Old thread gone, New thread here.

 

Bernie says Hillary not qualified to be President

 

 

“Secretary Clinton appears to be getting a little bit nervous,” Sanders told a crowd of thousands at a rally at Temple University in Philadelphia. "She has been saying lately that she thinks that I am quote unquote, not qualified to be president. Now, let me, let me just say in response to Secretary Clinton, I don’t believe that she is qualified, if she is, through her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest donations.”

 

He added, “I don’t think you are qualified if you have voted for the disastrous war in Iraq. I don’t think you are qualified if you have supported virtually every disastrous trade agreement which has cost us millions of decent paying jobs. I don’t think you are qualified if you supported the Panama Free Trade Agreement, something I very strongly opposed, and which is as all of you know, has allowed corporations and wealthy people all over the world to avoid paying their taxes to their countries.”

Rawwrr, catfight. The democratic primary is starting to get interesting. Has any new polls from NY emerged yet?

The democratic race will only get interesting if Sanders starts publicly and vehemently calling out the DNC and Hillary for rigging the election, as well as calling her out for the criminal that she is.

 

It can also become interesting if Sanders continues to run for President even if he doesn't get the nomination.

 

An independent Sanders, along with an independent Trump, together with the two party stooges, all running for President, would make a really interesting election. As well as very probably see the end of the ~160 year duopoly on the White House, something the U.S. desperately needs, and a whole helluva lot of people want.

 

I don't see Sanders doing it though. Wish he would, and I've no doubt most of his supporters do too, but I don't think he has the balls. Hope I'm wrong.

Edited April 7, 20169 yr by Valsuelm

To Rostere & Calax, I haven't forgotten about you, Gents. Just been too busy to write a reply. I'll get to it.

The democratic race will only get interesting if Sanders starts publicly and vehemently calling out the DNC and Hillary for rigging the election, as well as calling her out for the criminal that she is.

 

It can also become interesting if Sanders continues to run for President even if he doesn't get the nomination.

 

An independent Sanders, along with an independent Trump, together with the two party stooges, all running for President, would make a really interesting election. As well as very probably see the end of the ~160 year duopoly on the White House, something the U.S. desperately needs, and a whole helluva lot of people want.

 

I don't see Sanders doing it though. Wish he would, and I've no doubt most of his supporters do too, but I don't think he has the balls. Hope I'm wrong.

I find you adorable in how tightly you stick to the extreme right's story.

 

"Hillary is a criminal!" Cried the right, "where's the charges?" asked everyone else.

 

"The wall will work!" cried the right, "But how will it be paid for and what laws will we have to suspend to build it?" asked everyone else

 

"The election is rigged!" Cried the right, "Ok, then how is Trump the GOP frontrunner, and Sanders still in range to take the election from Hillary?" asked everyone else.

 

You can rationalize a lot of things, but I sincerely doubt that Hillary being a "criminal" will every come to pass. And for a constitutionalist, you seem to ignore "Innocent until Proven Guilty" being a tenant of the Constitution (as established in Coffin v United States), and just blithely run around declaring guilt without evidence (beyond the rhetoric that has been spouted by those on the right since they realized Hillary was the presumptive nominee in last May)

 

"The wall will work!" cried the right, "But how will it be paid for and what laws will we have to suspend to build it?" asked everyone else

 

Has Val ever expressed any support for the wall?

 

The democratic race will only get interesting if Sanders starts publicly and vehemently calling out the DNC and Hillary for rigging the election, as well as calling her out for the criminal that she is.

 

It can also become interesting if Sanders continues to run for President even if he doesn't get the nomination.

 

An independent Sanders, along with an independent Trump, together with the two party stooges, all running for President, would make a really interesting election. As well as very probably see the end of the ~160 year duopoly on the White House, something the U.S. desperately needs, and a whole helluva lot of people want.

 

I don't see Sanders doing it though. Wish he would, and I've no doubt most of his supporters do too, but I don't think he has the balls. Hope I'm wrong.

I find you adorable in how tightly you stick to the extreme right's story.

 

"Hillary is a criminal!" Cried the right, "where's the charges?" asked everyone else.

 

"The wall will work!" cried the right, "But how will it be paid for and what laws will we have to suspend to build it?" asked everyone else

 

"The election is rigged!" Cried the right, "Ok, then how is Trump the GOP frontrunner, and Sanders still in range to take the election from Hillary?" asked everyone else.

 

You can rationalize a lot of things, but I sincerely doubt that Hillary being a "criminal" will every come to pass. And for a constitutionalist, you seem to ignore "Innocent until Proven Guilty" being a tenant of the Constitution (as established in Coffin v United States), and just blithely run around declaring guilt without evidence (beyond the rhetoric that has been spouted by those on the right since they realized Hillary was the presumptive nominee in last May)

 

Val's doesn't need proof " Hilary is a criminal "  is good enough for him because he believes it and you must remember Vals has insight that no one else has

 

A person like Hilary is the exception to the rule " innocent until proven guilty "...

 

 

 

 

 

"The wall will work!" cried the right, "But how will it be paid for and what laws will we have to suspend to build it?" asked everyone else

 

Has Val ever expressed any support for the wall?

 

He has defended the concept and theory of building the Trump  wall by giving historical precedence by saying things like "The Chinese built the Great Wall " , " The Israeli's built there wall " 

 

But he is a difficult person to understand because my initial view would be " he is saying the Trump Wall should  be built " but he will probably say " no I was just debating  if the wall can be built not should the Wall be built " 

 

 

So I'm unclear if he actually supports the building, not the forum theoretical discussion around the logistics, of the Trump  Wall?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Guys within the Republican voting system people are now discussing the Rule 40 (b) which is defined as 

 

" Rule 40(b), which requires a presidential candidate to win eight states to qualify for the nomination" 

 

So I'm confused, if only Trump has won 8 states how can he not be the Republican candidate....assuming no one else wins 8 states which doesn't seem to be the overall trend despite Cruz's  success in places like Iowa and Wisconsin ?

Guys within the Republican voting system people are now discussing the Rule 40 (b) which is defined as 

 

" Rule 40(b), which requires a presidential candidate to win eight states to qualify for the nomination" 

 

So I'm confused, if only Trump has won 8 states how can he not be the Republican candidate....assuming no one else wins 8 states which doesn't seem to be the overall trend despite Cruz's  success in places like Iowa and Wisconsin ?

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/85040-us-elections-2016/?p=1794586

 

It was a rule put in place in 2012 in order to **** with Ron Paul and make it look like the party was united behind Mitt Romney. Now it is the other way around and the party thinks that it is open season against Trump.

 

The democratic race will only get interesting if Sanders starts publicly and vehemently calling out the DNC and Hillary for rigging the election, as well as calling her out for the criminal that she is.

 

It can also become interesting if Sanders continues to run for President even if he doesn't get the nomination.

 

An independent Sanders, along with an independent Trump, together with the two party stooges, all running for President, would make a really interesting election. As well as very probably see the end of the ~160 year duopoly on the White House, something the U.S. desperately needs, and a whole helluva lot of people want.

 

I don't see Sanders doing it though. Wish he would, and I've no doubt most of his supporters do too, but I don't think he has the balls. Hope I'm wrong.

I find you adorable in how tightly you stick to the extreme right's story.

 

"Hillary is a criminal!" Cried the right, "where's the charges?" asked everyone else.

 

"The wall will work!" cried the right, "But how will it be paid for and what laws will we have to suspend to build it?" asked everyone else

 

"The election is rigged!" Cried the right, "Ok, then how is Trump the GOP frontrunner, and Sanders still in range to take the election from Hillary?" asked everyone else.

 

You can rationalize a lot of things, but I sincerely doubt that Hillary being a "criminal" will every come to pass. And for a constitutionalist, you seem to ignore "Innocent until Proven Guilty" being a tenant of the Constitution (as established in Coffin v United States), and just blithely run around declaring guilt without evidence (beyond the rhetoric that has been spouted by those on the right since they realized Hillary was the presumptive nominee in last May)

 

 

Calling Hillary criminal is not exclusively the purview of 'the right'. Saying elections are rigged is not exclusively the purview of 'the right'. 'Far', 'moderate', or 'close'. In fact, people on both sides of your polarized world do both, especially in regards to the latter. 

 

'Criminal' has more meanings than just those in regards to illegality. Insofar as those particular meanings go however, being a criminal is not reliant on being convicted in a court of law that one is such, in fact the most successful criminals usually never even see a court of law.

 

Your comments on the wall are strawman bunk as well as fly in the face of reality.

 

Insofar as 'innocent until proven guilty'. That applies to legal prosecution, and I'm all for it, Hillary is no exception. However, a fundamental problem is that she hasn't been (and more than likely won't be) indicted. She isn't any kind of notable exception. There's an entire class of 'above the law' people out there, that get away with all sorts of things all the time if you haven't noticed. And if you really haven't noticed, your head is very deep in that sand.

 

Unpolarize yourself, expand your vocabulary, and get your facts straight.

Guys within the Republican voting system people are now discussing the Rule 40 (b) which is defined as 

 

" Rule 40(b), which requires a presidential candidate to win eight states to qualify for the nomination" 

 

So I'm confused, if only Trump has won 8 states how can he not be the Republican candidate....assuming no one else wins 8 states which doesn't seem to be the overall trend despite Cruz's  success in places like Iowa and Wisconsin ?

 

How can you be familiar with the rule yet not familiar with it's history? Look up it's history, and that should tell you all you need to know.

 

 

"The wall will work!" cried the right, "But how will it be paid for and what laws will we have to suspend to build it?" asked everyone else

 

Has Val ever expressed any support for the wall?

 

 

Nope.

 

Guys within the Republican voting system people are now discussing the Rule 40 (b) which is defined as 

 

" Rule 40(b), which requires a presidential candidate to win eight states to qualify for the nomination" 

 

So I'm confused, if only Trump has won 8 states how can he not be the Republican candidate....assuming no one else wins 8 states which doesn't seem to be the overall trend despite Cruz's  success in places like Iowa and Wisconsin ?

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/85040-us-elections-2016/?p=1794586

 

It was a rule put in place in 2012 in order to **** with Ron Paul and make it look like the party was united behind Mitt Romney. Now it is the other way around and the party thinks that it is open season against Trump.

 

 

 

 

Guys within the Republican voting system people are now discussing the Rule 40 (b) which is defined as 

 

" Rule 40(b), which requires a presidential candidate to win eight states to qualify for the nomination" 

 

So I'm confused, if only Trump has won 8 states how can he not be the Republican candidate....assuming no one else wins 8 states which doesn't seem to be the overall trend despite Cruz's  success in places like Iowa and Wisconsin ?

 

How can you be familiar with the rule yet not familiar with it's history? Look up it's history, and that should tell you all you need to know.

 

Okay thanks Meshugger, I understand the history now 

 

Vals lets try to have a debate without being dismissive, I accept I have been dismissive in the past but one of the problems with our debates is we seem to talk past each other or we end up debating the person and not point ....both are not necessary

 

So for example my whole question was not about the history of the Rule 40 (b)  but rather how applicable nowadays it is to Trump and him winning the candidacy?

 

And it appears to be relevant ..end of the day I want Trump to get the Republican candidacy because I believe Hilary will have an easier time beating Trump than Cruz 

..end of the day I want Trump to get the Republican candidacy because I believe Hilary will have an easier time beating Trump than Cruz

I'd bet a very sizable amount of money that the red party will not be in the White House if anyone but Trump is the nominee, no matter who the blue party puts up.

Clinton team blasts reporters with noise machine during Hillary fundraising speech

 

So Hillary Clinton holds fundraiser for Big Money and does not want journalists listening to what is said. Move along folks, nothing to see here.

 

EDIT:

 

Stupid rules are allowing Bernie to "win" over Hillary in states who have already voted. Bernie has now officially won Missouri in terms of elected delegates, and might end up winning Nevada as well later on (he's already eliminated some of Hillary's lead there). This thanks to rules which were designed to favour well-organized campaigns. If this continues, Hillary might be facing wipeout in Alaska and even heavier defeats in other states such as Washington.

 

Whoever makes up these silly rules shouldn't even be allowed to organize an election for class treasurer. Embarrassing beyond reproach. Franz Kafka on LSD couldn't come up with a more pants-on-head retarded system.

Edited April 8, 20169 yr by Rostere

Clinton team blasts reporters with noise machine during Hillary fundraising speech

 

So Hillary Clinton holds fundraiser for Big Money and does not want journalists listening to what is said. Move along folks, nothing to see here.

Sounds like an engine. Was expecting a bit more dramatic than that.

Whoever makes up these silly rules shouldn't even be allowed to organize an election for class treasurer. Embarrassing beyond reproach. Franz Kafka on LSD couldn't come up with a more pants-on-head retarded system.

 

Don't really see what's wrong with it. Yeah it's a confusing, clunky and odd system for anyone used to a Westminster type system, but that's not really the problem here since the rules are known and equal for both sides. 'Solution' to the problem is for Hillary's delegates to actually turn up, if they do then you get the original result, if you don't then it's their fault for not turning up or organising alternates.

 

If half the government MPs didn't turn up in a Westminster system and they lost some votes it wouldn't be the fault of the system, it would be their fault because they didn't turn up.

Edited April 8, 20169 yr by Zoraptor

"A person like Hilary is the exception to the rule " innocent until proven guilty "..."

 

L0L That's cute but not true. Any man accused of rape is automatically assumed to be guilty. Even later when proven 'innocent' in court their reps are ruined forever.

 

 

Nope Zor. It is about spitting on the face of people who voted. Should go by votes period or why bother with the pretense. Oh yeah, for pretend.

"A person like Hilary is the exception to the rule " innocent until proven guilty "..."

 

L0L That's cute but not true. Any man accused of rape is automatically assumed to be guilty. Even later when proven 'innocent' in court their reps are ruined forever.

 

 

Nope Zor. It is about spitting on the face of people who voted. Should go by votes period or why bother with the pretense. Oh yeah, for pretend.

Volo lets find some common ground here?

 

I would agree that society generally takes the side of a women when she says   " I have been raped " ....but thats not the same thing as the legal system finding the person automatically guilty ?

 

 

Question for you,  why do you think people like me tend to believe a women when she says " I've been raped "  ?

"Nope Zor. It is about spitting on the face of people who voted. Should go by votes period or why bother with the pretense. Oh yeah, for pretend."

Don't vote for someone who can't be bothered turning up, easy solution/ prevention. No one should expect Bernie supporters who actually turned up to recuse themselves in order to preserve a margin because some Hillary types had better things to do than what they were selected for.

"Nope Zor. It is about spitting on the face of people who voted. Should go by votes period or why bother with the pretense. Oh yeah, for pretend."

 

Don't vote for someone who can't be bothered turning up, easy solution/ prevention. No one should expect Bernie supporters who actually turned up to recuse themselves in order to preserve a margin because some Hillary types had better things to do than what they were selected for.

 

I understand what you're saying, and you're right. However, the voters generally do not choose who the delegates are.

 

What Volo is getting at is the whole voting process by Joe/Jane Voter is to at least some degree (varying depending on the state and party) pretend.

 

'Let the masses think their vote matters!' is somewhat the new 'Let them eat cake!'.

 

It's been that way for a very very long time. Most just have never realized it, but it has never been more clear the way this election is unfolding, and a lot of folks are waking up to this unpleasant reality.

Edited April 8, 20169 yr by Valsuelm

http://www.progressivestoday.com/chaos-sjw-students-crash-students-trump-meeting/

However, the voters generally do not choose who the delegates are.

 

They get to choose who the delegates* are in caucuses though**. eg, for Nevada direct from their faq: "Any caucus participant may stand for election as a delegate to the county convention.   Anyone who wants to be elected a national delegate must participate in the precinct caucuses (1), and each subsequent event –county convention on April 2, 2016 (2), and the state convention on May 14 and 15, 2016 (3). "

 

What has happened is that a bunch of Hillary delegates from step 1 didn't bother turning up for step 2 so the ongoing delegates for step 3 reflect that they didn't.

 

*somewhat confusing in context, as there are delegates for the national convention and county/ state conventions, but ultimately it's no different from voting on something like, I dunno, ambassadorial appointments? You don't directly elect the ambassadors but the people you voted for do, and if a bunch of them don't turn up for a vote you might end up with Sean Penn being ambassador to South Korea instead of Paul Wolfowicz, or whatever.

 

**buggered if I'm going to check all the caucuses' rules to see if they're the same. I'm not insane and don't want to be.

"Volo lets find some common ground here?"|

 

Doubtful. You are a SJW Nazi and I am a White Male Gamer Rapist Sexist Monster.

 

 

 

"I would agree that society generally takes the side of a women when she says   " I have been raped " ....but thats not the same thing as the legal system finding the person automatically guilty ?"
 

Sure but that is what we are talking about here. Person A says they believe Clinton is guilty. Person B says the auccsations against her haven't been proven in a court of law.  Doesn't change the fact her rep to many is ruined even if it were to go to court and she found not guilty b/c people will just whine about the law not doing its job. It happened/is happening here in a sexual assault/rape case where the accused was found innocent largely because the accusers were proven to be monumnetal liars and know what the response from SJW Nazis were? Change the laws so it would be easier to convinct no matter how flimsy the evidence is.

 

 

 

"Question for you,  why do you think people like me tend to believe a women when she says " I've been raped "  ?"

 

Simple. You have been brainwashed into believing men are just rapist sexist racist monsters and that women are just innocent little victims. I mean women won't lie because they are special snowflakes. HINT: Lying is not a man only disease.

 

People lie. It what they do. The point of a legit court system is to find out the truth in a legit way.  Too many people's lives have been ruined because of lie - by both male and female liars.

 

HAS NOBODY SEEN TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD!?!