So they CAN change the rules at the end of the game...Ibanez wrote:You sure they didn't vote on rules for 2012 to run until 2016?kalm wrote:
So why did they vote on 2016 rules in 2012? They can change the rules after the fact?
It's laughable, but America needs bernie to hang on for another 6 weeks. That will further disenfranchise the leftist voters when bernie get shafted that hopefully they stay home and pass on voting for hilldog come November.BDKJMU wrote:Bernie wins Wyoming 56%-44%, Sanders has now won 7 straight since 3/22: (ID, UT, AK, HI, WA, WI, WY)..
"Rigged race means Hillary takes more delegates in Bernie’s Wyoming win
Bernie Sanders won again Saturday — and still lost.
The Vermont senator took Wyoming by an impressive 12 percentage-point margin in statewide caucuses, beating Clinton 56-44 percent.
But under the Democratic party’s oddball delegate system, Sanders’ winning streak — he has won seven out of the past eight contests — counts for little.
In fact, despite his win, he splits the Wyoming’s 14 pledged delegates 7 to 7 under the caucus calculus.
Clinton, meanwhile, also gets the state’s four superdelegates — who already pledged their allegiance to her in January. So despite “losing,” she triumphs 11-7 in the delegate tally......"
http://nypost.com/2016/04/09/bernie-san ... n-wyoming/
it wont matterSDHornet wrote:It's laughable, but America needs bernie to hang on for another 6 weeks. That will further disenfranchise the leftist voters when bernie get shafted that hopefully they stay home and pass on voting for hilldog come November.BDKJMU wrote:Bernie wins Wyoming 56%-44%, Sanders has now won 7 straight since 3/22: (ID, UT, AK, HI, WA, WI, WY)..
"Rigged race means Hillary takes more delegates in Bernie’s Wyoming win
Bernie Sanders won again Saturday — and still lost.
The Vermont senator took Wyoming by an impressive 12 percentage-point margin in statewide caucuses, beating Clinton 56-44 percent.
But under the Democratic party’s oddball delegate system, Sanders’ winning streak — he has won seven out of the past eight contests — counts for little.
In fact, despite his win, he splits the Wyoming’s 14 pledged delegates 7 to 7 under the caucus calculus.
Clinton, meanwhile, also gets the state’s four superdelegates — who already pledged their allegiance to her in January. So despite “losing,” she triumphs 11-7 in the delegate tally......"
http://nypost.com/2016/04/09/bernie-san ... n-wyoming/
Bernie Sanders won one more delegate in Colorado than first projected after the Colorado Democratic Party admitted this week that it misreported the March 1 caucus results from 10 precinct locations.
The party discovered the discrepancy a week after the caucus but did not correct the public record.
Hillary Clinton's campaign discussed the error with state party officials last week, but the Sanders campaign apparently didn't realize the issue until being informed Monday evening by The Denver Post.
Some how this is the Republicans fault.Ibanez wrote:http://www.denverpost.com/election/ci_2 ... ie-sanders
Bernie Sanders won one more delegate in Colorado than first projected after the Colorado Democratic Party admitted this week that it misreported the March 1 caucus results from 10 precinct locations.
The party discovered the discrepancy a week after the caucus but did not correct the public record.
Hillary Clinton's campaign discussed the error with state party officials last week, but the Sanders campaign apparently didn't realize the issue until being informed Monday evening by The Denver Post.
Great article....look up^^^^Cluck U wrote:"Still, Weaver expressed displeasure about how how the party reported the results. "It is certainly disturbing that the information gets sent to one campaign and not to another," he said.
Palacio said he didn't tell the Sanders camp about the divergent numbers "because it didn't necessarily affect (them). It was our mistake that ended up affecting the estimation of Hillary's campaign.'"
Didn't necessarily affect them?
So, the error caused Hillary to lose a delegate, and therefor Bernie gained a delegate...but they didn't tell Bernie (or anyone else) because the change wouldn't affect him?
JFC, the Hillary people are establishment, entitlement-minded creeps.
Good company, dback. All they have to do now is go out and rape some minors and you'll be in heaven.
http://www.denverpost.com/election/ci_2 ... ie-sanders
Trump or Cruz vs Hillary opens the door for a third party candidate to get the 15% of the vote.CID1990 wrote:it wont matterSDHornet wrote: It's laughable, but America needs bernie to hang on for another 6 weeks. That will further disenfranchise the leftist voters when bernie get shafted that hopefully they stay home and pass on voting for hilldog come November.
Cruz's unfavorables are not far off Trump's
SDHornet wrote:One can dream.Ivytalk wrote:
And you believe in unicorns, the Easter Bunny, Sasquatch, and Puff the Magic Dragon.
I agree. It should be either Bud Light or Miller Light. It should be Coke or Pepsi. It should be McDonald's or Burger King. All others are unnecessary.DSUrocks07 wrote:SDHornet wrote: One can dream.
There's no dreaming when it comes to politics.
America cannot handle having to select between more than two choices.
Third party candidacy will destroy this great nation...DESTROY IT I SAY!!!
If you can't decide between going all in with one party or all in with the other, clearly you aren't intelligent enough to be voting.
THERE ARE ONLY TWO DIRECTIONS THIS NATION CAN GO IN, ONLY TWO, AND FUCK YOU IF YOU SUGGEST OTHERWISE!!!11!1!1!!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
DSUrocks07 wrote:SDHornet wrote: One can dream.
There's no dreaming when it comes to politics.
America cannot handle having to select between more than two choices.
Third party candidacy will destroy this great nation...DESTROY IT I SAY!!!
If you can't decide between going all in with one party or all in with the other, clearly you aren't intelligent enough to be voting.
THERE ARE ONLY TWO DIRECTIONS THIS NATION CAN GO IN, ONLY TWO, AND FUCK YOU IF YOU SUGGEST OTHERWISE!!!11!1!1!!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/12/pay-g ... han-women/Male executives at the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation earn 38 percent more than women executives, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation review of the foundation’s latest IRS tax filings.
The foundation’s 2013 IRS form 990 reveals that nearly three times as many men as women occupy the executive suites at the Little Rock, Arkansas-based foundation.
On average, top male executives at the foundation earn $109,000 more than the top female executives with positions in the C-suite.
The numbers were in stark contrast to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s campaign-oriented “Equal Pay Day” speech, which she delivered in Silicon Valley Tuesday. She charged that equal pay for women was “long overdue.”
History is a bitch, DSU.DSUrocks07 wrote:SDHornet wrote: One can dream.
There's no dreaming when it comes to politics.
America cannot handle having to select between more than two choices.
Third party candidacy will destroy this great nation...DESTROY IT I SAY!!!
If you can't decide between going all in with one party or all in with the other, clearly you aren't intelligent enough to be voting.
THERE ARE ONLY TWO DIRECTIONS THIS NATION CAN GO IN, ONLY TWO, AND **** YOU IF YOU SUGGEST OTHERWISE!!!11!1!1!!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Also racistIvytalk wrote:History is a bitch, DSU.DSUrocks07 wrote:
There's no dreaming when it comes to politics.
America cannot handle having to select between more than two choices.
Third party candidacy will destroy this great nation...DESTROY IT I SAY!!!
If you can't decide between going all in with one party or all in with the other, clearly you aren't intelligent enough to be voting.
THERE ARE ONLY TWO DIRECTIONS THIS NATION CAN GO IN, ONLY TWO, AND **** YOU IF YOU SUGGEST OTHERWISE!!!11!1!1!!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
DSUrocks07 wrote:Also racistIvytalk wrote: History is a bitch, DSU.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
I wish.Ivytalk wrote:DSUrocks07 wrote: Also racist
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Now get some sleep.
Former Rep. Barney Frank, one of the most accomplished liberal lawmakers of our time, doesn't have much use for him. "Bernie Sanders has been in Congress for 25 years with little to show for it in terms of his accomplishments," he told Slate. That, he told The Washington Post, is because he is "very wary of compromise and of accepting less than you want."
...
He has only contempt for any U.S. company that would move production to China or Mexico just "to make even more money." He doesn't grasp that if a U.S. company doesn't shift production to raise profits, its foreign rivals may do so — and put it out of business. Sanders assumes that earnings grow on trees.
His fiscal realm is a zero-gravity environment. His tax plan would raise the top marginal rate to a confiscatory 77 percent — almost certainly stifling economic growth, not to mention reducing revenue from what it would be at lower rates.
On spending, he offers a fiesta of extravagance: free college, paid family leave, Medicare for all, an across-the-board increase in Social Security benefits. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says his plans could add $15 trillion to the national debt over a decade. Even liberal economists have characterized his budget agenda as a joke.
I knew Steve pretty well, actually. He was president of the Harvard Republican Club his senior year. He's less conservative now than he was then.UNI88 wrote:Is Sanders any better?
IT's good buddy Steve Chapman has a nice little commentary pointing out a few of old Bernie's many flaws.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... olumn.html
Former Rep. Barney Frank, one of the most accomplished liberal lawmakers of our time, doesn't have much use for him. "Bernie Sanders has been in Congress for 25 years with little to show for it in terms of his accomplishments," he told Slate. That, he told The Washington Post, is because he is "very wary of compromise and of accepting less than you want."
...
He has only contempt for any U.S. company that would move production to China or Mexico just "to make even more money." He doesn't grasp that if a U.S. company doesn't shift production to raise profits, its foreign rivals may do so — and put it out of business. Sanders assumes that earnings grow on trees.
His fiscal realm is a zero-gravity environment. His tax plan would raise the top marginal rate to a confiscatory 77 percent — almost certainly stifling economic growth, not to mention reducing revenue from what it would be at lower rates.
On spending, he offers a fiesta of extravagance: free college, paid family leave, Medicare for all, an across-the-board increase in Social Security benefits. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says his plans could add $15 trillion to the national debt over a decade. Even liberal economists have characterized his budget agenda as a joke.
Real liberals do not support Hillary.Ibanez wrote:So...no outcry from the liberals on Hilary and Blasio using "CP time"?
If Trump or Cruz had said that, even with the modified definition, they'd be crucified nightly and protested. The NAACP, BLM, etc.. would be condemning them.
Interesting.
Just like Republicans aren't voting for Trump?kalm wrote:Real liberals do not support Hillary.Ibanez wrote:So...no outcry from the liberals on Hilary and Blasio using "CP time"?
If Trump or Cruz had said that, even with the modified definition, they'd be crucified nightly and protested. The NAACP, BLM, etc.. would be condemning them.
Interesting.
well you should knowkalm wrote:Real liberals do not support Hillary.Ibanez wrote:So...no outcry from the liberals on Hilary and Blasio using "CP time"?
If Trump or Cruz had said that, even with the modified definition, they'd be crucified nightly and protested. The NAACP, BLM, etc.. would be condemning them.
Interesting.
Hilary isn't liberal other than her stance on abortion and welfareCID1990 wrote:well you should knowkalm wrote:
Real liberals do not support Hillary.
