The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

cybrguy

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
How’s That Pivot Going?
by Nancy LeTourneau
September 20, 2016 4:28 PM

If Patrick Murray (Director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute) is correct, all of Kellyanne Conway’s work to construct an alternative Donald Trump that would appeal to white suburban women has gone for naught.

Eric Boehlert ✔ @EricBoehlert

head of @MonmouthPoll on CNN: birther hurt Trump badly, esp among suburban college-educated women.

12:30 PM - 20 Sep 2016

So much for the great Trump pivot, huh? I’m sure they’ll keep at it and we’ll see him bouncing back and forth between being wrong and downright deplorable over the next couple of months.

Meanwhile, last week I pointed out that Hillary Clinton was planning a bit of a pivot too. Here is what her communications director Jennifer Palmieri said:

One upside to Hillary Clinton’s break from the trail was having time to sharpen the final argument she will present to voters in these closing weeks. So when she rejoins the trail tomorrow, Hillary Clinton will deliver the second in a series of speeches laying out her aspirational vision for the country: that we are “Stronger Together.” Tomorrow’s remarks will focus on what has been at the core of who Hillary Clinton is as a person and the mission of her campaign — how we lift up our children and families and make sure that every child has the chance to live up to their God given potential.

Our campaign readily admits that running against a candidate as controversial as Donald Trump means it is harder to be heard on what you aspire for the country’s future and it is incumbent on us to work harder to make sure voters hear that vision.​

In case you’re wondering how that is going, take a look at the Clinton campaign’s latest ad.


She mentions Trump briefly – but quickly pivots to talk about her own record and vision for children and families. If you go to Clinton’s web site, you’ll find this fascinating side-by-side comparison of her resume and Donald Trump’s. Over the last couple of days, Hillary has published articles titled, “Here’s What Millennials Have Taught Me” and, “Stories of three women who changed my life.” Finally, just as Trump was getting called out by an African American female minister in Flint, Clinton was meeting with the Black Women’s Agenda Symposium to tell them that “Black Girl Magic is real.”

“Now while your stories are often missing from the history books, make no mistake you are the change makers, the path breakers and the ground shakers—and you are proof that yes indeed Black Girl Magic is real.”​

All of this flies under the radar of most political pundits who are focused on the tit-for-tat between the two candidates. But based on my personal experience, it is exactly the kind of thing a lot of people (mostly women) share with their friends/family/coworkers on social media in order to address the concerns of the few of them that might still be “persuadables.” Hmmm…perhaps that’s another reason why Trump’s “outreach” to suburban white women isn’t working very well.
 
J

Joel W.

Deplorable Basement Dweller
Accessory Maker
Last edited:
Silat

Silat

When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind.
The Hague (World Court) has announced they are considering prosecuting corporate executives and governments who contribute to land grabs, disasters and climate destruction.
 
Silat,
M

Msek

Well-Known Member
Following cybrguy's lead : >) this post has nothing to do with presidential politics. at least directly.
(edit - For clarity: cybrguy's post is gone? All I saw of the post was him saying "this post has nothing to do with presidential politics delete" I guess the post was deleted as requested)


I was researching for some parenting information to pass along to younger relatives. Pretty much an undeniable fact that the world has more than its fair share of broken people. Strong argument to be made that raising mentally healthy children to adulthood leads to a better world. The series is a little too much of a slog to pass on to the nieces/nephews unless interest is shown though.

I think one of the videos provides some interesting insight into this thread or water cooler politics in general.
So if you have the time, are high enough, or both this video might be of interest.

 
Last edited:
Msek,
rayski

rayski

Well-Known Member
Does your perspective allow you to see anything but HRC's negatives. Are blinders keeping you from seeing how dangerous a Donald Trump presidency would be. Seems that way.
 
grokit

grokit

well-worn member
Stevenski said:
The best result is to bomb them & use the craters as preformed bunkers. Do you know how much digging equipment costs these days? This is why Trump is great as he can see the big picture from all angles & minimize tax liability in the bargain :cool:
Click to expand...
Lol I was thing that carpet-bombing can provide the kind of "clean sweep" that allows for "shovel ready jobs" in any region, kind of like terraforming but with violence instead of science. And while green golf courses are beautiful to the eye, they're also water-wasting monsanto hellholes that bleed toxins into our scotch.

:smug:
 
CarolKing

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur

I love Stephen Colbert. He says it like it is, this is hilarious. This is regarding the birther issue about Obama.

Edit
Interesting an another subject entirely - George H Bush voting for Hillary - Wow! he does like Bill Clinton.
 
Last edited:
Stevenski

Stevenski

Enter the Dragon
grokit said:
Lol I was thing that carpet-bombing can provide the kind of "clean sweep" that allows for "shovel ready jobs" in any region, kind of like terraforming but with violence instead of science. And while green golf courses are beautiful to the eye, they're also water-wasting monsanto hellholes that bleed toxins into our scotch.

:smug:
Click to expand...


Why not water then with waste fracking water? I am sure Trump knows a guy, a very good guy, an expert even who has access to clean fracking water. OK so it may not be in the invade a country for limitless plunder & no bid contracts to be spread among his buddies for the rebuild league but Trump knows two things & that is golf & business. From what I can gather he is remarkably average at both.
 
Last edited:
ClearBlueLou

ClearBlueLou

unbearably light in the being....
Msek said:
In democracy your vote counts. In feudalism your count votes.

I'm pulling the lever for Trump, because fuck you.
Click to expand...
Yeah, fuck all of us. Thanks SO MUCH....

Msek said:
I still hope for a return to a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
Click to expand...
really, I don't believe this - though you might: choosing to allow as much bad to happen as possible because you're pissed is not a vote of confidence in either the people or the very idea of self-government...nor really much of an advertisement for yourself
 
cybrguy

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
What Life Lessons Would a Trump Victory Teach Us?
by Steven Waldman
September 21, 2016 8:31 AM

Despite all the horrible things Donald Trump might do to the country I find myself obsessing about something else: what life lessons would a Trump victory teach?

I’m not talking so much about the kinds of things focus groups dislike: that he curses in front of the kids or makes fun of the handicapped. I mean something deeper. If he wins, what does this say about how the world actually works?

Being with a “winner” overrides everything. Most Republicans are, in the end, going along with him. That validates Trump’s basic life philosophy that if you win, people will forgive you anything.

Money really does matter most. Early in the campaign, Trump said that if he won he would be the “most successful” person to have been nominated. No one else had been more accomplishment? Not George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or Dwight Eisenhower? Obviously, in Trump’s mind, success is a synonym with wealth.

Trump supporters admire his wealth because, they figure, he must have been clever or hardworking to achieve it. Notably, the first evangelicals who rallied around Trump were not the old-line fundamentalists but the prosperity preachers who say God wants us to be wealthy and, implicitly, the truly successful are especially chosen. In other words, wealth is a sign of merit.

To me, there’s very little correlation between wealth and most positive character traits, even less so when the start-up money is inherited. But a Trump victory would seem to indicate that my view is in the minority.

Popularity matters most. Trump justifies everything on the basis ratings and popularity. Life is middle school. In 2016 alone, he’s posted 31 tweets with the word “ratings” in them. He justified pushing the Birther movement on the principled ground that “people love this issue.” He defends including Roger Ailes on his team because he’s very successful. It’s all entirely amoral; popularity itself is the virtue.

It’s better to be less transparent. Although Hillary has been criticized for being insufficiently transparent, she has been far more open than Trump and has mostly been burned by that. She released donor lists for the Clinton foundation which led to investigative stories about potential conflicts. She released emails which led to more investigative stories. Meanwhile, Trump has taken the historic step of refusing to release his taxes – and, if he wins, will have gotten away with it. We know far, far, far less about his business empire and his financial relationships than we do about the Clinton foundation.

Money can buy you safety. Trump uses his money to subdue people. His lawyers hound foes or litigate against those who had been cheated out of proper payment. Money probably even got Trump out of being labeled a rapist. His wife, Ivanka, said in court documents that he pulled her hair out and sexually assaulted her. While not ultimately retracting the facts, she pulled back as part of an overall divorce settlement. Perhaps that was the ultimate case of money being able to buy him out of trouble.

Fake strength is even better than real strength. We’ve all seen people in the workplace like this. They try to show they’re strong by being bellicose or rude – or at the very least, supremely self-confident and declarative. Eventually it catches up with them, I always tell myself. Surely, in the long run making the right decision is even more important than seeming decisive. Being quietly confident is rewarded over being showy. Or not.

Fear mongering and scapegoating works. It’s a cliché among politicians that hope and optimism beats fear and pessimism. Apparently not. In fact, the real lesson seems to be you’re far better off being overtly racist than use dog whistles.

Lying works. I’ve always told myself that persistent, obvious lying sometimes works in the short run but never in the long run. But what if, in between the short and long run, you get the huge prize? Why not do it?

Cowards outnumber heroes. Yes there are a few Republicans willing to go against him but the vast majority were willing to go along. I’m not saying it would be easy to be a Republican and break with Trump. It would take guts, and some people might even have to risk their careers. But far more have decided to loathe him and support him. Perhaps the reality is that such bravery is the exception rather than the rule.

It’s not like Donald Trump invented all these horrible characteristics. They’re part of human nature and we see people like this around us all the time. But usually, in the long run, those who haven’t managed to keep their worst elements in check seem to fail.

The Founding Fathers feared that democracy would be ruined by a capitulation to our worst impulses. That’s why they thought virtue — driven by religion — was important. Religion is what would keep us from following our dark sides, or the people who appeal to them.

In that sense, Donald Trump is the most irreligious person ever to run for the presidency. I’m not referring to his not going to church much or his cursing. I mean he makes no effort to suppress his worst traits. Quite the contrary, he celebrates them and puts them at the core of his message. So if that message succeeds, what does that say about how it all works?
 
cybrguy

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Pearl-Clutching Conservatives Like Trump More When He’s Winning
September 21, 2016 12:36 PM

Over the preceding months, we have seen the rise of what I’ll call the pearl-clutching conservative.

This is a high-minded man or woman predisposed to the theory and practice of limited government who has declared one way or another that it would be unthinkable to support a cad like businessman Donald Trump. He is too offensive, too crude, too bigoted, they said, to be the standard bearer of a principled Republican Party. But mostly, they thought he’d lose.

Donald Trump has now united his base and narrowed the polling gap against Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. His success has illustrated what Clinton herself has long expected — that the election is going to be close. Those same pearl-clutching conservatives are now demonstrating that conservative philosophy, nice as it is, is now secondary to their interest in party and power.

Case in point is Tucker Carlson. To my amazement, and the amazement of many, he manages to be taken seriously by Washington media, even the “liberal” National Public Radio, as the editor in chief of the laughable “news” site, the Daily Caller. As such, he on NPR Monday, where he was asked about the role of “birtherism” among Trump’s supporters. He, like other “conservatives,” trivialized its significance.

“He owns [birtherism], for sure, whatever its origins,” Carlson told NPR. “I mean, he gave press conferences about it. But, I mean, he’s clearly ridden immigration and trade to the position he’s in now. I think his bringing this up again was a godsend for the Hillary people.”

What’s the evidence for that claim? Carlson said Trump is outperforming former Republican nominee Mitt Romney “pretty significantly” among black voters. If voters most offended by birtherism are throwing their weight behind the birther-in-chief, Carlson argued, then issues like trade, terrorism, and immigration must matter more.

This is the kind of warped reality one might expect from a partisan spinning polling numbers to benefit a candidate, not from a high-minded conservative. But Carlson, like many of his ideological kin, is nothing of the sort.

Let’s establish some facts.

First, Trump is the primogenitor of a five-year smear campaign to delegitimize the democratic election of the first African-American president in the history of the United States. Second, Mitt Romney was a moderate governor of a liberal state (Massachusetts) who was compelled to demonstrate to GOP’s right wing that he could “stand up” to African Americans. Yet Romney won 5 percent of the African-American vote in 2012.

So, at first blush, Carlson’s assertion appears to be weak. On closer inspection, it’s bullshit.

Carlson was incorrect to say Trump is outperforming Romney “pretty significantly.” Only one poll, the LA Times poll, suggests anything “significant.” As Carlson’s Daily Caller reported Sunday, Trump’s support among black voters shot up 17 points in eight days. That’s literally incredible. Conversely, a CBS News/New York Times poll released last week had Trump at 6 percent among black voters. Yes, that’s more than Romney’s 5 percent, but a one-point difference is not statistically significant.

The Daily Caller isn’t serious. And Carlson is not a principled conservative. If he were, he wouldn’t base a suspect claim of flimsy evidence. Instead, he’s playing the historical role of rationalizer of racism.

Birtherism is the foundation on which Trump built his base of power, and many supporters see issues through that lens. Whether “trade” or “immigration,” the solution for them is going to be bringing the hammer of federal power down on the backs of black and brown people.

As NBC’s Katy Tur noted on MSNBC recently, Trump supporters have consistently told her on the campaign trail they believe Barack Obama is a secret Muslim bent on destroying the American way of life: “They often say that they believe that [Barack Obama] was born in Kenya. They often say that they believe he’s a Muslim. Some of them even go on to say that they believe he’s an undercover operative, a Manchurian candidate, if you will, that has the interests of a foreign power. … Every city I’ve been to, there have been people who’ve said exactly those words.”

Of course, no politician can say that, not even Donald Trump. So the minute the true intention of birtherism meets the scrutinizing gaze of the media, as it did last week, people like Carlson step in to say it’s not all that important compared to other things.

That said, there is another way of looking at it. The facts of Barack Obama’s birth were never the point. He could have been born on Mars. It would make no difference. Saying he’s a secret Muslim, saying he’s bent on destroying the American way of life — these have nothing to do with Islam, the Constitution, or democracy. The point is Obama’s black.

That’s reason enough for some Americans to say he’s illegitimate.So it may be accurate to say birtherism doesn’t matter. Nativist-white nationalism doesn’t care where a black or brown person is born. What’s important to nativist-white nationalism is that black and brown people aren’t white.

Many months ago, pearl-clutching conservatives said they could not vote for someone who said immigrants were criminals, who demanded religious tests, who advocated war crimes, who held press freedoms in contempt, who insulted veterans, and disrespected the rule of law.

All that’s changed. After all, he might win.
 
KimDracula

KimDracula

Well-Known Member
The lousy reason I didn't vote in 1968 — and why Sanders supporters shouldn't fall for it
I thought there was no difference between Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey. I was wrong.
Updated by Michael Ansara Sep 21, 2016, 8:00a

It is 1968. Year of blood. Year of protest. Year of insurgency. Year of a pivotal election: Republican Richard Nixon versus Democrat Hubert Humphrey.

I decide that Nixon and Humphrey are indistinguishable, and I refuse to vote. I encourage others to do the same.

It’s a mistake I regret to this day.

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/21/12987108/sanders-clinton-nixon-humphrey
 
cybrguy

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
From Mitt’s Mendacity to Donald’s Dishonesty
09/21/16 01:02 PM

By Steve Benen
Major news outlets have long struggled with use of the word “lie,” especially during a political campaign season. A candidate for public office can say something that’s obviously untrue, and there may be ample evidence that he or she knows it’s untrue, and simply hopes to deceive the public. Journalists, however, are nevertheless reluctant to use the “l” word.

Just last week, Michael Oreskes, NPR’s editorial director, wrote a piece reflecting on Donald Trump making claims that were flagrantly false, making the case that use of the word “lie” presents the news in an “angry tone” that alienates the public.

The problem, of course, is the incentive structure: if politicians know in advance that news organizations will be cautious in calling out egregious deceptions, they may feel less pressure to tell the truth. The more media professionals are aggressive in holding candidates and officeholders accountable, the less they’ll try to get away with dishonesty.

TPM noted the other day how the New York Times is starting to adapt to politics in the age of Trump.

Strait-laced legacy media companies, wedded to balance and objectivity, have never been good at calling a lie what it is. But now the New York Times is starting to point out lies in their news coverage of Donald Trump.

As Quartz flagged on Tuesday, at least five stories in the Grey Lady’s Sept. 17 edition, including its lead print story, contained the words “lie,” “false” and “untrue” in headlines, first paragraphs and top sections in stories about the GOP nominee.
​
The Times’ executive editor, Dean Baquet, added that Trump was “outright lying” about the birther issue, and the newspaper will use the word “lie” when it’s “warranted.”

Of course, with the Republican presidential hopeful, the challenge isn’t identifying the lies, it’s keeping up with the avalanche of lies.

Longtime readers may recall a project I oversaw four years ago called "Mitt Mendacity.” For newer readers, the point was pretty straightforward: once a week, I’d highlight every instance of Mitt Romney saying something blatantly untrue in speeches, interviews, op-eds, etc. I tackled the endeavor because, it seemed to me at the time, that the 2012 GOP candidate was being spectacularly dishonest in ways I found genuinely alarming.

Four years later, a variety of readers have asked me why I haven’t rolled out a similar effort for Trump. My answer is always the same: “You’ve got to be kidding me.”

Donald Trump makes Mitt Romney look like the Patron Saint of Honesty. If lying were an Olympic sport, every other contender would have to quit, knowing in advance that Trump would win the gold no matter how hard they tried.

Trump lies with such reckless abandon – about himself, about his opponent, about policy, about current events, about details large and small – it’s not unreasonable to wonder whether he has some kind of allergy to the truth.

Correct the Record, a Democratic super PAC, created a “Trump Lies” website, which sends out occasional summaries to reporters, and I think it’s a safe bet the outfit has a small army of researchers who work a lot of hours hoping to keep pace with the Republican’s borderline uncontrollable dishonesty.

And even they miss some.

Midday yesterday, Daniel Dale, who does fine reporting for the Toronto Star, highlighted 18 blatantly false things Trump said just since the morning. (It wasn’t the first such list Dale pulled together recently.) We’re not even talking about judgment calls or attempts at slicing the truth very thin; Dale simply flagged brazen falsehoods.

And Dale isn’t the only one who’s noticed. During the Republican presidential primaries, the most common complaint from Trump’s rivals is that the guy just lied far too often. Ted Cruz called Trump a “pathological liar.” Marco Rubio called Trump a “liar.” Jeb Bush also called Trump a “liar.”

The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler explained in May, “Trump makes Four-Pinocchio statements over and over again, even though fact checkers have demonstrated them to be false. He appears to care little about the facts.”

Even NBC’s Tom Brokaw, hardly a political attack dog, has said, “in the course of the campaign, [Trump has] said some things that were just blatantly not true. He’s never been held accountable for it.”

That lack of accountability matters. A Quinnipiac poll released last week found that a plurality of Americans believe Trump is honest compared to Hillary Clinton – which, no matter what one might think of Clinton, is plainly ridiculous.

What should be one of the most important issues of the 2016 presidential campaign – Donald Trump’s inability to tell the truth about practically any issue – is a dynamic that much of the country doesn’t even recognize.

There’s still time for that to change.
 
J

Joel W.

Deplorable Basement Dweller
Accessory Maker
Glad I didn't have to type it.

https://m.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/5305li/dan_rolle_just_outlined_on_twitter_how_clinton/

Dan Rolle just outlined on Twitter how Clinton stole the NV caucus. Here's the transcript:

These are all per his Twitter feed, if y'all want to check it out:

Sept 15th: "Folks, if you don't hear from me tomorrow, here's what you need to know. It's your preview. Please share: (img on iPhone) Hillary Clinton was declared the winner of the NV Caucus before the results were ever counted."

So, this is a history lesson. We have to go back to 2008. @HillaryClinton was ready for her coronation. Then something happened. #DNCLeak

Many saw this moment as the unwinding. @SenatorReid failed to deliver the state to Clinton in 2008. Not to be repeated.

So Clinton suffered a crushing defeat in 2008. But she learned a lesson, the system can be rigged. She learned that from @NVDems. #DNCLeak.

(I have to pause now. I’m back, let’s do this).

Clinton won the caucus but was outmaneuvered in delegates. It was the start of the end in ’08.

So, @HillaryClinton loses in 08. A crushing blow to the elite. But she gained Roby Mook.

Mook knows the keys to the primaries. The voter file. And so… the slow plan begins.

Clinton plays the long game building networks in state parties. Places @dwstweets at the DNC. This is crucial. (DWS replaces Tim Kaine)

So with advice from Mook (theory) @DWStweets pressure state parties to move to database systems. Most migrate to: @NGPVAN (See: DNC)

With @NGPVAN, @TheDemocrats now know everything about you. Combined with loose access to state voter files, you can target down to the house

STEAL AN ELECTION #DNCleak

How do I know? Because @NVDems was right in the middle of the battle. @ngpvan is not in Nevada as of 2012. It's fragmented.

Sorry, @clarkdems uses @NationBuilder

(here he posts a picture of @jgilliam which reads, “the first @nationbuilder martyr: NVDems bullied clarkdems to stop using nationbuilder. Christine resigns in protest)

From inside @nvdems (picture of an iPhone screen shot chat which reads: “VAN was 3 times the price of NationBuilder- they miraculously dropped the price to $200 a month.” Reply: “Wow,” Response: “Roberta told me she serves on the executive board but I could never independently (screen shot cut off here).

Don't forget, we've now installed @DWStweets to make sure the network now encompasses every democrat in the country.

So with threats, bullying and intimidation. @TheDemocrats now have the data they need to pull the strings.

Subsidized by the massive network, @NGPVAN could literally monopolize voter data.

So now. If you are @HillaryClinton and you have @NGPVAN - you know everything about every democrat. Including who WONT vote for you.

So how do you fix that? Simple. Vote Builder. A piece of software that can change the state voter file. And you do that with: @NGPVAN

See @Wikileaks for this.

My phone just got #DDOSd #dncleak

Please. You think I just have one phone at this point? #DNCleak

Back: phone 2 #dncleak

So you are @HillaryClinton and you start to lose to this guy

The first thing you do? Maybe create a fake opportunity to get the data and smear sanders

(Link to Dec. 18th article shot by Kristin Welker, headline, “Sanders staffers breached Clinton voter data.” Read: “After Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign was disciplined by the Democratic National Committee for improperly accessing the Hillary Clinton campaign’s proprietary voter database, the documents obtained and (pic cut off here))

That's right....@NGPVAN again.

But your efforts STILL DONT WORK! And @BernieSanders is pulling ahead. He's winning #DNCleak

And it all comes down to: Nevada.

I have to pause again. I'm sorry. I'll be back.

Ok. Back. We are in the homestretch now. #dncleak

Did I forget to mention. @NGPVAN allows parties to sell access to it? How much? A lot. From my own PRIMARY:

(screenshot of inbox, email reading: “Dan, attached, please find the 2016 VAN agreement for you to complete and return to us. $10,000 of the total $15,000 is payable prior to the Primary Election. If you advance to the General Election, this remaining $5,000 will be due (This information is included in the addendum in the attached agreement) [rest cut off])

So @TheDemocrats created a $machine that tracks you. And they sell you to the highest bidder. They know exactly who you will vote for.

Guess what it tags? Social media, contributions, rallies you attend.

So @TheDemocrats say "there is no way you can have a targeted voter purge." I ran for congress. There is. #dncleak

So let's bring it home. Clinton is losing to Sanders. They call Nevada the firewall. The state that stops sanders.

(shows NYT article with headline, “Race in Nevada, Once A Hillary Clinton Firewall, is now Hotly Contested)

Mook meets with donors in New York. They freak. They say "no more money."

Here is a big one. Polls. Internal. They say 70% of new registrations are for Sanders.

dncleak Internal freak out memo:
(Post to pic of memo which reads: “Urgent: Just saw some internals that strongly suggest 70-75% of new regs intend to vote for Sanders. Significant from these demos:

-Male: 18-35 -We expect more 25-35 y/o voters will vote in the caucus than in NV history -Turnout above 90k will almost certainly mean a Sanders win

So pause. Let it sink in. If @Berniesanders wins Nevada. It’s over.

So how do you stop that? Roby Mook and the ground game.

Clinton learns her lesson from 2008. And now they have the data from @NGPVAN. Oh. And:

(picture of R. Lange)

And @SenatorReid (picture of Reid)

And @Culinary226 (picture of flier which states, “it’s time to take back our congressional district, CD4.” There are 4 democrats running in the June primary. On February 4, you’ll vote to decide who your union supports. Your vote matters! Bring this leaflet with you to the meeting. Here are your choices [lists 4 candidates with bios: Lucy Flores, Susie Lee, John Ocequiera, Ruben Kihuen])

Having said that. I do have. Dun dun duuuuuuh. Texts from the caucus sites.
 
J

Joel W.

Deplorable Basement Dweller
Accessory Maker
Part II:

So before caucus @Hillary Clinton team says, “whatever you can get away with just do it.” Links to YouTube video, headline, “Hidden cameras capture Clinton campaign staff in Nevada not only skirting…”

So if you need to steal an election. How do you do it? With @NGPVAN and @nvdems looking the other way.

You target at-large casino sites. And you cheat. Links to YouTube video, headline, “Caught on Tape: Hillary Clinton supporters caught BREAKING the rules. This just happened at a caucus location in NV. Hillary supporters were not registering to caucus…”

(Post of iPhone chat image, which reads: “None of these people are registered and now they left the caucus site. Not one of these people stopped to register.”)

(Second post of iPhone chat image, which reads: “I’m not comfortable with that. We have examples of caucus sites that were not completed. Delegates were not elected.” Response: “We will correct later.”)

(Third post of iPhone chat image, which reads: “entered on site, into a phone.” Response: “It’s a tradition to make nominees non-voting guest delegates like they are one of us. There were some locations where you could not get into the reporting line. We were told to take our boxes in and the data would be entered.” Response: “Well as much as I can’t stand Ralston. You can look back at his reporting and see. Almost all caucus sites were 50:50. 45:45.”)

(Fourth post of iPhone chat image, which reads: “and Hillary Clinton listed as a delegate at state? Wtf?” Response: “All the data I saw as credentials looks like he could have won. There was no process where neutral third parties or both team observers watched the caucus box count.” Response: “right, and it was ultimately entered on site. Into a phone.”)

(Fifth post of some App chat, [possibly Periscope?] which reads: “It was amazing when a Sanders supporter said they were a delegate but were not on the NVDems prepared list they had a receipt. But Clinton people usually didn’t have receipts. I was supposed to report errors in verifying credentials to each campaign for their members. Team Sanders did a great job with their folks. Team Clinton acted like it was just owed to them. The final draw when they started asking for a special list of special friends to be added. I said no and looped back in the other campaign because if one campaign had a special list of friends then the other should get that one, too.”)

You also disqualify legit voters (Facebook link post to video… which unsurprisingly gave me [transcriptionist] a message, “sorry, this content isn’t available at the moment.” The only hint I [transcriptionist] have is that it reads “demexittime” in link)
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=299722847058727

But none of this matters. Because @NVDems looked the other way. From a party official: (shot from Google Drive, “But she was reported as the winner before anyone had time to actually report results the data didn’t matter.”)

I'm going to summarize this in a periscope in a few minutes. #nvdemsleak #DNCLeak goodnight.

Good times.....
 
Joel W.,
  • Like
Reactions: grokit
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom