JoeB131
Diamond Member
Just because you live in mortal fear of Mexicans moving in next door doesn't mean the rest of us should worry about a fake crisis.
Democrats rig Tulsi Gabbard right out of their next debate
- Thread starter Weatherman2020
- Start date
Just because you live in mortal fear of Mexicans moving in next door doesn't mean the rest of us should worry about a fake crisis.
Bush92
GHBush1992
- May 23, 2014
- 34,808
- 10,891
- 1,400
Let her on the stage. She is a combat vet. She has earned that right.
Bush92
GHBush1992
- May 23, 2014
- 34,808
- 10,891
- 1,400
She is one to watch in 2020.
Bush92
GHBush1992
- May 23, 2014
- 34,808
- 10,891
- 1,400
- Banned
- #125
Wow...
I;m sure many Londoners heard the same noise, and then woke up with a Muslim Mayor....
Those putting out 5-12 kids per couple, either you don't understand BASIC MATH, or you understand
THAT IS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM THE HUMAN SPECIES NOW FACES
- Banned
- #126
Helps to explain why the top of the Dem Party hates her....
she may not be totally committed to the real causes of the Dems, namely stealing.
Bush92
GHBush1992
- May 23, 2014
- 34,808
- 10,891
- 1,400
They are afraid that she can draw the primary out to the convention. They want an open shut primary like they had for Dukakis in 1988.
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 Clinton2,205
B Sanders1,846
Uncommitted711
(available)1
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.
You're shamelessly ignorant of all this.. MOST of what you posted just confirms what I just said.. And you spouting off about "uncommitted" delegates proves you've been brainwashed to ignore the heavy hand that SELECTS dem leadership... In SMALL states, those with less than 10 delegates, THERE ARE NO UNCOMMITTED delegates to speak of to "win".. Because the SUPERS take their cut BEFORE the uncommitted delegates come into play...
There were 712 PARTY BOSSES acting as superdelegates in a primary with only 4200 delegates.. That's a LOT of disfranchised voters that get their votes nullified by the political leadership and HEROES of the Dem party... Bernie won W VA. and only came out with a few more delegates than Clinton because of proportional counting (which I have no real problem with) AND the Supers which everybody SHOULD have a problem with.
Seems like every other party LISTENS and TRUSTS their voters a lot more than the DNC...
You OWN it.. The worst party record for voter disenfranchisement and the radicals ain't even close to done yet...
H Clinton
B Sanders
Uncommitted
This is the hard delegate count. Hard delegates are delegates that are awarded through caucuses and primaries. Even without the superdelegates Clinton would have won. You don't have a leg to stand on. No one was disenfranchised in the Democrat Party. The Republican Party disenfranchises it's voters through the use of winner take all. Even now, Republicans are rigging the system to benefit Trump.
USApatriotz
Gold Member
- Jan 3, 2017
- 660
- 236
- 180
Are you nuts?? An ALL female ticket would get DESTROYED!! So let's hope they do it! Whatever it takes to secure Trump's re-election!
pknopp
Diamond Member
- Jul 22, 2019
- 92,459
- 39,251
- 2,250
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 Clinton2,205
B Sanders1,846
Uncommitted711
(available)1
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.
You're shamelessly ignorant of all this.. MOST of what you posted just confirms what I just said.. And you spouting off about "uncommitted" delegates proves you've been brainwashed to ignore the heavy hand that SELECTS dem leadership... In SMALL states, those with less than 10 delegates, THERE ARE NO UNCOMMITTED delegates to speak of to "win".. Because the SUPERS take their cut BEFORE the uncommitted delegates come into play...
There were 712 PARTY BOSSES acting as superdelegates in a primary with only 4200 delegates.. That's a LOT of disfranchised voters that get their votes nullified by the political leadership and HEROES of the Dem party... Bernie won W VA. and only came out with a few more delegates than Clinton because of proportional counting (which I have no real problem with) AND the Supers which everybody SHOULD have a problem with.
Seems like every other party LISTENS and TRUSTS their voters a lot more than the DNC...
You OWN it.. The worst party record for voter disenfranchisement and the radicals ain't even close to done yet...
H Clinton2,205
B Sanders1,846
Uncommitted711
This is the hard delegate count. Hard delegates are delegates that are awarded through caucuses and primaries. Even without the superdelegates Clinton would have won. You don't have a leg to stand on. No one was disenfranchised in the Democrat Party. The Republican Party disenfranchises it's voters through the use of winner take all. Even now, Republicans are rigging the system to benefit Trump.
Clinton’s campaign used its whip counts to bolster its argument that she was the inevitable nominee. During the DNC’s summer meeting four years ago, her team said she already had the support of more than 440 superdelegates -- mostly party elders -- giving her commitments from more than one-fifth of the total delegates needed to win the nomination five months before the Iowa caucuses. Though the superdelegates could have left her at any point before the party’s convention 11 months later, but Clinton’s lead conveyed a clear message to Sanders and to Vice President Joe Biden, who hadn’t yet announced that he wasn’t running in 2016.
DNC Seeks to Avoid 2016 Repeat, But Some Fear It’s Gone Too Far
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.
Before the election the DNC was out noting that Hillary already had wrapped up X amount of Super Delegates so anyone else thinking of running, don't bother. So no one did. The DNC wanted Sanders to run to be able to provide for televised debates so they could say "Hillary understands and Sanders has pulled her left". I backfired big time.
Sanders would have beat Trump. Many of us see the DNC still trying to manipulate things and trending third party again.
The same thing was true in 2008. Clinton had most of the superdelegates locked up. However they can change their minds as demonstrated in 2008. The difference between 2008 and 2016 was that Obama won primaries and caucuses while Sanders did not. Anyone other than Clinton would have beaten Trump including Biden.
pknopp
Diamond Member
- Jul 22, 2019
- 92,459
- 39,251
- 2,250
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.
Before the election the DNC was out noting that Hillary already had wrapped up X amount of Super Delegates so anyone else thinking of running, don't bother. So no one did. The DNC wanted Sanders to run to be able to provide for televised debates so they could say "Hillary understands and Sanders has pulled her left". I backfired big time.
Sanders would have beat Trump. Many of us see the DNC still trying to manipulate things and trending third party again.
The same thing was true in 2008. Clinton had most of the superdelegates locked up. However they can change their minds as demonstrated in 2008. The difference between 2008 and 2016 was that Obama won primaries and caucuses while Sanders did not. Anyone other than Clinton would have beaten Trump including Biden.
I don't really disagree that is true. I didn't argue that Sanders was the only one that would have beat Trump. I argued he would have. For some unknown reason the (D)'s decided that going with one of the most unlikable politicians in the country was the way to go.
Are you really that stupid? At some point the rules have to change. All the candidates were given their chance to make their case and the criteria should be tightened. There is no evidence that it is aimed at her as other candidates have been affected. You would be stupid enough to buy the Brooklyn Bridge.
shockedcanadian
Diamond Member
- Aug 6, 2012
- 44,276
- 43,305
- 3,605
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.
Before the election the DNC was out noting that Hillary already had wrapped up X amount of Super Delegates so anyone else thinking of running, don't bother. So no one did. The DNC wanted Sanders to run to be able to provide for televised debates so they could say "Hillary understands and Sanders has pulled her left". I backfired big time.
Sanders would have beat Trump. Many of us see the DNC still trying to manipulate things and trending third party again.
The same thing was true in 2008. Clinton had most of the superdelegates locked up. However they can change their minds as demonstrated in 2008. The difference between 2008 and 2016 was that Obama won primaries and caucuses while Sanders did not. Anyone other than Clinton would have beaten Trump including Biden.
Biden probably would have, maybe Sanders.
However, I think you'd be a fool to underestimate Donald Trump. He is one of those guys who wants to win, and he has done so in a far more competitive environment than politics. In politics you can have big backers make you, promote you, sell you. Trump had to sell himself and win in the world of Real Estate and self promotion.
His story is one of going from building low income housing developments in Brooklyn to building massive, global structures adoring his name in big, gold letters. He wisely turned his unique name into a household name.
So. Biden, Sanders, whoever he was against in 2016, I think Trump still has the edge. He would figure it out. More importantly, American voters have. His policies are needed and when he wins against China he can almost literally take credit for saving the West from itself.
I want to see him in for another 4 years. The pinnacle of a lifetime of being a classic go forward American, Like others before him, he will be in the history books at a grand scale rarely seen.
Wyatt earp
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2012
- 69,975
- 16,446
- 2,180
Bullshit
Aletheia4u
Gold Member
- Feb 3, 2017
- 7,745
- 1,389
- 195
I knew that they weren't going to have Tulsi on stage. Now they'll feel safe on talking about how beautiful the Green New Deal is. All the candidates are now going to talk through out the debate, how beautiful it is . They using these debates as advertisements to push the Globalist's agendas. They were afraid of Tulsi getting technical on them about the Green new Deal. Because none of them don't know anything about the Green New Deal except for that it start off with the word green. All these debates are staged. And if you want to stay on the podium? You must stick to the Globalist's script. Bernie always claiming to be a fighter against Big corporations. But he is their flunky.
Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard failed to reach the 2% threshold in two polls released today, the final day that Democratic presidential candidates have to qualify for the third debate next month.
Gabbard and Tom Steyer, the billionaire former hedge fund investor from California, have both been on the cusp of making the debates and their supporters had hoped the polls from USA Today and Quinnipiac would push them over the edge.
However, both received zero to 1% in both polls.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard misses the mark to qualify for next presidential debate in 2 final polls
Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard failed to reach the 2% threshold in two polls released today, the final day that Democratic presidential candidates have to qualify for the third debate next month.
Gabbard and Tom Steyer, the billionaire former hedge fund investor from California, have both been on the cusp of making the debates and their supporters had hoped the polls from USA Today and Quinnipiac would push them over the edge.
However, both received zero to 1% in both polls.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard misses the mark to qualify for next presidential debate in 2 final polls
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,541
- 4,889
- 1,815
wamose
Diamond Member
That's how Democrats think. Leadership and character are not qualities they admire. This is why we're so afraid to let them appoint judges. They're wacky.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 309,269
- 266,273
- 3,615
If you can’t get one percent in the polls after six months, it is time to move onI knew that they weren't going to have Tulsi on stage. Now they'll feel safe on talking about how beautiful the Green New Deal is. All the candidates are now going to talk through out the debate, how beautiful it is . They using these debates as advertisements to push the Globalist's agendas. They were afraid of Tulsi getting technical on them about the Green new Deal. Because none of them don't know anything about the Green New Deal except for that it start off with the word green. All these debates are staged. And if you want to stay on the podium? You must stick to the Globalist's script. Bernie always claiming to be a fighter against Big corporations. But he is their flunky.
Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard failed to reach the 2% threshold in two polls released today, the final day that Democratic presidential candidates have to qualify for the third debate next month.
Gabbard and Tom Steyer, the billionaire former hedge fund investor from California, have both been on the cusp of making the debates and their supporters had hoped the polls from USA Today and Quinnipiac would push them over the edge.
However, both received zero to 1% in both polls.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard misses the mark to qualify for next presidential debate in 2 final polls
Similar threads
New Topics
-
VIDEO: Why does 🇷🇺 ivan push another ⚰️🇷🇺 ivan from a trench ?- Started by Litwin
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
