US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3530

On April 04 2016 09:25 Ghanburighan wrote:


I think you missed the point here. You need two to tango.

The Donald Trump and Ted Cruz campaigns are working to prevent John Kasich from appearing on the ballot at the Republican National Convention in July, msnbc has learned, an aggressive strategy suggesting the GOP's leading candidates are girding for a contested convention to select the party's nominee.

On Sunday, Trump told a supporter that "Kasich shouldn't be allowed to continue and the RNC shouldn't allow him to continue."

f no one clinches the nomination during the primaries, delegates choose from candidates on the convention ballot.

While Trump and Cruz are locked in a bitter battle, aides to both men tell msnbc it is in their mutual interest to keep Kasich off the ballot. The convention rules control who is on that ballot — and thus eligible to win the nomination.

"I expect the Rules Committee to require a level of support that would leave only two candidates on the ballot at the convention," a senior Cruz Campaign aide told msnbc.

That committee, which writes the rules governing an open convention, is made up of 112 Republican delegates from around the country. Operatives for Cruz and Trump say they will have major sway over what the committee does.

"The Cruz people and Trump people are fighting hard to make sure their hard-core delegates get on the committee," said Barry Bennett, a Trump adviser.

Bennett said a voting bloc favoring the two leading candidates will run the committee.

On April 04 2016 09:30 oneofthem wrote:
just scroll up a few pages i don't really want to dig out links on my phone.

On March 02 2016 10:52 Ghanburighan wrote:
More signs of the last speech incoming:

On April 04 2016 09:45 Ghanburighan wrote:
I'll admit I was wrong about Sanders conceding then. I just trusted the tweets of the Washington Post reporter covering the Democratic race. Silly me.

On April 04 2016 09:45 Ghanburighan wrote:
I'll admit I was wrong about Sanders conceding then. I just trusted the tweets of the Washington Post reporter covering the Democratic race. Silly me.

On April 04 2016 09:48 GreenHorizons wrote:


I don't understand what you thought that was?

On April 04 2016 09:50 Ghanburighan wrote:


Well, you can look it up exactly. If my memory serves me correctly, the reporter tweeted the picture of the empty hall either before or after the speech (when people realistically weren't supposed to be there) as evidence of Sanders supporters not turning up (being told not to show up?) to the actual speech. And this was framed by a lot of talk about his probable suspension. Memory is fallible, so you can just check out the tweets and posts, tho.

On April 04 2016 09:15 m4ini wrote:


So rather than just posting the alleged evidence, you go through 4-5 posts explaining that there's evidence but you don't want to waste time pointing it out.

Got it.

On April 04 2016 10:26 kwizach wrote:

I think oneofthem is referring to this post of his (which he wrote five pages ago), in which he linked to the letter that was sent to complain about the credentials chair of the Clark County Democratic Convention leaking Hillary campaign data to Sanders' campaign by adding one of his representatives to the recipients of an e-mail chain. The letter also mentions the chairwoman engaging in personal attacks against Clinton representatives, but I don't know what incident this was about.

With regards to the document that were sent (apparently by that same chairwoman?) to many Clinton delegates (and, from what I can tell, several Sanders delegates as well) mentioning that they did not have to be present at the convention, here it is:
+ Show Spoiler +

I read in a few posts mentioning that document that the Sanders delegates that received it also received a follow-up flier indicating that they did need to be there, while the Clinton delegates never received the follow-up flier. I cannot confirm that it is true, and it could very well be false.

Whatever the facts are, I think everyone should agree that it is ridiculous for the popular vote that Clinton received to be partially nullified through the process that went on this week-end, and to have some of the delegates that the popular vote should have awarded her be flipped to Sanders. If this had gone the other way around, it would be my position that Clinton should ask for the delegates she would have unjustly won to switch back to Sanders at the state convention, in order to respect the votes that were cast in the first place. It seems so obvious to me that the most logical and fairest way of doing things would be to allocate the final delegates based on the initial vote results (--> 20-15 for Clinton), instead of going for three levels of caucuses. It's unfortunate that the people rejoicing over Sanders picking up delegates are disregarding a blatant case of cast votes being nullified, simply because it favors their candidate of choice. The fact that some of them are even complaining about the Clinton campaign yet again is pretty mind-blowing considering the fact that they're happy about a broken process overturning the will of the people who voted.

In any case, this doesn't impact the race at all, so meh. It's not worth wasting time over.

On April 04 2016 10:26 kwizach wrote:

I think oneofthem is referring to this post of his (which he wrote five pages ago), in which he linked to the letter that was sent to complain about the credentials chair of the Clark County Democratic Convention leaking Hillary campaign data to Sanders' campaign by adding one of his representatives to the recipients of an e-mail chain. The letter also mentions the chairwoman engaging in personal attacks against Clinton representatives, but I don't know what incident this was about.

With regards to the document that were sent (apparently by that same chairwoman?) to many Clinton delegates (and, from what I can tell, several Sanders delegates as well) mentioning that they did not have to be present at the convention, here it is:
+ Show Spoiler +

I read in a few posts mentioning that document that the Sanders delegates that received it also received a follow-up flier indicating that they did need to be there, while the Clinton delegates never received the follow-up flier. I cannot confirm that it is true, and it could very well be false.

Whatever the facts are, I think everyone should agree that it is ridiculous for the popular vote that Clinton received to be partially nullified through the process that went on this week-end, and to have some of the delegates that the popular vote should have awarded her be flipped to Sanders. If this had gone the other way around, it would be my position that Clinton should ask for the delegates she would have unjustly won to switch back to Sanders at the state convention, in order to respect the votes that were cast in the first place. It seems so obvious to me that the most logical and fairest way of doing things would be to allocate the final delegates based on the initial vote results (--> 20-15 for Clinton), instead of going for three levels of caucuses. It's unfortunate that the people rejoicing over Sanders picking up delegates are disregarding a blatant case of cast votes being nullified, simply because it favors their candidate of choice. The fact that some of them are even complaining about the Clinton campaign yet again is pretty mind-blowing considering the fact that they're happy about a broken process overturning the will of the people who voted.

In any case, this doesn't impact the race at all, so meh. It's not worth wasting time over here.

On April 04 2016 10:52 Jormundr wrote:

Bullfucking shit you would. Literally none of the Hillary camp has been interested in looking at the shitty way this election has been run up until now. You don't get to belittle us and then join us hon.

On April 04 2016 10:56 jcarlsoniv wrote:


"Literally none"

You get as far with absolutes like that as Clinton supporters do regarding Sanders supporters.

On April 04 2016 11:22 kwizach wrote:
I'm not sure when oneofthem became anyone's leader. I've been denouncing voter suppression for years -- pretty much since I've been on this site and visiting the old "Republican nomination" and "2012 general election" megathreads in 2011-2012. Here's an example I found with a quick search on google. I'm not sure why you feel the need to attack the character of the people supporting a different candidate than you. Anyway, carry on, whatever floats your boat.

On April 04 2016 11:28 GreenHorizons wrote:


Yeah I don't think anyone's questioning the enthusiasm when it comes to pointing it out when Republicans do it, it's when Democrats have been doing it that you all have been quiet.