"Stronger together"

[AURaptor 1,128]

7 hours ago, homersapien said:

How did they "rig" things to some degree?

How ? By putting on debates when no one would watch, for starters. And by not giving up $$ to the Sanders campaign, which it was owed. 19,000 + e-mails, and yeah, cat's out of the bag. You want to dig for specifics, and prove every one else wrong ? Maybe phone up the DNC and tell THEM there was no reason for Debbie to resign, and tell all those who boo'd her they were wrong. 

Good grief.. the denial in this one is strong. 

[tiger88 934]

6 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

You define ignorant.

There you go again trying to hurt people's feelings. Shame on you tex. I could call you a super dummy, but I will let the entire idiocy of the "Trump supporters want to be ruled" (Still gives me the gigs.) stance you, homer and others are taking speak for itself. 

 

[TexasTiger 13,136]

1 minute ago, tiger88 said:

There you go again trying to hurt people's feelings. Shame on you tex. I could call you a super dummy, but I will let the entire idiocy of the "Trump supporters want to be ruled" (Still gives me the gigs.) stance you, homer and others are taking speak for itself. 

 

Trump supporters support an autocratic guy. You think that means they don't want an autocrat. Call me whatever you want, it won't change the absurdity of your position.

[tiger88 934]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

So your just pulling stuff out your ass.  You cannot provide an example.

So, the massive flood of reports about the primary being rigged in clinton's favor, followed by the resignation of the dnc chairwoman in response to the allegations isn't enough to assume there was wrongdoing in respect to the dnc helping hillary win? 

[TexasTiger 13,136]

2 minutes ago, tiger88 said:

So, the massive flood of reports about the primary being rigged in clinton's favor, followed by the resignation of the dnc chairwoman in response to the allegations isn't enough to assume there was wrongdoing in respect to the dnc helping hillary win? 

How specifically was it rigged-- in actual concrete terms.

[AUFAN78 3,943]

[tiger88 934]

8 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

How specifically was it rigged-- in actual concrete terms.

I responded to this in the passage you quoted. Please read again if necessary. 

[TexasTiger 13,136]

8 minutes ago, tiger88 said:

I responded to this in the passage you quoted. Please read again if necessary. 

You did no such thing. You referenced claims it was rigged, now specifically how it was rigged .

[tiger88 934]

16 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Trump supporters support an autocratic guy. You think that means they don't want an autocrat. Call me whatever you want, it won't change the absurdity of your position.

How in the world someone can roll out the first two sentences and then call someone else's position absurd is baffling. Are you drinking? Heavily? 

I don't know a single Trump supporter who is "pro-putin". Can you provide some concrete examples of Trump supporters backing putin? I"m not talking about some isolated incidents, I'm talking about the massive wave of support for Putin from Trump supporters it would take to justify your second sentence (still can't believe you said it). I mean the vast majority of Trump supporters would have to be drooling over the guy to support your foolish premise. 

You know, it's okay to say you got emotional and said some REALLY dumb stuff. Don't be too proud. 

[War Knight 514]

Since this came up during the DNC I feel this is the appropriate place for venting,

Quick background information: I am a high school teacher starting this year and my long time girlfriend is still in college to be an elementary school teacher. 

Currently we are long distance and discussing the importance of this election as it pertains to our particular careers. The essential focus is on how I feel we cannot afford for the Democrats to win; this assumption is based off of my understanding and belief on minimum wage. I explained to her, as I understand it, "when you break down the salary in our school district, and the number of hours, we make about $16 per hour. So if the minimum wage were to be bumped up to $15 per hour we would only be making $1 more than your typical McDonald's employee. The inflation caused by this raise in the minimum wage would just put us at the 'starving wage' that Bernie screams about."

This is also based off the assumption, and my perceived likelihood, that my job would not provide a raise considering we are currently above the proposed change. Which would mean that a college educated and teacher would be making the same as a fast food employee and likely less than a manager.

I believe that everyone must vote for whom they believe is right for them and for me it is unfortunately Trump. I cannot support the minimum wage increase that Hillary-Kaine have adopted, I can't support fracking because of its known effects, and I personally don't agree with taunting those legally trying to enter our country by providing amnesty to those who broke the law to do so. 

Now my side subject that I needed to vent about is a little less political. My girlfriend's roommate's (my former roommates as well) are both from central/south Florida and have been born into strongly Democrat-based families. One of the roommates is a computer science major and the other is still trying to get into nursing school. Well, in the time since I have left the apartment both have become more brave in openly bashing both my and my girlfriend's intelligence and scoffing at our political views. After a confrontation tonight it became abundantly clear that this air of superiority stemmed from the differences in our majors. So these two, with no prior work history in their entire lives, have become increasingly snotty towards the two of us because they believe we are less intelligent based off of our majors. I could boast about how well my girlfriend and I have done on x,y, and z but it distracts from the main issue of arrogance.

Now a sort of pivot back to the topic at hand; there is a common issue I run into with my college peers when trying to have a casual discussion about politics. Whenever I don't agree with anything remotely race related I become labeled a racist and a bigot by any Democratic 'friend' of mine. It seems impossible to have a level-headed discussion about the following with people my age: immigration, Black Lives Matter, poverty, healthcare, minimum wage, and even voter I.D. laws. 

So for anyone who made it this far into my ramblings, thank you. Sometimes you just need an outlet and with my public servant position I have few. War Eagle and God bless.

[TexasTiger 13,136]

13 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You did no such thing. You referenced claims it was rigged, now specifically how it was rigged .

So you've got nothing.

[tiger88 934]

27 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

So you've got nothing.

I assume you are quibbling over the semantics of the word "rigged"? 

 

Mmmmmmkay. The dnc worked hard to favor hillary and get her nominated. She won, but it was very close. It is far from a stretch to claim she wouldn't have won without them. The evidence of what happened resulted in the quick resignation of dws after a brief struggle. 

Afa as evidence, google it. It's there. No one would provide a single example of Trump being a racist when I asked multiple times, for obvious reasons, so I'll let you do the work. 

The dnc wanted hillary badly and did what they could to help "rig" the election. Whether they are responsible for the outcome is hard to prove or disprove. 

Edited July 26, 2016 by tiger88

[TexasTiger 13,136]

1 minute ago, tiger88 said:

I assume you are quibbling over the semantics of the word "rigged"? 

 

Mmmmmmkay. The dnc worked hard to favor hillary and get her nominated. She won, but it was very close. It is far from a stretch to claim she wouldn't have won without themThe evidence of what happened resulted in the quick resignation of dws after a brief struggle. 

Afa as evidence, google it. It's there. No one would provide a single example of Trump being a racist when I asked multiple times, for obvious reasons, so I'll let you do the work. 

The dnc wanted hillary badly and did what they could to help "rig" the election. Whether they are responsible for the outcome is hard to prove or disprove. 

Yes, nothing other than the DNC preferred the Democrat. But you can't point to substantive actions that truly tipped the scales, much less "rigged" the outcome, which means it was predetermined through fraud. And it wasn't that close. She won by 3.8 million votes. Obama's win was close, HRC's, not so much.

newsflash-- the RNC preferred actual Republican candidates to Trump-- whaddya think those emails look like? But neither primary was "rigged."

[Mims44 1,896]

49 minutes ago, War Knight said:

Since this came up during the DNC I feel this is the appropriate place for venting,

Quick background information: I am a high school teacher starting this year and my long time girlfriend is still in college to be an elementary school teacher. 

Currently we are long distance and discussing the importance of this election as it pertains to our particular careers. The essential focus is on how I feel we cannot afford for the Democrats to win; this assumption is based off of my understanding and belief on minimum wage. I explained to her, as I understand it, "when you break down the salary in our school district, and the number of hours, we make about $16 per hour. So if the minimum wage were to be bumped up to $15 per hour we would only be making $1 more than your typical McDonald's employee. The inflation caused by this raise in the minimum wage would just put us at the 'starving wage' that Bernie screams about."

This is also based off the assumption, and my perceived likelihood, that my job would not provide a raise considering we are currently above the proposed change. Which would mean that a college educated and teacher would be making the same as a fast food employee and likely less than a manager.

I believe that everyone must vote for whom they believe is right for them and for me it is unfortunately Trump. I cannot support the minimum wage increase that Hillary-Kaine have adopted, I can't support fracking because of its known effects, and I personally don't agree with taunting those legally trying to enter our country by providing amnesty to those who broke the law to do so. 

Now my side subject that I needed to vent about is a little less political. My girlfriend's roommate's (my former roommates as well) are both from central/south Florida and have been born into strongly Democrat-based families. One of the roommates is a computer science major and the other is still trying to get into nursing school. Well, in the time since I have left the apartment both have become more brave in openly bashing both my and my girlfriend's intelligence and scoffing at our political views. After a confrontation tonight it became abundantly clear that this air of superiority stemmed from the differences in our majors. So these two, with no prior work history in their entire lives, have become increasingly snotty towards the two of us because they believe we are less intelligent based off of our majors. I could boast about how well my girlfriend and I have done on x,y, and z but it distracts from the main issue of arrogance.

Now a sort of pivot back to the topic at hand; there is a common issue I run into with my college peers when trying to have a casual discussion about politics. Whenever I don't agree with anything remotely race related I become labeled a racist and a bigot by any Democratic 'friend' of mine. It seems impossible to have a level-headed discussion about the following with people my age: immigration, Black Lives Matter, poverty, healthcare, minimum wage, and even voter I.D. laws. 

So for anyone who made it this far into my ramblings, thank you. Sometimes you just need an outlet and with my public servant position I have few. War Eagle and God bless.

Everyone I know who has said they are voting for Trump/Hillary has expressed this same feeling, sad we live in a time where so few are happy about who they are voting for

 

I'll go ahead and tell ya they are full of it. Comp Science degree here... most of my class were social rejects not to mention averagely intelligent. They tended to believe their status of being social rejects was due to being more intelligent... it wasn't, they're just damn weird.

 

That's the norm whenever someone feels they can not win an argument with logic.

[tiger88 934]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Yes, nothing other than the DNC preferred the Democrat. But you can't point to substantive actions that truly tipped the scales, much less "rigged" the outcome, which means it was predetermined through fraud. And it wasn't that close. She won by 3.8 million votes. Obama's win was close, HRC's, not so much.

newsflash-- the RNC preferred actual Republican candidates to Trump-- whaddya think those emails look like? But neither primary was "rigged."

Well, fire a bunch of losers over at the rnc, too. Both parties disgust me. 

I could argue that there is a chance that they did "rig" the nomination if their actions are what resulted in the win,  but I grow tired of this debate. 

[War Knight 514]

25 minutes ago, tiger88 said:

Well, fire a bunch of losers over at the rnc, too. Both parties disgust me. 

I could argue that there is a chance that they did "rig" the nomination if their actions are what resulted in the win,  but I grow tired of this debate. 

Without a link or a picture this won't be taken with much validity but I have personally read and found emails from wiki-leaks with the following material that may be considered influencing the election in a way that would be rigging:

+Emails from the head of the DNC, DWS, to one of Clinton's staff workers where they discussed looking for a narrative that would hurt Bernie in certain key states. This seeming collaboration could be seen as unethical and maybe tipping the scales a little bit.

 

+Emails about potentially spreading the narrative of Bernie Sander's lack of religious beliefs or particular religious beliefs. However, since we never saw this narrative develop it is unreasonable to assume that this would have affected the process.

 

+Emails about one of Hillary's staff members having a connection inside of the Bernie Sanders camp. Now this is interesting in the sense that it could have actually added to the tipping of the scales. Depending on that contact's access of knowledge and influence as well. It is hard to think that this contact was not abused in some way or another moving forward.

 

+Emails about contacting sources in a few states: Rhode Island, Colorado, and Utah were all suspected of voter fraud by the Bernie camp. The DNC appeared to be contacting key people with one of the emails heavily insinuating that they were asking for suppression of any information regarding the matter from someone in charge of the voting process in Rhode Island.

 

+The worst Email I have seen has nothing to do with rigging and more to do with the legality of contacting Super PACs. It appeared that Hillary's staffers were working with a Super PAC to coordinate efforts to pay people to tweet certain things in support of Hillary and attacking Bernie supporters. It was my understanding that the sole way a Super PAC was allowed to exist was if it were to operate independently of campaign access. This may just be my own ignorance of the law.

 

So no, there is nothing damning enough that I would feel extremely confident in taking into a courtroom. However, there is so much smoke that not finding a fire is more troubling. Especially considering we watched Comey pretty much indict her for an hour only to finish with, "no recommended charges."

 

My bigger concern than the actual content of the emails was the seeming reluctance of the media to actually cover the leak that happened. It seemed to be just as big as watergate at the height of its hype but there was absolutely no coverage by politicians or news outlets. Not a tweet, not an article, and almost none of the talking heads. Coupled with emails from major media sources acting as lapdogs for the Clinton campaign I have never felt more paranoid of our political system and its media connections. I'm sure that is a direct result of my youth and naiveness but I was earnestly optimistic about the current status of our world. Yeah I knew politicians are corrupt, yes I knew certain stations leaned certain ways, and that the world isn't sunshine and rainbows. However, to watch something be the number one trend for almost three days straight on Twitter and to not be acknowledged by the news was just baffling. 

[TexasTiger 13,136]

6 hours ago, War Knight said:

Without a link or a picture this won't be taken with much validity but I have personally read and found emails from wiki-leaks with the following material that may be considered influencing the election in a way that would be rigging:

+Emails from the head of the DNC, DWS, to one of Clinton's staff workers where they discussed looking for a narrative that would hurt Bernie in certain key states. This seeming collaboration could be seen as unethical and maybe tipping the scales a little bit.

 

+Emails about potentially spreading the narrative of Bernie Sander's lack of religious beliefs or particular religious beliefs. However, since we never saw this narrative develop it is unreasonable to assume that this would have affected the process.

 

+Emails about one of Hillary's staff members having a connection inside of the Bernie Sanders camp. Now this is interesting in the sense that it could have actually added to the tipping of the scales. Depending on that contact's access of knowledge and influence as well. It is hard to think that this contact was not abused in some way or another moving forward.

 

+Emails about contacting sources in a few states: Rhode Island, Colorado, and Utah were all suspected of voter fraud by the Bernie camp. The DNC appeared to be contacting key people with one of the emails heavily insinuating that they were asking for suppression of any information regarding the matter from someone in charge of the voting process in Rhode Island.

 

+The worst Email I have seen has nothing to do with rigging and more to do with the legality of contacting Super PACs. It appeared that Hillary's staffers were working with a Super PAC to coordinate efforts to pay people to tweet certain things in support of Hillary and attacking Bernie supporters. It was my understanding that the sole way a Super PAC was allowed to exist was if it were to operate independently of campaign access. This may just be my own ignorance of the law.

 

So no, there is nothing damning enough that I would feel extremely confident in taking into a courtroom. However, there is so much smoke that not finding a fire is more troubling. Especially considering we watched Comey pretty much indict her for an hour only to finish with, "no recommended charges."

 

My bigger concern than the actual content of the emails was the seeming reluctance of the media to actually cover the leak that happened. It seemed to be just as big as watergate at the height of its hype but there was absolutely no coverage by politicians or news outlets. Not a tweet, not an article, and almost none of the talking heads. Coupled with emails from major media sources acting as lapdogs for the Clinton campaign I have never felt more paranoid of our political system and its media connections. I'm sure that is a direct result of my youth and naiveness but I was earnestly optimistic about the current status of our world. Yeah I knew politicians are corrupt, yes I knew certain stations leaned certain ways, and that the world isn't sunshine and rainbows. However, to watch something be the number one trend for almost three days straight on Twitter and to not be acknowledged by the news was just baffling. 

Watergate? May want to study that a bit.

[TexasTiger 13,136]

 

Trump supporters support an autocratic guy. You think that means they don't want an autocrat. Call me whatever you want, it won't change the absurdity of your position.

Sadly nailed this.