|
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 May 19 2016 14:23 JW_DTLA wrote:That video actually perfectly highlights the Hillary versus Berner camp difference when it comes to voting. Berners think that their enthusiasm and volume should count for more than the more numerous Hillary camp votes. There was no tyranny. Clinton campers outnumbered the Berners, so the Clinton campers would win any voice vote easily. But the Berners were louder. "In a voice vote, Lange approved adoption of a preliminary credentials report showing more Clinton than Sanders delegates. Immediate howls of protests from the Sanders contingent emerged, many of whom rushed the dais and started screaming insults and obscenities directly at Lange. Although several videos from the event appear to have louder "nays" than "yeas," both preliminary and final delegate counts showed that Clinton supporters outnumbered Sanders supporters in the room." http://www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/may/18/jeff-weaver/allegations-fraud-and-misconduct-nevada-democratic/
You realize these votes don't go strictly according to presidential preference right? That's one reason why we have them and don't just look at the tally and approve everything one side says and not the other.
|
On May 19 2016 13:15 travis wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I mean... most bernie supporters already know there is a lot of corruption / rigging of the system going on.. and many hillary supporters really just don't give a fuck but watch the video and tell me that's not disgusting edit: even worse + Show Spoiler +
It would be nice if you could refrain from posting youtube videos to argue there's a conspiracy against Sanders when those exact videos have been discussed in extenso for pages over the last few days, and have been repeatedly debunked.
If you're actually interested in learning what happened, you can read the following links: this one, this one, this one and this one summarizing the facts of what happened, as well as the politifact article JW_DTLA linked to.
To address your two videos specifically:
1. With regards to the first one, there were more Clinton delegates in the room than Sanders delegates. The video was taken from the side of the Sanders delegates, making the "No" sound louder. The only disgusting thing is how easily people are being misled by a video like that when the explanation is that obvious.
2. The "minority report" did not come from the Credentials Committee but from staffers of Sanders' campaign. It wasn't truthful, since it argued that 64 Sanders delegates had been unjustly disqualified as delegates and that they would have tipped the balance in favor of the Sanders campaign, since the difference between the two camps was of 33 delegates in the final count. In reality, 6 of those 64 delegates were accepted as delegates after going through the usual checks, while the others were not because "1) They were not registered Democratic voters in Nevada by May 1, 2016, and 2) Their information — such as address, date of birth and name — could not be found or identified, and they did not respond to requests from the party and campaigns to correct it." But here's the thing: "Only eight of the ineligible delegates even attempted to register at the State Convention." -- this means that even if they had all been seated as eligible delegates, they would not have changed the outcome whatsoever. Also, 8 Clinton delegates were also disqualified for the same reasons as the Sanders delegates.
In short, absolutely nothing dodgy went on, the state party followed the rules and the Clinton campaign won fair and square the delegates it had rightfully won in the initial caucus by beating Sanders by more than 5%. The Sanders delegates were angry because 1. they had been told by the campaign to be confrontational, as CNN uncovered, 2. they failed to understand the rules and 3. they felt they were entitled to more delegates than Clinton when all that happened is that the Clinton campaign managed to turn out more delegates than the Sanders campaign, exactly like what happened at the county convention when the Sanders campaign managed the same feat after losing the initial caucus.
Please look at prior discussions the next time you want to post the usual conspiracies coming from overzealous Sanders supporters.
|
On May 19 2016 08:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 08:30 SK.Testie wrote:On May 19 2016 08:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So if Clinton's plan is to paint herself as an outsider she is going to be laughed out of this race. she has to pick a progressive VP otherwise she either barely wins or loses outright against Trump. Most people in this thread were very confident she is going to win very handily against Trump. What makes you think she'll lose? Most people just show the 'unfavourability' polls and call it a day. Have you seen the Polls this is anti-establishment election cycle Trump has nearly caught up with Clinton and is now tied with her in New Hampshire. People can blame Sanders all they want but he has no effect on her unfavorably ratings at all.
Of course he does. He's been peddling lies about her being in the pocket of Wall Street and Big Pharma, and being part of an establishment which is rigging the election, since March. Attacks like these tend to have more of an effect on liberals and some moderates when they come from the left rather than the GOP, since the GOP is expected to be deceiving on such issues.
On May 19 2016 08:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
No they will flock towards Sanders or Warren if Clinton chooses them as a VP. But the big question is if she were to do that, the result would be that they would quickly overshadow her. Her ego won't allow that to happen no matter what.
Like I've argued repeatedly, picking Sanders as VP is "the scenario that makes Clinton the weakest for the general election. Not only would all of Sanders' glaring weaknesses be happily exploited by the GOP to bring down the ticket, but you would have even more ads quoting Sanders' attacks on Clinton on loop until November. It's the worst idea possible" -- luckily, Clinton isn't that stupid, and that has nothing to do with her ego.
|
Adding on of the 64 only 14 of them actually even showed up, and 6 of them had their credentials verified and were seated
|
On May 19 2016 13:34 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 13:10 SK.Testie wrote:On May 19 2016 12:52 Adreme wrote:On May 19 2016 11:52 Mohdoo wrote:On May 19 2016 11:08 Adreme wrote:
Dont take polls you see right now too seriously. Right now you have Bernie supporters who are not at the moment willing to support Hilary but like when similar things were happening in 2008 once the concession happens and everyone hugs it out and Bernie is campaigning for her his supporters will come around and the numbers will be what they were 3 weeks ago.
Donald isnt campaigning well so much as the Democratic voters have not started unifying yet so when they do his numbers will plummet and the polls showing him winning are mostly just people still in the heat of primary fever. And this is why superdelegates immediately rallied behind Clinton: political parties benefit immensely by wrapping things up quick. Itll end with plenty of time and then when it does he will come out and say something like "I have been campaigning against Donald Trump for over 30 years. He is everything I have been fighting against and if you were ever truly my supporter and if you truly supported what we were fighting for then you can not in good faith vote for him" This will begin the unification and it will be fine. There are 6 months until the election after all and Hilary waited until the end to get out as well. Bernie will not stay in if he thinks it will honestly get Trump elected because he knows what that would mean for his cause. Ah yes. Bernies cause. "Fight the corrupt establishment!! Fight the big banks! Fight wall street! Fight lobbyists! Fight the Waltons! The politicians are all crooks!" "So we need bigger government, thus more bureaucrats, and here's Hillary the poster girl for the establishment who is friends with every shady interest in the world!! Saudi Arabia? np" Quite a cause. Meanwhile the guy on the other side self funded his campaign, maneuvered past a tonne of obstacles in the media or blew threw them, and has bent the establishment to his will. He's out doing the interviews daily, whereas Hillary hides from them. Trump is pretty socially liberal and most of his policies will be fairly liberal. And he's at least called out Saudi Arabia and a large number of other people that just always got a free pass. And then Bernies lies and identity politics will come into play as he campaigns for Hillary non-stop. "He's sexist!" Hires women in top positions all his life. This should be the literal negation of the argument. Tonnes of women who dated the man support and love the man while ripping the NYT on their BS hit job. "He's racist!" Same. Hiring all races and believing in meritocracy. "His rhetoric though!" Actually highlights a problem that a large % of the nation feels far more than the rest of the nation. + Show Spoiler +He's just going to pander with, "He's divisive!" meanwhile the left will always divide everyone into their own victimized group. It's appalling, yet appallingly effective. And then his fans will wave flags saying, "love wins!" while Hillary takes the throne. Don't forget he's been a celebrity for decades but the racism/sexism narrative didn't start until this presidential bid.
People also gave a lot less of a shit about racism/sexism in those decades. Plus he is just some business man who loves to embed himself in pop culture so who really gives a shit? Now he is running for the highest office at a time when awareness about those things is a lot higher.
|
On May 19 2016 13:34 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 13:10 SK.Testie wrote:On May 19 2016 12:52 Adreme wrote:On May 19 2016 11:52 Mohdoo wrote:On May 19 2016 11:08 Adreme wrote:
Dont take polls you see right now too seriously. Right now you have Bernie supporters who are not at the moment willing to support Hilary but like when similar things were happening in 2008 once the concession happens and everyone hugs it out and Bernie is campaigning for her his supporters will come around and the numbers will be what they were 3 weeks ago.
Donald isnt campaigning well so much as the Democratic voters have not started unifying yet so when they do his numbers will plummet and the polls showing him winning are mostly just people still in the heat of primary fever. And this is why superdelegates immediately rallied behind Clinton: political parties benefit immensely by wrapping things up quick. Itll end with plenty of time and then when it does he will come out and say something like "I have been campaigning against Donald Trump for over 30 years. He is everything I have been fighting against and if you were ever truly my supporter and if you truly supported what we were fighting for then you can not in good faith vote for him" This will begin the unification and it will be fine. There are 6 months until the election after all and Hilary waited until the end to get out as well. Bernie will not stay in if he thinks it will honestly get Trump elected because he knows what that would mean for his cause. Ah yes. Bernies cause. "Fight the corrupt establishment!! Fight the big banks! Fight wall street! Fight lobbyists! Fight the Waltons! The politicians are all crooks!" "So we need bigger government, thus more bureaucrats, and here's Hillary the poster girl for the establishment who is friends with every shady interest in the world!! Saudi Arabia? np" Quite a cause. Meanwhile the guy on the other side self funded his campaign, maneuvered past a tonne of obstacles in the media or blew threw them, and has bent the establishment to his will. He's out doing the interviews daily, whereas Hillary hides from them. Trump is pretty socially liberal and most of his policies will be fairly liberal. And he's at least called out Saudi Arabia and a large number of other people that just always got a free pass. And then Bernies lies and identity politics will come into play as he campaigns for Hillary non-stop. "He's sexist!" Hires women in top positions all his life. This should be the literal negation of the argument. Tonnes of women who dated the man support and love the man while ripping the NYT on their BS hit job. "He's racist!" Same. Hiring all races and believing in meritocracy. "His rhetoric though!" Actually highlights a problem that a large % of the nation feels far more than the rest of the nation. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZXbG5gvoC0 He's just going to pander with, "He's divisive!" meanwhile the left will always divide everyone into their own victimized group. It's appalling, yet appallingly effective. And then his fans will wave flags saying, "love wins!" while Hillary takes the throne. Don't forget he's been a celebrity for decades but the racism/sexism narrative didn't start until this presidential bid.
False. It started with his racist questioning of Obama's place of birth.
edit: actually, before that.
|
On May 19 2016 15:21 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 13:34 oBlade wrote:On May 19 2016 13:10 SK.Testie wrote:On May 19 2016 12:52 Adreme wrote:On May 19 2016 11:52 Mohdoo wrote:On May 19 2016 11:08 Adreme wrote:
Dont take polls you see right now too seriously. Right now you have Bernie supporters who are not at the moment willing to support Hilary but like when similar things were happening in 2008 once the concession happens and everyone hugs it out and Bernie is campaigning for her his supporters will come around and the numbers will be what they were 3 weeks ago.
Donald isnt campaigning well so much as the Democratic voters have not started unifying yet so when they do his numbers will plummet and the polls showing him winning are mostly just people still in the heat of primary fever. And this is why superdelegates immediately rallied behind Clinton: political parties benefit immensely by wrapping things up quick. Itll end with plenty of time and then when it does he will come out and say something like "I have been campaigning against Donald Trump for over 30 years. He is everything I have been fighting against and if you were ever truly my supporter and if you truly supported what we were fighting for then you can not in good faith vote for him" This will begin the unification and it will be fine. There are 6 months until the election after all and Hilary waited until the end to get out as well. Bernie will not stay in if he thinks it will honestly get Trump elected because he knows what that would mean for his cause. Ah yes. Bernies cause. "Fight the corrupt establishment!! Fight the big banks! Fight wall street! Fight lobbyists! Fight the Waltons! The politicians are all crooks!" "So we need bigger government, thus more bureaucrats, and here's Hillary the poster girl for the establishment who is friends with every shady interest in the world!! Saudi Arabia? np" Quite a cause. Meanwhile the guy on the other side self funded his campaign, maneuvered past a tonne of obstacles in the media or blew threw them, and has bent the establishment to his will. He's out doing the interviews daily, whereas Hillary hides from them. Trump is pretty socially liberal and most of his policies will be fairly liberal. And he's at least called out Saudi Arabia and a large number of other people that just always got a free pass. And then Bernies lies and identity politics will come into play as he campaigns for Hillary non-stop. "He's sexist!" Hires women in top positions all his life. This should be the literal negation of the argument. Tonnes of women who dated the man support and love the man while ripping the NYT on their BS hit job. "He's racist!" Same. Hiring all races and believing in meritocracy. "His rhetoric though!" Actually highlights a problem that a large % of the nation feels far more than the rest of the nation. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZXbG5gvoC0 He's just going to pander with, "He's divisive!" meanwhile the left will always divide everyone into their own victimized group. It's appalling, yet appallingly effective. And then his fans will wave flags saying, "love wins!" while Hillary takes the throne. Don't forget he's been a celebrity for decades but the racism/sexism narrative didn't start until this presidential bid. False. It started with his racist questioning of Obama's place of birth. edit: actually, before that.
I don't think it was racist to question Obama's birth. He did the same to ted cruz. I think he just thinks all people have some hidden agenda, especially the people he doesn't like. I think it just makes him a conspiracy theorist not a racist by any means lol
|
There was a very blurrly line with the birther movement between genuine conspiracy theorist and opportunistic racist. Mostly you could figure out if they belived Obama originally came from Indonesia or Kenya With Indonesia being the non racist version but still kinda dickish to accuse the presidents mom of smuggling her kid into being born on hawaii.
|
On May 19 2016 21:26 Sermokala wrote:
There was a very blurrly line with the birther movement between genuine conspiracy theorist and opportunistic racist. Mostly you could figure out if they belived Obama originally came from Indonesia or Kenya With Indonesia being the non racist version but still kinda dickish to accuse the presidents mom of smuggling her kid into being born on hawaii.
Since when has trump not been a dick? He acts that way to everyone he sees as his opponent. It has nothing to do with race.
|
There was always a racial over tone to the birther conspiracy theory and claiming Obama was Muslim. Much like “states rights” became the accepted term issues southern racists care about. Election integrity is used for voter ID laws targeted at repressing the minority vote. Since the Southern Strategy was adopted, coded language has been uses to mask racism and other agendas.
Of course, that does not mean every single person who believed these things is a card carrying racist. That is part why the plan is so effective, it ropes in people who would not believe these conspiracy theory presented in overt racist terms.
|
On May 19 2016 14:45 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 13:15 travis wrote:+ Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5srPXtJV0V0 I mean... most bernie supporters already know there is a lot of corruption / rigging of the system going on.. and many hillary supporters really just don't give a fuck but watch the video and tell me that's not disgusting edit: even worse + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVa4G32M7Bc It would be nice if you could refrain from posting youtube videos to argue there's a conspiracy against Sanders when those exact videos have been discussed in extenso for pages over the last few days, and have been repeatedly debunked. If you're actually interested in learning what happened, you can read the following links: this one, this one, this one and this one summarizing the facts of what happened, as well as the politifact article JW_DTLA linked to. To address your two videos specifically: 1. With regards to the first one, there were more Clinton delegates in the room than Sanders delegates. The video was taken from the side of the Sanders delegates, making the "No" sound louder. The only disgusting thing is how easily people are being misled by a video like that when the explanation is that obvious. 2. The "minority report" did not come from the Credentials Committee but from staffers of Sanders' campaign. It wasn't truthful, since it argued that 64 Sanders delegates had been unjustly disqualified as delegates and that they would have tipped the balance in favor of the Sanders campaign, since the difference between the two camps was of 33 delegates in the final count. In reality, 6 of those 64 delegates were accepted as delegates after going through the usual checks, while the others were not because "1) They were not registered Democratic voters in Nevada by May 1, 2016, and 2) Their information — such as address, date of birth and name — could not be found or identified, and they did not respond to requests from the party and campaigns to correct it." But here's the thing: "Only eight of the ineligible delegates even attempted to register at the State Convention." -- this means that even if they had all been seated as eligible delegates, they would not have changed the outcome whatsoever. Also, 8 Clinton delegates were also disqualified for the same reasons as the Sanders delegates. In short, absolutely nothing dodgy went on, the state party followed the rules and the Clinton campaign won fair and square the delegates it had rightfully won in the initial caucus by beating Sanders by more than 5%. The Sanders delegates were angry because 1. they had been told by the campaign to be confrontational, as CNN uncovered, 2. they failed to understand the rules and 3. they felt they were entitled to more delegates than Clinton when all that happened is that the Clinton campaign managed to turn out more delegates than the Sanders campaign, exactly like what happened at the county convention when the Sanders campaign managed the same feat after losing the initial caucus. Please look at prior discussions the next time you want to post the usual conspiracies coming from overzealous Sanders supporters.
that's funny. did you guys even watch the second video. this is why I rarely come to this thread, it's just annoying.
|
On May 19 2016 22:13 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 14:45 kwizach wrote:On May 19 2016 13:15 travis wrote:+ Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5srPXtJV0V0 I mean... most bernie supporters already know there is a lot of corruption / rigging of the system going on.. and many hillary supporters really just don't give a fuck but watch the video and tell me that's not disgusting edit: even worse + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVa4G32M7Bc It would be nice if you could refrain from posting youtube videos to argue there's a conspiracy against Sanders when those exact videos have been discussed in extenso for pages over the last few days, and have been repeatedly debunked. If you're actually interested in learning what happened, you can read the following links: this one, this one, this one and this one summarizing the facts of what happened, as well as the politifact article JW_DTLA linked to. To address your two videos specifically: 1. With regards to the first one, there were more Clinton delegates in the room than Sanders delegates. The video was taken from the side of the Sanders delegates, making the "No" sound louder. The only disgusting thing is how easily people are being misled by a video like that when the explanation is that obvious. 2. The "minority report" did not come from the Credentials Committee but from staffers of Sanders' campaign. It wasn't truthful, since it argued that 64 Sanders delegates had been unjustly disqualified as delegates and that they would have tipped the balance in favor of the Sanders campaign, since the difference between the two camps was of 33 delegates in the final count. In reality, 6 of those 64 delegates were accepted as delegates after going through the usual checks, while the others were not because "1) They were not registered Democratic voters in Nevada by May 1, 2016, and 2) Their information — such as address, date of birth and name — could not be found or identified, and they did not respond to requests from the party and campaigns to correct it." But here's the thing: "Only eight of the ineligible delegates even attempted to register at the State Convention." -- this means that even if they had all been seated as eligible delegates, they would not have changed the outcome whatsoever. Also, 8 Clinton delegates were also disqualified for the same reasons as the Sanders delegates. In short, absolutely nothing dodgy went on, the state party followed the rules and the Clinton campaign won fair and square the delegates it had rightfully won in the initial caucus by beating Sanders by more than 5%. The Sanders delegates were angry because 1. they had been told by the campaign to be confrontational, as CNN uncovered, 2. they failed to understand the rules and 3. they felt they were entitled to more delegates than Clinton when all that happened is that the Clinton campaign managed to turn out more delegates than the Sanders campaign, exactly like what happened at the county convention when the Sanders campaign managed the same feat after losing the initial caucus. Please look at prior discussions the next time you want to post the usual conspiracies coming from overzealous Sanders supporters. that's funny. did you guys even watch the second video. this is why I rarely come to this thread, it's just annoying.
With the ability the average person to edit and alter video recordings, random youtube videos are not compelling evidence. If it was from a well known, creditable reporter or news agency it would be better. But that video is hosted by some random dude I know nothing about, but claims to be “attacking click bait on facebook”. So because of that, I have decided to treat exactly the same way as some random stranger telling the same thing the subway.
|
On May 19 2016 22:13 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 14:45 kwizach wrote:On May 19 2016 13:15 travis wrote:+ Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5srPXtJV0V0 I mean... most bernie supporters already know there is a lot of corruption / rigging of the system going on.. and many hillary supporters really just don't give a fuck but watch the video and tell me that's not disgusting edit: even worse + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVa4G32M7Bc It would be nice if you could refrain from posting youtube videos to argue there's a conspiracy against Sanders when those exact videos have been discussed in extenso for pages over the last few days, and have been repeatedly debunked. If you're actually interested in learning what happened, you can read the following links: this one, this one, this one and this one summarizing the facts of what happened, as well as the politifact article JW_DTLA linked to. To address your two videos specifically: 1. With regards to the first one, there were more Clinton delegates in the room than Sanders delegates. The video was taken from the side of the Sanders delegates, making the "No" sound louder. The only disgusting thing is how easily people are being misled by a video like that when the explanation is that obvious. 2. The "minority report" did not come from the Credentials Committee but from staffers of Sanders' campaign. It wasn't truthful, since it argued that 64 Sanders delegates had been unjustly disqualified as delegates and that they would have tipped the balance in favor of the Sanders campaign, since the difference between the two camps was of 33 delegates in the final count. In reality, 6 of those 64 delegates were accepted as delegates after going through the usual checks, while the others were not because "1) They were not registered Democratic voters in Nevada by May 1, 2016, and 2) Their information — such as address, date of birth and name — could not be found or identified, and they did not respond to requests from the party and campaigns to correct it." But here's the thing: "Only eight of the ineligible delegates even attempted to register at the State Convention." -- this means that even if they had all been seated as eligible delegates, they would not have changed the outcome whatsoever. Also, 8 Clinton delegates were also disqualified for the same reasons as the Sanders delegates. In short, absolutely nothing dodgy went on, the state party followed the rules and the Clinton campaign won fair and square the delegates it had rightfully won in the initial caucus by beating Sanders by more than 5%. The Sanders delegates were angry because 1. they had been told by the campaign to be confrontational, as CNN uncovered, 2. they failed to understand the rules and 3. they felt they were entitled to more delegates than Clinton when all that happened is that the Clinton campaign managed to turn out more delegates than the Sanders campaign, exactly like what happened at the county convention when the Sanders campaign managed the same feat after losing the initial caucus. Please look at prior discussions the next time you want to post the usual conspiracies coming from overzealous Sanders supporters. that's funny. did you guys even watch the second video. this is why I rarely come to this thread, it's just annoying.
It's annoying when someone debunks your ridiculous conspiracy nonsense with a thorough explanation of what happened, with numbers and sources attached? I can see how that must be a bummer. Are you really so convinced in some Illuminati nonsense that you don't even take the time to examine sources and statistics? What exactly do you dispute in those links?
|
I love that the Trumpanzees are still blaring about how he is self-funding his campaign, which is blatantly false. Just take a look at the big ol' DONATE button (in two places!) on his webpage or the fact that he is already maneuvering to use RNC funds to pay back the loans he took in the primary. After all is said and done, The Donald will have spent absolutely zero dollars of his own money on this presidential campaign. Self-funded, indeed.
|
On May 19 2016 23:26 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 22:13 travis wrote:On May 19 2016 14:45 kwizach wrote:On May 19 2016 13:15 travis wrote:+ Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5srPXtJV0V0 I mean... most bernie supporters already know there is a lot of corruption / rigging of the system going on.. and many hillary supporters really just don't give a fuck but watch the video and tell me that's not disgusting edit: even worse + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVa4G32M7Bc It would be nice if you could refrain from posting youtube videos to argue there's a conspiracy against Sanders when those exact videos have been discussed in extenso for pages over the last few days, and have been repeatedly debunked. If you're actually interested in learning what happened, you can read the following links: this one, this one, this one and this one summarizing the facts of what happened, as well as the politifact article JW_DTLA linked to. To address your two videos specifically: 1. With regards to the first one, there were more Clinton delegates in the room than Sanders delegates. The video was taken from the side of the Sanders delegates, making the "No" sound louder. The only disgusting thing is how easily people are being misled by a video like that when the explanation is that obvious. 2. The "minority report" did not come from the Credentials Committee but from staffers of Sanders' campaign. It wasn't truthful, since it argued that 64 Sanders delegates had been unjustly disqualified as delegates and that they would have tipped the balance in favor of the Sanders campaign, since the difference between the two camps was of 33 delegates in the final count. In reality, 6 of those 64 delegates were accepted as delegates after going through the usual checks, while the others were not because "1) They were not registered Democratic voters in Nevada by May 1, 2016, and 2) Their information — such as address, date of birth and name — could not be found or identified, and they did not respond to requests from the party and campaigns to correct it." But here's the thing: "Only eight of the ineligible delegates even attempted to register at the State Convention." -- this means that even if they had all been seated as eligible delegates, they would not have changed the outcome whatsoever. Also, 8 Clinton delegates were also disqualified for the same reasons as the Sanders delegates. In short, absolutely nothing dodgy went on, the state party followed the rules and the Clinton campaign won fair and square the delegates it had rightfully won in the initial caucus by beating Sanders by more than 5%. The Sanders delegates were angry because 1. they had been told by the campaign to be confrontational, as CNN uncovered, 2. they failed to understand the rules and 3. they felt they were entitled to more delegates than Clinton when all that happened is that the Clinton campaign managed to turn out more delegates than the Sanders campaign, exactly like what happened at the county convention when the Sanders campaign managed the same feat after losing the initial caucus. Please look at prior discussions the next time you want to post the usual conspiracies coming from overzealous Sanders supporters. that's funny. did you guys even watch the second video. this is why I rarely come to this thread, it's just annoying. It's annoying when someone debunks your ridiculous conspiracy nonsense with a thorough explanation of what happened, with numbers and sources attached? I can see how that must be a bummer. Are you really so convinced in some Illuminati nonsense that you don't even take the time to examine sources and statistics? What exactly do you dispute in those links?
I think the appropriate response is.
I apologize unreservedly for annoying you with our facts.
|
On May 19 2016 23:27 ZasZ. wrote:
I love that the Trumpanzees are still blaring about how he is self-funding his campaign, which is blatantly false. Just take a look at the big ol' DONATE button (in two places!) on his webpage or the fact that he is already maneuvering to use RNC funds to pay back the loans he took in the primary. After all is said and done, The Donald will have spent absolutely zero dollars of his own money on this presidential campaign. Self-funded, indeed.
Haha, Trumpanzee. I love it.
|
On May 19 2016 23:27 ZasZ. wrote:
I love that the Trumpanzees are still blaring about how he is self-funding his campaign, which is blatantly false. Just take a look at the big ol' DONATE button (in two places!) on his webpage or the fact that he is already maneuvering to use RNC funds to pay back the loans he took in the primary. After all is said and done, The Donald will have spent absolutely zero dollars of his own money on this presidential campaign. Self-funded, indeed.
Who do you think would have paid for his campaign if he hadn't won?
|
He's more than capable of footing a $50 million bill if he must, though I don't blame him for wanting not to.
|
On May 19 2016 13:34 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 13:10 SK.Testie wrote:On May 19 2016 12:52 Adreme wrote:On May 19 2016 11:52 Mohdoo wrote:On May 19 2016 11:08 Adreme wrote:
Dont take polls you see right now too seriously. Right now you have Bernie supporters who are not at the moment willing to support Hilary but like when similar things were happening in 2008 once the concession happens and everyone hugs it out and Bernie is campaigning for her his supporters will come around and the numbers will be what they were 3 weeks ago.
Donald isnt campaigning well so much as the Democratic voters have not started unifying yet so when they do his numbers will plummet and the polls showing him winning are mostly just people still in the heat of primary fever. And this is why superdelegates immediately rallied behind Clinton: political parties benefit immensely by wrapping things up quick. Itll end with plenty of time and then when it does he will come out and say something like "I have been campaigning against Donald Trump for over 30 years. He is everything I have been fighting against and if you were ever truly my supporter and if you truly supported what we were fighting for then you can not in good faith vote for him" This will begin the unification and it will be fine. There are 6 months until the election after all and Hilary waited until the end to get out as well. Bernie will not stay in if he thinks it will honestly get Trump elected because he knows what that would mean for his cause. Ah yes. Bernies cause. "Fight the corrupt establishment!! Fight the big banks! Fight wall street! Fight lobbyists! Fight the Waltons! The politicians are all crooks!" "So we need bigger government, thus more bureaucrats, and here's Hillary the poster girl for the establishment who is friends with every shady interest in the world!! Saudi Arabia? np" Quite a cause. Meanwhile the guy on the other side self funded his campaign, maneuvered past a tonne of obstacles in the media or blew threw them, and has bent the establishment to his will. He's out doing the interviews daily, whereas Hillary hides from them. Trump is pretty socially liberal and most of his policies will be fairly liberal. And he's at least called out Saudi Arabia and a large number of other people that just always got a free pass. And then Bernies lies and identity politics will come into play as he campaigns for Hillary non-stop. "He's sexist!" Hires women in top positions all his life. This should be the literal negation of the argument. Tonnes of women who dated the man support and love the man while ripping the NYT on their BS hit job. "He's racist!" Same. Hiring all races and believing in meritocracy. "His rhetoric though!" Actually highlights a problem that a large % of the nation feels far more than the rest of the nation. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZXbG5gvoC0 He's just going to pander with, "He's divisive!" meanwhile the left will always divide everyone into their own victimized group. It's appalling, yet appallingly effective. And then his fans will wave flags saying, "love wins!" while Hillary takes the throne. Don't forget he's been a celebrity for decades but the racism/sexism narrative didn't start until this presidential bid.
That's so far from the truth that I'm not sure what makes you believe that. There was an entire book written about him in 1993 that touched on sexism/misogyny repeatedly; regardless of whether it's true, the narrative has been there for ages. The racism narrative was birthed (heh) during the birther movement, maybe, but his women issues are an old, old media plaything.
|
During his primary, Donald Trump swore he could deport an estimated 11 million immigrants living in the country, illegally. In fact, with "really good management," he vowed to get it done in two years. Then, he'd call on Mexico and get them to build a beautiful wall.
But now that Trump is the presumptive nominee, many Republicans in Congress are keeping their distance from what has become their nominee's signature campaign issue and instead dismissed it as little more than stump speech bravado.
"Logistically that is an impossibility," Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC), who has endorsed Trump and is facing a primary challenge from her right in June, told TPM. "It would cost the taxpayers of America. We would never get there... It would be an endless pursuit."
Ellmers point was echoed by many experts and commentators when Trump first introduced his plan last summer. How would a Trump administration track down millions of people who were in the country illegally? Where would the estimated billions it would cost to deport them come from? And who would be tasked with carrying out such a massive deportation? Not to mention the moral and legal questions.
Ellmers said she believes Trump is just trying to send a broader message. He is telling Republican primary voters what they want to hear: it's time to make a change in immigration policy.
A lot of Republicans on Capitol Hill in interviews Wednesday said that Trump's plan is pretty far out there.
"That's not realistic. I think that most people who look at that issue want a solution. They want tougher border enforcement, and they want to make sure that the people who are here illegally -- particularly those who are committing crimes and have law enforcement issues -- get sent back, but as we look at these issues, you have to consider what is actually doable," said Sen. John Thune (R-SD)
Thune said that a lot of Republicans have raised the issue with Trump that deporting 11 million immigrants living in the shadows is probably out of the question. And many, including Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX), have pointed out Trump could soften the tone he is sending to the Hispanic community.
Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), a member of the House Freedom Caucus, says he plans to bring it up with Trump when he sees him for a meeting in the upcoming weeks.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
