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.
Tuesday night, during a televised town hall interview on CNN, Stygian homunculus and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump was asked if he still planned to honor a pledge he made some months prior, in which he promised to support the eventual GOP nominee. As you might imagine, given Trump’s famous flexibility toward concepts such as “honor” and “promises,” the candidate answered that no, he had no intention of following that pledge’s directive, telling CNN’s Anderson Cooper, “No, I don’t anymore.”
So now, everyone in the political universe is coming to grips with one of the most foreseeable events in the Western hemisphere finally coming to pass — Trump’s explicit abrogation of a contractual obligation he made with Republican National Committee head Reince Priebus. Now, the remaining competitors for the nomination — Ted Cruz and John Kasich — are slowly coming around to the notion that they might want to similarly withdraw their tacit offer of support for a candidate they have long despised. Perhaps the most shocking thing about this is that it’s only now that these men have decided to embark on a spree of thinking for themselves.
But the failure of this pledge should stun nobody. Priebus’ pledge was always a catastrophically dumb idea and its utter collapse was always just a matter of time. It was a bonehead gamble from the outset, tying the hands of the very people it was ostensibly designed to protect, and empowering a serial con artist to run roughshod over the Republican Party. It should end Priebus’ career.
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.
Source It 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.
Come on, give it a break. You don't get to call out someone for repeating talking points after you've been repeating Sanders tweets and reddit posts for the past months. Just, give it a rest already. We're not voting for Sanders, and even if we could, you're more likely to alienate people than convince them with such behaviour.
Tuesday night, during a televised town hall interview on CNN, Stygian homunculus and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump was asked if he still planned to honor a pledge he made some months prior, in which he promised to support the eventual GOP nominee. As you might imagine, given Trump’s famous flexibility toward concepts such as “honor” and “promises,” the candidate answered that no, he had no intention of following that pledge’s directive, telling CNN’s Anderson Cooper, “No, I don’t anymore.”
So now, everyone in the political universe is coming to grips with one of the most foreseeable events in the Western hemisphere finally coming to pass — Trump’s explicit abrogation of a contractual obligation he made with Republican National Committee head Reince Priebus. Now, the remaining competitors for the nomination — Ted Cruz and John Kasich — are slowly coming around to the notion that they might want to similarly withdraw their tacit offer of support for a candidate they have long despised. Perhaps the most shocking thing about this is that it’s only now that these men have decided to embark on a spree of thinking for themselves.
But the failure of this pledge should stun nobody. Priebus’ pledge was always a catastrophically dumb idea and its utter collapse was always just a matter of time. It was a bonehead gamble from the outset, tying the hands of the very people it was ostensibly designed to protect, and empowering a serial con artist to run roughshod over the Republican Party. It should end Priebus’ career.
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.
Source It 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.
Come on, give it a break. You don't get to call out someone for repeating talking points after you've been repeating Sanders tweets and reddit posts for the past months. Just, give it a rest already. We're not voting for Sanders, and even if we could, you're more likely to alienate people than convince them with such behaviour.
You see I don't try to pretend what I'm saying isn't influenced by the candidate I support, like ticklish just tried. Though my point isn't even griping that he's using talking points, it's that he's still believing some of them and presenting them as reality.
I really don't like having to defend GH, but it's not exactly intellectually honest to dismiss his accurate claim simply because you dislike both him and the candidate he's stumping for. Sure, GH isn't doing Sanders any favors when he over-dramatizes news items and then over-references what are most likely nothing but reddit posts, but when he's right, he's right. Dismissing the Washington Times, while a natural inclination, was simply inappropriate without actually looking into the veracity of the news story being described. Letting GH's character get in the way of an honest appraisal and then using it as an excuse to silence is not exactly the high road, and I think it's fair to say that we could all benefit from a bit of temperance in the face of annoyingly obtuse candidate-specific partisanry.
I don't know whether the claim is true or not and I honestly cannot be bothered to consider this seriously. It's unnecessary noise that we need to get rid of.
I'm a little unsure at people being very thrilled at releasing criminals whom individuals, both judges and police at some point thought deserved long sentences behind bars. There's many criminals that are 'caught and released'.
There is a term "institutionalized racism" that floats around Bernie & Hillary's camp. Is that not discarding the opinions of a shitload of police officers, lawyers, and judges? Is that not painting an entire swath of people and the system with too simple a brush?
Of the 5000 minor drug offenders released was this guy. Is there a site where you can see the crimes of each individual being released? Their rap sheet or lack thereof? Also, often times police have to catch person whom they know is a violent offender on other minor offenses such as drug charges. So whenever it's.. 'yes we should give pardons to people who were put in for minor drug offenses' you are kind of going against the judgment of the individuals whom put those people behind bars to begin with. There's many cases that need individual review. But in this particular case, 3 people lost their lives because of Obama releasing as little as 5000 'minor' offenders.
what actual story is there? sanders will be on the ballot like the story itself suggests. it is a non issue because of the issue not because of the independently true shittiness of washington times
A huge number of small-time drug offenders in federal court were given sentences with mandatory minimums imposed by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, so this notion that these sentences were handed down with discretion is inaccurate.
On March 31 2016 11:31 SK.Testie wrote: I'm a little unsure at people being very thrilled at releasing criminals whom individuals, both judges and police at some point thought deserved long sentences behind bars. There's many criminals that are 'caught and released'.
There is a term "institutionalized racism" that floats around Bernie & Hillary's camp. Is that not discarding the opinions of a shitload of police officers, lawyers, and judges? Is that not painting an entire swath of people and the system with too simple a brush?
Of the 5000 minor drug offenders released was this guy. Is there a site where you can see the crimes of each individual being released? Their rap sheet or lack thereof? Also, often times police have to catch person whom they know is a violent offender on other minor offenses such as drug charges. So whenever it's.. 'yes we should give pardons to people who were put in for minor drug offenses' you are kind of going against the judgment of the individuals whom put those people behind bars to begin with. There's many cases that need individual review. But in this particular case, 3 people lost their lives because of Obama releasing as little as 5000 'minor' offenders.
I think you're forgetting the existence of mandatory minimum sentencing laws. That way even if the prosecution and judge think the sentence is excessive, they are still obligated to inflict that harsh sentence.
On March 31 2016 11:38 farvacola wrote: A huge number of small-time drug offenders in federal court were given sentences with mandatory minimums imposed by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, so this notion that these sentences were handed down with discretion is inaccurate.
his point stands that individual exceptions to that rule (that people were generally oversentenced) can be costly though
On March 31 2016 11:31 SK.Testie wrote: I'm a little unsure at people being very thrilled at releasing criminals whom individuals, both judges and police at some point thought deserved long sentences behind bars. There's many criminals that are 'caught and released'.
There is a term "institutionalized racism" that floats around Bernie & Hillary's camp. Is that not discarding the opinions of a shitload of police officers, lawyers, and judges? Is that not painting an entire swath of people and the system with too simple a brush?
Of the 5000 minor drug offenders released was this guy. Is there a site where you can see the crimes of each individual being released? Their rap sheet or lack thereof? Also, often times police have to catch person whom they know is a violent offender on other minor offenses such as drug charges. So whenever it's.. 'yes we should give pardons to people who were put in for minor drug offenses' you are kind of going against the judgment of the individuals whom put those people behind bars to begin with. There's many cases that need individual review. But in this particular case, 3 people lost their lives because of Obama releasing as little as 5000 'minor' offenders.
And that is why we do not get our education on Youtube, quality channel btw, the owner of that channel seems to have written quality literature such as 'White Girl Bleed a Lot: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore It'
On March 31 2016 11:31 SK.Testie wrote: I'm a little unsure at people being very thrilled at releasing criminals whom individuals, both judges and police at some point thought deserved long sentences behind bars. There's many criminals that are 'caught and released'.
There is a term "institutionalized racism" that floats around Bernie & Hillary's camp. Is that not discarding the opinions of a shitload of police officers, lawyers, and judges? Is that not painting an entire swath of people and the system with too simple a brush?
Of the 5000 minor drug offenders released was this guy. Is there a site where you can see the crimes of each individual being released? Their rap sheet or lack thereof? Also, often times police have to catch person whom they know is a violent offender on other minor offenses such as drug charges. So whenever it's.. 'yes we should give pardons to people who were put in for minor drug offenses' you are kind of going against the judgment of the individuals whom put those people behind bars to begin with. There's many cases that need individual review. But in this particular case, 3 people lost their lives because of Obama releasing as little as 5000 'minor' offenders.
On March 31 2016 11:31 SK.Testie wrote: I'm a little unsure at people being very thrilled at releasing criminals whom individuals, both judges and police at some point thought deserved long sentences behind bars. There's many criminals that are 'caught and released'.
There is a term "institutionalized racism" that floats around Bernie & Hillary's camp. Is that not discarding the opinions of a shitload of police officers, lawyers, and judges? Is that not painting an entire swath of people and the system with too simple a brush?
Of the 5000 minor drug offenders released was this guy. Is there a site where you can see the crimes of each individual being released? Their rap sheet or lack thereof? Also, often times police have to catch person whom they know is a violent offender on other minor offenses such as drug charges. So whenever it's.. 'yes we should give pardons to people who were put in for minor drug offenses' you are kind of going against the judgment of the individuals whom put those people behind bars to begin with. There's many cases that need individual review. But in this particular case, 3 people lost their lives because of Obama releasing as little as 5000 'minor' offenders.
On March 31 2016 11:59 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: man i get kinda uncomfortable at the amount of ad hominem used to disregard points
it'd be okay with paired with an actual substantive refutation, but...
that's not even what a conspiracy is
Literally the first sentence in the video accuses 'the media' of systematically hiding black crime. Yep that's totally happening. I mean bigots keep buying his books so he makes some serious cash I guess but I'm not even allowed to call it out now?
On March 31 2016 11:59 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: man i get kinda uncomfortable at the amount of ad hominem used to disregard points
it'd be okay with paired with an actual substantive refutation, but...
that's not even what a conspiracy is
Literally the first sentence in the video accuses 'the media' of systematically hiding black crime. Yep that's totally happening. I mean bigots keep buying his books so he makes some serious cash I guess but I'm not even allowed to call it out now?
yea ok i didnt actually watch the video you got me i just skimmed some titles and hoped he didnt get too deep into the kool aid
his delusional thoughts about media conspiracies arent essential to his point here though
actually i didnt watch the video what am i even saying why do i even care
Some good advice for people who throw quotes around terms like "institutional racism" in normal conversation would be to seriously engage with the subject matter. It's just embarrassing to come and post things about "deference" to the police, lawyers, and judges locking up drug offenders. Same can be said for people who worry about the "cost" of letting out a drug offender who commits another crime without worrying about the thousands of lives being wasted in prison for minor breaches of that ossified social contract we call "law."
On March 31 2016 11:19 farvacola wrote: I really don't like having to defend GH, but it's not exactly intellectually honest to dismiss his accurate claim simply because you dislike both him and the candidate he's stumping for. Sure, GH isn't doing Sanders any favors when he over-dramatizes news items and then over-references what are most likely nothing but reddit posts, but when he's right, he's right. Dismissing the Washington Times, while a natural inclination, was simply inappropriate without actually looking into the veracity of the news story being described. Letting GH's character get in the way of an honest appraisal and then using it as an excuse to silence is not exactly the high road, and I think it's fair to say that we could all benefit from a bit of temperance in the face of annoyingly obtuse candidate-specific partisanry.
I put it at only a little bit above Breitbart, so as a source I value it pretty lowly. I got lazy, it was a mistake to dismiss it and I admit that, though I maintain it's more of a broken clock being right twice a day situation.
Anyways, Fred Phelps died today. He was a hateful man, but I think he got a bit better near the end. Rest in peace.
EPT
