Twitter accounts aren’t really a barometer for success, but they are a good way to fake it.
0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.
Quote from: VomKriege on April 20, 2016, 07:01:04 PMThat Kasich campaigning in NYC Kasich has been mathematically eliminated from winning so voting for him is meaningless. He should have done better in New York and in many of these upcoming mid Atlantic primaries but all of the polls show Trump ahead anywhere from 13 points (Pennsylvania) to 37 (Delaware) (Source). Had Kasich been viable, he would likely be a lot more competitive in places like Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, etc.The only reason he is still in the race is to use his 66 Ohio delegates as a bargaining chip. Personally I think he will end up as Trump's VP if Trump falls short of the needed delegates. Ohio delegate rules say if someone drops out, they will be allocated to the next winner, which was Donald Trump. So if Trump agrees to Kasich being his VP, Kasich will drop out, the 66 delegates (plus several others he picked up along the way) will go to Trump and put him into the majority.Ted Cruz will be in the same boat after April 26 primaries.
That Kasich campaigning in NYC
An old friend of mine from Salt lake got deported today. Came over at 14, lived here for more than 20 years, has 3 American children and has worked his entire life.
Quote from: Steve Contra on April 21, 2016, 01:27:48 PMAn old friend of mine from Salt lake got deported today. Came over at 14, lived here for more than 20 years, has 3 American children and has worked his entire life.That's fucked up.
All of us need to redouble our efforts. This is crucial. Start by emptying out your life savings right now and donating what you can to Bernie.
I hope something works out. Good to hear the mom is still here but fuck...what a shitty turn of events.
S4P is my new Truman Show.spoiler (click to show/hide)QuoteAll of us need to redouble our efforts. This is crucial. Start by emptying out your life savings right now and donating what you can to Bernie.[close](Image removed from quote.)
Citing “lessons learned from online engagement with ‘Bernie Bros,’” a pro-Hillary Clinton Super PAC is pledging to spend $1 million to “push back against” users on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and Instagram.Correct the Record’s “Barrier Breakers” project boasts in a press release that it has already “addressed more than 5,000 people that have personally attacked Hillary Clinton on Twitter.” The PAC released this on Thursday.The PAC was created in May of last year when it was spun off from the American Bridge SuperPAC, which is run by longtime Hillary and Bill Clinton supporter David Brock. Brock also founded the left-wing media watchdog website Media Matters for America.Some Bernie Sanders-supporting users on Reddit already started to notice the changes on Thursday afternoon.“This explains why my inbox turned to cancer on Tuesday,” wrote user OKarizee. “Been a member of reddit for almost 4 years and never experienced anything like it. In fact, in all my years on the internet I’ve never experienced anything like it.”Correct the Record, which has received $5 million this campaign season and has spent almost $4.5 million of it, according to OpenSecrets.org, outlined its strategy against “swarms of anonymous attackers” in a press release.“While Hillary Clinton fights to break down barriers and bring America together, the Barrier Breakers 2016 digital task force will serve as a resource for supporters looking for positive content and push-back to share with their online progressive communities, as well as thanking prominent supporters and committed superdelegates on social media,” the statement read.
“Barrier Breakers 2016 is focused on pushing out positive content to Hillary supporters online to counter negative attacks and false narratives,” Correct the Record’s communications director, Elizabeth Shappell, told The Daily Beast. “The expanded task force was established in anticipation of the general election.”
As stated earlier, I have declared that mathematically Ted Cruz is the nominee, there is a 99%+ chance of this occurring. The odds of a Drumpf win is less than 1%. The math is certain, we only await for the News Media to realize it and the Drumpf team.Drumpf lost to the best candidate in over 100 years, there is no shame in that.
Also, I wonder who the great candidate was from over 100 years ago that Cruz can't quite match up to? Was it Mr. New York Values Ted Roosevelt?
I have a bone to pick with the idea that Libertarians are our allies. At best they are fickle allies and at worst they are our enemy. Even the Libertarians see us at best as something to co-opt for their power and at worst as a blot on the world needing to be wiped out.We are not Libertarians, they are not us. If a pro-drugs, pro-abortion, anti-war, big-government, communist was running for President/Governor/Representative/Whatever, versus a anti-drugs, pro-life, sometimes you got to fight when your a man, small government, Conservative… It is as likely they will vote for the Democrat as they will the Republican.They have a very anti-Conservative platform. They have willingly cost us elections by muddling things up and pulling moderates away.Libertarianism is the belief that regulations, such as the one preventing a semi-truck driver with explosives in his trailer, from driving for 28 hours straight (currently in a residential neighborhood) becuase his boss has a tight tike schedule for the contract, are bad and should be destroyed.Libertarianism is the belief that wars are the fault of the United States (or ones home nation) and that if we just tried peace no more evil, such as Hitler, woukd exist. Chamberlain was a Libertarian type in this regards…. worked so well for how many hundreds of millions?libertarianism is the belief that roads will be effectively repaired by interested parties, that bridges will magically spring up to meet needs.Libertarianism is what the North American Man Boy Love Association preaches, where a 50 year old should be allowed to bugger a 10 year old…. cause it is all about love man!Libertarianism is about making a gold standard and thus tying ourselves to a commodity which other nations can dump or horde and thus severely affect our economy.Libertarians want marriage not to be of the State, but if they cannot get that then they want legalized gay marriage.Libertarianism is the belief that borders are a bad thing, that we should welcome with open arms those who seek to enter our nation.Libertarianism is the belief that abortion is of no consequence and is the right of the individual to choose.Libertarians believe in the right of assisted suicide as well.Libertarianism is as poisonous and dangerous to Conservatism as is Communism. Both lead to massive upheavals, misguided efforts, and tremendous loss of life if allowed to grow out of hand. This is why educating about the bad sides of both is so important.Look the evils of Libertarians is easy to see, just look at all the deaths of WWII. Most of that would not have happened except a Libertarian decided that giving away other nations in exchange for peace was ok.Libertarians cannot win a fair fight, this is why they try to confuse us, befuddle us, recruit via lies, attack our best candidates (Yes Ron Paul I am looking at your attacks in those elections for President you ran in!), try to co-opt anything successful to convert it to their gains (Efforts to kidnap websites including RedState, the co-opt of the Reform Party with Buchanan, and the Tea Party which they still try to say is their idea and their platform), and act despicable when they do not get their way.The Libertarians are again, at best a fickle bunch of beings, voting for what they perceive is their best interests, not in the interests of the Republican Party. At worst they are the source of much infighting, much lost focus upon the Democrats, the weakening of our Party, and are responsible for keeping the Establishment in power.Without the Libertarians we might just be a lot more stable, attractive, and capable in elections.
Koch Bros. back Hillary for GOP nomination.
Need some tag team WWE gifs in here
That's not why Sanders is losing the race for the nomination, though.
Quote talking to NBC News’ Chuck Todd, Sanders put forward a new take on the Democratic race. Here was the exchange on “Meet the Press”:TODD: I have quite some interesting numbers here. So 17 of the 25 states with the highest levels of income inequality have held primaries. Sixteen of those 17 states have been won by Hillary Clinton, not by you. Why? SANDERS: Well, because poor people don’t vote. I mean, that’s just a fact. That’s a sad reality of American society. And that’s what we have to transform. We have one – as you know, one of the lowest voter turnouts of any major country on Earth. We have done a good job bringing young people in. I think we have done – had some success with lower income people. But in America today – the last election in 2014, 80% percent of poor people did not vote.(Image removed from quote.)
talking to NBC News’ Chuck Todd, Sanders put forward a new take on the Democratic race. Here was the exchange on “Meet the Press”:TODD: I have quite some interesting numbers here. So 17 of the 25 states with the highest levels of income inequality have held primaries. Sixteen of those 17 states have been won by Hillary Clinton, not by you. Why? SANDERS: Well, because poor people don’t vote. I mean, that’s just a fact. That’s a sad reality of American society. And that’s what we have to transform. We have one – as you know, one of the lowest voter turnouts of any major country on Earth. We have done a good job bringing young people in. I think we have done – had some success with lower income people. But in America today – the last election in 2014, 80% percent of poor people did not vote.
Is Clinton getting consistently outperformed by Bernie amongst poorer voters that do show up to the polls? What about in states with higher income inequality?
Seemed like an on the spot answer that he knew would be true or hard to refute, as he probably saw numbers like that beforehand at various points in his life. It's a hard question to answer without stepping on other people's toes or your own toes too heavily.He instead chose an easy answer that's hard to refute outright with available data.
Hillary Clinton has +10 points on low-income voters.If more poor people voted, Sanders would be losing by an even greater amount.
A+ backpedal
Quote from: Tasty Meat on April 25, 2016, 05:41:14 PMHillary Clinton has +10 points on low-income voters.If more poor people voted, Sanders would be losing by an even greater amount."Sanders has lost Democratic voters with household incomes below $50,000 by 55 percent to 44 percent to Clinton across primaries where network exit polls have been conducted.”Clinton Super PACers think $50,000 household income is the cutoff for poor?
"Sanders has lost Democratic voters with household incomes below $50,000 by 55 percent to 44 percent to Clinton across primaries where network exit polls have been conducted.”Clinton Super PACers think $50,000 household income is the cutoff for poor?
Clinton Super PACers think
I find it revealing that a Clinton Super PACer
Quote from: Samson Manhug on April 25, 2016, 05:49:52 PMClinton Super PACers thinkQuote from: Samson Manhug on April 25, 2016, 05:59:53 PMI find it revealing that a Clinton Super PACer Thanks for my new tag bro
Quote from: Samson Manhug on April 25, 2016, 05:49:52 PM"Sanders has lost Democratic voters with household incomes below $50,000 by 55 percent to 44 percent to Clinton across primaries where network exit polls have been conducted.”Clinton Super PACers think $50,000 household income is the cutoff for poor?The lowest bracket used in exit polls is <$30k and Hillary has mostly beaten him in that category too.So yeah, this is an L for Bernie.
Sure, but then you'd need a reason to expect Bernie to do significantly better among the disenfranchised
