Democrats rig Tulsi Gabbard right out of their next debate

[JoeB131]

Another one of Gabbard's sins is that she has promised to secure the border and has stated that open borders mean a loss of nationhood. Oh, Tulsi! Your common-sense approach is not welcome in the new Democratic Party, which has fallen off the left edge of the planet.

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]

Democrats always fix their elections so the preordained win.

Democrats rig Tulsi Gabbard right out of their next debate.

Let her on the stage. She is a combat vet. She has earned that right.

 

[Bush92]

Another one of Gabbard's sins is that she has promised to secure the border and has stated that open borders mean a loss of nationhood. Oh, Tulsi! Your common-sense approach is not welcome in the new Democratic Party, which has fallen off the left edge of the planet.

She is one to watch in 2020.

 

[Bush92]

Democrats always fix their elections so the preordained win.

Democrats rig Tulsi Gabbard right out of their next debate.

She should be on that stage. She is a combat vet. Earned it.

 

[LaDairis]

doesn't mean the rest of us should worry about a fake crisis

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

 

[LaDairis]

She is a combat vet

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]

She is a combat vet

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.

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.

 

[otto105]

Sanders would have beat Trump.

The same polls that said Hillary would win in a 'landslide' said Sanders would have won...

...uh-huh....


.

What polls are you referring too?

 

[busybee01]

Democrats always fix their elections so the preordained win.

Democrats rig Tulsi Gabbard right out of their next debate.

Just as they did to Bernie in 2016. Who is surprised by this? Big dollars behind Harris, she is already finished is she won the nomination, Trump has a bundle of details he can use. He can literally just use the Gabbard speech as an attack ad. Just as California immediately, and coincidentally took down all her data from the time she was AG after the second debate.

Some want to destroy Americas Republic. It isn't Trump. Much if it coming from International sources I'm sure.

Democrats always fix their elections so the preordained win.

Democrats rig Tulsi Gabbard right out of their next debate.

Their OWN RULES apparently mean nothing to these folks.. Saw that when they screwed Bernie out of delegates by CHANGING the rules on the fly in several states and the hinky stuff happening at the DNC in 2016.

They ARE the party of disenfranchisement.. The evidence just keeps piling up... NOW in order to "win", they want to mind fuck the electoral college and force them to deny the will of the voters in many states... They know no limits to grabbing power by any means possible....

Republicans are the party of disenfranchisement. In SC, Sanders got 25% of the vote to Clinton's 66% Sanders got 25% of the delegates. Trump got 32% of the vote and got 100% of the delegates. 68% of SC Republicans voted for someone other than Trump. and were disenfranchised. Sanders only got 12% of the vote in Mississippi and incredibly still got delegates. In 2020, Republicans are rigging the nomination contest for Trump.

Feb 10, 2017 · So while Hillary Clinton leads right now 394-42 over Bernie Sanders in total delegates, Bernie leads Hillary 36-32 in those delegates chosen by the people.

First, in Iowa, they battle for a statistical tie, with just a quarter-percent of the vote between Hillary and Bernie. So, naturally, the delegates from Iowa are divided fairly. Bernie gets 21 delegates and Hillary gets... 29?

Next, in New Hampshire, Bernie demolishes Hillary in a 22-point landslide victory. So, naturally, the delegates from New Hampshire are divided fairly. Bernie gets 15 delegates and Hillary gets... 15?

What is this strange world where a Bernie tie is an 8-delegate loss and a Bernie landslide is a tie? That’s when our intrepid Millennials start Googling and learn all about Marvel’s Democratic Superdelegates! (Just kidding; Marvel’s heroes are better-looking.)

What they learn is that there are 4,763 delegates who pick the Democratic nominee for president. But roughly 15 percent of them are Superdelegates (712 to be exact) who are the Democratic elected officials and party bigwigs. Regular delegates are split according to popular vote, but Superdelegates can vote for anybody they wish (that’s their super power).

Hillary's Superdelegate Coup Just Confirms to Millennials: The System Is Rigged | HuffPost

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

2,205
B Sanders

1,846
Uncommitted

711
(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

2,205
B Sanders

1,846
Uncommitted

711

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]

As far as I can tell, they doubled the requirements. I do not see how that is targeting one specific candidate or how it is a 'fix' for anything. If you cannot hit 2% in a national poll you really should not be on stage. They have to have someway of narrowing down the field throughout this entire process.

The real candidate hurt in narrowing the field is Biden anyway - the most likely establishment pick. He wins by default should the field remain as it is, splitting the hardcore lefties vote among many candidates. Narrow that down to just a few and Biden may face real competition.

I hate to say it but Warren is most likely the Nominee with Harris as her VP candidate...

Democrats always fix their elections so the preordained win.

Democrats rig Tulsi Gabbard right out of their next debate.

If Tulsi wanted to mess with them she should run Green...

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]

Just as they did to Bernie in 2016. Who is surprised by this? Big dollars behind Harris, she is already finished is she won the nomination, Trump has a bundle of details he can use. He can literally just use the Gabbard speech as an attack ad. Just as California immediately, and coincidentally took down all her data from the time she was AG after the second debate.

Some want to destroy Americas Republic. It isn't Trump. Much if it coming from International sources I'm sure.

Their OWN RULES apparently mean nothing to these folks.. Saw that when they screwed Bernie out of delegates by CHANGING the rules on the fly in several states and the hinky stuff happening at the DNC in 2016.

They ARE the party of disenfranchisement.. The evidence just keeps piling up... NOW in order to "win", they want to mind fuck the electoral college and force them to deny the will of the voters in many states... They know no limits to grabbing power by any means possible....

Republicans are the party of disenfranchisement. In SC, Sanders got 25% of the vote to Clinton's 66% Sanders got 25% of the delegates. Trump got 32% of the vote and got 100% of the delegates. 68% of SC Republicans voted for someone other than Trump. and were disenfranchised. Sanders only got 12% of the vote in Mississippi and incredibly still got delegates. In 2020, Republicans are rigging the nomination contest for Trump.

Feb 10, 2017 · So while Hillary Clinton leads right now 394-42 over Bernie Sanders in total delegates, Bernie leads Hillary 36-32 in those delegates chosen by the people.

First, in Iowa, they battle for a statistical tie, with just a quarter-percent of the vote between Hillary and Bernie. So, naturally, the delegates from Iowa are divided fairly. Bernie gets 21 delegates and Hillary gets... 29?

Next, in New Hampshire, Bernie demolishes Hillary in a 22-point landslide victory. So, naturally, the delegates from New Hampshire are divided fairly. Bernie gets 15 delegates and Hillary gets... 15?

What is this strange world where a Bernie tie is an 8-delegate loss and a Bernie landslide is a tie? That’s when our intrepid Millennials start Googling and learn all about Marvel’s Democratic Superdelegates! (Just kidding; Marvel’s heroes are better-looking.)

What they learn is that there are 4,763 delegates who pick the Democratic nominee for president. But roughly 15 percent of them are Superdelegates (712 to be exact) who are the Democratic elected officials and party bigwigs. Regular delegates are split according to popular vote, but Superdelegates can vote for anybody they wish (that’s their super power).

Hillary's Superdelegate Coup Just Confirms to Millennials: The System Is Rigged | HuffPost

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

2,205
B Sanders

1,846
Uncommitted

711
(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

2,205
B Sanders

1,846
Uncommitted

711

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

 

[busybee01]

Feb 10, 2017 · So while Hillary Clinton leads right now 394-42 over Bernie Sanders in total delegates, Bernie leads Hillary 36-32 in those delegates chosen by the people.

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]

Feb 10, 2017 · So while Hillary Clinton leads right now 394-42 over Bernie Sanders in total delegates, Bernie leads Hillary 36-32 in those delegates chosen by the people.

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.

 

[busybee01]

As far as I can tell, they doubled the requirements. I do not see how that is targeting one specific candidate or how it is a 'fix' for anything. If you cannot hit 2% in a national poll you really should not be on stage. They have to have someway of narrowing down the field throughout this entire process.

The real candidate hurt in narrowing the field is Biden anyway - the most likely establishment pick. He wins by default should the field remain as it is, splitting the hardcore lefties vote among many candidates. Narrow that down to just a few and Biden may face real competition.

I'm sorry, but are you really, really that DUMB/NAIVE/DISHONEST? The point is that the DNC is belatedly changing the rules. Under the previous rules that they announced just a few months ago, Gabbard qualifies for the next round of debates. But, if these belated rule changes are enforced, she will be excluded. If you can't see that this is aimed at her, I have some bridges I'd like to sell you.

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]

Feb 10, 2017 · So while Hillary Clinton leads right now 394-42 over Bernie Sanders in total delegates, Bernie leads Hillary 36-32 in those delegates chosen by the people.

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]

As far as I can tell, they doubled the requirements. I do not see how that is targeting one specific candidate or how it is a 'fix' for anything. If you cannot hit 2% in a national poll you really should not be on stage. They have to have someway of narrowing down the field throughout this entire process.

The real candidate hurt in narrowing the field is Biden anyway - the most likely establishment pick. He wins by default should the field remain as it is, splitting the hardcore lefties vote among many candidates. Narrow that down to just a few and Biden may face real competition.

I'm sorry, but are you really, really that DUMB/NAIVE/DISHONEST? The point is that the DNC is belatedly changing the rules. Under the previous rules that they announced just a few months ago, Gabbard qualifies for the next round of debates. But, if these belated rule changes are enforced, she will be excluded. If you can't see that this is aimed at her, I have some bridges I'd like to sell you.

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.

Bullshit

 

[Aletheia4u]

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

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[wamose]

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]

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

If you can’t get one percent in the polls after six months, it is time to move on