The End of the World: A Political Thread. A New Hope coming soon!

Status
Not open for further replies.
yankeessuck said:
But its not true. They knew which polls would count.

Whether how they have done it is great is another story but she didn't complain until it hurt her.
Click to expand...

They didn't know, Andrew Yang's team thought they had qualified sooner than they did because the committee wasn't clear about which polls counted. Yeah she is complaining about it a bit late that's true, it doesn't help that she wasn't able to campaign the last few weeks either due to her being deployed
 
Anyone who is certain that Biden will beat Trump is going to be in for a shock IMO, they aren't even trying to trash him in this video and he doesn't come off well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Viktor
JinCA said:
They didn't know, Andrew Yang's team thought they had qualified sooner than they did because the committee wasn't clear about which polls counted. Yeah she is complaining about it a bit late that's true, it doesn't help that she wasn't able to campaign the last few weeks either due to her being deployed
Click to expand...

They were confused but yes they knew what polls counted and even the rule of the same poll not counting twice was set.

Its not like they all thought a Fox poll would count and then the DNC said no. A better way would have been them using more top rated polls and just increasing the number needed but it doesn't change the fact of the rule being set ahead of time. She wants people to believe they just waited until the polls came out and then just decided to just throw some out.

It can be fair to question the process and we can ignore the candidates somehow having no complaints when they set the rules but its not fair to claim its rigged because that doesn't even make logical sense. Now you might say "but she never said that" and you would be right. She just went on the network that is saying it for her.
 
yankeessuck said:
They were confused but yes they knew what polls counted and even the rule of the same poll not counting twice was set.

Its not like they all thought a Fox poll would count and then the DNC said no. A better way would have been them using more top rated polls and just increasing the number needed but it doesn't change the fact of the rule being set ahead of time. She wants people to believe they just waited until the polls came out and then just decided to just throw some out.

It can be fair to question the process and we can ignore the candidates somehow having no complaints when they set the rules but its not fair to claim its rigged because that doesn't even make logical sense. Now you might say "but she never said that" and you would be right. She just went on the network that is saying it for her.
Click to expand...

I took what she said as that the polls that are accepted aren't made available to everyone and they should be, transparency is something the DNC should be all about especially after the mess they made last time. Either way she won't be there for the next debate and if she doesn't make the following one I'm sure she'll drop out. She just said in an interview today that she'd support the Dem nominee over Trump no matter who it is.
 
JinCA said:
When the DNC won't tell you which polls they accept it's shady, she has hit or gone beyond the 2% threshold in a bunch of polls, some more reputable than the ones the DNC has accepted so far. I don't know why the DNC has such an issue with transparency. I also don't know how Amy Klobuchar qualified and Gabbard hasn't, NOBODY is talking about Klobuchar.
Click to expand...

I thought the polls were public info.

Re: Klobuchar v. Gabby, by that logic the Kardashians should be in the debates. Let's not confuse talking about someone and thinking they'd be a great President. Apparently when the call comes, people are not giving her name because there is essentially a very small group of voters who support her, plus the Soviet Fox complex.
 
DNC is doing what it needs to (IMHO) - thin the herd. If there were only a couple big candidates, we could keep around some 2%ers, but with a field this large we have to start knocking names off the list. I don't even have a strong opinion on who comes out, but now is the time to get everyone on one stage. 10 people is still too many.

Not to mention eliminating a lot of the bottom will send those votes somewhere else. Maybe they'll boost someone in the single digits into contention.
 
JinCA said:
I took what she said as that the polls that are accepted aren't made available to everyone and they should be, transparency is something the DNC should be all about especially after the mess they made last time. Either way she won't be there for the next debate and if she doesn't make the following one I'm sure she'll drop out. She just said in an interview today that she'd support the Dem nominee over Trump no matter who it is.
Click to expand...

You can do all that without being used by Fox News to sow division
 
I think Tulsi's 15 minutes ended about 10 minutes ago. Whether intentional or not, she's dragging things down. Anyone calling conspiracy needs to GTFO. I could vote for any Democrat except her and Maryanne Williamson. Run your campaign and run against your competition, but don't bring down the whole party. Whoever comes out of this needs 100% support from everyone and no talk of "rigging".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Viktor
Kerosene31 said:
I think Tulsi's 15 minutes ended about 10 minutes ago. Whether intentional or not, she's dragging things down. Anyone calling conspiracy needs to GTFO. I could vote for any Democrat except her and Maryanne Williamson. Run your campaign and run against your competition, but don't bring down the whole party. Whoever comes out of this needs 100% support from everyone and no talk of "rigging".
Click to expand...
That's part of her plan.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: yankeessuck and Kerosene31
hrudey said:
I thought the polls were public info.

Re: Klobuchar v. Gabby, by that logic the Kardashians should be in the debates. Let's not confuse talking about someone and thinking they'd be a great President. Apparently when the call comes, people are not giving her name because there is essentially a very small group of voters who support her, plus the Soviet Fox complex.
Click to expand...

Do you know anyone who's even mentioned Klobuchar's name once in a conversation? I'm not talking about someone on television who was covering a previous debate and talked about how poorly she performed but I mean real life lol. She's not even hitting 1% in most polls, she's averaging 0.9 on real clear politics yet she managed to hit the requirement for the DNC debates even before Yang did.
 
Last edited:
Kerosene31 said:
I think Tulsi's 15 minutes ended about 10 minutes ago. Whether intentional or not, she's dragging things down. Anyone calling conspiracy needs to GTFO. I could vote for any Democrat except her and Maryanne Williamson. Run your campaign and run against your competition, but don't bring down the whole party. Whoever comes out of this needs 100% support from everyone and no talk of "rigging".
Click to expand...

She's not bringing down anything, she said she's going to support the nominee 100% and the goal is beating Trump. Saying you want more transparency in what polls are acceptable to join a debate is hardly trying to bring everyone down.
 
yankeessuck said:
You can do all that without being used by Fox News to sow division
Click to expand...

Why not go on fox? I guess she could go on MSNBC and they could ask her about Asaad again lol, in reality though she appears on every network. When she goes on fox and talks about wanting to end the wars they actually talk to her about that and not stuff from 3 years ago that she's already discussed hundreds of times so I don't blame her for appearing there. Andrew Yang, de Blasio and others appear on fox as well.
 
JinCA said:
Why not go on fox? I guess she could go on MSNBC and they could ask her about Asaad again lol, in reality though she appears on every network. When she goes on fox and talks about wanting to end the wars they actually talk to her about that and not stuff from 3 years ago that she's already discussed hundreds of times so I don't blame her for appearing there. Andrew Yang, de Blasio and others appear on fox as well.
Click to expand...

Going on Fox to answer their questions is fine. Going on there to spin election conspiracy is not.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Plainview
JinCA said:
Why not go on fox? I guess she could go on MSNBC and they could ask her about Asaad again lol, in reality though she appears on every network. When she goes on fox and talks about wanting to end the wars they actually talk to her about that and not stuff from 3 years ago that she's already discussed hundreds of times so I don't blame her for appearing there. Andrew Yang, de Blasio and others appear on fox as well.
Click to expand...

She went on Tucker Carlson who is pushing that the DNC is rigging it against her. She knows he is doing it. This is not by accident.

And on the subject of Asaad if she won the nomination she would need to discuss it hundreds times more. That is how it works. Don't run for President if you don't want to.
 
yankeessuck said:
She went on Tucker Carlson who is pushing that the DNC is rigging it against her. She knows he is doing it. This is not by accident.

And on the subject of Asaad if she won the nomination she would need to discuss it hundreds times more. That is how it works. Don't run for President if you don't want to.
Click to expand...

She would only have to discuss it with liberals, she's already called the guy a dictator and a murderer yet people who want to smear her keep saying she hasn't. At some point you have to just stop giving the subject oxygen if you want to get beyond it.

As far as Tucker, he likes her anti war stance and the fact that she will call out both sides when something is wrong, I like her for that reason as well. I hate Tucker Carlson btw but that doesn't mean she's wrong for going on his show, it's not like she's going there and saying Obama was from Kenya or that the Clintons pizza gate thing was true.
 
Kerosene31 said:
Going on Fox to answer their questions is fine. Going on there to spin election conspiracy is not.
Click to expand...

It's not an election conspiracy, you are totally mischaracterizing what she's talking about. If the DNC isn't going to be transparent with people about how they choose which polls are acceptable vs which ones aren't that's a valid question to ask, especially after they were so shady last time around.
 
JinCA said:
Do you know anyone who's even mentioned Klobuchar's name once in a conversation? I'm not talking about someone on television who was covering a previous debate and talked about how poorly she performed but I mean real life lol. She's not even hitting 1% in most polls, she's averaging 0.9 on real clear politics yet she managed to hit the requirement for the DNC debates even before Yang did.
Click to expand...

The way the polls work is that the pollsters call real life people and ask them in real life who they're voting for (or prefer, or what brand of mayonnaise makes the best lube, or whatever else they're polling). They have a list of polls that they've accepted that the candidates have known about for months (Bullock had a complaint about that and the DNC said they'd told them three months earlier which polls were in and which weren't, although they've since struck the Reuters one that didn't offer respondents a list of names to choose from). Enough times, enough people said "Amy Klobuchar" and not enough said "Tulsi Gabbard" that one is in and one is out.

The more important thing is that this whole story is a bunch of Delaney - if you can't clear 2% comfortably by now, you should be dropping out, no matter how much Comrade Carlson and the albino army are on your side.
[edit: Oh, and the other thing about polls vs. online chatter: the polls are only calling US numbers]
 
I agree with Gabbard's stance on not getting into wars. I can accept her coming to the realization her anti-gay stance when she was younger is wrong.

With that...

Gabbard doesn't believe assad gassed his own people. She backed russia getting involved with Syria. She brushed off russia's infiltration of our elections as not a big deal.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: yankeessuck and Kerosene31
JinCA said:
She would only have to discuss it with liberals, she's already called the guy a dictator and a murderer yet people who want to smear her keep saying she hasn't. At some point you have to just stop giving the subject oxygen if you want to get beyond it.

As far as Tucker, he likes her anti war stance and the fact that she will call out both sides when something is wrong, I like her for that reason as well. I hate Tucker Carlson btw but that doesn't mean she's wrong for going on his show, it's not like she's going there and saying Obama was from Kenya or that the Clintons pizza gate thing was true.
Click to expand...

Regardless of how many times its been discussed I guarantee you most people still don't know about it. Which means it will keep getting asked.

It doesn't matter what he likes or claims to like. He is using her to sow division. We both know this and she does too.
 
MARYSVILLE, Mich. – A city council candidate in Michigan said Friday she has no plans to end her campaign after shocking a public forum when she said she wants to keep her community white "as much as possible."

Jean Cramer made the comment Thursday in response to a question about diversity in Marysville, a city in St. Clair County, 55 miles northeast of Detroit. The Times Herald in Port Huron said she's one of five candidates running for three council seats in November.
 
Plainview said:
I agree with Gabbard's stance on not getting into wars. I can accept her coming to the realization her anti-gay stance when she was younger is wrong.

With that...

Gabbard doesn't believe assad gassed his own people. She backed russia getting involved with Syria. She brushed off russia's infiltration of our elections as not a big deal.
Click to expand...

Are you sure he was behind it? Our government and media have lied to us so many times (and still do) about things like this to try to get us into wars with other nations. Vietnam was started over a lie, Iraq was started over lies, when Iran shot that drone down in July we also sent a manned plane carrying 35 passengers into their airspace and I'm sure the war mongers were hoping they'd get shot down so we could have an excuse to attack Iran.

All she said was that she wants more evidence, hell we were lied to about who was destroying the humanitarian aid being sent into Venezuela, our government and the media said it was Maduro's side and it was the protesters who did it.
 
hrudey said:
The way the polls work is that the pollsters call real life people and ask them in real life who they're voting for (or prefer, or what brand of mayonnaise makes the best lube, or whatever else they're polling). They have a list of polls that they've accepted that the candidates have known about for months (Bullock had a complaint about that and the DNC said they'd told them three months earlier which polls were in and which weren't, although they've since struck the Reuters one that didn't offer respondents a list of names to choose from). Enough times, enough people said "Amy Klobuchar" and not enough said "Tulsi Gabbard" that one is in and one is out.

The more important thing is that this whole story is a bunch of Delaney - if you can't clear 2% comfortably by now, you should be dropping out, no matter how much Comrade Carlson and the albino army are on your side.
[edit: Oh, and the other thing about polls vs. online chatter: the polls are only calling US numbers]
Click to expand...

Yes I know how polls work lol but she's not even averaging 1% so which polls did they find where she was hitting 2% or higher? are they all based in Minnesota or something? Gabbard has a higher polling average than Klobuchar, she's still not at 2% either on real clear politics but she's over 1.5%
 
I'll tell you what wouldn't help with transparency and that is changing the rules at the last minute to help certain candidates.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back