Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

 

 

 

We were told that the evidence of alleged Russian collusion was rock solid, the work of America’s top intelligence agencies.

In reality, it was pure fiction cooked up by a Clinton-funded foreign contractor on the payroll of a sanctioned Russian oligarch.

 

We were told the Trump campaign was never spied on or wiretapped by U.S. spy agencies. We now know the campaign was indeed wiretapped, that honeypots were deployed to entrap campaign affiliates, that overseas intel assets were used to set up meetings as pretexts for more spying.

 

We were told our nation’s intel agencies would never use false information to justify secret surveillance of American citizens. In reality, DON and the FBI peddled lies to the FISA court that were cooked up by a foreign spook and a DOJ official’s wife, both funded by Clinton.

 

We were told that our government’s top secret keepers would never leak classified or confidential information to the media. What actually happened is that top intel officials repeatedly leaked, often illegally, to cement a false narrative to support further spying on citizens.

 

Finally, we were told that America’s top cops and spies would never foment a coup to overturn election results they didn’t like. We now know the most powerful unelected people in government cooked up lies as part of an orchestrated scheme to overthrow the duly elected president.

 

 

 

.

  • Like (+1) 6
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Posted
6 hours ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

Biden is currently under attack for being not liberal enough. Trump was under attack for having no principles during the primary until he showed he became the nominee and then Reps overlooked all his previous “positions” (quotes because he  doesn’t have many bedrock principles). 

 

These counter examples not to say you’re100% wrong but that there’s no rule here. 

 

To this point, it's probably worth asking...if the GOP used Super Delegates in the primaries, would Trump have become the nominee?

 

It is, essentially, how you got Hillary.

Posted

.....how the hell does Madcow call Mueller's testimony "a remarkable day"?....PMSNBC & CNN make the Titanic look buoyant......how does he still have a $7 mil/yr job?....seriously?........

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
24 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

To this point, it's probably worth asking...if the GOP used Super Delegates in the primaries, would Trump have become the nominee?

 

It is, essentially, how you got Hillary.

 

“I” didn’t get Hillary. The Dem party did though. The more salient question is without the dirty pool, does the Dem party get her? 

Posted
5 hours ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

To this point, it's probably worth asking...if the GOP used Super Delegates in the primaries, would Trump have become the nominee?

 

It is, essentially, how you got Hillary.


It is how you got Obama.

Posted
9 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:


It is how you got Obama.

 

Obama was winning primaries so the supers followed that momentum. 

 

It is still a stupid system but Obama won with the voters and the superdelegates. 

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

To this point, it's probably worth asking...if the GOP used Super Delegates in the primaries, would Trump have become the nominee?

 

It is, essentially, how you got Hillary.

Maybe.  Maybe not.  It's difficult to say how much persuasion the Superdelegates had over voter suppression and/or voting for the front runner.  The free advertising Trump got on the campaign trail allowed him to blow his competition away and I doubt Superdelegates would've made a difference.  The GOP tried every trick in the book to stop him from winning.

 

23 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:


It is how you got Obama.

A lost of the Superdelegates switched allegiances because they quickly realized who the superior candidate was.  People forget how contentious that primary was.

Edited by Doc Brown
Posted
2 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

A lost of the Superdelegates switched allegiances because they quickly realized who the superior candidate was.  People forget how contentious that primary was.

 

Then in 2016 the Super Delegates forgot what a terrible candidate HRC was, which was why they abandoned her in 2012

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
2 hours ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

Obama was winning primaries so the supers followed that momentum. 

 

It is still a stupid system but Obama won with the voters and the superdelegates. 


There were a ton of abnormalities - even for the DNC - in 2008 including awarding delegates including giving Obama some of Hillary's delegates (Michigan), the "penalties" which hurt Hillary (at full value she would have been just about even with him going to the floor), and the strong-arm tactics at the convention floor. Good times for all! (If you can find some old D blogs from that time, you will be able to read the stories of what went on on the convention floor.)  Some of the super delegate shenanigans prior to the convention.

There was a reason 2016 was "her turn". It went back to what happened in 2008.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Maybe.  Maybe not.  It's difficult to say how much persuasion the Superdelegates had over voter suppression and/or voting for the front runner.  The free advertising Trump got on the campaign trail allowed him to blow his competition away and I doubt Superdelegates would've made a difference.  The GOP tried every trick in the book to stop him from winning.

 

A lost of the Superdelegates switched allegiances because they quickly realized who the superior candidate was.  People forget how contentious that primary was.


That is not even close to why the super delegates switched.  Obama was the "superior" candidate!? :wacko:  That is some real revisionist history. The guy who won the Senate seat in Illinois and immediately started running for President? The guy with no work experience? The guy voting "present" so he would have no actionable record? Yeah, he was far superior. {insert giant snark tag}

And no, I in no way forgot all the ***** that went down on the Democratic side in 2008.

Go back and find some of the old D blogs. Read the stories about what was happening to the super delegates - the threats, the strong-arm tactics, the tears on the convention floor if they hadn't already switched to Obama to guarantee him the nomination.

Nope, they didn't move over for a "superior" candidate.  He was selected, and the DNC made certain he was selected to be the nominee. The question has always been, selected by whom?

 

Posted
3 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

A lost of the Superdelegates switched allegiances because they quickly realized who the superior candidate was.  People forget how contentious that primary was.

 

People don't "forget," the left is just very good at retconning histroy.

Posted
3 hours ago, /dev/null said:

 

Then in 2016 the Super Delegates forgot what a terrible candidate HRC was, which was why they abandoned her in 2012

?

Posted
3 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:


That is not even close to why the super delegates switched.  Obama was the "superior" candidate!? :wacko:  That is some real revisionist history. The guy who won the Senate seat in Illinois and immediately started running for President? The guy with no work experience? The guy voting "present" so he would have no actionable record? Yeah, he was far superior. {insert giant snark tag}

And no, I in no way forgot all the ***** that went down on the Democratic side in 2008.

Go back and find some of the old D blogs. Read the stories about what was happening to the super delegates - the threats, the strong-arm tactics, the tears on the convention floor if they hadn't already switched to Obama to guarantee him the nomination.

Nope, they didn't move over for a "superior" candidate.  He was selected, and the DNC made certain he was selected to be the nominee. The question has always been, selected by whom?

It's not revisionist history.  He was the more inspiring and charismatic candidate who didn't have the baggage that Hillary had.  Her Iraq War vote in an increasingly unpopular war would've hampered her in the general election.  He was the better candidate to take on McCain.  

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
56 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

It's not revisionist history.  He was the more inspiring and charismatic candidate who didn't have the baggage that Hillary had.  Her Iraq War vote in an increasingly unpopular war would've hampered her in the general election.  He was the better candidate to take on McCain.  

 

Good luck. Everything is part of a plot or conspiracy. Including this post, paid for by a deep state disinformation campaign. 

Posted
16 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

Good luck. Everything is part of a plot or conspiracy. Including this post, paid for by a deep state disinformation campaign. 

 

36ofut.jpg

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
30 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

Good luck. Everything is part of a plot or conspiracy. Including this post, paid for by a deep state disinformation campaign. 

He somehow defeated the Clinton machine in '08.  Of course he had to get his hands dirty.

Posted
Just now, Doc Brown said:

He somehow defeated the Clinton machine in '08.  Of course he had to get his hands dirty.

 

 

No, no.

 

None of your common sense Doc.

 

It must be a ...................................................................................................conspiracy

 

?

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

No, no.

 

None of your common sense Doc.

 

It must be a ...................................................................................................conspiracy

 

?

These were a conglomerate of the national polls after Super Tuesday this year.  Of course the sensible superdelegates were going to side with Obama considering how close that primary was.  They saw the debates.  They saw where the momentum was going.

 

General_election_polling_Feb_-_April_200

 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
×
×
  • Create New...