maqroll Posted January 24, 2017 Author Share Posted January 24, 2017 58 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: This meme that dastardly Clinton stole the nomination from innocent Sanders who was really the people's favourite is very tiresome, lacking as it does almost any actual evidence to support it. Quote LEAKED EMAIL PROVES DNC RIGGED PRIMARY DEBATES https://shadowproof.com/2016/10/12/leaked-email-shows-dnc-rigged-primary-debates/ Quote A new batch of emails released by Wikileaks from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta have confirmed what many long suspected about the Democratic Party primary debates: that they were rigged to protect and support former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy. On April 27th, 2015, Podesta received an email titled, “Revised debate memo,” written by Clinton campaign chief administrative officer Charlie Baker. The memo explained how the Clinton campaign wanted the debates to be setup to help their candidate. The revised memo, which was also sent to Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook and longtime Clinton advisor Ronald Klain, details the objectives of the Clinton campaign regarding debates. It discusses how they had worked with the DNC to get what they wanted and box out Clinton’s primary opponents. Through internal discussions, we concluded that it was in our interest to: 1) limit the number of debates (and the number in each state); 2) start the debates as late as possible; 3) keep debates out of the busy window between February 1 and February 27, 2016 (Iowa to South Carolina); 4) create a schedule that would allow the later debates to be cancelled if the race is for practical purposes over; 5) encourage an emphasis on local issues and local media participants in the debate formats; and 6) ensure a format that provides equal time for all candidates and does not give the moderator any discretion to focus on one candidate. Baker says these objectives, to limit the debates and keep them out of the public eye as much as possible, have been part of discussion with the DNC. Baker also notes that the DNC was on board and working with the Clinton campaign to jam her opponents’ attempts to get both more and more visible debates. Through discussion of these goals with the DNC their current plan is to begin a debate schedule that would commence in early October, with one debate a month, one each in the early primary and caucus states, and the remaining 2 post South Carolina (we will need to push them to post March 1 and then the later 2 debates would be cancelled if the race ends). The DNC’s current plan is to release the attached press release (which lacks this specificity but confirms the number and start window for the debates). The other campaigns have advocated (not surprisingly) for more debates and for the schedule to start significantly earlier. Mo and Anita believe that this announcement prior to the actual entry into the race of other candidates will strengthen their hand as they lock a schedule in with local media partners and state parties. That’s right, coordination right down to a Clinton campaign pre-approved press release. The game was over before it began. It should be recognized that most observers understood the DNC was not playing fair. Senator Bernie Sanders and many of his supporters explicitly accused the DNC of rigging the debates on behalf of Hillary Clinton. As we now know, that accusation was right on the money. Then-DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz pushed back on the accusation by Sanders and others, saying, “I did my best to make sure, along with my staff and along with our debate partners, to come up with a schedule that we felt was going to maximize the opportunity for voters to see our candidates.” Wasserman-Schultz was later forced to resign as DNC Chair after emails from the DNC, also leaked by Wikileaks, showed her plotting behind the scenes to sabotage Sanders’ campaign. The DNC Chair, Donna Brazile, has also been implicated in sabotaging Sanders’ campaign while working at CNN. The DNC also funneled donation money to Clinton at the expense of Sanders and O'Malley. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 I see that Netanyahu and Lieberman have approved 2,500 more settlement homes. Quote Israel has approved a massive new building programme of Jewish settlement homes in the occupied Palestinian territories, following hard on the heels of the swearing-in of the US president, Donald Trump. The defiant move, in opposition to most recent international opinion, comes as Israeli politicians have rushed to exploit what they see as a pro-Israel and pro-settlement US administration. The announcement of 2,500 new housing units in the West Bank is one of the largest in years and marks a comprehensive rejection of December’s UN security council resolution, which described settlement building as a “flagrant violation” of international law and an obstacle to peace. The decision, approved by the rightwing Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his defence minister, Avigdor Lieberman, seems certain to further increase tensions with Palestinians and the wider Middle East, already high over the Trump administration’s proposal to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Nabil Abu Rdainah, a spokesman for the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, said the move would have “consequences”. “The decision will hinder any attempt to restore security and stability; it will reinforce extremism and terrorism and will place obstacles in the path of any effort to start a peace process that will lead to security and peace,” he added. The plans were condemned by Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s executive committee. She said: “It is evident that Israel is exploiting the inauguration of the new American administration to escalate its violations and the prevention of any existence of a Palestinian state.” Although the Israeli government said the majority of new homes would be built in “major settlement blocs”, which Israel wants to keep as part of any eventual peace settlement, a number will be built in controversial hardline settlements, including Beit El. Beit El is a settlement near Ramallah, in which Trump’s pick for the new US ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, has been involved. It has also received funding from the family of Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, according to Israeli media reports. A day earlier, Netanyahu had told his security cabinet that he was also lifting all restrictions on Israeli construction in occupied East Jerusalem. That followed the approval on Sunday by the Jerusalem municipality of hundreds of new homes in East Jerusalem. In a marked shift in policy, the US government – which has in the past usually been quick to condemn new settlement announcements – remained silent even as European countries denounced the plans. At the time of writing there had been no US comment on Tuesday’s settlement construction announcement either. ...more on link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Just seen the footage at the start of Newsnight - what the bloody hell has happened to his syrup? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Davkaus said: I'm not aware of it being tied directly to Clinton, but it's pretty much beyond doubt that the DNC were set against Sanders, and actively trying to win the nomination for Clinton, when they were meant to be impartial. Did you completely miss Debbie Schultz resigning in disgrace as chairwoman of the DNC, then days later taking a job on Clinton's campaign? No, I didn't miss that. I also didn't miss when the Sanders campaign improperly accessed a Clinton campaign email list, which they sacked staffers over. Look, we'd all love it if politics was some Athenian thing where people stood up and made impassioned speeches and whatever, and there weren't these horrible Doug Stamper figures wandering around dark corridors in the background, but let's get real for a minute. This is a dirty contact sport. And let's take a step back. Clinton won nearly 3 million more votes, won 11 more contests, and won a significant majority of pledged delegates. The contest really wasn't particularly close. I'm not going to pretend that either campaign played by Queensbury rules, but Clinton would have won no matter what. Edited January 24, 2017 by HanoiVillan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 1 hour ago, maqroll said: https://shadowproof.com/2016/10/12/leaked-email-shows-dnc-rigged-primary-debates/ The DNC also funneled donation money to Clinton at the expense of Sanders and O'Malley. Either you're missing my point, or perhaps more realistically I'm not explaining it very well. My claim is not that there was no skullduggery. My claim is simply that Clinton won many more votes and won the contest by a very clear margin. Sanders wasn't 'robbed', because Sanders wasn't going to win (which is no surprise, really, when you consider he was a guy with almost no name recognition at the start of the contest, who had campaigned as an 'independent socialist' for decades, and who was competing against the candidate who came an incredibly close second during the previous contest. He did incredibly well against that gravity. I'm not knocking him at all). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Keyblade Posted January 25, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted January 25, 2017 Quote The president is preparing to restrict access to the country from immigrants, refugees, some visa holders from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, Reuters reports, citing congressional aides briefed on the orders. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-immigration-refugees-muslim-countries-sign-executive-orders-iraq-iran-libya-restrict-a7544566.html Of course Saudi Arabia, home of 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers and birthplace of Wahhabism is not on that list. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Is the media just picking him up for everything, or does he continue to act like an idiot even as POTUS? Threatening the Feds on an entire city because he saw it on Fox news an hour previously. Come on https://twitter.com/Walldo/status/824082877503721472/video/1 This segment was an hour before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 33 minutes ago, Keyblade said: Of course Saudi Arabia, home of 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers and birthplace of Wahhabism is not on that list. Funny that, it should be on everyone's list the universe over. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 5 hours ago, Keyblade said: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-immigration-refugees-muslim-countries-sign-executive-orders-iraq-iran-libya-restrict-a7544566.html Of course Saudi Arabia, home of 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers and birthplace of Wahhabism is not on that list. An additional two were from UAE. Also not on the list. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 The silly old git is now planning to lauch a 'major investigation' in to voter fraud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 36 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: An additional two were from UAE. Also not on the list. The #1 exporters of extremism not included. Just beating up on poor refugees who are trying to flee said extremism just to appease his supporters. Pretty disgusting tbh. This is why I have no sympathy for Trump voters. "Don't paint them with the same brush" etc. Nah ***** that, they were perfectly okay with something like this happening even if it's not what they voted for him for. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 3 minutes ago, snowychap said: The silly old git is now planning to lauch a 'major investigation' in to voter fraud. Of course there's some voter fraud (the only two widely reported cases in this cycle were Trump voters btw) but 3-5 million votes? In the range that Hillary won by? It also begs the questions: 1) Did every one of these 3-5 million illegal voters vote for Hillary? 2) If 3-5 million people voted illegally then surely the election is illegitimate right? All in all, it's a either... a total logical fallacy designed around a narcissists delusions that he didn't actually lose the popular vote. ~~~~~~or~~~~~~ He's creating a false pretense of voter fraud to 'strengthen up voter procedures'. Either way, it's ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 They got 3-5 million illegal immigrants to juke the popular vote but couldn't get ~70,000 to vote across the rust belt to win the electoral votes. Right, Donnie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 We have a difference of opinion Geoffrey Unsubstantiated claim was started without evidence by self-styled conservative voter fraud specialist Greg Phillips, who tweeted "Number of non-citizen votes exceeds 3 million" His tweets were picked up by right-wing websites like Infowars.com, which has made false claims in the past Fact-checking website Snopes.com says there is "zero evidence" that "illegal aliens" voted in election "Don't buy it," says Politifact, which points to research suggesting there have been 56 cases of non-citizens voting numbers between 2000-2011 A Pew study in 2012 found millions of invalid voter registrations because people moved or died, but "zero evidence" of fraud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 They'll find a few random cases of voter fraud and then some recently dead people still on the voter roll, and then use that as an excuse to increase voter ID rules making it even harder for people to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 32 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: We have a difference of opinion Geoffrey I'm not quite sure what the implication is with this comment. Is it that as much weight should be given to the tweet by Mr Phillips as to the research that appears to show not much voter fraud? Or is it that a report that says that the US's voter registration system is inaccurate, costly and inefficient (with approx. 24 million inaccurate or no longer valid registrations) should necessarily support a claim by Trump that there was widespread voter fraud? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Just now, snowychap said: I'm not quite sure what the implication is with this comment. Is it that as much weight should be given to the tweet by Mr Phillips as to the research that appears to show not much voter fraud? Or is it that a report that says that the US's voter registration system is inaccurate, costly and inefficient (with approx. 24 million inaccurate or no longer valid registrations) should necessarily support a claim by Trump that there was widespread voter fraud? I wasn't offering anything tbh ... I just thought it was interesting that one source mentioned 56 and another 3 million ..hence the Buck Tarbrush line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) 23 hours ago, StefanAVFC said: They'll find a few random cases of voter fraud and then some recently dead people still on the voter roll, and then use that as an excuse to increase voter ID rules making it even harder for people to vote. I guess that if they go and look at the data in the Pew report that they'll show evidence that there are a large number of dead people still on electoral rolls (more than 1.8 million, it says) and a large number of incorrect records (it talks a lot about duplicates across states when people move). I wouldn't be surprised if they left it at that (and didn't even bother to go looking for any actual fraud) and used it (the facts about inaccurate registrations) to justify the claims that Trump makes. Edited January 26, 2017 by snowychap Too many capitals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: I wasn't offering anything tbh ... I just thought it was interesting that one source mentioned 56 and another 3 million ..hence the Buck Tarbrush line The 'source' that mentioned 3 million was one bloke's tweets in November. Edited January 25, 2017 by snowychap Edited: Made plural as it seems he put out two tweets with the 3 million number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) One source (Pulitzer prize winning fact checker Politifact) says 56 and one source (Two tweets from right-wing Tweeter whose tweet then went onto well-known conspiracy sites) says 3 million and we apparently have to give them equal value And it certainly is ironic considering the hostility I received yesterday for apparently only basing my opinions from what I read on Twitter Edited January 25, 2017 by StefanAVFC 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts