|
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 June 08 2016 04:37 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:For those who may not be able to see, it says : secret-win-V2-060416 So that was the second version of the "secret win" announcement graphic from the AP, 2 days before they made the announcement. Does that count as evidence Kwiz? Evidence of what? That she expected to win, and that the AP expected her victory? SHOCKING!
That the media and Hillary's camp were coordinating her victory announcement days before they even had the information they substantiate their announcement with. That they intentionally gave her camp a heads up that they were going to drop this right before primary day and that Bernie wouldn't know until everyone else did.
|
On June 08 2016 04:50 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 04:48 zlefin wrote:
Testie, you realize you're still not really proving anything of note, right? and showing me the picture of that other link still doesn't really show much of anything of note. you're still focusing too much on the conclusion you've already arrived at, rather than considering the many possibilities and letting the evidence lead you where it does. Damnit Zlefin, the new Benghazi commission is going to take time. I'll see if there's something there and report back to you in 6 months.
they're wasting money on a new benghazi commission? that sounds like a pointless waste of money (other than for political theater of course; but even as theater its not that good; off off broadway makes better theater)
|
On June 08 2016 04:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 04:37 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:For those who may not be able to see, it says : secret-win-V2-060416 So that was the second version of the "secret win" announcement graphic from the AP, 2 days before they made the announcement. Does that count as evidence Kwiz? Evidence of what? That she expected to win, and that the AP expected her victory? SHOCKING! That the media and Hillary's camp were coordinating her victory announcement days before they even had the information they substantiate their announcement with. That they intentionally gave her camp a heads up that they were going to drop this right before primary day and that Bernie wouldn't know until everyone else did.
And as has been explained to you several times, the announcement that Hillary won is worse for her then it is for Bernie when it comes to today's results.
so... yeah, why do you think they did this conspiracy then?
|
Was there anything interesting in the Obituary files? did they get a look at those? (not following discussion in its entirety, assuming that whatever GH is sourcing from might've gotten to see the obit files too)
|
GH is too buried in his own narrative to see things objectively. There is even an article on Politico right now about how the Clinton campaign is disappointed with AP spoiling it for her.
|
On June 08 2016 04:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
LMAO
"The real debates", meaning the least relevant people in this election. God 3rd party shitheads are so detestably self-important. Watch the green party debate. It's a fucking embarrassment. These aren't people who are forcefully ejected from oligarchy. They are just loons.
|
On June 08 2016 05:04 Mohdoo wrote:
They are just loons.
Lies.
|
On June 08 2016 05:04 Mohdoo wrote:
These aren't people who are forcefully ejected from oligarchy. They are just loons.
They can be both 
|
Who do we think VP choices will be?
|
On June 08 2016 05:04 Mohdoo wrote: LMAO "The real debates", meaning the least relevant people in this election. God 3rd party shitheads are so detestably self-important. Watch the green party debate. It's a fucking embarrassment. These aren't people who are forcefully ejected from oligarchy. They are just loons.
Like Bernie trying so hard to debate Trump when he's not even the nominee? lol
|
On June 08 2016 04:02 SK.Testie wrote:Bad La Raza! Bad! Again! MSM: They have no connection! oh shit. They do but surely it's meaningless! + Show Spoiler +
Trump's argument is not concerned with La Raza (even if his surrogates or spokeswoman brought up La Raza after the fact - "only Trump speaks for Trump", as he says). His argument is very simple, the judge is Mexican and therefore biased against Trump. Which I guess is an admission that Mexican voters will be, too.
On the plus side, if it weren't for Testie this thread would probably have about 1,000 less pages. It's all about that mischievous fun though  .
|
On June 08 2016 05:28 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 05:04 Mohdoo wrote: LMAO "The real debates", meaning the least relevant people in this election. God 3rd party shitheads are so detestably self-important. Watch the green party debate. It's a fucking embarrassment. These aren't people who are forcefully ejected from oligarchy. They are just loons. Like Bernie trying so hard to debate Trump when he's not even the nominee? lol
Yes, exactly like that. It's ok, him and Shaun King will help overthrow white corporate media oligarchy, one tweet at a time.
On June 08 2016 05:29 Doodsmack wrote:Trump's argument is not concerned with La Raza (even if his surrogates or spokeswoman brought up La Raza after the fact - "only Trump speaks for Trump", as he says). His argument is very simple, the judge is Mexican and therefore biased against Trump. Which I guess is an admission that Mexican voters will be, too. On the plus side, if it weren't for Testie this thread would probably have about 1,000 less pages. It's all about that mischievous fun though .
With Merkel being on her way out, and with way less Mexicans, maybe Trump could help make Germany great again?
|
|
|
On June 08 2016 04:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 04:37 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:For those who may not be able to see, it says : secret-win-V2-060416 So that was the second version of the "secret win" announcement graphic from the AP, 2 days before they made the announcement. Does that count as evidence Kwiz? Evidence of what? That she expected to win, and that the AP expected her victory? SHOCKING! That the media and Hillary's camp were coordinating her victory announcement days before they even had the information they substantiate their announcement with. That they intentionally gave her camp a heads up that they were going to drop this right before primary day and that Bernie wouldn't know until everyone else did.
Everyone involved knew she was going to win on Tuesday at the latest. For all you know, someone at her campaign could simply have contacted the AP and asked "hey, do you guys already have a graph ready for Tuesday?", "yeah", "do you mind sending it to us so we can react once you make the announcement?" "sure, here you go", "thanks". But no, it must have been a huge conspiracy between Hillary Clinton and "ze media", even though her campaign would have preferred for the AP to not call the race before Tuesday evening. Snore.
|
|
|
On June 08 2016 05:29 Doodsmack wrote:Trump's argument is not concerned with La Raza (even if his surrogates or spokeswoman brought up La Raza after the fact - "only Trump speaks for Trump", as he says). His argument is very simple, the judge is Mexican and therefore biased against Trump. Which I guess is an admission that Mexican voters will be, too. On the plus side, if it weren't for Testie this thread would probably have about 1,000 less pages. It's all about that mischievous fun though .
I too think it's pretty simple, but not even close to your take. The judge belongs to group called the Hispanic National Bar Association that called for a national boycott of Trump's various enterprises in 2015. Trump didn't feel he could get a fair shake from this judge, and he said so.
|
|
|
On June 08 2016 05:47 josephmcjoe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 05:29 Doodsmack wrote:On June 08 2016 04:02 SK.Testie wrote:Bad La Raza! Bad! Again! MSM: They have no connection! oh shit. They do but surely it's meaningless! + Show Spoiler + Trump's argument is not concerned with La Raza (even if his surrogates or spokeswoman brought up La Raza after the fact - "only Trump speaks for Trump", as he says). His argument is very simple, the judge is Mexican and therefore biased against Trump. Which I guess is an admission that Mexican voters will be, too. On the plus side, if it weren't for Testie this thread would probably have about 1,000 less pages. It's all about that mischievous fun though . I too think it's pretty simple, but not even close to your take. The judge belongs to group called the Hispanic National Bar Association that called for a national boycott of Trump's various enterprises in 2015. Trump didn't feel he could get a fair shake from this judge, and he said so.
If this is so clear, why have Trumps laywers not asked for a different judge? Would be a slam dunk.
|
On June 08 2016 05:47 josephmcjoe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 05:29 Doodsmack wrote:On June 08 2016 04:02 SK.Testie wrote:Bad La Raza! Bad! Again! MSM: They have no connection! oh shit. They do but surely it's meaningless! + Show Spoiler + Trump's argument is not concerned with La Raza (even if his surrogates or spokeswoman brought up La Raza after the fact - "only Trump speaks for Trump", as he says). His argument is very simple, the judge is Mexican and therefore biased against Trump. Which I guess is an admission that Mexican voters will be, too. On the plus side, if it weren't for Testie this thread would probably have about 1,000 less pages. It's all about that mischievous fun though . I too think it's pretty simple, but not even close to your take. The judge belongs to group called the Hispanic National Bar Association that called for a national boycott of Trump's various enterprises in 2015. Trump didn't feel he could get a fair shake from this judge, and he said so.
Trump's own stated reasoning does not involve any groups the judge belongs to. His stated reasoning is actually that the judge is Mexican, and therefore biased due to Trump's wall plan. That's it, it's straight from Trump's mouth.
|
I find kind of amusing the disarray of the republican leaders, who see years of effort to try to win minorities vote and promote against all evidences the idea that the GOP is not a fundamentally racist party of resentful white men.. Not only are they going to get steamrolled, but they are losing years and years of hard work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://ethicsalarms.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/libertarian-strip.jpeg?w=500&h=250)
![[image loading]](https://i.sli.mg/4lhmM0.jpg)
