like all of a sudden the DNC and all of its local affiliates are consistently having trouble with people whose name isn't Hillary Clinton. Sanders campaign didn't file paperwork on time Their fault Clinton supporters can't read confirmed. I read an earlier article saying that was the case, so my b. Saw it was WT, assumed it was a trash article. Can I go ahead and make a generalization that Bernie supporters are assholes? Ty Also shouldn't cite the Washington Times tbh, though that seems to be a Sanders supporter source of choice along with RT and Breitbart If an article cites its sources properly, i don't see why one wouldn't quote it. Of course, it's easier to ignore the article, rather than trying to rationally explain why this happened - but if one thing is clear in this election, supporters of presidential candidates, as much as the candidates themselves, are a bunch of truth-twisters. That goes for all parties involved. To be clear: D.C. Democratic Party Chairwoman Anita Bonds told The Washington Times that the party’s primary plan, which included the paperwork for all candidates, was submitted by 7 p.m. on the 16th. The D.C. Board of Elections offices closes at 4:45 p.m. It's not a made up message, it's confirmed that both submissions were made together. Yet one was "too late", the other one wasn't. Doesn't matter how shitty the WT is, if they get the facts straight and the (undisclosed by you btw) other source doesn't. I could have been more careful, but my experience is the WT is more than willing to stretch the truth and spin things and is generally lousy journalism, thus I trust it less. I think that's a pretty decent assumption to make, this is a broken clock is still right a couple times a day situation.
Maybe it's because i don't really pay attention to the WT - so it's possible that their journalism is sub-par.
In this case, they didn't dick around though, at least to me the article seems decently written. If an article states its sources by name (and prominent ones, on top) - it's safe to assume it's correct (edit: at least safer), rather than made up. There's no "anonymous person told us" etc bullshit in there.
|
On March 31 2016 09:30 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2016 09:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 31 2016 09:11 m4ini wrote:On March 31 2016 09:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 31 2016 08:56 Jormundr wrote:On March 31 2016 08:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 31 2016 08:28 Jormundr wrote:Washington voters may not get to feel the Bern.
Because of an error by the D.C. Democratic Party, Sen. Bernard Sanders’ name is not on the ballot, according to a report by WRC-TV, the local NBC affiliate.
Both the Vermont senator’s team and the campaign of rival Hillary Clinton submitted the required $2,500 registration fee and other paperwork but the party did not notify the D.C. Board of Elections by a key deadline.
The registration deadline was March 16, but the party did not send the board Mr. Sanders’ registration information until the 17th, according to the affiliate. As a result of this error, Mr. Sanders’ eligibility to appear on the ballot is being contested, WRC explained. SourceIt seems like all of a sudden the DNC and all of its local affiliates are consistently having trouble with people whose name isn't Hillary Clinton. Sanders campaign didn't file paperwork on time Their fault Clinton supporters can't read confirmed. I read an earlier article saying that was the case, so my b. Saw it was WT, assumed it was a trash article. Can I go ahead and make a generalization that Bernie supporters are assholes? Ty Also shouldn't cite the Washington Times tbh, though that seems to be a Sanders supporter source of choice along with RT and Breitbart If an article cites its sources properly, i don't see why one wouldn't quote it. Of course, it's easier to ignore the article, rather than trying to rationally explain why this happened - but if one thing is clear in this election, supporters of presidential candidates, as much as the candidates themselves, are a bunch of truth-twisters. That goes for all parties involved. To be clear: D.C. Democratic Party Chairwoman Anita Bonds told The Washington Times that the party’s primary plan, which included the paperwork for all candidates, was submitted by 7 p.m. on the 16th. The D.C. Board of Elections offices closes at 4:45 p.m. It's not a made up message, it's confirmed that both submissions were made together. Yet one was "too late", the other one wasn't. Doesn't matter how shitty the WT is, if they get the facts straight and the (undisclosed by you btw) other source doesn't. I could have been more careful, but my experience is the WT is more than willing to stretch the truth and spin things and is generally lousy journalism, thus I trust it less. I think that's a pretty decent assumption to make, this is a broken clock is still right a couple times a day situation. Maybe it's because i don't really pay attention to the WT - so it's possible that their journalism is sub-par. In this case, they didn't dick around though, at least to me the article seems decently written. If an article states its sources by name (and prominent ones, on top) - it's safe to assume it's correct, rather than made up. There's no "anonymous person told us" etc bullshit in there.
Yeah and that's fine, the article seems decent. Check out their front page and tell me it doesn't set off all sorts of alarms.
|
On March 31 2016 09:31 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2016 09:30 m4ini wrote:On March 31 2016 09:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 31 2016 09:11 m4ini wrote:On March 31 2016 09:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 31 2016 08:56 Jormundr wrote:On March 31 2016 08:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 31 2016 08:28 Jormundr wrote:Washington voters may not get to feel the Bern.
Because of an error by the D.C. Democratic Party, Sen. Bernard Sanders’ name is not on the ballot, according to a report by WRC-TV, the local NBC affiliate.
Both the Vermont senator’s team and the campaign of rival Hillary Clinton submitted the required $2,500 registration fee and other paperwork but the party did not notify the D.C. Board of Elections by a key deadline.
The registration deadline was March 16, but the party did not send the board Mr. Sanders’ registration information until the 17th, according to the affiliate. As a result of this error, Mr. Sanders’ eligibility to appear on the ballot is being contested, WRC explained. SourceIt seems like all of a sudden the DNC and all of its local affiliates are consistently having trouble with people whose name isn't Hillary Clinton. Sanders campaign didn't file paperwork on time Their fault Clinton supporters can't read confirmed. I read an earlier article saying that was the case, so my b. Saw it was WT, assumed it was a trash article. Can I go ahead and make a generalization that Bernie supporters are assholes? Ty Also shouldn't cite the Washington Times tbh, though that seems to be a Sanders supporter source of choice along with RT and Breitbart If an article cites its sources properly, i don't see why one wouldn't quote it. Of course, it's easier to ignore the article, rather than trying to rationally explain why this happened - but if one thing is clear in this election, supporters of presidential candidates, as much as the candidates themselves, are a bunch of truth-twisters. That goes for all parties involved. To be clear: D.C. Democratic Party Chairwoman Anita Bonds told The Washington Times that the party’s primary plan, which included the paperwork for all candidates, was submitted by 7 p.m. on the 16th. The D.C. Board of Elections offices closes at 4:45 p.m. It's not a made up message, it's confirmed that both submissions were made together. Yet one was "too late", the other one wasn't. Doesn't matter how shitty the WT is, if they get the facts straight and the (undisclosed by you btw) other source doesn't. I could have been more careful, but my experience is the WT is more than willing to stretch the truth and spin things and is generally lousy journalism, thus I trust it less. I think that's a pretty decent assumption to make, this is a broken clock is still right a couple times a day situation. Maybe it's because i don't really pay attention to the WT - so it's possible that their journalism is sub-par. In this case, they didn't dick around though, at least to me the article seems decently written. If an article states its sources by name (and prominent ones, on top) - it's safe to assume it's correct, rather than made up. There's no "anonymous person told us" etc bullshit in there. Yeah and that's fine, the article seems decent. Check out their front page and tell me it doesn't set off all sorts of alarms.
Yeah, as i said, not saying that the journalism usually is awesome or something - the page does look ass. But not more or less than CNN or Fox, from where i'm sitting. Not that these are journalistic masterpieces either.
Just googled it btw, the WT is as trusted as the NYT - however much that would be.
BBC and Economist top out the charts. You know.. British news outlets. 
http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-most-and-least-trusted-news-outlets-in-america-2014-10?IR=T
That's besides the point though, we established now that the WT is usually ass (i can't argue there since i don't follow them and the front page does look.. "populistic") - but the article is decent. Now lets find out what happened. Or rather, speculate.
edit: didn't see your edit, yeah - i'm pretty sure both pop up on there, too.
|
United States42017 Posts
There was a poll on the WT.com homepage regarding the comparitive threat of ISIS and climate change. ISIS was winning by an insane margin. I just don't understand it. Maybe someone here thinks ISIS is a real threat to America and fill me in. How does ISIS destroy America? Leaving the tap on until the nation is underwater? Flooding the East Coast with so many immigrants that the country capsizes into the Atlantic? Like how does this play out?
There was a neither option for climate change deniers but like 70% of people said ISIS.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
washington times is like pravda for the right
|
On March 31 2016 09:38 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2016 09:31 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 31 2016 09:30 m4ini wrote:On March 31 2016 09:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 31 2016 09:11 m4ini wrote:On March 31 2016 09:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 31 2016 08:56 Jormundr wrote:On March 31 2016 08:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 31 2016 08:28 Jormundr wrote:Washington voters may not get to feel the Bern.
Because of an error by the D.C. Democratic Party, Sen. Bernard Sanders’ name is not on the ballot, according to a report by WRC-TV, the local NBC affiliate.
Both the Vermont senator’s team and the campaign of rival Hillary Clinton submitted the required $2,500 registration fee and other paperwork but the party did not notify the D.C. Board of Elections by a key deadline.
The registration deadline was March 16, but the party did not send the board Mr. Sanders’ registration information until the 17th, according to the affiliate. As a result of this error, Mr. Sanders’ eligibility to appear on the ballot is being contested, WRC explained. SourceIt seems like all of a sudden the DNC and all of its local affiliates are consistently having trouble with people whose name isn't Hillary Clinton. Sanders campaign didn't file paperwork on time Their fault Clinton supporters can't read confirmed. I read an earlier article saying that was the case, so my b. Saw it was WT, assumed it was a trash article. Can I go ahead and make a generalization that Bernie supporters are assholes? Ty Also shouldn't cite the Washington Times tbh, though that seems to be a Sanders supporter source of choice along with RT and Breitbart If an article cites its sources properly, i don't see why one wouldn't quote it. Of course, it's easier to ignore the article, rather than trying to rationally explain why this happened - but if one thing is clear in this election, supporters of presidential candidates, as much as the candidates themselves, are a bunch of truth-twisters. That goes for all parties involved. To be clear: D.C. Democratic Party Chairwoman Anita Bonds told The Washington Times that the party’s primary plan, which included the paperwork for all candidates, was submitted by 7 p.m. on the 16th. The D.C. Board of Elections offices closes at 4:45 p.m. It's not a made up message, it's confirmed that both submissions were made together. Yet one was "too late", the other one wasn't. Doesn't matter how shitty the WT is, if they get the facts straight and the (undisclosed by you btw) other source doesn't. I could have been more careful, but my experience is the WT is more than willing to stretch the truth and spin things and is generally lousy journalism, thus I trust it less. I think that's a pretty decent assumption to make, this is a broken clock is still right a couple times a day situation. Maybe it's because i don't really pay attention to the WT - so it's possible that their journalism is sub-par. In this case, they didn't dick around though, at least to me the article seems decently written. If an article states its sources by name (and prominent ones, on top) - it's safe to assume it's correct, rather than made up. There's no "anonymous person told us" etc bullshit in there. Yeah and that's fine, the article seems decent. Check out their front page and tell me it doesn't set off all sorts of alarms. Yeah, as i said, not saying that the journalism usually is awesome or something - the page does look ass. But not more or less than CNN or Fox, from where i'm sitting. Not that these are journalistic masterpieces either. Just googled it btw, the WT is as trusted as the NYT - however much that would be. BBC and Economist top out the charts. You know.. British news outlets. http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-most-and-least-trusted-news-outlets-in-america-2014-10?IR=TThat's besides the point though, we established now that the WT is usually ass (i can't argue there since i don't follow them and the front page does look.. "populistic") - but the article is decent. Now lets find out what happened. Or rather, speculate. edit: didn't see your edit, yeah - i'm pretty sure both pop up on there, too.
Err, that's the Washington Post you're referring to I think... the one next to NYT? As an aside, I also think WaPo has dived in journalistic quality-- they were struggling a lot a little while back, Jeff Bezos (Amazon guy) bought it and now it leads in traffic... but the quality has gone down quite a bit and it's clear that making money has become more important than journalism. I like the NYTimes a lot-- content tends to be good, and they don't seem to have much of an agenda. NPR is good as well. WSJ is good, blogs are a bit of a cesspool though. I think the nature of WS is you can't have agenda, you have to be very facts based.
I do agree with the poll results for the most part based on what I know.
|
WSJ has very far-right editorials (it's Murdoch owned) but the news is decent.
|
Barack Obama on Wednesday commuted the sentences of 61 federal prisoners, all of whom were being held on drug charges.
This announcement came one day after the president criticized the previous American policy of engaging in a “war on drugs”, telling a conference on the opiate epidemic: “For too long we’ve viewed drug addiction through the lens of criminal justice.”
Those who received reduced prison terms on Wednesday were primarily charged with distribution of drugs and had been sentenced when the government was most aggressively prosecuting people with drug charges, a tactic that disproportionately punished men of color.
Jesse Webster, of Chicago, was among those whose life imprisonment was commuted on Wednesday. He was sentenced on 21 March 1996 for cocaine charges and filing two false income tax returns.
Webster’s experience was captured in a December 2013 New York Times article that included a letter Webster sent to Obama. “You are my final hope,” he wrote to the president.
Webster, a former cocaine dealer, turned himself in once he learned the police were looking for him. The prosecutor offered leniency if Webster became an informant, which he declined, and he was eventually sentenced to life in prison.
The person who served the longest term is Robert Lee Lane, of Bradenton, Florida, who was sentenced for possession of crack with intent to distribute on 3 May 1990. His life imprisonment was commuted to 28 July, the same date most of the people on the list will be released.
Others’ release dates were scattered, culminating in March 2017, when Ismael Rosa, of Chicago, will be released after being held on cocaine charges.
Source
|
I feel like Obama just keeps laying the groundwork for a final mic-drop end of the war on drugs. Now that'll be a legacy.
|
On March 31 2016 09:26 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2016 09:11 m4ini wrote:On March 31 2016 09:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 31 2016 08:56 Jormundr wrote:On March 31 2016 08:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 31 2016 08:28 Jormundr wrote:Washington voters may not get to feel the Bern.
Because of an error by the D.C. Democratic Party, Sen. Bernard Sanders’ name is not on the ballot, according to a report by WRC-TV, the local NBC affiliate.
Both the Vermont senator’s team and the campaign of rival Hillary Clinton submitted the required $2,500 registration fee and other paperwork but the party did not notify the D.C. Board of Elections by a key deadline.
The registration deadline was March 16, but the party did not send the board Mr. Sanders’ registration information until the 17th, according to the affiliate. As a result of this error, Mr. Sanders’ eligibility to appear on the ballot is being contested, WRC explained. SourceIt seems like all of a sudden the DNC and all of its local affiliates are consistently having trouble with people whose name isn't Hillary Clinton. Sanders campaign didn't file paperwork on time Their fault Clinton supporters can't read confirmed. I read an earlier article saying that was the case, so my b. Saw it was WT, assumed it was a trash article. Can I go ahead and make a generalization that Bernie supporters are assholes? Ty Also shouldn't cite the Washington Times tbh, though that seems to be a Sanders supporter source of choice along with RT and Breitbart If an article cites its sources properly, i don't see why one wouldn't quote it. Of course, it's easier to ignore the article, rather than trying to rationally explain why this happened - but if one thing is clear in this election, supporters of presidential candidates, as much as the candidates themselves, are a bunch of truth-twisters. That goes for all parties involved. To be clear: D.C. Democratic Party Chairwoman Anita Bonds told The Washington Times that the party’s primary plan, which included the paperwork for all candidates, was submitted by 7 p.m. on the 16th. The D.C. Board of Elections offices closes at 4:45 p.m. It's not a made up message, it's confirmed that both submissions were made together. Yet one was "too late", the other one wasn't. Doesn't matter how shitty the WT is, if they get the facts straight and the (undisclosed by you btw) other source doesn't. I could have been more careful, but my experience is the WT is more than willing to stretch the truth and spin things and is generally lousy journalism, thus I trust it less. I think that's a pretty decent assumption to make, this is a broken clock is still right a couple times a day situation. I made a mistake in this situation, yeah, but I maintain that WT is lousy. Also worth pointing out that both candidates are late, but some private citizen filed against Bernie. Someone could do the same to Hillary. I'm sure they'll resolve the issue no harm no foul and both candidates will appear on the ballot.
It's only like the 5th time you've repeated Hillary&co talking points just to be shown that they aren't accurate. You'd figure sooner or later you'd stop believing what you're hearing over there.
|
It was some local news site I saw, so not a talking point.
I'm more than solid on the issues and the records, so I'm pretty happy with that. We all make mistakes, and yes, that means you too.
BTW Sanders clearly jumped the gun on there being an NY debate. Silly of them to put out a press release, literally no one else has picked it up.
|
On March 31 2016 10:46 ticklishmusic wrote:
It was some local news site I saw, so not a talking point.
I'm more than solid on the issues and the records, so I'm pretty happy with that. We all make mistakes, and yes, that means you too.
BTW Sanders clearly jumped the gun on there being an NY debate. Silly of them to put out a press release, literally no one else has picked it up.
Yeah ok, blame a mystery site. Probably what happened every other time too... Just because the talking point passes through an intermediary, doesn't make it not a talking point.
She's going to debate in NY so I really don't think it's too soon at all. She's just trying to figure out how to make it seem like her idea/that she didn't just cave.
|
The U.S. Supreme Court said Wednesday that the federal government cannot, before trial, seize the assets of the accused if those assets are unrelated to the crime and are needed to pay a defense attorney.
The court's ruling came in the case of a Miami woman named Sila Luis, who was accused of Medicare and banking fraud. Prosecutors charged that she used kickbacks and other schemes to fraudulently obtain $45 million.
She had $2 million left when prosecutors, believing they would eventually need the money for restitution, got a court order seizing all of her assets — those related to the crime and those unrelated.
Luis challenged the asset-seizure order on grounds that she needed the untainted assets — those assets the government conceded were unrelated to the crime — to hire a lawyer for her trial.
A Supreme Court majority agreed that allowing the government to take her untainted assets would violate her Sixth Amendment right to counsel of her choice.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
bernie debating with his anti finance stuff in ny is not going to end well.
|
On March 31 2016 10:57 oneofthem wrote:
bernie debating with his anti finance stuff in ny is not going to end well.
Yet Hillary is so scared after saying presidential candidates should be willing to debate anytime anywhere...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
