Longknife Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Bernie is gonna lose and that makes me sad. Yes yes, any idiot can look at a map of the United States and figure out that Clinton has been winning the typically Republican States while Bernie is winning basically everything else. He's winning, and I expect him to win the majority of the upcoming states. But look at the numbers. It doesn't matter. If Bernie consistently beats her 60-40, it won't even matter, because the superdelegate padding she has is just absolutely atrocious. The most disgusting part about this is is that we may see an end-game where Bernie has more delegates and Clinton has more Superdelegates, a giant personification of just how dead democracy is in the democratic party. He's gaining on her in delegates, but it's just not enough. While Americans sit there voting and saying they want Bernie just as much as Clinton, the rich ****s in Washington all voice support for Clinton, and apparently for democracy to work, certain people need extra privileged votes that count foran exponential amount greater than the average american. What a ****ing joke. "The Courier was the worst of all of them. The worst by far. When he died the first time, he must have met the devil, and then killed him." Is your mom hot? It may explain why guys were following her ?
Elerond Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Bernie is gonna lose and that makes me sad. Yes yes, any idiot can look at a map of the United States and figure out that Clinton has been winning the typically Republican States while Bernie is winning basically everything else. He's winning, and I expect him to win the majority of the upcoming states. But look at the numbers. It doesn't matter. If Bernie consistently beats her 60-40, it won't even matter, because the superdelegate padding she has is just absolutely atrocious. The most disgusting part about this is is that we may see an end-game where Bernie has more delegates and Clinton has more Superdelegates, a giant personification of just how dead democracy is in the democratic party. He's gaining on her in delegates, but it's just not enough. While Americans sit there voting and saying they want Bernie just as much as Clinton, the rich ****s in Washington all voice support for Clinton, and apparently for democracy to work, certain people need extra privileged votes that count foran exponential amount greater than the average american. What a ****ing joke. It is highly unlikely that Sanders will win majority of voted delegates or even popular vote. Southern pelt just have most of the population and Clinton's support there seems to be overwhelming.
Longknife Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Bernie is gonna lose and that makes me sad. Yes yes, any idiot can look at a map of the United States and figure out that Clinton has been winning the typically Republican States while Bernie is winning basically everything else. He's winning, and I expect him to win the majority of the upcoming states. But look at the numbers. It doesn't matter. If Bernie consistently beats her 60-40, it won't even matter, because the superdelegate padding she has is just absolutely atrocious. The most disgusting part about this is is that we may see an end-game where Bernie has more delegates and Clinton has more Superdelegates, a giant personification of just how dead democracy is in the democratic party. He's gaining on her in delegates, but it's just not enough. While Americans sit there voting and saying they want Bernie just as much as Clinton, the rich ****s in Washington all voice support for Clinton, and apparently for democracy to work, certain people need extra privileged votes that count foran exponential amount greater than the average american. What a ****ing joke. It is highly unlikely that Sanders will win majority of voted delegates or even popular vote. Southern pelt just have most of the population and Clinton's support there seems to be overwhelming. It could go either way, imo. Realize the majority of the voting thusfar has been in the south, so Clinton's lead is more or less partially due to that. As the elections head north, it's not unfounded to picture Bernie gaining on her in delegates. Personally, I'd love to see that. If for nothing else, I'd love to see it as a means of highlighting just how flawed and warped the superdelegate system currently is. "The Courier was the worst of all of them. The worst by far. When he died the first time, he must have met the devil, and then killed him." Is your mom hot? It may explain why guys were following her ?
Rostere Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Wow. This woman would be the perfect VP (or Secretary of State) for Sanders. She's spot on where she calls out Hillary'd bad judgment on foreign policy. Couldn't have said it better myself. The fact that she resigned her vice-chairmanship of the DNC over a row with the sell-out DWS who wanted to restrict the number of debates only serves to prove her judgment further. It's going to be interesting to see the aftermath of a Bernie loss in case Hillary does not get indicted afterwards or chooses him as VP. Eventually, other people will take up the torch. "Well, overkill is my middle name. And my last name. And all of my other names as well!"
ManifestedISO Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 I'm sorry, are those Captain's bars *faints* 1 All Stop. On Screen.
Elerond Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Bernie is gonna lose and that makes me sad. Yes yes, any idiot can look at a map of the United States and figure out that Clinton has been winning the typically Republican States while Bernie is winning basically everything else. He's winning, and I expect him to win the majority of the upcoming states. But look at the numbers. It doesn't matter. If Bernie consistently beats her 60-40, it won't even matter, because the superdelegate padding she has is just absolutely atrocious. The most disgusting part about this is is that we may see an end-game where Bernie has more delegates and Clinton has more Superdelegates, a giant personification of just how dead democracy is in the democratic party. He's gaining on her in delegates, but it's just not enough. While Americans sit there voting and saying they want Bernie just as much as Clinton, the rich ****s in Washington all voice support for Clinton, and apparently for democracy to work, certain people need extra privileged votes that count foran exponential amount greater than the average american. What a ****ing joke. It is highly unlikely that Sanders will win majority of voted delegates or even popular vote. Southern pelt just have most of the population and Clinton's support there seems to be overwhelming. It could go either way, imo. Realize the majority of the voting thusfar has been in the south, so Clinton's lead is more or less partially due to that. As the elections head north, it's not unfounded to picture Bernie gaining on her in delegates. Personally, I'd love to see that. If for nothing else, I'd love to see it as a means of highlighting just how flawed and warped the superdelegate system currently is. There are still 2761 delegates to be allocated (not counting super delegates). From these delegates over 1300 come from states that are polled to overwhelmingly voting for Clinton. Let say Clinton gets only 60% delegates in those states (which would be victory for Sanders according to polls) so about 790 when you add her current 748 we get bit about 1540 delegates and Sanders delegate count would be then about 1070. And then there are only about 1400 delegates to be allocated. From which Sanders needs about 940 (about 67%) to get majority of the delegates. Michigan showed that polls can be wrong quite lot but even they would need to be even more wrong that Sanders would win. Which is of course possible as campaign is still ongoing and lots of things can happen. But currently it looks like that Clinton will take the nomination.
Guard Dog Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Another glorious chapter in the (in Obama's own words) the "fundamental transformation" of the United States from a prosperous and free country into one that is neither. It is apparently illegal now to disagree with the Federal Government. Our illustrious attorney general Loretta Lynch is referring over to the FBI instances of climate change denial uttered in public by energy sector officials. And this miserable Congress Cretin is encouraging her to go even further. I wonder what the criminal charge would be? Thoughtcrime? http://www.mrctv.org/videos/ag-lynch-doj-has-discussed-whether-pursue-legal-action-against-climate-change-deniers-0 "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Malcador Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 I guess the line of thought is like tobacco companies, but that seems a tad tricky to work in. That Gabbard woman is interesting, apparently she had a faux pas of going against Obama w.r.t referring to terrorists as Islam. 1 Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Rostere Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 That Gabbard woman is interesting, apparently she had a faux pas of going against Obama w.r.t referring to terrorists as Islam. I think you're referring to when she called Obama out for not referring to "Islamic extremism" as such? I'm kind of split on the issue. I do believe that what we call "Islamic extremism" is at the roots mostly issue-related and in that sense the "Islamic" label is just there because of the nations where the issues exist, but that does of course not mean that we should not look at the phenomenon of Islamic extremism collectively as one phenomenon, in which case the "Islamic" label is actually helpful. More on Tulsi Gabbard's archenemy DWS here. Select quotes: “The sergeant-at-arms said, ‘The people that run this want you ejected, they don’t want you here,’” Fouts said. When asked if it was Wasserman Schultz making the request, Fouts said, “The security guy said, ‘Don’t say I said it.’” ... “The Democratic debate is totally controlled by Hillarys [sic] good friend DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz,” Fouts wrote in a Facebook post. “No commentary is allowed by the audience. Particularly if you are cheering Bernie Sanders. Persons who do not adhere to Hillarys [sic] rules are threatened with expulsion.” He also said the Democratic Party’s debate process “borders on totalitarian control” and, in an interview on Monday, he said Wasserman Schultz should resign. Apparently DWS also tried disinviting Tulsi Gabbard from a debate. Go figure. "Well, overkill is my middle name. And my last name. And all of my other names as well!"
Valsuelm Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) It is highly unlikely that Sanders will win majority of voted delegates or even popular vote. Southern pelt just have most of the population and Clinton's support there seems to be overwhelming. There generally isn't any geographical or political terminology in regards to a 'southern belt' (I'm assuming you typoed the 'p'). Occasionally the somewhat arbitrary term 'sunbelt' is used, though just about never politically, as it really has no meaning politically. It barely has much of a meaning geographically. It's pretty much just a 'weather channel' and tourist thing. Depending on which arbitrary definition you use of the 'sunbelt', perhaps half of the U.S. population lives within it, though definitely not most. The 'bible belt' is a bit more widely used. Politically it has some meaning, though increasingly less in recent decades. No matter which arbitrary definition you use for the 'bible belt', it doesn't come close to having even half of the U.S. population., let alone a majority of it. Edited March 10, 2016 by Valsuelm
Meshugger Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Wow. This woman would be the perfect VP (or Secretary of State) for Sanders. She's spot on where she calls out Hillary'd bad judgment on foreign policy. Couldn't have said it better myself. The fact that she resigned her vice-chairmanship of the DNC over a row with the sell-out DWS who wanted to restrict the number of debates only serves to prove her judgment further. It's going to be interesting to see the aftermath of a Bernie loss in case Hillary does not get indicted afterwards or chooses him as VP. Eventually, other people will take up the torch. I would seize her means of reproduction. 1 "Some men see things as they are and say why?""I dream things that never were and say why not?"- George Bernard Shaw"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."- Friedrich Nietzsche "The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." - Some guy
Elerond Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 It is highly unlikely that Sanders will win majority of voted delegates or even popular vote. Southern pelt just have most of the population and Clinton's support there seems to be overwhelming. There generally isn't any geographical or political terminology in regards to a 'southern belt' (I'm assuming you typoed the 'p'). Occasionally the somewhat arbitrary term 'sunbelt' is used, though just about never politically, as it really has no meaning politically. It barely has much of a meaning geographically. It's pretty much just a 'weather channel' and tourist thing. Depending on which arbitrary definition you use of the 'sunbelt', perhaps half of the U.S. population lives within it, though definitely not most. The 'bible belt' is a bit more widely used. Politically it has some meaning, though increasingly less in recent decades. No matter which arbitrary definition you use for the 'bible belt', it doesn't come close to having even half of the U.S. population., let alone a majority of it. Sun belt was the one that I was referring to. As people from those states seem to overwhelmingly support Clinton both in polls and even more in primaries themselves.
Barothmuk Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Also tweets from Ted Cruz's college room mate Funniest is probably this
Elerond Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 It maybe because Clinton's social media staff messed up This is from @avalonbakery's instagram: "To be clear: Hillary was at Avalon yesterday, where this photo was taken. The controversy erupted around an interaction at a brother business in Detroit, with a different photo mis-identified by the Clinton Campaign (by mistake) as Avalon. It was their employee who asked it to be taken down, not ours. Hillary was welcome at Avalon , as are all the customers who have graced our doors since 1997. We hope that Bernie visits us too! And we ask that all the interactions on our site stay respectful to each other and all involved. We are happy to feel all of the passion in MI that led to the largest primary voter turnout in Michigan's history!" https://www.instagram.com/p/BCsq1lNpKyK/?taken-by=avalonbakery So Jill M. Wilson maybe would been more warmer towards Clinton if her staff had not advertised another company with her picture. 2
aluminiumtrioxid Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Another glorious chapter in the (in Obama's own words) the "fundamental transformation" of the United States from a prosperous and free country into one that is neither. It is apparently illegal now to disagree with the Federal Government. Our illustrious attorney general Loretta Lynch is referring over to the FBI instances of climate change denial uttered in public by energy sector officials. We're hurtling towards a point where our entire civilization as we know it is going to collapse in a few decades. I get it, you're not concerned, you'll be dead by then, but could you please not mischaracterize the irresponsibility that is probably going to cost thousands, if not millions of lives in the future as "disagreeing with the Federal Government"? "Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."
Gfted1 Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 1 "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa"
Guard Dog Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) Another glorious chapter in the (in Obama's own words) the "fundamental transformation" of the United States from a prosperous and free country into one that is neither. It is apparently illegal now to disagree with the Federal Government. Our illustrious attorney general Loretta Lynch is referring over to the FBI instances of climate change denial uttered in public by energy sector officials. We're hurtling towards a point where our entire civilization as we know it is going to collapse in a few decades. I get it, you're not concerned, you'll be dead by then, but could you please not mischaracterize the irresponsibility that is probably going to cost thousands, if not millions of lives in the future as "disagreeing with the Federal Government"? For the purposes of discussion I wll take no position on veracity of climate change being caused by humans. We are talking solely about facing criminal charges for publicly stating the Federal Governments position is wrong. If it is, or isn't is irrelevant. They are discussing criminal charges for a contrary opinion. What do YOU think the penalty for that should be? Life in prision? Death? If our civilization is going to collapse it will happen far sooner from the hubris of a government that so believes itself infallible as to enforce the notion at gunpoint than from carbon emissions. Edited March 10, 2016 by Guard Dog "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
HoonDing Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 aux armes, citoyens Kim Kardashian will play the part of Marianne The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.
Amentep Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Another glorious chapter in the (in Obama's own words) the "fundamental transformation" of the United States from a prosperous and free country into one that is neither. It is apparently illegal now to disagree with the Federal Government. Our illustrious attorney general Loretta Lynch is referring over to the FBI instances of climate change denial uttered in public by energy sector officials. We're hurtling towards a point where our entire civilization as we know it is going to collapse in a few decades. I get it, you're not concerned, you'll be dead by then, but could you please not mischaracterize the irresponsibility that is probably going to cost thousands, if not millions of lives in the future as "disagreeing with the Federal Government"? It is not illegal to be "wrong" in your beliefs. In the 1970s the media pushed that a new Ice Age was coming (because of a 30 year cooling trend). This in spite of the fact that most scientists were predicting a warming trend and not a new Ice Age. Neither the media nor the scientists were charged by the DOJ at the time. That said the question in the posted video seems to be pointed towards a suggestion of a RICO style conspiracy by Energy Companies to mislead and endanger the public ala "Big Tobacco", which isn't 100% analogous to being prosecuted for being "wrong" either. 3 I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do "must" and "cannot" meet? Yet I must - but I cannot! ~ Ro-Man
PK htiw klaw eriF Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Also tweets from Ted Cruz's college room mate Funniest is probably this Ted Cruz looks like he should be playing a pedophile on a CSI clone or something. Him wanting to start a war with Russia and the extremely close ties to Goldman Sachs are troubling as well. "Akiva Goldsman and Alex Kurtzman run the 21st century version of MK ULTRA." - majestic "you're a damned filthy lying robot and you deserve to die and burn in hell." - Bartimaeus "Without individual thinking you can't notice the plot holes." - InsaneCommander "Just feed off the suffering of gamers." - Malcador "You are calling my taste crap." -Hurlshort "thankfully it seems like the creators like Hungary less this time around." - Sarex "Don't forget the wakame, dumbass" -Keyrock "Are you trolling or just being inadvertently nonsensical?' -Pidesco "we have already been forced to admit you are at least human" - uuuhhii "I refuse to buy from non-woke businesses" - HoonDing "feral camels are now considered a pest" - Gorth "Melkathi is known to be an overly critical grumpy person" - Melkathi "Oddly enough Sanderson was a lot more direct despite being a Mormon" - Zoraptor "I found it greatly disturbing to scroll through my cartoon's halfing selection of genitalias." - Wormerine "I love cheese despite the pain and carnage." - ShadySands
Elerond Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Another glorious chapter in the (in Obama's own words) the "fundamental transformation" of the United States from a prosperous and free country into one that is neither. It is apparently illegal now to disagree with the Federal Government. Our illustrious attorney general Loretta Lynch is referring over to the FBI instances of climate change denial uttered in public by energy sector officials. We're hurtling towards a point where our entire civilization as we know it is going to collapse in a few decades. I get it, you're not concerned, you'll be dead by then, but could you please not mischaracterize the irresponsibility that is probably going to cost thousands, if not millions of lives in the future as "disagreeing with the Federal Government"? For the purposes of discussion I wll take no position on veracity of climate change being caused by humans. We are talking solely about facing criminal charges for publicly stating the Federal Governments position is wrong. If it is, or isn't is irrelevant. They are discussing criminal charges for a contrary opinion. What do YOU think the penalty for that should be? Life in prision? Death? If our civilization is going to collapse it will happen far sooner from the hubris of a government that so believes itself infallible as to enforce the notion at gunpoint than from carbon emissions. If things that are told in media are true, then case seems to be that Federal Government has been asked to investigate possibility of if fossil-fuel companies have practiced similar doctoring of scientific evidence and false marketing as which tobacco industry was convicted in 90s. So charges would not be for disagreeing with federal government but knowingly deceived public about something that is or could be harmful for them. 2
Elerond Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 From reactions of that audience I am not sure that people really care about following laws or that authoritarian government is bad thing
Recommended Posts