The Clinton Victory Thread

[Willie71]

Nope, not confusing them. The Clinton specific one was clear, the other lied. Wonder why that was? Hmmm.....

[GT2211]

Nope, not confusing them. The Clinton specific one was clear, the other lied. Wonder why that was? Hmmm.....

Your posts are hard to follow and you seem to be getting all sorts of things confused. You seem to be onto some sort of grand conspiracy of which you brought the DNC into who wasn't even involved.

Yes HRC sent a letter with directions to her delegates of what to do. I can only assume Bernie's camp did the same to their delegates. The county party also sent letters to delegates with wrong directions suggesting they need not show up. And we know that a lot of Hillary's delegates did end up not showing up, which is why she went from having a 10% lead in delegates to losing because not all of them were there.

How you are trying to turn that into a conspiracy against HRC I have no idea.

[Willie71]

Nope, not confusing them. The Clinton specific one was clear, the other lied. Wonder why that was? Hmmm.....

Your posts are hard to follow and you seem to be getting all sorts of things confused. You seem to be onto some sort of grand conspiracy of which you brought the DNC into who wasn't even involved.

Yes HRC sent a letter with directions to her delegates of what to do. I can only assume Bernie's camp did the same to their delegates. The county party also sent letters to delegates with wrong directions suggesting they need not show up. And we know that a lot of Hillary's delegates did end up not showing up, which is why she went from having a 10% lead in delegates to losing because not all of them were there.

How you are trying to turn that into a conspiracy against HRC I have no idea.

The bigger picture is that the national Democratic Party has an alliance with 33 state democratic parties to funnel money to the Clinton campaign, bypassing the contribution limits. In return, the state Democratic Party gets access to increased funds. All it costs is aligning all the superdelegates with Clinton, and doing what they can to help Clinton along. The dots do connect if you look at the big picture, rather than explaining away the individual pieces.

[Willie71]

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/ ... c-parties/

The list of states in this agreement is at the bottom of the article. Notice that the state's with questionable practices and voter suppression are on the list, which includes Nevada.

[Thommo]

On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being "entertainment" and 10 being "fact based journalism" how reliable are these sources that are being brought up? Are we looking at evidence from reputable, vetted and/or objective sources yet?

[Willie71]

The Clinton Fund is pretty well documented by multiple sources. There really isn't much, if anything suggesting it isn't real. Of course the networks that donate directly or indirectly to Clinton don't really report it. The donations have been fact checked too. What part of this is not overwhelmingly real?

[GT2211]

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/how-hillary-clinton-bought-the-loyalty-of-33-state-democratic-parties/

The list of states in this agreement is at the bottom of the article. Notice that the state's with questionable practices and voter suppression are on the list, which includes Nevada.

Well from what I've seen so far just about every state Bernie loses has been accused of questionable practices. And most states are on those list so its no surprise that Berners would find some crossover between the two....Now Nevada's questionable practices helped Bernie. Might I remind you that he lost Clark county by 10%. It's also not clear how Arizona's questionable voting issues hurt Bernie either considering that those minority voters that were most affected made up the strength of HRC's campaign so far and that she won that high minority county by ~20%. More of those votes being counted would've been a good thing for her.

You are just using typical conspiracy theorists tactics of looking for every random association. Like those illuminati types. You keep throwing random stuff out and when it gets slapped down by myself, thommo, colombus or others you just move onto the next one.

The Clinton's have been leaders of the party. They have been traveling the country helping Dems campaign for office and raise money for literally decades. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you are trying become President of the United States, it certainly helps if you have a Democratic legislature to work with. Thus it only makes sense that not only would you be helping yourself, you are trying to help your party. You think its a conspiracy where as I see it as common sense.

I've pointed out those fundraisers numerous times here. Bernie talks about a revolution, but he isn't helping the party win the down the ballot races needed to have one. Hillary is. Because she realizes that simply winning the Presidency isn't enough, but you need to win the races down the ballot as well.

[GT2211]

The Clinton Fund is pretty well documented by multiple sources. There really isn't much, if anything suggesting it isn't real. Of course the networks that donate directly or indirectly to Clinton don't really report it. The donations have been fact checked too. What part of this is not overwhelmingly real?

Of course its real, the issue here is that its quite common. You are treating it as if its some hidden nefarious thing for sinister purposes when in fact its just a common way of raising money for the party.

Now Bernie isn't doing it this cycle because that would remove his high horse to criticize Clinton from, but he is no stranger to hosting those $30,000 fundraisers himself for the party.

His campaign bragged about the money he had raised later in this article

In recent years, Sanders has been billed as one of the hosts for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's retreats for the "Majority Trust" -- an elite group of top donors who give more than $30,000 per year -- at Martha's Vineyard in the summer and Palm Beach, Florida, in the winter. CNN has obtained invitations that listed Sanders as a host for at least one Majority Trust event in each year since 2011.

The retreats are typically attended by 100 or more donors who have either contributed the annual legal maximum of $33,400 to the DSCC, raised more than $100,000 for the party or both.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/ ... ndraisers/

[Willie71]

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/how-hillary-clinton-bought-the-loyalty-of-33-state-democratic-parties/

The list of states in this agreement is at the bottom of the article. Notice that the state's with questionable practices and voter suppression are on the list, which includes Nevada.

Well from what I've seen so far just about every state Bernie loses has been accused of questionable practices. And most states are on those list so its no surprise that Berners would find some crossover between the two....Now Nevada's questionable practices helped Bernie. Might I remind you that he lost Clark county by 10%. It's also not clear how Arizona's questionable voting issues hurt Bernie either considering that those minority voters that were most affected made up the strength of HRC's campaign so far and that she won that high minority county by ~20%. More of those votes being counted would've been a good thing for her.

You are just using typical conspiracy theorists tactics of looking for every random association. Like those illuminati types. You keep throwing random stuff out and when it gets slapped down by myself, thommo, colombus or others you just move onto the next one.

The Clinton's have been leaders of the party. They have been traveling the country helping Dems campaign for office and raise money for literally decades. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you are trying become President of the United States, it certainly helps if you have a Democratic legislature to work with. Thus it only makes sense that not only would you be helping yourself, you are trying to help your party. You think its a conspiracy where as I see it as common sense.

I've pointed out those fundraisers numerous times here. Bernie talks about a revolution, but he isn't helping the party win the down the ballot races needed to have one. Hillary is. Because she realizes that simply winning the Presidency isn't enough, but you need to win the races down the ballot as well.

What you see as "normal" is seen as obscene corruption by people from other countries. I am confused that some are so ok with it, like it isn't a big deal.

If the issues were random association, I would hope critical thinking would show the flaws in the analysis. The fact that there is legalized bribery would suggest the corruption is real, and that the power brokers rig things in their favour. This isn't a conspiracy, but basic facts. It's not a level playing field. The fact that the guy who opposes the power group is being crapped on doesn't seem like conspiracy either. Why this is justified as just the way things are seems defeatist.

I see relatively weak counter arguments. it seems like there is a lot of parroting the pro Hillary rhetoric from CNN or MSNBC, minimizing the extent of the sellout of politics.

[OlivierK]

The Clinton's have been leaders of the party. They have been traveling the country helping Dems campaign for office and raise money for literally decades. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you are trying become President of the United States, it certainly helps if you have a Democratic legislature to work with. Thus it only makes sense that not only would you be helping yourself, you are trying to help your party. You think its a conspiracy where as I see it as common sense.

I've pointed out those fundraisers numerous times here. Bernie talks about a revolution, but he isn't helping the party win the down the ballot races needed to have one. Hillary is. Because she realizes that simply winning the Presidency isn't enough, but you need to win the races down the ballot as well.

What's better to do: call on people to be aware of bought politicians, and convince people to vote for candidates that aren't bought,

or,

be a bought politician who buys downticket races to make sure they can deliver the goods they've been bought to deliver.

Tough call.

[Teague]

So if Sander's won Nevada what does that make the delegate count?

[GT2211]

The Clinton's have been leaders of the party. They have been traveling the country helping Dems campaign for office and raise money for literally decades. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you are trying become President of the United States, it certainly helps if you have a Democratic legislature to work with. Thus it only makes sense that not only would you be helping yourself, you are trying to help your party. You think its a conspiracy where as I see it as common sense.

I've pointed out those fundraisers numerous times here. Bernie talks about a revolution, but he isn't helping the party win the down the ballot races needed to have one. Hillary is. Because she realizes that simply winning the Presidency isn't enough, but you need to win the races down the ballot as well.

What's better to do: call on people to be aware of bought politicians, and convince people to vote for candidates that aren't bought,

or,

be a bought politician who buys downticket races to make sure they can deliver the goods they've been bought to deliver.

Tough call.

A+ on the false dichotomy. Keep up the quality posts

[Willie71]

So if Sander's won Nevada what does that make the delegate count?

Well, Sanders didn't really win it, but the Clinton camp didn't show up, handing a default win to Sanders. I've read this will add 2 or 4 delegates to Sanders, with one source suggesting 10.

Poetic justice for the guy who plays fair against a machine rigging the system.

[Willie71]

The Clinton's have been leaders of the party. They have been traveling the country helping Dems campaign for office and raise money for literally decades. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you are trying become President of the United States, it certainly helps if you have a Democratic legislature to work with. Thus it only makes sense that not only would you be helping yourself, you are trying to help your party. You think its a conspiracy where as I see it as common sense.

I've pointed out those fundraisers numerous times here. Bernie talks about a revolution, but he isn't helping the party win the down the ballot races needed to have one. Hillary is. Because she realizes that simply winning the Presidency isn't enough, but you need to win the races down the ballot as well.

What's better to do: call on people to be aware of bought politicians, and convince people to vote for candidates that aren't bought,

or,

be a bought politician who buys downticket races to make sure they can deliver the goods they've been bought to deliver.

Tough call.

A+ on the false dichotomy. Keep up the quality posts

How is this a false dichotomy?

[Teague]

So if Sander's won Nevada what does that make the delegate count?

Well, Sanders didn't really win it, but the Clinton camp didn't show up, handing a default win to Sanders. I've read this will add 2 or 4 delegates to Sanders, with one source suggesting 10.

Poetic justice for the guy who plays fair against a machine rigging the system.

So her voters didn't show up - sad day for the cheating bitch.

[proudfootz]

So if Sander's won Nevada what does that make the delegate count?

Well, Sanders didn't really win it, but the Clinton camp didn't show up, handing a default win to Sanders. I've read this will add 2 or 4 delegates to Sanders, with one source suggesting 10.

Poetic justice for the guy who plays fair against a machine rigging the system.

So her voters didn't show up - sad day for the cheating bitch.

Maybe now we'll hear some kvetching about how Clinton supporters don't know their way around the primary system?

[Columbus]

Maybe now we'll hear some kvetching about how Clinton supporters don't know their way around the primary system?

Probably not.
She'll just keep on winning, more than likely.
Tom

[Thommo]

So if Sander's won Nevada what does that make the delegate count?

Well, Sanders didn't really win it, but the Clinton camp didn't show up, handing a default win to Sanders. I've read this will add 2 or 4 delegates to Sanders, with one source suggesting 10.

Poetic justice for the guy who plays fair against a machine rigging the system.

So her voters didn't show up - sad day for the cheating bitch.

Maybe now we'll hear some kvetching about how Clinton supporters don't know their way around the primary system?

Caucus.

It's probably a salient point that they were emailed telling them not to turn up as well.

[Columbus]

Willie71 wrote:

Well, Sanders didn't really win it,

But curiously, the Brits and Canadians don't find that important.
Tom

[Thommo]

Willie71 wrote:

Well, Sanders didn't really win it,

But curiously, the Brits and Canadians don't find that important.
Tom

I wouldn't read too much into it, it's like 4 guys who happen to be from those countries (and probably one of them wasn't even originally).

It's hardly an endemic attitude here in Britain.