What are the racist Trumptards losing their shit about today?

[Donald Noory]

You know what? I, for one, am tired of your white cracker shit, you stupid, black assed nigger!

Now put that in your crack pipe and smoke it, spook!

The racist Trumptard quoted above may want to watch his poor old ticker. It might burst on election day.

[21st Century Man]

it's interesting and amusing to see how defensive the Trumptard replies here are.

I wouldn't call myself a Trumptard as I have yet to even vote for the man.  However, you are most definitely a HillShill.

[136 or 142]

I wouldn't call myself a Trumptard as I have yet to even vote for the man.  However, you are most definitely a Hillshill.

You've said you're going to vote for him and you'll also say that Hillary Clinton is worse than Trump which by any objective measure is laughable.

So, I'd say you're a Trumptard.

[21st Century Man]

You've said you're going to vote for him and you'll also say that Hillary Clinton is worse than Trump which by any objective measure is laughable.

So, I'd say you're a Trumptard.

Only a Hill Shill would say that.  You're opinion is certainly in the minority on this site.  As for whether I'm going to vote for him,  I probably will have to though I certainly don't particularly care for the man.

[Jackstar]

I'm literally on the fence between Gary Johnson and Andrew Basiago. Where is the thread that desperately attempts to slander my point of view?

It's interesting and amusing

What parties you must throw.

[136 or 142]

Only a Hill Shill would say that.  You're opinion is certainly in the minority on this site.  As for whether I'm going to vote for him,  I probably will have to though I certainly don't particularly care for the man.

Judging based on the opinions on this site is not objective.  I'm referring to things like politifact, comparisons of actual civil or criminal convictions...

Those are more or less objective measures. 

[21st Century Man]

Judging based on the opinions on this site is not objective.  I'm referring to things like politifact, comparisons of actual civil or criminal convictions...

Those are more or less objective measures.

Like this?

[21st Century Man]

Or this?

[136 or 142]

Like this?

Sure, and Trump won't release his tax returns or his health records (other than some summary) and won't unseal his court record.

[21st Century Man]

Sure, and Trump won't release his tax returns or his health records (other than some summary) and won't unseal his court record.

I would say national security is far more important than a person's health and tax records.

[albrecht]

J comparisons of actual civil or criminal convictions...

Those are more or less objective measures.

Arguably looking at per capita comparisons of "civil or criminal convictions" between certain races, ethnicities, religions, and areas might actually make a person more racist or prejudiced or at least more wary of some people/areas than others.

ps: the leftist retort is these numbers don't reflect reality because certain minorities are targeted by police and since society over all is racist, homophobic, capitalist, sexist, and bigoted you can't trust those statistics because they are a way to reinforce the patriarchy.

[Humilia Lepus Foramen]

It's interesting and amusing to see how defensive the idiot Trumptards here are.

Quimby, just humor the guy.

This thread...

[136 or 142]

Or this?

It's interesting and amusing how defensive the Trumptards are here.

What DWS and the others at the DNC did was stupid, but neither she nor they 'rigged' any election.  Primary elections are a state matter and there is no evidence anybody at the DNC got involved in any of them.  Were they going to rig any primary contest, it would have been with the states that held caucuses, but Bernie Sanders won nearly all of those.

[21st Century Man]

It's interesting and amusing how defensive the Trumptards are here.

What DWS and the others at the DNC did was stupid, but neither she nor they 'rigged' any election.  Primary elections are a state matter and there is no evidence anybody at the DNC got involved in any of them.  Were they going to rig any primary contest, it would have been with the states that held caucuses, but Bernie Sanders won nearly all of those.

I'm sure you've heard of superdelegates.  That is how they rigged it.

[136 or 142]

I would say national security is far more important than a person's health and tax records.

There isn't much objective to judge what Trump would do on national security. 

We do know a couple things about him though in that regard:  the people he has advising him and that he won't put his business interests (that likely involve large loans from prominent Chinese and Russian people, if not from the Chinese and Russian governments themselves) into a blind trust or sell them off to a third party if he becomes President, but would give them to his children.

If that isn't a real conflict of interest much larger than the Clinton Foundation, I don't know what is.

[136 or 142]

I'm sure you've heard of superdelegates.  That is how they rigged it.

You really keep proving you are an idiot. 

1.The super delegates were not put in place for this Democratic Primary.  The Democrats decided to re-instate using ex-officio delegates for either 1984 or 1988.

2.The Democratic Party apportioned its regular delegates in a proportional manner.  Hillary Clinton defeated Bernie Sanders in the aggregate Democratic Primary vote roughly 57-43%.  Were there no super delegates, Hillary Clinton still would have won.

From realclearpolitics:

2016 Democratic Popular vote
Hillary Clinton:  15,805,136, 56.78%
Bernie Sanders: 12,029,699, 43.22%

That leaves out the votes from some of the caucus states, but the total votes in those states were very low (one of the reasons why I think the caucus process should be eliminated) and would not have altered the final results much.

You keep saying you don't read far right wing websites, or what Fox 'News' but this 'The DNC stole the primaries for Hillary Clinton through the Super-Delegates' is another lie from them that you've fallen for.

[21st Century Man]

There isn't much objective to judge what Trump would do on national security. 

We do know a couple things about him though in that regard:  the people he has advising him and that he won't put his business interests (that likely involve large loans from prominent Chinese and Russian people, if not from the Chinese and Russian governments themselves) into a blind trust or sell them off to a third party if he becomes President, but would give them to his children.

If that isn't a real conflict of interest much larger than the Clinton Foundation, I don't know what is.

You are engaging in complete speculation.  I'm sure you would say the same about why I'm focusing on the emails.  How do I know they was information relating to national security?  We don't but the fact is she should not have erased them.  People have every right to suspect she was hiding something due to her actions.

[21st Century Man]

You really keep proving you are an idiot. 

1.The super delegates were not put in place for this Democratic Primary.  The Democrats decided to re-instate using ex-officio delegates for either 1984 or 1988.

2.The Democratic Party apportioned its regular delegates in a proportional manner.  Hillary Clinton defeated Bernie Sanders in the aggregate Democratic Primary vote roughly 57-43%.  Were there no super delegates, Hillary Clinton still would have won.

There were plenty of states where the margin of difference was in the superdelegate tally.  Hillary would have lost those states if not for the superdelegates.

[136 or 142]

You are engaging in complete speculation.  I'm sure you would say the same about why I'm focusing on the emails.  How do I know they was information relating to national security?  We don't but the fact is she should not have erased them.  People have every right to suspect she was hiding something due to her actions.

Donald Trump has said he won't sell off his business holdings or place them in a blind trust, how is that 'complete speculation'?

[136 or 142]

There were plenty of states where the margin of difference was in the superdelegate tally.  Hillary would have lost those states if not for the superdelegates.

I can't even begin to comprehend what this means. You're going to have to explain it to me.

[Jackstar]

I can't even begin to comprehend what this means. You're going to have to explain it to me.

It means you're a complete idiot lying f***.

[21st Century Man]

I can't even begin to comprehend what this means. You're going to have to explain it to me.

If you can't figure out what I'm saying then you are the idiot, not me.  I'll let you stew on that.  Maybe someone else will volunteer their  tutorial services because I simply don't have the time.

[Jackstar]

you are the idiot, not me.

Greetings Starfighter. You have been recruited by The Star League to procure onion and cream cheese bagels.

[136 or 142]

If you can't figure out what I'm saying then you are the idiot, not me.  I'll let you stew on that.  Maybe someone else will volunteer their  tutorial services because I simply don't have the time.

No, it's because your sentence is incomprehensible.

"There were plenty of states where the margin of difference was in the superdelegate tally. "

Margin of difference with what?  The super-delegates votes were part of the count at the Democratic Convention, they had nothing to do with the votes in the primaries.  If you can't understand that, you can stew on your own idiocy.

There were approximately 800 super-delegates, 15% of the total Democratic delegates at their convention. Had they not been there, presumably there would have been 800 less delegates, all of them the 'pledged delegates' at the primary.

Hillary Clinton won those 2,205-1,846.  No matter how the numbers were counted or who the delegates were, Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Convention

The percentage of pledged delegates voting for Bernie Sanders actually is greater than his percentage of votes received in the aggregate Democratic Party Primary vote. That is due to Sanders winning nearly all the caucus states, which have much lower turnout than the primary states.

Do you understand now why the 'The DNC cheated to give Hillary Clinton an unfair win through the Super-delegates' is a lie?

[21st Century Man]

No, it's because your sentence is incomprehensible.

"There were plenty of states where the margin of difference was in the superdelegate tally. "

Margin of difference with what?  The super-delegates votes were part of the count at the convention, they had nothing to do with the votes in the primaries.  If you can't understand that, you can stew on your own idiocy.

Wow, you are having a hard time figuring out what I'm saying.  You better take an aspirin.

[Jackstar]

The super-delegates votes were part of the count at the Democratic Convention, they had nothing to do with the votes in the primaries. 

You're being deliberately obtuse, or you really are stupid. Pick one, do it now.

[136 or 142]

Wow, you are having a hard time figuring out what I'm saying.  You better take an aspirin.

“Your words aren’t clear
You’d better spit out your gum”

[136 or 142]

You're being deliberately obtuse, or you really are stupid. Pick one, do it now.

You go first.

[Humilia Lepus Foramen]

Hey nice truck

http://www.twitter.com/larryelder/status/776161403736514560

[136 or 142]

It means you're a complete idiot lying f***.

Of course, I don't know if that image is doctored or not.  I  don't even know if they were taken from actual Bernie Sanders and/or Hillary Clinton rallies.  I'm sure you don't know either.

However
1.Are you saying that the primaries, controlled by the states, were rigged?
2.The distinction between intense support vs. broad based support is a well observed  phenomena.

Ah, that picture is from David Icke's website.  According to him, the only votes a candidate needs to win are those from the lizard people.