I have a following too but it isnāt enough of the country to get me into the debate since Iām a registered Dem. Puts Tulsi and I in the same boat.
Democrats rig Tulsi Gabbard right out of their next debate
- Thread starter Weatherman2020
- Start date
Disir
Platinum Member
- Sep 30, 2011
- 28,003
- 9,625
- 910
Again. She has a following. I like several of her policies. Many of them I don't. What has been presented thus far is shit and why and how Democrats can eat that up screams insanity. It's all show.
Weatherman2020
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #63
Tears of laughter at you Leftards. Your faux elections are hilarious to watch.
Polishprince
Diamond Member
- Jun 8, 2016
- 51,853
- 43,482
- 3,615
Rep. Gabbard wasn't supposed to outshine Kamala, who was the chosen one.
Polishprince
Diamond Member
- Jun 8, 2016
- 51,853
- 43,482
- 3,615
The problem the libs have with Tulsi is the fact that she doesn't toe the Leftard line 100% of the time. They can't stand real diversity, diversity in politics.
Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
Kameltoe is another Demcritter that can't bear the truth. Tulsi was spot on.
Spot on what? Being just another libtard?
She's a libtard but by bringing out facts she was punished. Typical Dimmocrat strategy.
Punished? You call that punishment? If so, there is no more fitting punishment for these libtards than to be ignored by their own party.
Tulsi is not so much of a "has been" as a"never was". Sure, she is better looking than most liberal women, but then again, so is my Shih Tzu when he walks backwards!
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
I am actually a Liberal as well.. But there's no true "Liberals" left in the Dem party.. Aint a clean and well lit place to hang out politically these days. Just a bunch of mental midgets tossing fits and dope talking up socialism...
Tulsi is somehow IMMUNE from the infectious mind melting that going on in the DNC ranks.. Folks I USED TO THINK I could support like Booker --- I just recognize him anymore... Same body, but his mind has been claimed by the mob...
So -- it's a matter of INDEPENDENT thinking and not looking completely INSANE that Gabbard brings to that Insane Clown Circus... I could work with that. And she does communicate very clearly and very well...
And her attack on Harris was right on.. I griped about Kamala while I was in Cali for years.. She's nothing but a ladder climber who will toss her "convictions" for a promotion or re-election... And she's a COP that wants to be President.. Won't really go over too well, when the leftists that HATE cops and legal authority figure this out.
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
Look Bee, I'm actually an expert on ballot access and election laws in the various states. They are all different. And the PRIMARIES in MOST states are PARTY FUNCTIONS... Not general elections. This is changing because of "open primaries" and "jungle primaries" and STATES interfering with what SHOULD BE a total political party process...
Bernie won the Wyoming Caucus, but Hillary got the DELEGATES because everyone of them was a "superdelegate" already pledged to her... Same in New Hampshire where Bernie TROUNCED her but came out with far less delegates because of superdelegates... This applies to about 10 races where Bernie got screwed. He was SCREWED the DAY HE ANNOUNCED because a single "super delegate" is equivalent to about 70,000 ACTUAL Dem voters. Which put him DEEP in a hole from the MINUTE he got in...
Only a party that makes up "new delegates" on the night of primary results rolling in, has "superdelegates" that can cancel 70,000 normal voters and NOW HAS an official ONE PARTY STATE out in the Commie Republic of California that implemented a "Top Two" primary where only TWO NAMES appears on the General Election ballot BY LAW -- can officially be the Party of Voter disenfranchisement..
The last 2 senators picked from Cali were run on ballots with NO Repubs, NO Independents, NO Green or Libertarian choices and NO write-ins... No choice for about 30 or 45% of the electorate. Only 2 Dems appeared... THAT is the ultimate GOAL of "voter disenfranchisement... And that's the model the DNC is pushing with this "National Popular Vote" boondoggle that would force electors to IGNORE the results of THEIR VOTERS and go with the national results.
You OWN it... The Dems are the experts in disenfranchising voters.... And they don't CARE about no stinking rules or Constitutions....
Last edited:
pknopp
Diamond Member
- Jul 22, 2019
- 92,457
- 39,247
- 2,250
It doesn't seem that they learned a thing from 2016 either.
lennypartiv
Diamond Member
- Jul 16, 2019
- 28,221
- 21,830
- 2,320
Kamala Harris, the black candidate who isn't really black.
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
Yep.. The party ELITE lay a huge hand on the results... NOT the voters...
Those superdelegates were all the rock stars and the wounded warriors of the party battles.. It was so blatantly crooked and dishonest that even the Sandinistas in charge of the DNC now felt they had to reform the super delegate issue.... And they made some wimpy changes to make it LESS like a Politburo election in the old Soviet Union....
You had about 3 or 4 shake-ups in upper mgt at the DNC since then and a couple bloody purges... And this deal with Tulsi Gabbard is NAKED RETRIBUTION for her crime of crippling a front-runner on stage at a debate....
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
Hardly the time to be ignoring your own RULES about polling and fund raising to THREATEN to boot a candidate when their are plenty below her in the rankings according to the rules...
Where was Donald Trump in the "ranking" before the 1st RNC debate in 2016? Where was Bill Clinton?
Last edited:
francoHFW
Diamond Member
You have to have some rules to go by and she has not taken off in the pools. What a bunch of garbage GOP propaganda, brain-washed functional moron.
hjmick
Diamond Member
- Mar 28, 2007
- 31,221
- 17,089
- 1,915
Gabbard is the first Democrat in a long time that I would consider voting for and not feel dirty for doing so...
All through 2015, Republicans had a 1% threshold to make the debates. Who would have thought that the Democrats would be less inclusive?
And yet, in other news, Tom Steyer is buying his way onto the debate stage... and no one blinks an eye...
I'm beginning to wonder if we, the people, will survive all this bullshit unscathed...
All through 2015, Republicans had a 1% threshold to make the debates. Who would have thought that the Democrats would be less inclusive?
And yet, in other news, Tom Steyer is buying his way onto the debate stage... and no one blinks an eye...
I'm beginning to wonder if we, the people, will survive all this bullshit unscathed...
Let me suggest you need to get acquainted with facts.
Iowa Clinton 45% Sanders 41% Uncommitted 14%
Delegates Clinton 23 Sanders 21 Uncommitted 7
Those uncommitted delegates can support anyone.
Iowa Democratic Delegation 2016
New Hampshire
Sanders 46%
Clinton 29%
Uncommitted 25%
Delegates Sanders 15 Clinton 9 Uncommitted 8
Uncommitted delegates can vote for anyone.
New Hampshire Democratic Delegation 2016
This is the hard count of delegate vote totals. These are delegates awarded through primaries.
"Hard" Delegate Votes
H Clinton
B Sanders
Uncommitted
(available)
Total 4.763
Election 2016 - Presidential Primaries, Caucuses, and Conventions
2,382 is required to get the nomination. Clinton needed only 177 from the uncommitted to get the nomination regardless of what the super delegates do.
I have studied ballot access laws as well and I agree they are different. Some states give political parties more leeway in setting rules and some give little or none. However the states have a right to dictate policy since they pay for the primaries.
Apparently the Sanders and Clinton delegates to the state convention agreed to split the delegates 7-7 despite Sanders having more state delegates than Clinton. In New Hampshire, Sanders got 15 delegates to Clinton's 9. Clinton got a majority of the delegates that were pledged and not super delegates. If super delegates hadn't existed, she still would have won.
Louisiana uses the same system as California and it is a Republican state. Democrats are often disenfranchised yet you have no problem with that. Republicans destroyed themselves in California. They alienated every group except white males. The states that have gone along with this idea of awarding electoral votes to the national winner doesn't matter. All the states that have gone along with this are blue states. For it to matter, some red states would have to go along.
Last edited:
Yep.. The party ELITE lay a huge hand on the results... NOT the voters...
Those superdelegates were all the rock stars and the wounded warriors of the party battles.. It was so blatantly crooked and dishonest that even the Sandinistas in charge of the DNC now felt they had to reform the super delegate issue.... And they made some wimpy changes to make it LESS like a Politburo election in the old Soviet Union....
You had about 3 or 4 shake-ups in upper mgt at the DNC since then and a couple bloody purges... And this deal with Tulsi Gabbard is NAKED RETRIBUTION for her crime of crippling a front-runner on stage at a debate....
Superdelegates have never affected the nomination. In 2008, most of the super delegates were backing Clinton however as Obama won primaries and caucuses, he peeled off most of the super delegates. Sanders voters were just looking for excuses for their 2016 loss.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
There's a reason why the Democrats have Super delegates, and it goes back to the 1972 Election when the primary voters picked nutty delegates, you had Jesse Jackson replace Mayor Daley as the head of the Chicago Delegation, and they nominated George McGovern and went on to lose 49 states to Tricky Dick, of all people.
So I am a little amazed when "Conservatives" whine about how Poor Bernie Sanders was screwed because he didn't get all the delegates in the few primaries he won.
So how is that worse than a majority of voters rejected the Crazy Game Show Host, but we are stuck with him anyway because he barely won three rust belt states?
One person, one vote... That's how it's supposed to work. It's how it works for every other office from Senator and Governor to Dog Catcher. Except for the Presidency, where we still use this 18th century anachronism that selects people the voters don't want.
There are no "Conservatives", either. Just religious fanatics and plutocrats on the GOP side. If socialism suddenly seems popular, it's because these young people are looking at their parents working two jobs to make ends meet, they look at their own mountains of student debt where they won't ever be able to start a family on their Starbucks Barista salaries... and socialism sounds pretty darned good to them... no matter how many times you say, "oooh, Venezuela... boo!"
Gabbard is kind of a flake. You should read up on her association with the Hare Krishna Cult.
I'm wondering who these guys who "hate" cops are. Calling for the cops to not shoot kids in the back is not hating them. Most cops don't shoot kids in the back. The rogue cops are actually making the good cops jobs harder.
I'm personally not thrilled with Harris (She would still be a vast improvement over Trump, though). But complaining that she did her job in CA by supporting the county prosecutors is kind of silly.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Or it's a realization that you aren't going to have an effective debate including a bunch of people who are only polling at single digits getting five minutes of speaking time.
The thing was the Superdelegates didn't cheat Commie Bernie. Commie Bernie got 3 million less votes in the primaries than Hillary did. Period.
Frankly, if something was a ripoff, it was that Hillary actually DID get more votes in 2008, but the delegate allocation and Superdelegates made Obama the nominee.
But the underlying problem... Most people don't vote in primaries at all, and usually, only about three states matter - before the minor candidates run out of money and all get weeded out.
the other mike
Diamond Member
This wouldn't surprise me.
Similar threads
