- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Who's your money on?
Who's your money on?Follow
Hillary is expected to take a spanking in the next three states. It's not expected to change the delegate lead, but it'll give Sen. Sanders the desired momentum to perform better in the states that matter.
Unless Sanders performs 40+ points better in the states that matter, it's irrelevant.
For that matter, it's Easter weekend. No one in Wisconsin is paying attention to the Hawaii caucuses.
Edited, Mar 25th 2016 9:40pm by Jophiel
For that matter, it's Easter weekend. No one in Wisconsin is paying attention to the Hawaii caucuses.
Edited, Mar 25th 2016 9:40pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Oh. Um... Maybe write the name out then. I assumed that the "P." just stood for "President". Had no clue who you were talking about. Given that we were talking about potential presidents, that's kind of an out from left field reference.
I'm still not sure where you're getting the whole "dictatorship in the US" bit. The only thing I can find about him, is that among a number of investment banks he managed and was involved in, one of them happened to be used for overseas investments by a guy who happened to also be involved in some businesses in Germany which were employed by the government (as were presumably hundreds of others). Union Bank was exonerated, as were those in the US who operated it. Surely you can't be making such a big deal out of someone engaging in business with someone else who worked in a country that we later went to war with? You'd have to indict a hell of a lot of people if that's the charge you're making.
And that still doesn't come remotely close to attempting to create a dictatorship in the US. Still don't know where you're getting that. The absolute worst we could even speculate about Prescott Bush was that he made some money helping a German steel magnate hide his money from **** tax collectors. I mean, I suppose you could argue that he helped that guy make money, some of which he may have used to build up his business in Germany (although most sources I can find indicate that he used it as a means to hide his money from the German government), which was then utilized to make tanks and planes for the ****'s, but I'm reasonably certain that the ***** would have found someone to build their tanks and planes either way. Until we actually went to war with the country, it wasn't illegal to do business, much less banking business with them.
Makes for a great conspiracy theory, I guess. But in the grand scheme of such theories, this one's exceptionally weak.
I'm still not sure where you're getting the whole "dictatorship in the US" bit. The only thing I can find about him, is that among a number of investment banks he managed and was involved in, one of them happened to be used for overseas investments by a guy who happened to also be involved in some businesses in Germany which were employed by the government (as were presumably hundreds of others). Union Bank was exonerated, as were those in the US who operated it. Surely you can't be making such a big deal out of someone engaging in business with someone else who worked in a country that we later went to war with? You'd have to indict a hell of a lot of people if that's the charge you're making.
And that still doesn't come remotely close to attempting to create a dictatorship in the US. Still don't know where you're getting that. The absolute worst we could even speculate about Prescott Bush was that he made some money helping a German steel magnate hide his money from **** tax collectors. I mean, I suppose you could argue that he helped that guy make money, some of which he may have used to build up his business in Germany (although most sources I can find indicate that he used it as a means to hide his money from the German government), which was then utilized to make tanks and planes for the ****'s, but I'm reasonably certain that the ***** would have found someone to build their tanks and planes either way. Until we actually went to war with the country, it wasn't illegal to do business, much less banking business with them.
Makes for a great conspiracy theory, I guess. But in the grand scheme of such theories, this one's exceptionally weak.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji! Leading the pack in doing no gorram research at all!!
Give him a hand everybody!!!!
Give him a hand everybody!!!!
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji! Leading the pack in doing no gorram research at all!!
I did enough research to realize that whatever you're referencing appears to be a pretty out there conspiracy theory.
Quote:
Give him a hand everybody!!!!
Why not just provide a link yourself? I'm not going to search the interwebs for your source.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji! Leading the pack in doing no gorram research at all!!
I did enough research to realize that whatever you're referencing appears to be a pretty out there conspiracy theory.
We get it.
Do the gorram research. It's real.
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
Friar Bijou wrote:
It's real.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Douglas McArthur tried to stage a military coup against the US government, but was killed in secret and replaced by a balloon with a smiley face drawn on in black marker.
Think about that for a moment.
Now think again. Why would a balloon want to use nuclear weapons against the Chinese? For that matter, why would a balloon want to retire? Why would it want to die?
The balloon's popped, but I'm still waiting for the other pin to drop.
This is Bijou, signing out.
Think about that for a moment.
Now think again. Why would a balloon want to use nuclear weapons against the Chinese? For that matter, why would a balloon want to retire? Why would it want to die?
The balloon's popped, but I'm still waiting for the other pin to drop.
This is Bijou, signing out.
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
It's real.
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
The ducks are plotting against me. Their beaks shine malevolently at me in the candlelight - I cut my electricity weeks ago. The government can't frequency shift my thoughts anymore.
Thinking much more clearly these days. Gbaji tried to draw me into debate and I spat in his eye. Right in his eye. The very centre of the apple of his eye.
A sinister quacking is coming from the shed behind the shed. The ducks are plotting against me.
This is Bijou, signing out.
Thinking much more clearly these days. Gbaji tried to draw me into debate and I spat in his eye. Right in his eye. The very centre of the apple of his eye.
A sinister quacking is coming from the shed behind the shed. The ducks are plotting against me.
This is Bijou, signing out.
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
How far did he eat into the delegate lead last night? 70? More?
Don't worry, there's still no chance whatsoever (other than mathematically) that Sanders can win the nomination unless he goes back in time and wipes the Rodham family from existence.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Lefein wrote:
How far did he eat into the delegate lead last night? 70? More?
Silly Bernbot, delegates are for Hillary. No, seriously, if my math is correct, he net 35 delegates. Only 700+ delegates for him to overcome her lead.
Lefein wrote:
How far did he eat into the delegate lead last night? 70? More?
Not nearly enough. Washington was the last of the big caucus states.
There's a widget at the bottom of this article to play out different scenarios for the nomination. Even under the most favorable (and least realistic) scenario where Sanders gets every remaining uncommitted superdelegate AND wins every remaining state 60/40 he still loses the nomination.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
What people seem to forget is that the Super Delegates were put in place to ensure that the strongest candidate would run in the GE. Clinton's negatives and polling close to losing to the Republican nominee puts her and the party in jeopardy.
After all, in a brokered convention, it's entirely possible that someone like Kasich or a new face could emerge from the Republican side as a challenger. In this scenario, Hillary would lose in November. At some point, the DNC is going to have to choose between money or winning.. And, so help them God if they continue with the Coronation of Clinton only to lose in November.
After all, in a brokered convention, it's entirely possible that someone like Kasich or a new face could emerge from the Republican side as a challenger. In this scenario, Hillary would lose in November. At some point, the DNC is going to have to choose between money or winning.. And, so help them God if they continue with the Coronation of Clinton only to lose in November.
Lefein wrote:
At some point, the DNC is going to have to choose between money or winning.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
Lefein wrote:
At some point, the DNC is going to have to choose between money or winning.
CNN's polls and several others beg to differ.
Lefein wrote:
CNN's polls and several others beg to differ.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Lefein wrote:
What people seem to forget is that the Super Delegates were put in place to ensure that the strongest candidate would run in the GE. Clinton's negatives and polling close to losing to the Republican nominee puts her and the party in jeopardy.
After all, in a brokered convention, it's entirely possible that someone like Kasich or a new face could emerge from the Republican side as a challenger. In this scenario, Hillary would lose in November. At some point, the DNC is going to have to choose between money or winning.. And, so help them God if they continue with the Coronation of Clinton only to lose in November.
After all, in a brokered convention, it's entirely possible that someone like Kasich or a new face could emerge from the Republican side as a challenger. In this scenario, Hillary would lose in November. At some point, the DNC is going to have to choose between money or winning.. And, so help them God if they continue with the Coronation of Clinton only to lose in November.
Let me put this in the perspective that Bernie supporters don't like to see. Front runners take the most damage. Most candidates rise to the front runner status only to fall back down. This flux tends to happen until the end where the person *least effected* by the attacks is still standing. The fact that both Hillary and Donald remained front runners this long is a testament of their strength.
The reason why both Kasich and Sanders poll well is because they are both underdogs. No one is attacking them. The simple fact that Hillary, with all of her baggage, is still beating Sanders, show how strong she is. Not only are no GOP attacking Sanders, they are actually running ads IN HIS FAVOR.
Lefein wrote:
What people seem to forget is that the Super Delegates were put in place to ensure that the strongest candidate would run in the GE.
No, super delegates exist to allow the party to exert leverage and lend stability to the nomination process. In this case, that would mean siding with the candidate who has the most pledged delegates and popular votes to get the process wrapped up rather than tipping the scales against the pledged delegate/vote count just because the other guy polls 8pts ahead instead of 5pts.
There's essentially zero chance that the GOP nominee won't be Trump (probably) or Cruz (maybe). Putting out a guy who has gotten 8% of the vote just means pissing off 92% of your primary base, especially given the ideological differences (change candidate versus someone who is the embodiment of an establishment candidate)
Edited, Mar 28th 2016 10:16am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
There's essentially zero chance that the GOP nominee won't be Trump (probably) or Cruz (maybe). Putting out a guy who has gotten 8% of the vote just means pissing off 92% of your primary base, especially given the ideological differences (change candidate versus someone who is the embodiment of an establishment candidate)
Another good point. If Trump isn't nominated, all of the new found GOP support will disappear. They follow the "BernieorBurst" mentality for Trump.
lolgaxe wrote:
Lefein wrote:
CNN's polls and several others beg to differ.
That's primary, not GE.
Just as Planned.
Thanks for mansplaining that to him you ******* bernie bro.
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
Almalieque wrote:
The reason why both Kasich and Sanders poll well is because they are both underdogs. No one is attacking them.
Largely true for Sanders, absolutely true for Kasich. I probably have more money in my car's change tray than Kasich has had spent against him so far. The most anyone outside of Ohio knows about him is that he's the only GOP candidate who isn't a complete sideshow act. So he polls well because the scant press he receives is positive. In an actual election, his long conservative record would be used against him.
Nationwide general election polling this far out isn't especially predictive, particularly for lesser known candidates. Certainly "winning" those polls is better than losing them but losing them does not necessarily predict a general election loss. Which is something that the super delegates and party leaders know.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I would argue that the General Election debates alone will have a greater effect on the election than anything that has happened so far.
Recent Visitors: 77
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (77)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Who's your money on?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC