Democratic National Convention & Protests Super(delegate)thread - Goodbye, Bernie
1,979 replies, posted
[QUOTE=plunger435;50788403]Because I vote Republican for financial reasons, and it's laughable when a bunch of people try telling me I should [I]really[/I] be doing it because they're the pro-LGBT party, when I've known since I registered that that isn't the case.[/QUOTE]So it's a bad thing the Republicans are being forced to be pro-LGBT or lose the election? I don't understand, I'm not even a Republican and I'm praising that.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50788415]So it's a bad thing the Republicans are being forced to be pro-LGBT or lose the election? I don't understand, I'm not even a Republican and I'm praising that.[/QUOTE]
Have you read their party platform, it isn't pro-LGBT in the slightest.
Does anyone have a video of the Obama speech? Was it really that good?
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;50788742]Does anyone have a video of the Obama speech? Was it really that good?[/QUOTE]
Haven't seen it myself, but here's a thread for it: [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1528551[/url]
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;50787484]if you go to Europe you're going to have to deal with the migrant crisis over there[/QUOTE]
in what way
[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;50788781]in what way[/QUOTE]
My guess is Pvt. Martin hasn't even been outside the US.
Denmark hasn't got the highest asylum seeker per capita rate, but it's above the EU mean - more precisely, it was 3.7 per 1000 inhabitants in 2015, and I suspect it will be lower this year. Either way, if we scale that up to the size of the US population, the US would need to take in almost 1.2 million asylum seekers. Now, so far the refugee crisis has had zero impact on my daily life - the biggest hassle was showing my passport going to Sweden. I am not saying that taking in asylum seekers has [I]zero[/I] impact on anything ever, but Hillary Clinton (whom Trump supporters would have you know is going to take in half the middle east) is suggesting a comparatively paltry amount of [I]65000[/I] during the next year. Basically nothing, and considering the fact that they would probably be vetted at the door much more extensively than here in Denmark (they aren't just sneaking across your border after all), the fear that spreads across the US at the mere thought seems misguided at best. Especially if you include the fact that the US already has a Muslim population of 3.3m (though - off the top of my head - a large share of those do not have middle eastern roots).
Either way, Europe isn't a hellhole, and the US isn't pulling their weight by a long shot.
Here's some INTERESTING shit. When HRC ran for president in 2008, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was co-chairman for her presidential campaign. After HRC lost and Obama was elected, Obama put Tim Kaine (Hillary's current VP-pick) as head of the DNC.
HRC realized the only way she could become president is by gaining control of the DNC. She would have to get her friend Debbie placed in Tim Kaine's spot. But how? In order to become chair of the DNC, the current chair has to step down, AND recommend you for the position. Kaine would need incentive not only to step down, but ALSO recommend Debbie. Incentive...hmmm...well, how about title of Vice President in HRC's White House? Certainly more prestigious than DNC chairman.
That's right. Hillary bribed Tim Kaine with his current position. In exchange for stepping down as DNC chair and recommending Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, he would get to be Hillary's Vice-President. Up until now I couldn't figure out why HRC picked him as VP of all people, but looking at the timeline, it makes perfect sense. No, I did not discover this information, I'm only bringing it to you after checking it out myself.
Pvt. Martin, you need to watch Obama's speech. You've said before you respect Obama and would love a third term from him.
So take into consideration what's he said. Everyone should take into consideration what he has said. Because by god, so many have you have disrespected such a great President, a leader we would kill for over here.
[QUOTE=Rich209;50788959]Here's some INTERESTING shit. When HRC ran for president in 2008, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was co-chairman for her presidential campaign. After HRC lost and Obama was elected, Obama put Tim Kaine (Hillary's current VP-pick) as head of the DNC.
HRC realized the only way she could become president is by gaining control of the DNC. She would have to get her friend Debbie placed in Tim Kaine's spot. But how? In order to become chair of the DNC, the current chair has to step down, AND recommend you for the position. Kaine would need incentive not only to step down, but ALSO recommend Debbie. Incentive...hmmm...well, how about title of Vice President in HRC's White House? Certainly more prestigious than DNC chairman.
That's right. Hillary bribed Tim Kaine with his current position. In exchange for stepping down as DNC chair and recommending Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, he would get to be Hillary's Vice-President. Up until now I couldn't figure out why HRC picked him as VP of all people, but looking at the timeline, it makes perfect sense. No, I did not discover this information, I'm only bringing it to you after checking it out myself.[/QUOTE]
The timeline "fits" and Tim Kaine stepped down as chair in 2011? How do you know Tim Kaine wouldn't have done the exact same things as DWS? Your conspiracy theory is a bunch of shit, unless you have some other seriously convincing info.
He's hardly a great president. He was decent at best.
I think his domestic policy has been decent when he had control of at least one house (Obamacare, repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, fiscal stimulus, appointment of two Supreme Court justices who helped uphold Obamacare and legalise gay marriage federally) though eventually he lost both and had no power, but his foreign policy has been extremely bad because he realised that he had invested too much politically to reverse his non-interventionist approach even though it wasn't working. Still an exceptional orator unmatched by anyone in politics or who has been in politics since at least Reagan.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;50789216][url=https://twitter.com/mikedogli/status/758578450760204288]The Riot Finally Broke Out![/url][/QUOTE]
Like a fuckin zombie flick
[QUOTE=-nesto-;50789250]Like a fuckin zombie flick[/QUOTE]
Made a thread, so all can see. But yeah I'm not surprised, it was bound to happen sooner or later.
[editline]28th July 2016[/editline]
The strange part is there's no media coverage at all on this!
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50788989]The timeline "fits" and Tim Kaine stepped down as chair in 2011? How do you know Tim Kaine wouldn't have done the exact same things as DWS? Your conspiracy theory is a bunch of shit, unless you have some other seriously convincing info.[/QUOTE]
The timeline fits because she has been planning her bid since she lost to Obama.
And I don't know that for sure, so you're right about that. But as I said my entire reason behind that post is that I don't understand why she picked him in the first place. The media has it chalked up that he's to balance her out and get progressives on her side, but Tim Cain would not be my first pick to do that. He wasn't on anyone's radar. That's why it makes sense to me. You can choose to regard it as shit if you want, but with how strung out the corruption runs it's not as shit as you are trying to say it is.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;50789265]The strange part is there's no media coverage at all on this![/QUOTE]
It's almost like the media doesn't want to talk about it or even acknowledge it's happening.
This is basically a dirtier repeat of the 1968 DNC.
I don't know if I would call that a riot, but theirs been scuffles like that going on since Tuesday. Its over now anyway
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;50789265]Made a thread, so all can see. But yeah I'm not surprised, it was bound to happen sooner or later.
[editline]28th July 2016[/editline]
The strange part is there's no media coverage at all on this![/QUOTE]
What would they say? Nothing they could say would make anyone happy.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50789283]What would they say? Nothing they could say would make anyone happy.[/QUOTE]
How about nothing to the effect of "HAHA SUCKS TO BE YOU GUYS! Now shut up and vote for Hillary already!".
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;50787484]if you go to Europe you're going to have to deal with the migrant crisis over there[/QUOTE]
no you won't lol the media plays you like a fiddle
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;50789295]How about nothing to the effect of "HAHA SUCKS TO BE YOU GUYS! Now shut up and vote for Hillary already!".[/QUOTE]
Bernie lost. The game was not in favor of him, but you just have to accept it. Everyone who supported the other Republican candidates also must now shut up and vote for Trump.
[QUOTE=Govna;50789278]This is basically a dirtier repeat of the 1968 DNC.[/QUOTE]
This isn't even close to approaching how bad '68 protests were, let alone worse.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;50789295]How about nothing to the effect of "HAHA SUCKS TO BE YOU GUYS! Now shut up and vote for Hillary already!".[/QUOTE]
-snip-
Woops, sorry, totally misunderstood the context.
[editline]28th July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rich209;50789274]The timeline fits because she has been planning her bid since she lost to Obama.
And I don't know that for sure, so you're right about that. But as I said my entire reason behind that post is that I don't understand why she picked him in the first place. The media has it chalked up that he's to balance her out and get progressives on her side, but Tim Cain would not be my first pick to do that. He wasn't on anyone's radar. That's why it makes sense to me. You can choose to regard it as shit if you want, but with how strung out the corruption runs it's not as shit as you are trying to say it is.[/QUOTE]
You do realize that it's been 8 years since Hillary's last bid - if anything isn't it more reasonable to assume that [I]Obama[/I] needed DWS as chair, as Tim Kaine stepped down in 2011? Or did Hillary need five years to get the Democratic party to spread shit about Bernie, even though no one knew he was running? Or was it 'just in case' five years in advance?
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50789325]-snip-
Woops, sorry, totally misunderstood the context.
[editline]28th July 2016[/editline]
You do realize that it's been 8 years since Hillary's last bid - if anything isn't it more reasonable to assume that [I]Obama[/I] needed DWS as chair, as Tim Kaine stepped down in 2011? Or did Hillary need five years to get the Democratic party to spread shit about Bernie, even though no one knew he was running? Or was it 'just in case' five years in advance?[/QUOTE]
You're not from the US, so I don't expect you to fully understand that most people plan their bids for the white house years in advanced. In regards to your last part, that's ridiculous, of course they didn't know about Bernie. Hillary, wanted Debbie because she helped run her campaign in 2008. She wanted someone in the DNC to help coordinate a joint campaign when she began her run again. She wasn't going to let someone steal it from her again, because the 2008 election was super close. When Bernie entered the picture they didn't care until he started gaining momentum.
[QUOTE=Rich209;50789455]You're not from the US, so I don't expect you to fully understand that most people plan their bids for the white house years in advanced. In regards to your last part, that's ridiculous, of course they didn't know about Bernie. Hillary, wanted Debbie because she helped run her campaign in 2008. She wanted someone in the DNC to help coordinate a joint campaign when she began her run again. She wasn't going to let someone steal it from her again, because the 2008 election was super close. When Bernie entered the picture they didn't care until he started gaining momentum.[/QUOTE]
I'm well aware that Hillary probably decided basically back in 2008 that she was gonna run again.
I also don't doubt that Hillary had, has and needed friends in the DNC - that's a given. I seriously doubt, though, that Hillary would pick Tim Kaine as VP (basically five years in advance according to your theory) purely to have DWS as chair in the DNC. Locking down your VP choice years in advance without knowing what challenges you may have to face during the race, just to have a single person in the DNC that could maybe help you out during the primaries? Seems like choosing the right VP could do more for your bid, and DWS wasn't the only person working in the party to help Hillary - chances are she could've gotten that done anyway.
This simply seems a bit too contrived for me to believe it.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50789492]I'm well aware that Hillary probably decided basically back in 2008 that she was gonna run again.
I also don't doubt that Hillary had, has and needed friends in the DNC - that's a given. I seriously doubt, though, that Hillary would pick Tim Kaine as VP (basically five years in advance according to your theory) purely to have DWS as chair in the DNC. Locking down your VP choice years in advance without knowing what challenges you may have to face during the race, just to have a single person in the DNC that could maybe help you out during the primaries? Seems like choosing the right VP could do more for your bid, and DWS wasn't the only person working in the party to help Hillary - chances are she could've gotten that done anyway.
This simply seems a bit too contrived for me to believe it.[/QUOTE]
That's fine, I understand the doubts in my argument,and normally I'd probably agree with you. But with all the crazy shit going on in this election, I don't think it's impossible that's how it went down.
Biden had one of the best political speeches I've ever heard last night. What a career he has had. He should be the nominee.
Also did anyone catch the Game of Thrones reference in his speech?
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;50789577]Biden had one of the best political speeches I've ever heard last night. What a career he has had. He should be the nominee.
Also did anyone catch the Game of Thrones reference in his speech?[/QUOTE]
What was the GoT reference in quote?
[QUOTE=Govna;50789278]It's almost like the media doesn't want to talk about it or even acknowledge it's happening.
This is basically a dirtier repeat of the 1968 DNC.[/QUOTE]
Lol. A couple people shaking a fence violently is nothing like the 1968 Convention and it is completely dishonest to try and draw a parallel there.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50789320]Bernie lost. The game was not in favor of him, but you just have to accept it. Everyone who supported the other Republican candidates also must now shut up and vote for Trump.[/QUOTE]
No they dont, they can vote for whoever the fuck they want. Everything might be rigged but at the very least the voting itself is still somewhat democratic...
[editline]28th July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Dolton;50789743]Lol. A couple people shaking a fence violently is nothing like the 1968 Convention and it is completely dishonest to try and draw a parallel there.[/QUOTE]
Can you give me some background?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.