EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4427
| 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. | ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
zeo
Serbia6284 Posts
Why Obama’s half-brother says he’ll be voting for Donald Trump President Obama’s Kenyan half-brother wants to make America great again — so he’s voting for Donald Trump. “I like Donald Trump because he speaks from the heart,” Malik Obama told The Post from his home in the rural village of Kogelo. “Make America Great Again is a great slogan. I would like to meet him.” Obama, 58, a longtime Democrat, said his “deep disappointment” in his brother Barack’s administration has led him to recently switch allegiance to “the party of Lincoln.” nypost.com Not even Obama's family is voting for Hillary. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 25 2016 04:40 JW_DTLA wrote: Please try to keep in mind that Trump lies about everything, casually, and constantly. There is no equivalence on the other side. HRC is grounded in reality on policy, and maybe fibs about the various cooked up scandals. Trump can't finish a tweet without demonstrable and knowing false assertions. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/757191160481873920 It's not hard to make the case that the superdelegate system and DNC as a whole made it difficult for Bernie to really build as much momentum as he otherwise would have, thereby blocking his path to the nomination. And even if Hillary would have won anyway, the adverse effects are clear enough for Bernie supporters to raise a stink. | ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
On July 25 2016 04:51 zeo wrote: Whats wrong with that tweet? A lot of people voted for Hillary in the primaries because they thought she was going to win anyway because of the super-delegates. It was on liberal news channels 24/7 how Bernie had no chance to win hillary was the safe pick because of the super-delegates. You have got to be kidding me. We had this fight on this thread for months. Bernie lost because the voters voted for HRC. Moreover, if the SuperDelegates were so overpowering that the voters were bamboozled by them and the media, how did President Obama beat HRC in 2008? Note that Trump doesn't even bother citing the analysis. He just made it up, or was listening to HAGOODMAN. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On July 25 2016 04:54 xDaunt wrote: It's not hard to make the case that the superdelegate system and DNC as a whole made it difficult for Bernie to really build as much momentum as he otherwise would have, thereby blocking his path to the nomination. And even if Hillary would won anyway, the adverse effects are clear enough for Bernie supporters to raise a stink. Sure, but that's "conjecture" and not "analysis". | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6284 Posts
On July 25 2016 04:54 JW_DTLA wrote: You have got to be kidding me. We had this fight on this thread for months. Bernie lost because the voters voted for HRC. Moreover, if the SuperDelegates were so overpowering that the voters were bamboozled by them and the media, how did President Obama beat HRC in 2008? Note that Trump doesn't even bother citing the analysis. He just made it up, or was listening to HAGOODMAN. If there were no superdelegates it would have been anybodies primary up until the convention. 500 superdelegates make a difference weather you like it or not. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 25 2016 04:56 TheYango wrote: Sure, but that's "conjecture" and not "analysis". So we aren't allowed to consider what prevented alternative outcomes? | ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
On July 25 2016 04:51 zeo wrote: Whats wrong with that tweet? A lot of people voted for Hillary in the primaries because they thought she was going to win anyway because of the super-delegates. It was on liberal news channels 24/7 how Bernie had no chance to win hillary was the safe pick because of the super-delegates. Anyway... nypost.com Not even Obama's family is voting for Hillary. When Trump is polling at 0% of black Americans in Ohio, then finding even 1 African American supporter is national news. Zero. That's the percentage of African-American voters who picked Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in the battleground states of Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist polls. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-gets-0-support-black-voters-ohio-pennsylvania-nbc-n609026 | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On July 25 2016 04:57 zeo wrote: If there were no superdelegates it would have been anybodies primary up until the convention. 500 superdelegates make a difference weather you like it or not. If the 651 superdelegates didn't exist, then she would have 2219 delegates compared to 2057 required to win the nomination. She won the popular vote. For it to be "anyone's election" you'd have to assume that a significant number of voters that voted for Hillary would not have voted for her if the superdelegates didn't exist (or conversely, that a lot of people that didn't vote for Sanders would have done so). Which, again, is conjecture, and not analysis. On July 25 2016 04:59 xDaunt wrote: So we aren't allowed to consider what prevented alternative outcomes? You can do that, sure, but Trump calling it "analysis" is misleading. I won't go so far as to say it's deliberate, because I don't know that, but at the very least, it was very poor word choice. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 25 2016 04:28 zlefin wrote: legal -> I agreed already that there were core issues being inadequately addressed; of course the saner politicians are trying to address them, and make adjustments. Sometimes the problem is that concerns are being addressed, but idiots refuse to accept the actual limits on what can/cannot be done, despite it being thoroughly and carefully explained. There's also a difference between ideas not viable in full; and ideas that are grossly unsound and terrible, of which Trump has provided quite a few. Mostly we've (or at least I've) been mocking the truly terrible ones. And in terms of plans, Hillary has posted plenty of actual plans with detail on the issues (at least from what I've heard). Trump says some things that are really stupid. He says others that are controversial but that have a lot of at least partial sense to them. The two are mocked indiscriminately. On July 25 2016 04:54 JW_DTLA wrote: You have got to be kidding me. We had this fight on this thread for months. Bernie lost because the voters voted for HRC. Moreover, if the SuperDelegates were so overpowering that the voters were bamboozled by them and the media, how did President Obama beat HRC in 2008? Note that Trump doesn't even bother citing the analysis. He just made it up, or was listening to HAGOODMAN. The question being raised is whether they voted for HRC because they liked her more or because the DNC's bias gave her the edge. A lot of the reason that people voted for Hillary this cycle is because of "electability" and the insistence of the party members that the Dems have to win no matter who the candidate is. Right now that's starting to look like a stupider argument but it played no small part in Hillary's success. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On July 25 2016 05:09 LegalLord wrote: The question being raised is whether they voted for HRC because they liked her more or because the DNC's bias gave her the edge. A lot of the reason that people voted for Hillary this cycle is because of "electability" and the insistence of the party members that the Dems have to win no matter who the candidate is. Right now that's starting to look like a stupider argument but it played no small part in Hillary's success. I think the idea that the Bernie lost because the DNC pushed Hillary as the only viable candidate to win the general election (regardless of whether that's true or not) is a lot more reasonable than the idea that he lost because of the super delegate system. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
I'm glad that those DNC leaks seemed to have some effect, she was ludicrously ineffectual | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
CorsairHero
Canada9491 Posts
On July 25 2016 05:20 xDaunt wrote: I doubt Debbie's gonna be doing Philly. Clinton won't let her be a distraction. There is already a legion Bernie supporters there. No point making the situation worse. She already gave up speaking there. This just nails it in the coffin. Which party is more united... | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
| ||
