Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Reid blames Sanders supporters for disruptions at Nev. convention; Why do Democrats fear democracy?
Topic Started: May 17 2016, 11:36 AM (1,419 Views)
CautionaryTales
Member Avatar

American Identitarian
May 18 2016, 07:58 AM
CautionaryTales
May 18 2016, 07:25 AM
I think its great that Clinton has to fight off racists to make her case.
The moral high ground is always the best place to stand.
Thanks AI. Guys like you make it all the easier.
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: You run with the moral high ground of covering for Saudi Arabia.
If Saudi Arabia were the guiding force behind Clinton you would have some point, but you can't show that they are so your point is not made.


Have you paid your internet taxes?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CautionaryTales
Member Avatar

ringotuna
May 18 2016, 08:01 AM
CautionaryTales
May 18 2016, 07:58 AM
ringotuna
May 18 2016, 07:49 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Granted.
It's politics.
It's disgusting, divisive, and a detriment to the country.
Exposing racists isn't disgusting.
Being a racist is disgusting.

Most of the time they will expose themselves as this site has proven.


Have you paid your internet taxes?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

CautionaryTales
May 18 2016, 08:06 AM
ringotuna
May 18 2016, 08:01 AM
CautionaryTales
May 18 2016, 07:58 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
It's disgusting, divisive, and a detriment to the country.
Exposing racists isn't disgusting.
Being a racist is disgusting.

Most of the time they will expose themselves as this site has proven.
I'm talking about the political tendency to make monsters of opponents, not expose them. It's slanderous and disgusting.

I know you understand the difference between casting someone a racist and exposing someone a racist.
Edited by ringotuna, May 18 2016, 08:12 AM.
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Harambe4Trump
Member Avatar

CautionaryTales
May 18 2016, 08:04 AM
American Identitarian
May 18 2016, 07:58 AM
CautionaryTales
May 18 2016, 07:25 AM
I think its great that Clinton has to fight off racists to make her case.
The moral high ground is always the best place to stand.
Thanks AI. Guys like you make it all the easier.
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: You run with the moral high ground of covering for Saudi Arabia.
If Saudi Arabia were the guiding force behind Clinton you would have some point, but you can't show that they are so your point is not made.
Is that why the administration will veto a bill that gives license for 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia?
Skipping leg day is the equivalent of a woman having an abortion. You're ashamed of it, and it was probably unnecessary.
#MAGA
#wallsnotwars
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Harambe4Trump
Member Avatar

CautionaryTales
May 18 2016, 08:06 AM
ringotuna
May 18 2016, 08:01 AM
CautionaryTales
May 18 2016, 07:58 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
It's disgusting, divisive, and a detriment to the country.
Exposing racists isn't disgusting.
Being a racist is disgusting.

Most of the time they will expose themselves as this site has proven.
Fighting racism is a bogeyman used by the powerful to grab more power. The tactic of calling everything racist doesn't work anymore. If it did, Trump wouldn't be where he is. Racism didn't crash the stock market in 2008, racism hasn't given this country a national debt of $20 trillion, and racism didn't lie this country into two middle eastern ear where thousands of Americans have died. For all this, there wasn't a racist bone in Washington or Wall Street. Keep railing against if you want, but that's a dead charge.
Skipping leg day is the equivalent of a woman having an abortion. You're ashamed of it, and it was probably unnecessary.
#MAGA
#wallsnotwars
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CautionaryTales
Member Avatar

ringotuna
May 18 2016, 08:09 AM
CautionaryTales
May 18 2016, 08:06 AM
ringotuna
May 18 2016, 08:01 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Exposing racists isn't disgusting.
Being a racist is disgusting.

Most of the time they will expose themselves as this site has proven.
I'm talking about the political tendency to make monsters of opponents, not expose them. It's slanderous and disgusting.
Ok... What do you think of the endless investigations of Hillary Clinton that have yielded no charges worth prosecuting her on?
Those attacks and the monster making have been going on for twenty five years ...and counting...
What has Congress run? Nine formal inquiries into the Benghazi mess?
Is that slanderous and disgusting to you? I think not. You are as guilty as any you condemn if you support that.


Have you paid your internet taxes?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CautionaryTales
Member Avatar

American Identitarian
May 18 2016, 08:14 AM
CautionaryTales
May 18 2016, 08:06 AM
ringotuna
May 18 2016, 08:01 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Exposing racists isn't disgusting.
Being a racist is disgusting.

Most of the time they will expose themselves as this site has proven.
Fighting racism is a bogeyman used by the powerful to grab more power. The tactic of calling everything racist doesn't work anymore. If it did, Trump wouldn't be where he is. Racism didn't crash the stock market in 2008, racism hasn't given this country a national debt of $20 trillion, and racism didn't lie this country into two middle eastern ear where thousands of Americans have died. For all this, there wasn't a racist bone in Washington or Wall Street. Keep railing against if you want, but that's a dead charge.
You think that way because you are an avowed and admitted racist. You like to think you are persecuted for that horrible position. You cry about it constantly.
How could you think otherwise?


Have you paid your internet taxes?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CautionaryTales
Member Avatar

Well boys... I taking my old ass to the gym now.... Check in with you later after all my old retired guy errands are run


Have you paid your internet taxes?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

ringotuna
May 18 2016, 08:09 AM
CautionaryTales
May 18 2016, 08:06 AM
ringotuna
May 18 2016, 08:01 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Exposing racists isn't disgusting.
Being a racist is disgusting.

Most of the time they will expose themselves as this site has proven.
I'm talking about the political tendency to make monsters of opponents, not expose them. It's slanderous and disgusting.

I know you understand the difference between casting someone a racist and exposing someone a racist.
That's a valid point. There are cases where someone is cast as a racist when that's not clearly the truth. And yes, falling back on racism as the "catch all" for all the difficulties some people face is a "thing".

Still, there is a hell of a lot of racism left. We're most certainly not in a post racists world, despite the claims of some.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

CautionaryTales
May 18 2016, 08:15 AM
ringotuna
May 18 2016, 08:09 AM
CautionaryTales
May 18 2016, 08:06 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I'm talking about the political tendency to make monsters of opponents, not expose them. It's slanderous and disgusting.
Ok... What do you think of the endless investigations of Hillary Clinton that have yielded no charges worth prosecuting her on?
Those attacks and the monster making have been going on for twenty five years ...and counting...
What has Congress run? Nine formal inquiries into the Benghazi mess?
Is that slanderous and disgusting to you? I think not. You are as guilty as any you condemn if you support that.
Like you said.....It's just politics...right?

I've made it very clear throughout the whole Benghazi debacle, that my only Benghazi issue is with the false narrative this administration fomented after the fact. The whole 'video' excuse was a politically motivated lie. I never bought into the 'stand down' security negligence etc.
So basically your "THEN" conclusion is not supported by your "IF" qualifier.

And I never said Republicans didn't engage in disgusting behavior. They do...I do think however that Democrats are much better at it.

Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

Opinionated
May 18 2016, 08:23 AM
ringotuna
May 18 2016, 08:09 AM
CautionaryTales
May 18 2016, 08:06 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I'm talking about the political tendency to make monsters of opponents, not expose them. It's slanderous and disgusting.

I know you understand the difference between casting someone a racist and exposing someone a racist.
That's a valid point. There are cases where someone is cast as a racist when that's not clearly the truth. And yes, falling back on racism as the "catch all" for all the difficulties some people face is a "thing".

Still, there is a hell of a lot of racism left. We're most certainly not in a post racists world, despite the claims of some.
I wouldn't begin to deny that racism does not still exist.
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BuckFan

ringotuna
May 18 2016, 04:07 AM
Two a.m.
May 17 2016, 07:04 PM
ringotuna
May 17 2016, 05:57 PM
This is laughably horrible math on two levels.

First, the poster gives whole population figures for states like 7.2 million for Washington which assumes (A) 100 percent of voters turnout, (B) the entire population turns out including non-registered voters, resident aliens, children, babies, etc. all cast ballots ("Okay, little Jimmy, as soon as I change your diaper, I'll take you out to vote for Bernie."), and (C) every single voter (and apparently non-voter plus some of the smarter domestic housepets) are all Democrats. So if you believe that Washington State has zero Republicans, 100 percent voter turnout and a heavy registration base of politically interested toddlers crawling to the polls in pajamas, then yes, this makes perfect sense. By this standard, Georgia, which Hillary Clinton won by a landslide, should be credited with more than 10 million votes even though less than one million actual voters showed up in the Democratic primary. Indeed, if you magnify states Bernie won by ten times their actual electorate then they would make his totals look pretty good.

The second really hilarious fail is assuming that primary and caucus results turn out the same. Guess what? They don't. Caucuses attract more committed voters. It isn't random chance that Bernie won almost all of them and most by lopsided margins. Had they been primaries where more Hillary supporters would have come out, those margins would have been far different. Caucuses don't work like primaries and their results can't be random translated on a 1-1 basis.

Hillary won the popular vote. This isn't a media myth. It's math. Do we know what the exact popular vote would have been if all states had held primaries? No, of course not. Nor can we ever know that. But there is no indication that the handful of states which hold caucuses could have realistically produced anywhere near enough votes to overcome Hillary's margin. They certainly wouldn't have produced the more than 34 million votes listed which is a figure well beyond ludicrous.

All in all, this is one of the delusionally sillier things I've read in awhile - even by Sanders supporter standards.
Explain then the results in Washington, Maine, Alaska & Nevada.
Why? They are smaller states that total up to one major state. Votes are votes and we don't do it by state.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Two a.m.
Member Avatar

ringotuna
May 18 2016, 04:40 AM
Two a.m.
May 18 2016, 04:25 AM
ringotuna
May 18 2016, 04:21 AM
That's probably because some caucus states don't report vote totals. They simply report percentage. I believe Iowa works that way as well if I recall.
Hillary's claim of a 3 million vote lead over Sanders....It all seems rather dubious to me given that caucus states don't report vote totals...How can she make that claim?
She can make it because it is true. She didn't invent the caucus system, frankly, given the dedication of Bernie's supporters and the cynicism of her own, she'd be doing better if the caucus system didn't exist and everything were primaries. This would probably narrow her popular vote margin a bit (not enough to put Sanders ahead) but would likely widen her delegate margin since Sanders' share of the vote would drop.

The fact is that there is no such thing as a true "popular vote" during the nomination process. It simply doesn't exist. The best measure we have is the popular votes which are cast and Hillary leads in those. Period. Could we sit down and work out a method of estimating popular vote in states that don't conduct one? Yes. It wouldn't be very accurate and it also wouldn't be very fair to Hillary since an extrapolation could not take into account the almost inevitable narrowing of Sanders' ludicrously lopsided margins in those states. Moreover, such a model still wouldn't give Sanders the lead anyway. Again, the math in the post has absolutely zero connection to reality. Even if you didn't bother to take into account Hillary's better margins in primary states, the caucus states wouldn't provide enough votes to knock out her lead. That's precisely why she is leading in pledged delegates.

The math involved is simply bogus.
Edited by Two a.m., May 18 2016, 11:19 AM.
"The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them." - George Orwell, 1984
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · UnitedStates.com DOMESTIC U.S. news · Next Topic »
Add Reply