2016 Presidential General Election Thread

[Elphenor]

it was so far from a false equivalence that he couldn't possibly understand what that means

[Elphenor]

Originally Posted by Poots

No, primaries are actual national elections and subject to the same rules and regulations as the general election. Imagine turning away an 18 year old voter by saying "yeah I know the 26th amendment but nah fuck you this is just the primary that don't count here"

There's no private institution thats legally allowed to discriminate based on age, sex, race or religion

but political parties absolutely require you be a part of their club by a certain day to participate in the majority of States or they'll turn you away

They could have a rule that says you have to spin around three times balancing a glass of water on your head to vote and it'd be legal

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by Elphenor

There's no private institution thats legally allowed to discriminate based on age, sex, race or religion

but political parties absolutely require you be a part of their club by a certain day to participate in the majority of States or they'll turn you away

They could have a rule that says you have to spin around three times balancing a glass of water on your head to vote and it'd be legal

Where's the consistency in picking apart the rigged primary process? The illegal collusion between the DNC and the media? The passing of laws under Obama that allows for government/military propaganda to be spread through the major news outlets, which are owned lock, stock and barrel by the banking/corporate elite (6 companies in total)?

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by Poots

I claimed that the DNC conspiracy was against the spirit of the Constitution, and a lot of you guys disagreed said they are not beholden to the Constitution, then I showed you right in the preamble of their own charter where they say specifically that they are "bound to the U.S. Constitution, open and honest, etc."

Now, if you you want to make the claim that they are not beholden to their own charter and bylaws (not to mention members), then I guess it is pointless arguing any further.

Watch out Poots, keep this up, RBG is going put you on ignore.

[The Omega Concern]

Julian Assange: Hacked Emails has Info On Hillary’s Arming of Jihadists, Including ISIS, in Syria



So, for example, the disastrous, absolutely disastrous intervention in Libya, the destruction of the Gaddafi government, which led to the occupation of ISIS of large segments of that country, weapons flows going over to Syria, being pushed by Hillary Clinton, into jihadists within Syria, including ISIS, that’s there in those emails.



Assange says this is all in the emails, proving she lied under oath to congress about having knowledge of weapons deliveries.

[Elphenor]

Originally Posted by Poots

Thank you for that, but I don't think that is remotely what we are talking about.

.

I responded to something you said that wasn't accurate

[Elphenor]

Point of McDonald's is that a private institutions own made up preamble is not legally binding and it's physically painful to have to spell that out

"Against the spirit of the constitution" I don't even know what that's supposed to mean here. The document is about limits on government powers really


It's not that there's nothing ethically wrong here it's just not surprising or against the norm nor is it illegal

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by Poots

If by "ignore" you mean that he'll find every one of my posts and quote it with "this post is hidden because poots is on your ignore list", then you're probably right.

I'm hoping you make the club. Good luck.

[redbreegull]

poots you implied parties are somehow bound by constitutional legal precedent to hold their own internal elections a certain way, you were obviously wrong, you backpeddled and since then you have offered no fewer than three different options for us to choose from in terms of what you were actually trying to say. go lie down before you hurt yourself

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Elphenor

Point of McDonald's is that a private institutions own made up preamble is not legally binding and it's physically painful to have to spell that out

"Against the spirit of the constitution" I don't even know what that's supposed to mean here. The document is about limits on government powers really

it means literally nothing, it's rhetorical drivel. the constitution is not a philosophical charter it is a legal keystone.

[redbreegull]

in other news, the first polls of the week seem to show Clinton gaining a larger convention bump than the donald

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by Elphenor

Point of McDonald's is that a private institutions own made up preamble is not legally binding and it's physically painful to have to spell that out

"Against the spirit of the constitution" I don't even know what that's supposed to mean here. The document is about limits on government powers really

There's the letter of the law and the spirit of it. Perfectly acceptable distinction long-established in legal matters.

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

in other news, the first polls of the week seem to show Clinton gaining a larger convention bump than the donald

Collusion between the DNC and media outlets HAS BEEN PROVEN. The media stalwarts owned by the Rothschilds view Trump as a threat to their hegemony and as such will enable a stolen election in which they will participate by skewing polling results to closely match the upcoming rigged election.


Why Reuters Is Tweaking Its Presidential Poll

[Elphenor]

Spirit of the constitution is only white male land owners should vote

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by Poots

Also, it is called a false equivalency fallacy and you would have to be an idiot not to see how it applies here. As if the McDonalds mission statement has any relation at all or offers any insight into the DNC charter and bylaws. I'm surprised that he didn't trot out the most obvious false equivalent, the Nazi Party charter, as some sort of evidence that "charters are bullshit."

I've no dog in this fight but the things are related. One's idea of what is constitutional or what constitutes doing the right thing for the party is completely based on a biased view of the platform. McDonald's might think they are following their charter because their shit is cheap and has a lot of calories and people like to eat it. And in some cases, the cheap and full of calories thing might be awesome - for example, a really poor country where calorie dense food would be really welcome. But here, it helps kill people because we can't control ourselves and it's on every street corner and we can afford to eat more balanced meals. That doesn't mean people don't like it and you can argue that delivering edible food in 3 minutes is really customer service friendly, even if they screw up sometimes.

Why would the DNC not think the best thing for the party is to elect the person who has a shit ton of executive experience and has been a democrat, compared to an old crazy dude who is an Independent and trying to make a political point more than actually winning the primary (though no doubt it would have been welcome to many, including me)?

I think it's gross and against the spirit of democracy but it's not necessarily going against their charter and definitely not illegal.

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

poots you implied parties are somehow bound by constitutional legal precedent to hold their own internal elections a certain way, you were obviously wrong, you backpeddled and since then you have offered no fewer than three different options for us to choose from in terms of what you were actually trying to say. go lie down before you hurt yourself

That "certain way" is not to RIG the elections, which is what happened in the DNC for Hillary.

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by reprise85

Why would the DNC not think the best thing for the party is to elect the person who has a shit ton of executive experience and has been a democrat, compared to an old crazy dude who is an Independent and trying to make a political point more than actually winning the primary (though no doubt it would have been welcome to many)?

Because the DNC is supposed to be an objective observer of the democratic process; not coach, referee, cheerleader and enabler of a single candidate.


Bernie was there for steam relief. They know the electorate is pissed, he was put there to be the fall guy and took a deal with them and Millions of democrats have woken up to the game y'all here are trying to justify.

[reprise85]

it's totally coach, referee, and cheerleader. how can you expect it to ramp up that way for a guy who didn't even belong to the organization last year? Hilldawg has 20+ years on him, of course it's going to be biased against him, what do you expect?

again it's fucked up and ideally it wouldn't be that way and wouldn't have been so explicitly unfair to Bernie (and implicitly of course, though this is probably impossible) but it's surprising it is not.

fuck debbie wasserman shultz though

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by Elphenor

Spirit of the constitution is only white male land owners should vote

Funny you bring this up, since the DNC just 3/5ths the hell out of the Bernie vote.



Somewhere along the way, it went against that 'spirit' you speak to, which is what the amendment process is for and now its looks like the Democrats have brought back the 3/5ths doctrine of old.

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by reprise85

it's totally coach, referee, and cheerleader. how can you expect it to ramp up that way for a guy who didn't even belong to the organization last year? Hilldawg has 20+ years on him, of course it's going to be biased against him, what do you expect?

again it's fucked up and ideally it wouldn't be that way and wouldn't have been so explicitly unfair to Bernie (and implicitly of course, though this is probably impossible) but it's surprising it is not.

fuck debbie wasserman shultz though

The party is SUPPOSED to be objective. They started rigging this for Hillary eons ago by handpicking a most pathetic and staged group of 'opponents' in the primaries, scaring and/or buying off any one that could of been a real threat years ago.


Hillary has 4 decades of a criminal past. Bernie would of been better on the fact he doesn't have that experience.

[Elphenor]

Comparing some bias from the party leaders to literally treating slaves as 3/5ths a person wow that's classy

[Elphenor]

Both the Republican Party and Democratic Party have rules in place specifically to stop outsiders from running away with the nomination

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by Elphenor

Comparing some bias from the party leaders to literally treating slaves as 3/5ths a person wow that's classy

It's a direct reference to voting equality. The points stands on merit: the DNC just treated Bernie voters like slaves of old, reducing their influence to something less than 1 person, 1 vote.

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by Elphenor

Both the Republican Party and Democratic Party have rules in place specifically to stop outsiders from running away with the nomination

Those rules never came up previously because the electorate never really has pushed back as hard against the establishment like they did this year on both sides.

The 'rules' are arbitrary and can and have been shifted to favor established candidates against the wishes of the electorate.

Republicans tried this entire time against Trump and failed.

All those neocons who have brought us into war after war in the name of Democracy, all of a sudden didn't like it so much when an outsider came in and started getting the majority of votes in the primaries.

[Elphenor]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

The 'rules' are arbitrary and can and have been shifted to favor established candidates against the wishes of the electorate.

.

Ok cool glad you understand this

[The Omega Concern]

R's did it to Ron Paul twice in '08 and '12. Tea Party folks called for what it was, vote rigging. Now the Occupiers get a taste of it through Bernie. Silver lining is the upcoming Stalinist takeover of the general election will unite those two elements of the electorate against the lobbying interest that made D.C. and the parties go rogue long ago.

[redbreegull]

• When Thomas Roberts of MSNBC asked Trump, "Do you have a relationship with Vladimir Putin? A conversational relationship or anything that you feel you have sway or influence over his government?" Trump responded, "I do have a relationship, and I can tell you that he's very interested in what we're doing here today. He's probably very interested in what you and I am saying today, and I'm sure he's going to be seeing it in some form." -- interview, November, 2013

lol

• "You know, I was in Moscow a couple of months ago. I own the Miss Universe Pageant and they treated me so great. Putin even sent me a present, a beautiful present." -- address at the CPAC conference, March 2014

lol

• "Russia does not respect our country any longer. They see we've been greatly weakened, both militarily and otherwise, and he certainly does not respect President Obama. So what I would do—as an example, I own Miss Universe, I was in Russia, I was in Moscow recently and I spoke, indirectly and directly, with President Putin, who could not have been nicer, and we had a tremendous success. The show was live from Moscow, and we had tremendous success there and it was amazing, but to do well, you have to get the other side to respect you, and he does not respect our president, which is very sad." -- address at the National Press Club, May 2014

lol

• "As far as the Ukraine is concerned … if Putin wants to go in -- and I got to know him very well because we were both on 60 Minutes. We were stablemates, and we did very well that night." -- portion of an answer at the Fox Business News debate, Nov. 2015. (The notion that the two men appeared together on 60 Minutes has been debunked. As Time magazine put it succinctly, "In fact, they weren’t even on the same continent.")

lol

[JESUSNEEDSAHIT]

if you all only knew who poots really is

[JESUSNEEDSAHIT]

Originally Posted by Poots

Then I posted the DNC's charter, where it says specifically, in black and white, that their entire party's ideology is "bound to the U.S. Constitution." Is that just rhetorical drivel as well?

in that it actually is a meaningless statement, yes

wht do you think that means exactly? the consittuion has no laws about elections iirc it says states can make their own rules, yes?

i mean are you under the impression the constitution has an amendment that says "all citizens have the right to democracy"

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

It's a direct reference to voting equality. The points stands on merit: the DNC just treated Bernie voters like slaves of old, reducing their influence to something less than 1 person, 1 vote.

do you know what the 3/5th compromise even was or

this is quite frankly insulting, and not to bernie voters

if the DNC treated Bernie voters as slaves it would have meant 1 person 0 votes and go pick some cotton

let me do a run down from what i remember from 8th grade
southern states wanted slaves to count as population for purposes of how many representitives they were entitled to in the house
however they did not want to treat slaves like people but property in practice, including things like voting rights and of course keeping them as, well, captive slaves. they also didn't want to pay taxes to the gov't based on slaves as a monetary asset - which they absolutely were treated as, obviously

which made it ridiculous to label them as property for purposes of legal rights and population-dictated tax rates but as people for purpose of population representation in the house - the southern states wanted it both ways


again what the FUCK does that have to do with this

i really want to call you names but i'm trying to not do that anymore