proudfootz wrote:

Columbus wrote:I've got some experience in that regard. I used to be one. And I have known many others over the last few decades.

Tom

You used to be a millennial? Did you change your birth date?

Your reply?

The rest of your post is the usual straw man crap the sanderistas are prone to spew.

Nicely sidestepped.

Really - did you suddenly become a Baby Boomer? Or part of the post-WWI Lost Generation?

proudfootz wrote:

Columbus wrote:

No doubt there are some shitty 'Democrats'. They should be given the boot.

How do you propose that this should be done?

Something I have noticed is that a substantial number of Sanders supporters can't be bothered with details like learning how to vote in a primary. I see no reason to believe that they are capable of giving the boot to anybody who knows how things work.
Tom

Yes, everyone should just give up. [/sarcasm]

I'm aware that 'how things work' is that millionaires own most candidates.

There are lots of people who are sick of that shit.

Others are more pragmatic and just try to make a buck off the system as it exists.

Something I have noticed is that a substantial number of Clinton supporters recognize that Clinton's 'progressivism' is just a cynical pose to continue corruption as usual.

Fuck them and the elephants wearing donkey's clothes they're riding.

Yup. Canova is giving Wasserman Schultz a run for her money by mimicking Sanders campaign. He's getting a ton of support, and Wasserman Schultz us refusing to debate him. In Washington, the people are making it clear to the superdelegates what will happen to them if they support Clinton. The DNC might eek out one more corrupt term, but if the movement continues, that'll be it.

proudfootz wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

Columbus wrote:I've got some experience in that regard. I used to be one. And I have known many others over the last few decades.

Tom

You used to be a millennial? Did you change your birth date?

Your reply?

The rest of your post is the usual straw man crap the sanderistas are prone to spew.

Nicely sidestepped.

Really - did you suddenly become a Baby Boomer? Or part of the post-WWI Lost Generation?

My reply is simply that your cheap shot probably got you some points with the other Bernie Bros. The glaring dishonesty was unlikely to register.

I don't think that

I don't expect the millenials to do that. Young people are notoriously unreliable. I've got some experience in that regard. I used to be one. And I have known many others over the last few decades.

was unclear. I was young once. But my age is right there under my avatar. I'm no millennial. And I believe that you knew that when you posted. So I am assuming that you are just dishonest. So you misrepresented me by editing my post.
I'm a little surprised that RatSkep tolerates that sort of thing. But I am not a mod.
Tom

7/11

You just beat me Nine.

Columbus wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

Columbus wrote:I've got some experience in that regard. I used to be one. And I have known many others over the last few decades.

Tom

You used to be a millennial? Did you change your birth date?

Your reply?

The rest of your post is the usual straw man crap the sanderistas are prone to spew.

Nicely sidestepped.

Really - did you suddenly become a Baby Boomer? Or part of the post-WWI Lost Generation?

My reply is simply that your cheap shot probably got you some points with the other Bernie Bros. The glaring dishonesty was unlikely to register.

I don't think that

I don't expect the millenials to do that. Young people are notoriously unreliable. I've got some experience in that regard. I used to be one. And I have known many others over the last few decades.

was unclear. I was young once. But my age is right there under my avatar. I'm no millennial. And I believe that you knew that when you posted. So I am assuming that you are just dishonest. So you misrepresented me by editing my post.
I'm a little surprised that RatSkep tolerates that sort of thing. But I am not a mod.
Tom

People don't seem to tire of editing my posts.

So you meant to say that you were young once, and millennials are (by definition) young, therefore you can project your personal anecdata onto them.

That's fine. Why not just say so?

No need to make wild and self-serving accusations of 'dishonesty' about it.

proudfootz wrote:

Columbus wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

You used to be a millennial? Did you change your birth date?

Your reply?

The rest of your post is the usual straw man crap the sanderistas are prone to spew.

Nicely sidestepped.

Really - did you suddenly become a Baby Boomer? Or part of the post-WWI Lost Generation?

My reply is simply that your cheap shot probably got you some points with the other Bernie Bros. The glaring dishonesty was unlikely to register.

I don't think that

I don't expect the millenials to do that. Young people are notoriously unreliable. I've got some experience in that regard. I used to be one. And I have known many others over the last few decades.

was unclear. I was young once. But my age is right there under my avatar. I'm no millennial. And I believe that you knew that when you posted. So I am assuming that you are just dishonest. So you misrepresented me by editing my post.
I'm a little surprised that RatSkep tolerates that sort of thing. But I am not a mod.
Tom

People don't seem to tire of editing my posts.

So you meant to say that you were young once, and millennials are (by definition) young, therefore you can project your personal anecdata onto them.

That's fine. Why not just say so?

No need to make wild and self-serving accusations of 'dishonesty' about it.

Got it. Thank you for your clarity.

Tom

Columbus wrote:

You seem to think that 'someday' the millennials will be able to effect change - but not any time soon.

This is exactly what I think. The rest of your post is the usual straw man crap the sanderistas are prone to spew.

By the time the millenials understand how to get things done they will be a whole lot more invested in the status quo.
Otherwise known as conservative. I've been watching this happen since the seventies.
Tom

No, because your previous post was a baseless, bullshit assertion. Guess what, we were all young too once as well! Fucking shit argument.

Columbus wrote:My reply is simply that your cheap shot probably got you some points with the other Bernie Bros. The glaring dishonesty was unlikely to register.

I don't think that

I don't expect the millenials to do that. Young people are notoriously unreliable. I've got some experience in that regard. I used to be one. And I have known many others over the last few decades.

was unclear. I was young once. But my age is right there under my avatar. I'm no millennial. And I believe that you knew that when you posted. So I am assuming that you are just dishonest. So you misrepresented me by editing my post.
I'm a little surprised that RatSkep tolerates that sort of thing. But I am not a mod.
Tom

It's against the rules. In the dim and distant past I've seen people punished for similar actions, but whether a particular incident is sufficient to merit action is unclear, and if nobody reports a post then it's almost certain it won't. I've got the impression that advisories for such actions have fallen out of fashion as well.

It certainly a glaringly dishonest misrepresentation though.

Thommo wrote:
It's against the rules. In the dim and distant past I've seen people punished for similar actions, but whether a particular incident is sufficient to merit action is unclear, and if nobody reports a post then it's almost certain it won't. I've got the impression that advisories for such actions have fallen out of fashion as well.

It certainly a glaringly dishonest misrepresentation though.

It made me wince, and I would agree if a moderator warning followed from it. I tend to leave the reporting for the person who's been slighted unless it's a really grievous violation, though. I've reported myself at least twice. Not joking.

ANYWAY

So Donald Trump went 5 for 5 tonight, as expected. But the size of his wins was impressive. Cruz and Kasich voters seem to be accepting the inevitable nomination of Trump and are staying home. If you dig into the polls, Trump isn't any more loved by Republicans, it's that fewer voters are showing up to the polls.

Trump came into tonight with 846 delegates. He needs 1237 to shut down a brokered convention.

So how did he do?

In Rhode Island he got at least 10 and maybe as many as 16 delegates.
Delaware was winner take all, so he got all 16.
Pennsylvania had 54 unpledged and 17 as statewide winner take all, so he picked up 17 there.
In Connecticut, he won all 28 delegates.
He also likely won all of Maryland's 38 delegates.

That's a minimum of 109 delegates, so he now has at least 954 delegates. Not a bad haul. I should think that the absolute minimum number of delegates he can have going into the convention now is 1182. If he merely picks up the 6 in Rhode Island from tonight, 10 from Indiana over and above the halfway mark, and 10 more from West Virginia over and above the halfway mark, that gets him to 1208. There are 146 uncommitted delegates, 54 of them from Pennsylvania which Trump won handily, and several of which will no doubt vote for Trump. Anyone want to take bets on him hitting the 1237 mark and avoiding a brokered convention? I know I'd much rather be Trump than Reince Preibus (Rinsed Pubes, Wince Prius, etc) right now.

EDITED TO ADD:

This just in. It seems that Trump will garner all but 2 of 19 of Rhode Island's delegates, meaning his haul for the evening will be 126 delegates and his total will be 961 delegates. He'll have a minimum of 1189 and be 48 short, if any at all.

Thommo wrote:

Columbus wrote:My reply is simply that your cheap shot probably got you some points with the other Bernie Bros. The glaring dishonesty was unlikely to register.

I don't think that

I don't expect the millenials to do that. Young people are notoriously unreliable. I've got some experience in that regard. I used to be one. And I have known many others over the last few decades.

was unclear. I was young once. But my age is right there under my avatar. I'm no millennial. And I believe that you knew that when you posted. So I am assuming that you are just dishonest. So you misrepresented me by editing my post.
I'm a little surprised that RatSkep tolerates that sort of thing. But I am not a mod.
Tom

It's against the rules. In the dim and distant past I've seen people punished for similar actions, but whether a particular incident is sufficient to merit action is unclear, and if nobody reports a post then it's almost certain it won't. I've got the impression that advisories for such actions have fallen out of fashion as well.

It certainly a glaringly dishonest misrepresentation though.

Nothing dishonest in a misunderstanding that's been cleared up already.

But then, I'm not a chronic Mod-botherer.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Thommo wrote:
It's against the rules. In the dim and distant past I've seen people punished for similar actions, but whether a particular incident is sufficient to merit action is unclear, and if nobody reports a post then it's almost certain it won't. I've got the impression that advisories for such actions have fallen out of fashion as well.

It certainly a glaringly dishonest misrepresentation though.

It made me wince, and I would agree if a moderator warning followed from it. I tend to leave the reporting for the person who's been slighted unless it's a really grievous violation, though. I've reported myself at least twice. Not joking.

It was a misunderstanding that could have been cleared up immediately.

It was cleared up several days ago - not sure why it's suddenly a hot issue at this late date.

proudfootz wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Columbus wrote:My reply is simply that your cheap shot probably got you some points with the other Bernie Bros. The glaring dishonesty was unlikely to register.

I don't think that

I don't expect the millenials to do that. Young people are notoriously unreliable. I've got some experience in that regard. I used to be one. And I have known many others over the last few decades.

was unclear. I was young once. But my age is right there under my avatar. I'm no millennial. And I believe that you knew that when you posted. So I am assuming that you are just dishonest. So you misrepresented me by editing my post.
I'm a little surprised that RatSkep tolerates that sort of thing. But I am not a mod.
Tom

It's against the rules. In the dim and distant past I've seen people punished for similar actions, but whether a particular incident is sufficient to merit action is unclear, and if nobody reports a post then it's almost certain it won't. I've got the impression that advisories for such actions have fallen out of fashion as well.

It certainly a glaringly dishonest misrepresentation though.

Nothing dishonest in a misunderstanding that's been cleared up already.

But then, I'm not a chronic Mod-botherer.

Umm, yeah, if you say so.

Thommo wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Columbus wrote:My reply is simply that your cheap shot probably got you some points with the other Bernie Bros. The glaring dishonesty was unlikely to register.

I don't think that

was unclear. I was young once. But my age is right there under my avatar. I'm no millennial. And I believe that you knew that when you posted. So I am assuming that you are just dishonest. So you misrepresented me by editing my post.
I'm a little surprised that RatSkep tolerates that sort of thing. But I am not a mod.
Tom

It's against the rules. In the dim and distant past I've seen people punished for similar actions, but whether a particular incident is sufficient to merit action is unclear, and if nobody reports a post then it's almost certain it won't. I've got the impression that advisories for such actions have fallen out of fashion as well.

It certainly a glaringly dishonest misrepresentation though.

Nothing dishonest in a misunderstanding that's been cleared up already.

But then, I'm not a chronic Mod-botherer.

Umm, yeah, if you say so.

Yes, it's been cleared up days ago.

Reading is fundamental - unless you're a fundamentalist.

proudfootz wrote:

Thommo wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

Thommo wrote:

It's against the rules. In the dim and distant past I've seen people punished for similar actions, but whether a particular incident is sufficient to merit action is unclear, and if nobody reports a post then it's almost certain it won't. I've got the impression that advisories for such actions have fallen out of fashion as well.

It certainly a glaringly dishonest misrepresentation though.

Nothing dishonest in a misunderstanding that's been cleared up already.

But then, I'm not a chronic Mod-botherer.

Umm, yeah, if you say so.

Yes, it's been cleared up days ago.

Reading is fundamental - unless you're a fundamentalist.

Mmmmhmm.

GET A ROOM

NineOneFour wrote:GET A ROOM

Yes, I think those posters who want to rant and rave about 'dishonesty' when it's been agreed by the participants it was a misunderstanding should get a room instead of littering the thread with their trolling.