Democratic Party set to include Michael Bloomberg in debates

[iceberg]

Don't count him out just yet, the same opinion was commonly voiced about Donald Trump's chances of winning the nomination in 2016.

... and Trump is a pauper compared to Bloomberg.

"Funny how money speaks even more loudly than morals in this beautiful, superficial material world." -- Rasheed Ogunlaru

The problem is the Sanders supporters are a huge portion of the electorate the (D) would need to win and absolutely none will support him in any way. None of those who ran against Trump had much support.

What data do you have the leads you to those conclusions?

LOL. Sanders has been ahead since the last election. Can I prove that by the polls? No, but the polls are no longer legit measures.

What is happening is exactly what I said would happen long ago. Sanders has always been ahead. The polls have shown what those running the polls have wanted them to show. I noted that when it comes right down to it the polls would change to actual numbers as those doing the polling doesn't want egg on their face.

Polling has become a part of the cult mentality in politics.

so what you are saying is you can't prove it, you just feel it.

It's happening.

Trump is turning hearts of all the democrats who now love him.

I feel it.

it's happening.

 

[alang1216]

Billionaire thinks he can buy the election like it was a toy on Amazon. DNC stupid enough to fall for it.

Besides being a billionaire businessman, what were Trump's qualifications for office?

 

[pknopp]

The problem is the Sanders supporters are a huge portion of the electorate the (D) would need to win and absolutely none will support him in any way. None of those who ran against Trump had much support.

What data do you have the leads you to those conclusions?

LOL. Sanders has been ahead since the last election. Can I prove that by the polls? No, but the polls are no longer legit measures.

What is happening is exactly what I said would happen long ago. Sanders has always been ahead. The polls have shown what those running the polls have wanted them to show. I noted that when it comes right down to it the polls would change to actual numbers as those doing the polling doesn't want egg on their face.

Polling has become a part of the cult mentality in politics.

so what you are saying is you can't prove it, you just feel it.

It's happening.

Trump is turning hearts of all the democrats who now love him.

I feel it.

it's happening.

Great. We will see won't we?

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

"Democratic Party set to include Michael Bloomberg in debates with change to qualifying requirement"

Well, money talks. Democrats always answer.

Democratic Party set to include Michael Bloomberg in debates with change to qualifying requirements

It's complete bullshit honestly. How many candidates did the DNC refuse to allow to participate without reaching a threshold of poll votes and minimum raised from individual donors. Now those candidates have essentially been forced out and this guy just waltzes in without having met ANY of the previous requirements.

CORRUPT & RIGGED

And of course, we're "shocked" and in total disbelief...as always....every time the Left crosses a new threshold and rearranges the "rules" to accommodate their corruption.

All that was required for evil men to prevail......and all that.

 

[iceberg]

What data do you have the leads you to those conclusions?

LOL. Sanders has been ahead since the last election. Can I prove that by the polls? No, but the polls are no longer legit measures.

What is happening is exactly what I said would happen long ago. Sanders has always been ahead. The polls have shown what those running the polls have wanted them to show. I noted that when it comes right down to it the polls would change to actual numbers as those doing the polling doesn't want egg on their face.

Polling has become a part of the cult mentality in politics.

so what you are saying is you can't prove it, you just feel it.

It's happening.

Trump is turning hearts of all the democrats who now love him.

I feel it.

it's happening.

Great. We will see won't we?

won't matter cause at this point it's an opinion. great. we all have them. but I don't try to passy opinions off as more.

 

[pknopp]

LOL. Sanders has been ahead since the last election. Can I prove that by the polls? No, but the polls are no longer legit measures.

What is happening is exactly what I said would happen long ago. Sanders has always been ahead. The polls have shown what those running the polls have wanted them to show. I noted that when it comes right down to it the polls would change to actual numbers as those doing the polling doesn't want egg on their face.

Polling has become a part of the cult mentality in politics.

so what you are saying is you can't prove it, you just feel it.

It's happening.

Trump is turning hearts of all the democrats who now love him.

I feel it.

it's happening.

Great. We will see won't we?

won't matter cause at this point it's an opinion. great. we all have them. but I don't try to passy opinions off as more.

If it's happening it's more than an opinion.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Trump is turning hearts of all the democrats who now love him.
I feel it.
it's happening.

Not to worry there fella because....
That crafty, ever pervasive, rule tossing left WILL ABSOLUTELY EVENTUALLY find a way to get their people in, regardless of the vote.

It's what tyrants "do".

(Oh...and what ~good men~ fail to prevent that counts at the finish line)

 

[iceberg]

so what you are saying is you can't prove it, you just feel it.

It's happening.

Trump is turning hearts of all the democrats who now love him.

I feel it.

it's happening.

Great. We will see won't we?

won't matter cause at this point it's an opinion. great. we all have them. but I don't try to passy opinions off as more.

If it's happening it's more than an opinion.

Then prove it is happening.

 

[alang1216]

"Democratic Party set to include Michael Bloomberg in debates with change to qualifying requirement"

Well, money talks. Democrats always answer.

Democratic Party set to include Michael Bloomberg in debates with change to qualifying requirements

It's complete bullshit honestly. How many candidates did the DNC refuse to allow to participate without reaching a threshold of poll votes and minimum raised from individual donors. Now those candidates have essentially been forced out and this guy just waltzes in without having met ANY of the previous requirements.

CORRUPT & RIGGED

And of course, we're "shocked" and in total disbelief...as always....every time the Left crosses a new threshold and rearranges the "rules" to accommodate their corruption.

All that was required for evil men to prevail......and all that.

It's heartwarming to see how much conservatives care about the DNC. Bloomberg is in because polls (and the Poles) put him tied for third place and he is self-financed so the donation issue is moot.

 

[okfine]

GO BLOOMBERG! FDT!

 

[pknopp]

It's happening.

Trump is turning hearts of all the democrats who now love him.

I feel it.

it's happening.

Great. We will see won't we?

won't matter cause at this point it's an opinion. great. we all have them. but I don't try to passy opinions off as more.

If it's happening it's more than an opinion.

Then prove it is happening.

I already have.

The Bernie Sanders surge shapes the Iowa caucuses

 

[NightFox]

Don't count him out just yet, the same opinion was commonly voiced about Donald Trump's chances of winning the nomination in 2016.

... and Trump is a pauper compared to Bloomberg.

"Funny how money speaks even more loudly than morals in this beautiful, superficial material world." -- Rasheed Ogunlaru

The problem is the Sanders supporters are a huge portion of the electorate the (D) would need to win and absolutely none will support him in any way. None of those who ran against Trump had much support.

What data do you have the leads you to those conclusions?

LOL. Sanders has been ahead since the last election. Can I prove that by the polls? No, but the polls are no longer legit measures.

What is happening is exactly what I said would happen long ago. Sanders has always been ahead. The polls have shown what those running the polls have wanted them to show. I noted that when it comes right down to it the polls would change to actual numbers as those doing the polling doesn't want egg on their face.

Polling has become a part of the cult mentality in politics.

In other words you have no actual data that supports your assertions? I wasn't asking if you could PROVE anything, I asked what data you had that led you to your conclusions and what you responded with was a bunch of irrelevant nonsense regarding how polling isn't accurate right after remarking that "Sanders has been ahead since the last election" and including "Sanders has always been ahead".

I ask again; what DATA do you have that leads you to the conclusions "Sanders supporters are a huge portion of the electorate the (D) would need to win and absolutely none will support him any way" and "None of those who ran against Trump had much support."?

What I said long ago would happen has happened. You can feel it all a coincidence if you want but you know it isn't.

ROFLMAO! The data you have supporting your assertions is "What you said long ago" ...... let me guess you're bucking for the Most Vapid Poster of 2020 Heavy Weight Title Belt? and for the record I don't base my conclusions on how I feel.

I would have more respect for you if you told me that your conclusions were based on astrology or a seance because that would be more rational than your current argument.

 

[Votto]

"Democratic Party set to include Michael Bloomberg in debates with change to qualifying requirement"

Well, money talks. Democrats always answer.

Democratic Party set to include Michael Bloomberg in debates with change to qualifying requirements

I cant figure out why they're all fighting to be the big loser and have Trump administer the ass whoopin that he's going to.

They are just promoting Bernie and socialism through the back door knowing what the backlash to all this will be.

 

[iceberg]

The problem is the Sanders supporters are a huge portion of the electorate the (D) would need to win and absolutely none will support him in any way. None of those who ran against Trump had much support.

What data do you have the leads you to those conclusions?

LOL. Sanders has been ahead since the last election. Can I prove that by the polls? No, but the polls are no longer legit measures.

What is happening is exactly what I said would happen long ago. Sanders has always been ahead. The polls have shown what those running the polls have wanted them to show. I noted that when it comes right down to it the polls would change to actual numbers as those doing the polling doesn't want egg on their face.

Polling has become a part of the cult mentality in politics.

In other words you have no actual data that supports your assertions? I wasn't asking if you could PROVE anything, I asked what data you had that led you to your conclusions and what you responded with was a bunch of irrelevant nonsense regarding how polling isn't accurate right after remarking that "Sanders has been ahead since the last election" and including "Sanders has always been ahead".

I ask again; what DATA do you have that leads you to the conclusions "Sanders supporters are a huge portion of the electorate the (D) would need to win and absolutely none will support him any way" and "None of those who ran against Trump had much support."?

What I said long ago would happen has happened. You can feel it all a coincidence if you want but you know it isn't.

ROFLMAO! The data you have supporting your assertions is "What you said long ago" ...... let me guess you're bucking for the Most Vapid Poster of 2020 Heavy Weight Title Belt? and for the record I don't base my conclusions on how I feel.

I would have more respect for you if you told me that your conclusions were based on astrology or a seance because that would be more rational than your current argument.

yea, it really comes across as "i just think so based on what i'm seeing, nothing scientific" and i'm good. but trying to say its something else, well...it certainly is "something else" to claim that.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Bozos & Bitches for Bloomberg.......
THAT would be the ideal campaign slogan. Might actually get him 1% of the vote. lmao

OTOH......who else realizes just how FAR we've already fallen to actually have two Communists as the leaders in the DNC?

 

[pknopp]

The problem is the Sanders supporters are a huge portion of the electorate the (D) would need to win and absolutely none will support him in any way. None of those who ran against Trump had much support.

What data do you have the leads you to those conclusions?

LOL. Sanders has been ahead since the last election. Can I prove that by the polls? No, but the polls are no longer legit measures.

What is happening is exactly what I said would happen long ago. Sanders has always been ahead. The polls have shown what those running the polls have wanted them to show. I noted that when it comes right down to it the polls would change to actual numbers as those doing the polling doesn't want egg on their face.

Polling has become a part of the cult mentality in politics.

In other words you have no actual data that supports your assertions? I wasn't asking if you could PROVE anything, I asked what data you had that led you to your conclusions and what you responded with was a bunch of irrelevant nonsense regarding how polling isn't accurate right after remarking that "Sanders has been ahead since the last election" and including "Sanders has always been ahead".

I ask again; what DATA do you have that leads you to the conclusions "Sanders supporters are a huge portion of the electorate the (D) would need to win and absolutely none will support him any way" and "None of those who ran against Trump had much support."?

What I said long ago would happen has happened. You can feel it all a coincidence if you want but you know it isn't.

ROFLMAO! The data you have supporting your assertions is "What you said long ago" ...... let me guess you're bucking for the Most Vapid Poster of 2020 Heavy Weight Title Belt? and for the record I don't base my conclusions on how I feel.

I would have more respect for you if you told me that your conclusions were based on astrology or a seance because that would be more rational than your current argument.

It's based upon paying attention.

 

[NightFox]

What data do you have the leads you to those conclusions?

LOL. Sanders has been ahead since the last election. Can I prove that by the polls? No, but the polls are no longer legit measures.

What is happening is exactly what I said would happen long ago. Sanders has always been ahead. The polls have shown what those running the polls have wanted them to show. I noted that when it comes right down to it the polls would change to actual numbers as those doing the polling doesn't want egg on their face.

Polling has become a part of the cult mentality in politics.

In other words you have no actual data that supports your assertions? I wasn't asking if you could PROVE anything, I asked what data you had that led you to your conclusions and what you responded with was a bunch of irrelevant nonsense regarding how polling isn't accurate right after remarking that "Sanders has been ahead since the last election" and including "Sanders has always been ahead".

I ask again; what DATA do you have that leads you to the conclusions "Sanders supporters are a huge portion of the electorate the (D) would need to win and absolutely none will support him any way" and "None of those who ran against Trump had much support."?

What I said long ago would happen has happened. You can feel it all a coincidence if you want but you know it isn't.

ROFLMAO! The data you have supporting your assertions is "What you said long ago" ...... let me guess you're bucking for the Most Vapid Poster of 2020 Heavy Weight Title Belt? and for the record I don't base my conclusions on how I feel.

I would have more respect for you if you told me that your conclusions were based on astrology or a seance because that would be more rational than your current argument.

It's based upon paying attention.

LOL, Paying attention to what? Your "feelings"? The voices in your head?

Maybe you should put some effort into gathering and analyzing actual data before drawing and putting forward conclusions and you wouldn't have to spend so much effort trying to deflect from the fact that you didn't, just a thought.

 

[pknopp]

LOL. Sanders has been ahead since the last election. Can I prove that by the polls? No, but the polls are no longer legit measures.

What is happening is exactly what I said would happen long ago. Sanders has always been ahead. The polls have shown what those running the polls have wanted them to show. I noted that when it comes right down to it the polls would change to actual numbers as those doing the polling doesn't want egg on their face.

Polling has become a part of the cult mentality in politics.

In other words you have no actual data that supports your assertions? I wasn't asking if you could PROVE anything, I asked what data you had that led you to your conclusions and what you responded with was a bunch of irrelevant nonsense regarding how polling isn't accurate right after remarking that "Sanders has been ahead since the last election" and including "Sanders has always been ahead".

I ask again; what DATA do you have that leads you to the conclusions "Sanders supporters are a huge portion of the electorate the (D) would need to win and absolutely none will support him any way" and "None of those who ran against Trump had much support."?

What I said long ago would happen has happened. You can feel it all a coincidence if you want but you know it isn't.

ROFLMAO! The data you have supporting your assertions is "What you said long ago" ...... let me guess you're bucking for the Most Vapid Poster of 2020 Heavy Weight Title Belt? and for the record I don't base my conclusions on how I feel.

I would have more respect for you if you told me that your conclusions were based on astrology or a seance because that would be more rational than your current argument.

It's based upon paying attention.

LOL, Paying attention to what? Your "feelings"? The voices in your head?

Maybe you put some effort into gathering and analyzing actual data before drawing and putting forward conclusions and you wouldn't have to spend so much effort trying to deflect from the fact that you didn't, just a thought.

You can't analyze data on something simply made up. Do you still believe that Hillary was way ahead in the last election until just before the election?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I remember back when someone said. A fake indian, a communist and a midget walk into..

It was the beginning of a joke. These days it’s a democrat debate.

 

[NightFox]

In other words you have no actual data that supports your assertions? I wasn't asking if you could PROVE anything, I asked what data you had that led you to your conclusions and what you responded with was a bunch of irrelevant nonsense regarding how polling isn't accurate right after remarking that "Sanders has been ahead since the last election" and including "Sanders has always been ahead".

I ask again; what DATA do you have that leads you to the conclusions "Sanders supporters are a huge portion of the electorate the (D) would need to win and absolutely none will support him any way" and "None of those who ran against Trump had much support."?

What I said long ago would happen has happened. You can feel it all a coincidence if you want but you know it isn't.

ROFLMAO! The data you have supporting your assertions is "What you said long ago" ...... let me guess you're bucking for the Most Vapid Poster of 2020 Heavy Weight Title Belt? and for the record I don't base my conclusions on how I feel.

I would have more respect for you if you told me that your conclusions were based on astrology or a seance because that would be more rational than your current argument.

It's based upon paying attention.

LOL, Paying attention to what? Your "feelings"? The voices in your head?

Maybe you put some effort into gathering and analyzing actual data before drawing and putting forward conclusions and you wouldn't have to spend so much effort trying to deflect from the fact that you didn't, just a thought.

You can't analyze data on something simply made up.

ROFLMAO! then why are you working so hard at it? After all you just made up your initial claims out of thin air and now you're trying to analyze your way out having to provide data to support them.

Do you still believe that Hillary was way ahead in the last election until just before the election?

LOL and now you're trying to put words in my mouth to deflect from your own incompetence, please point out where I claimed I believed "Hillary was way ahead in the last election until just before the election".