EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3958
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 07 2016 02:08 NukeD wrote: Bad times for the US. Having to choose between Trump and Hillary... I'm sorry. I was alive during Bush v Gore, which was not appealing for a number of reasons and showed in the turn out. In retrospect, it was way more important that we ever could have known. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22557 Posts
On June 07 2016 02:06 Mohdoo wrote: If you want a hint of what is to come when Bernie "somehow doesn't win by 60%" https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4mtnxl/puerto_rico_was_the_biggest_election_fraud_of_all/ They're insane. Yes, Hillary who already has enough votes to be nigh impossible to lose organized a massive and easily discovered fraud to win an already won election... Oh the fires will be glorious. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 07 2016 02:11 xDaunt wrote: It's kind of hard for Bernie to get out of the race when there's so much talk on the left about whether Hillary may have to drop out of the race for one reason or another. that talk only really happens on the right, or from far left bernie supporters, not the mainstream left. | ||
The_Templar
your Country52798 Posts
On June 07 2016 02:06 Mohdoo wrote: If you want a hint of what is to come when Bernie "somehow doesn't win by 60%" https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4mtnxl/puerto_rico_was_the_biggest_election_fraud_of_all/ They're insane. Not saying I agree with the post, but how does one explain the 84.4% decrease in turnout? | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On June 07 2016 02:06 Mohdoo wrote: If you want a hint of what is to come when Bernie "somehow doesn't win by 60%" https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4mtnxl/puerto_rico_was_the_biggest_election_fraud_of_all/ They're insane. When I still liked Sanders a few months ago and the primaries just started I noticed they cried corruption EVERY. SINGLE. LOSS all over reddit front page. ![[image loading]](https://i.redditmedia.com/HsI-EJRbt0dK84WoLfXZdX3BTVnfpJLFXB4g91gx4aM.jpg?w=600&s=33f6804a7176791402eda529105a540d) That subreddit was a huge joke and it was so satisfying to watch the_donald destroy and replace it over the front page. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On June 07 2016 02:11 xDaunt wrote: It's kind of hard for Bernie to get out of the race when there's so much talk on the left about whether Hillary may have to drop out of the race for one reason or another. Is it that you think there is some grand piece of evidence being held until it is too late and Trump essentially wins by default? You don't think there's enough corruption/illuminati/whatever in the democratic party to at least know what is coming and be able to plan? In my eyes, the arrogance of the democratic party shows that they know they are safe. They would have orchestrated this election entirely differently if they thought Clinton might go down. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On June 07 2016 02:11 xDaunt wrote: It's kind of hard for Bernie to get out of the race when there's so much talk on the left about whether Hillary may have to drop out of the race for one reason or another. http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/state-department-blocks-release-hillary-clinton-era-tpp-emails-until-after Trade is a hot issue in the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. But correspondence from Hillary Clinton and her top State Department aides about a controversial 12-nation trade deal will not be available for public review — at least not until after the election. The Obama administration abruptly blocked the release of Clinton’s State Department correspondence about the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), after first saying it expected to produce the emails this spring. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On June 07 2016 02:17 Mohdoo wrote: Is it that you think there is some grand piece of evidence being held until it is too late and Trump essentially wins by default? You don't think there's enough corruption/illuminati/whatever in the democratic party to at least know what is coming and be able to plan? In my eyes, the arrogance of the democratic party shows that they know they are safe. They would have orchestrated this election entirely differently if they thought Clinton might go down. Obama Administration has her back. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
That and a million other "checkmate" connections. The idea that it is possible to put Clinton in prison is laughable. I may not like it, but it's true. There would need to be video evidence of her shooting someone in the back for her to even go on trial. | ||
|
The_Templar
your Country52798 Posts
On June 07 2016 02:21 Mohdoo wrote: That and a million other "checkmate" connections. The idea that it is possible to put Clinton in prison is laughable. I may not like it, but it's true. There would need to be video evidence of her shooting someone in the back for her to even go on trial. Nah, even that would be somehow framed as right-wing propaganda. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On June 07 2016 02:21 Mohdoo wrote: That and a million other "checkmate" connections. The idea that it is possible to put Clinton in prison is laughable. I may not like it, but it's true. There would need to be video evidence of her shooting someone in the back for her to even go on trial. Time Warner (who owns CNN) is her 8th largest campaign donor. I can't make this shit up. https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On June 07 2016 02:24 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Time Warner (who owns CNN) is her 8th largest campaign donor. I can't make this shit up. https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career Sure you can, and you just did. See that little paragraph below the table? This table lists the top donors to this candidate in 1999-2016. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10163 Posts
On June 07 2016 02:16 The_Templar wrote: Not saying I agree with the post, but how does one explain the 84.4% decrease in turnout? Either some insane conspiration which is unneeded, or people stopped giving a crap about the elections since it's already over for Bernie ? Just saying dumb things, since i am not experienced with how these kind of elections work. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On June 07 2016 02:32 kwizach wrote: Sure you can, and you just did. See that little paragraph below the table? I don't believe those individuals donated out of the kindness of their hearts. I also think CNN has a strong pro-Clinton anti-Trump bias. I believe her 'hundred-thousand-dollar speaking fees' were bribes. Maybe you're right and it's just an unfortunate coincidence. I don't think so. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On June 07 2016 02:16 The_Templar wrote: Not saying I agree with the post, but how does one explain the 84.4% decrease in turnout? Sure it's not an 84% decrease, but I just picked a random swing state and you'll see an overall decrease in democratic votes from 2008 compared to 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_Democratic_primary,_2008 287,527 vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_New_Hampshire,_2016 249,543 This is a primary Sanders won as well. Consequently numbers are much higher in the republican primaries than their 2008 counterparts. Everyone thinking Trump is going to get BTFO by Hillary is in for a rude awakening come November. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11964 Posts
No one is worth 100k for speaking for half an hour. The only reason to pay someone 100k is because you expect something in return, and that "something" is not half an hour of canned speeches. To a European, the whole US system looks just absurdly corrupt, and i find it incredibly hard to understand how someone can see it as anything else than that. You have rich people "donating" millions to candidates, and somehow people are expected to believe that they expect nothing in return. You have powerful politicians being paid 100k $ for half an hour of "work". And somehow people are expected to believe that that is NOT a bribe., but a reasonable payment for their time. If something like that happens in Germany, it is a major scandal, and usually the end of the political career of the people involved. In the US, it is just a normal day. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
2008: 234,851 2016: 285,916 Let's look at the most important swingstate primary results Florida 2008 democratic: 1,749,920 2016 democratic: 1,709,183 2008 republican: 1,949,498 2016 republican: 2,361,805 Trend is everywhere - republicans show voter growth in 2016 primaries compared to the 2008 primaries. democrats show a decline. Forecast is the Republican wins the presidency this November | ||
| ||
