|
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 April 03 2016 08:53 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2016 08:46 GreenHorizons wrote:“As a matter of policy, we only maintain relationships with clients who have been vetted through our strict due diligence and compliance checks,” HSBC spokeswoman Sorrel Beynon told HuffPost in a written statement.
Wait are they vetting clients to make sure they ARE involved in criminal activities? Because that's the only way that statement makes sense. No it doesn't. It does however show how useless the vetting is since (assuming they are indeed diligent about avoiding dirty clients (hint, they don't care)) it completely missed the giant corruption scene running.
I was being facetious. HSBC also recently (last couple years) paid a ~$2B fine after
HSBC was accused of failing to monitor more than $670 billion in wire transfers and more than $9.4 billion in purchases of U.S. currency from HSBC Mexico, allowing for money laundering, prosecutors said. The bank also violated U.S. economic sanctions against Iran, Libya, Sudan, Burma and Cuba, according to a criminal information filed in the case.
Source
That they are still trying to pretend they aren't basically a financial criminal enterprise themselves is pretty silly. People go to jail/prison for so much less...
|
Bernie may win Nevada also? Still have to go to the next level, but that's one reason delegate counts are estimates.
EDIT: Maybe not enough to flip the state. Looks like 20 delegates are apportioned based off of the Feb 20 results.
|
that... doesn't make sense?
|
On April 03 2016 08:36 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2016 08:31 ZeaL. wrote:On April 03 2016 08:28 oneofthem wrote:
except his policies are shit lol? Dude come on man. He's just lying about his policies to get votes which is fine, everyone has to do it to become elected president. His real policies which he can't release until he gets elected will be great obviously. if you are clueless enough to not have any informed guesses about their core platforms then okay, you might think you have a gotcha here. people who know more about trump, and for that matter, hillary, would be able to make judgments about who they are without resorting to crass relativism.
I heard Hillary just wants to be Golda Meir.
|
On April 03 2016 09:41 jcarlsoniv wrote:that... doesn't make sense?
Caucuses are kind of like the convention in that... let's say Trump won California 100%-0 he would win all the delegates. But then lets say California decides they are boycotting Ohio and refuse to attend the convention or be counted. Well then Trump doesn't get California's delegates.
Similarly Hillary's delegates from around Clark county didn't show up (they aren't required to provide a reason), so she doesn't get the delegates counted.
Not sure how many are determined by this process as opposed to the Feb 20 results directly.
EDIT: Here's the first article I see explaining it a bit http://www.ktnv.com/news/thousands-turn-out-for-clark-county-democratic-convention
|
On April 03 2016 09:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Caucuses are kind of like the convention in that... let's say Trump won California 100%-0 he would win all the delegates. But then lets say California decides they are boycotting Ohio and refuse to attend the convention or be counted. Well then Trump doesn't get California's delegates. Similarly Hillary's delegates from around Clark county didn't show up (they aren't required to provide a reason), so she doesn't get the delegates counted. Not sure how many are determined by this process as opposed to the Feb 20 results directly. EDIT: Here's the first article I see explaining it a bit http://www.ktnv.com/news/thousands-turn-out-for-clark-county-democratic-convention
Want to get off your high horse about election fraud? Because this sounds a hell of a lot more like actual fraud than long lines in Arizona.
|
On April 03 2016 10:13 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2016 09:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 03 2016 09:41 jcarlsoniv wrote:that... doesn't make sense? Caucuses are kind of like the convention in that... let's say Trump won California 100%-0 he would win all the delegates. But then lets say California decides they are boycotting Ohio and refuse to attend the convention or be counted. Well then Trump doesn't get California's delegates. Similarly Hillary's delegates from around Clark county didn't show up (they aren't required to provide a reason), so she doesn't get the delegates counted. Not sure how many are determined by this process as opposed to the Feb 20 results directly. EDIT: Here's the first article I see explaining it a bit http://www.ktnv.com/news/thousands-turn-out-for-clark-county-democratic-convention Want to get off your high horse about election fraud? Because this sounds a hell of a lot more like actual fraud than long lines in Arizona.
Haha, no. I've always said that caucuses are dumb as done, and the whole process is fakakta.
It's not "election fraud", which quite obviously happened in AZ (even ticklish agrees on that), it is a dumbass rule though. It's no more "fraud" than it would be for Trump to lose the first ballot at the convention straight up and then someone else winning.
If you want to call the whole process fraud you could probably convince me, but the notion that this is fraud, and AZ wasn't, suggests you don't know what election fraud is.
|
On April 03 2016 09:17 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2016 09:11 oneofthem wrote:On April 03 2016 08:48 farvacola wrote:"crass relativism" lol, it must nice to live in a world with no mirrors. when you can't tell between trump and hillary because of some use of campaigning tactics, crass relativism is indeed too nice. it's more of a case of flippant idiocy When you can't even tell that your crassly relativistic sniping has just been deftly turned against you, there's definitely idiocy involved. Like I've been saying for months now, you're just as bad for democratic consensus as Sanders' idealistic lack of nuance. DWS is hiring interns btw, you might want to consider a career change.
I've read roughly half of the transcript so far. I actually thought his responses have been very solid minus the start.
Donald Trump for president.
edit: I dedicated my 4000th post to Donald Trump, hmm. I don't even feel bad about it.
|
On April 03 2016 10:13 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2016 09:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 03 2016 09:41 jcarlsoniv wrote:that... doesn't make sense? Caucuses are kind of like the convention in that... let's say Trump won California 100%-0 he would win all the delegates. But then lets say California decides they are boycotting Ohio and refuse to attend the convention or be counted. Well then Trump doesn't get California's delegates. Similarly Hillary's delegates from around Clark county didn't show up (they aren't required to provide a reason), so she doesn't get the delegates counted. Not sure how many are determined by this process as opposed to the Feb 20 results directly. EDIT: Here's the first article I see explaining it a bit http://www.ktnv.com/news/thousands-turn-out-for-clark-county-democratic-convention Want to get off your high horse about election fraud? Because this sounds a hell of a lot more like actual fraud than long lines in Arizona.
I'm loving how even though this will change virtually nothing in the overall race, it's a perfect example of the hypocrisy of the people currently rejoicing over Sanders flipping delegates that the actual vote did not give him  If the situation had be reversed, the DNC and Hillary's campaign HQ would probably be receiving death threats by the dozens.
|
On April 03 2016 10:27 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2016 10:13 Acrofales wrote:On April 03 2016 09:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 03 2016 09:41 jcarlsoniv wrote:that... doesn't make sense? Caucuses are kind of like the convention in that... let's say Trump won California 100%-0 he would win all the delegates. But then lets say California decides they are boycotting Ohio and refuse to attend the convention or be counted. Well then Trump doesn't get California's delegates. Similarly Hillary's delegates from around Clark county didn't show up (they aren't required to provide a reason), so she doesn't get the delegates counted. Not sure how many are determined by this process as opposed to the Feb 20 results directly. EDIT: Here's the first article I see explaining it a bit http://www.ktnv.com/news/thousands-turn-out-for-clark-county-democratic-convention Want to get off your high horse about election fraud? Because this sounds a hell of a lot more like actual fraud than long lines in Arizona. I'm loving how even though this will change virtually nothing in the overall race, it's a perfect example of the hypocrisy of the people currently rejoicing over Sanders flipping delegates that the actual vote did not give him If the situation had be reversed, the DNC and Hillary's campaign HQ would probably be receiving death threats by the dozens.
Well there's various opinions on how much the vote, particularly in Clark county, was already manipulated. Best I can tell no one is shy to say that the system is dumb and that this isn't how it should be done, but of course people are excited that Bernie is potentially narrowing the lead. No one was advocating breaking rules or any of the stuff we are actually mad at Hillary about.
But not surprising, this of all places, is where suddenly you see hypocrisy.
|
if we put sanders supporters in a hamster wheel, the spin could solve the world's energy problems
and if i had a nickel for every time i heard voter fraud, i could start my own super pac
i seem to recall a certain amount of complaining from the sanders camp about trying to steal delegates at the iowa convention too, interestingly enough
not sure what will happen with the delegate count, maybe a two point swing, maybe nothing. may also seem some legal wrangling. some *interesting* things going on which may have affected the process, which no doubt ppl here are aware of and will be fair minded about
sanders can continue pulling all sorts of tricks for short term gains while sacrificing his supposed integrity. his favorability has started falling, so much for the more people hear about him the more they like him
|
lol man bernie is just a good dude. you can disagree with him on stuff or call him unrealistic, but he's not "pulling all sorts of tricks." his people just actually showed up to the second part of the stupid caucus process.
i say we debate this during the NCAA finals, ticklish
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 03 2016 09:17 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2016 09:11 oneofthem wrote:On April 03 2016 08:48 farvacola wrote:"crass relativism" lol, it must nice to live in a world with no mirrors. when you can't tell between trump and hillary because of some use of campaigning tactics, crass relativism is indeed too nice. it's more of a case of flippant idiocy When you can't even tell that your crassly relativistic sniping has just been deftly turned against you, there's definitely idiocy involved. Like I've been saying for months now, you're just as bad for democratic consensus as Sanders' idealistic lack of nuance. DWS is hiring interns btw, you might want to consider a career change.
deftly lmfao. just stop.
in other news actual voter fraud by sandernistas
|
[url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-turmoil-or-triumph-donald-trump-stands-alone/2016/04/02/8c0619b6-f8d6-11e5-a3ce-f06b5ba21f33_story.html?postshare=6561459637742585&tid=ss_tw]This[/url ] WaPo article on Trump is amazing and well fact checked but I think it reveals even more. Look at the following. It looks like Trump believes trade between nations is conducted like a business deal where each country agreed to what they trade and how much it's worth. There doesn't seem another way the following comment makes sense:
[quote] (Trump) insisted that he would be able to get rid of the nation’s more than $19 trillion national debt “over a period of eight years.”
Most economists would consider this impossible because it could require taking more than $2 trillion a year out of the annual $4 trillion budget to pay off holders of the debt.
Trump vehemently disagrees: “I’m renegotiating all of our deals, the big trade deals that we’re doing so badly on. With China, $505 billion this year in trade.” He said that economic growth he foresees as a consequence of renegotiated deals would enable the United States to pay down the debt — although many economists have said the exact opposite, that a trade war would be crippling to the U.S. economy.
[/quote]
|
On April 03 2016 12:32 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2016 09:17 farvacola wrote:On April 03 2016 09:11 oneofthem wrote:On April 03 2016 08:48 farvacola wrote:"crass relativism" lol, it must nice to live in a world with no mirrors. when you can't tell between trump and hillary because of some use of campaigning tactics, crass relativism is indeed too nice. it's more of a case of flippant idiocy When you can't even tell that your crassly relativistic sniping has just been deftly turned against you, there's definitely idiocy involved. Like I've been saying for months now, you're just as bad for democratic consensus as Sanders' idealistic lack of nuance. DWS is hiring interns btw, you might want to consider a career change. deftly lmfao. just stop. in other news actual voter fraud by sandernistas https://twitter.com/brianefallon/status/716445697176784896
Voter fraud? I don't think that means what you think it means...
As for these allegations, you don't get to ask for evidence of election fraud/voter suppression, then provide none of your own and think that passes the smell test.
Are we sure it wasn't just a series of coincidental errors?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On April 03 2016 12:30 darthfoley wrote:
lol man bernie is just a good dude. you can disagree with him on stuff or call him unrealistic, but he's not "pulling all sorts of tricks." his people just actually showed up to the second part of the stupid caucus process.
i say we debate this during the NCAA finals, ticklish
im pretty ok with the GOTV part, except i would like to know what went on with the chair who got removed today for leaking contact info for hillary's supporters and the message that went out about not needing to show up. looks pretty sketchy to me
i hear a lot of the 600 alts are getting removed from the lists as well b/c they're not actually registered democrats, oops
doubling down on oil and gas donations and squabbling over NY debates, latest chapter in bernie "totally running a clean campaign" sanders' book. i've gone from liking the dude to "well if he wins i guess i'll vote for him b/c it's kind of my duty to" and a lot of hillary supporters i've talked to feel the same way.
|
Doesn't the proportion of delegates remain the same in Nevada no matter who shows up?
It looks silly that Sanders is willing to claim victory despite losing the popular vote. He joins Bush in winning a race on a technicality. Clearly not in the spirit of democracy.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this lady apparently also demanded people pay a 'poll tax' to be at the convention even though it's only a suggestion. given that there is access to voter data this is very problematic.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10205918595708344&id=1362727033
also from this comment chain (by an insider from the organizing group), some sort of 'we were hacked' lie from the lady who sent out the voter info email in question. guy's a bernie supporter with some integrity so applauds.
|
So who in the Clinton camp will fall on their sword for this embarrassing fuck up. I wonder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
