Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
40 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Voters not necessary. The media and party elite call it. (Original Post) Barack_America Jun 2016 OP
Suppress the Vote much? Dont call me Shirley Jun 2016 #1
Hope it works! Gosh, wouldn't it be embarrassing... dchill Jun 2016 #3
Would so be a backfire, just like all her other actions. The podium fell. Dont call me Shirley Jun 2016 #7
Tomorrow and in November. Barack_America Jun 2016 #11
Blatant and Big time! Dont call me Shirley Jun 2016 #32
There is NOT a snowballs chance in hell that Clinton did not know... Raster Jun 2016 #2
yup,she calls ALL the shots.don't think she doesn't. wendylaroux Jun 2016 #4
Ain't we grand! Raster Jun 2016 #12
I know,Bernie is exactly what we needed. Such a pity. wendylaroux Jun 2016 #13
I'm actually more concerned about her passiveporcupine Jun 2016 #28
yes, I am too. There is a reason the neoconjobs have flocked to the Clinton banner... Raster Jun 2016 #29
I wouldn't say she wanted lives on the line passiveporcupine Jun 2016 #31
Not only did she know...... pangaia Jun 2016 #9
It was done to declare CA, "not a real primary". Barack_America Jun 2016 #10
It will backfire. Biaviians Jun 2016 #5
Yep. With an especial "fuck you" shout out to Califormia voters. intheflow Jun 2016 #6
Funny, my household will be voting for her tomorrow with a smile. In CA. anigbrowl Jun 2016 #14
Oh it could have unfolded much smoother... HerbChestnut Jun 2016 #8
That's just stupid gaspee Jun 2016 #15
That was my thought as well PepperHarlan Jun 2016 #16
Okay, so why not let the last vote? Barack_America Jun 2016 #18
They called off tomorrow's primaries!1?1!! PepperHarlan Jun 2016 #20
Yup. Barack_America Jun 2016 #27
OK, then gaspee Jun 2016 #21
The AP called it. The Party Elite didn't call a damn thing n/t Blaukraut Jun 2016 #17
Mmm hmm. And who did the AP talk to? Barack_America Jun 2016 #19
Trump gaspee Jun 2016 #22
the only one who is embarrassing him/herself tonight is the one positing Blaukraut Jun 2016 #24
Well, she won't get my vote. djean111 Jun 2016 #23
Your claims would make more sense if they weren't counting delegates mythology Jun 2016 #25
Oh, sorry, I didn't realize they moved the primaries to today. Barack_America Jun 2016 #26
Do your votes even matter anymore? panader0 Jun 2016 #30
Except that 24 million-ish voters have already spoken... SidDithers Jun 2016 #33
Hillagarchy it is. nt mhatrw Jun 2016 #34
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! MohRokTah Jun 2016 #35
But Lying For $Hillary Only BENEFITS Bernie!11 Haven't You HEARD? AzDar Jun 2016 #36
It's going to be a mess laserhaas Jun 2016 #37
Her campaigns actions will have a detrimental effect come November Marrah_G Jun 2016 #38
Weren't the votes cast by the voters an important factor in the media calling it? Nye Bevan Jun 2016 #39
You knew it before called and not a fuckin coronation. Voter made it happen. over 3 million for Hill seabeyond Jun 2016 #40

Raster

(20,998 posts)
2. There is NOT a snowballs chance in hell that Clinton did not know...
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 09:18 PM
Jun 2016

...what AP was up to. And her "oh noes, we've still got elections to win" bullshit. Same shady-fucking-lady right up to the end.

wendylaroux

(2,925 posts)
4. yup,she calls ALL the shots.don't think she doesn't.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 09:19 PM
Jun 2016

so we have a cheater and a lunatic running for prez.

Raster

(20,998 posts)
12. Ain't we grand!
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 09:28 PM
Jun 2016

Clinton will most likely be the nominee and may just eke out a win against Trump. And just minutes after taking her hand off of the Bible for the Oath of Office, she will be handed the first of many, many summonses and subpoenas. What a tragedy that the first Female POTUS will end up the most embattled POTUS and only serve one term, if she actually makes it to full term, which I somewhat doubt.

What a fucking loss for this country and the Democratic Party that the unbridled Clinton self-absorption, greed and hubris were allowed to rule the day. This could have been a glorious opportunity to re-align the Democratic Party and breathe new life into both our party and country, but instead, as a nation and a party, we are now forced to cater to the Amerikan Oligarchy and their sycophants.

passiveporcupine

(8,175 posts)
28. I'm actually more concerned about her
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:42 PM
Jun 2016

taking her hand off the oath of office and putting it on that red button.

I don't trust her at all with this kind of power.

Raster

(20,998 posts)
29. yes, I am too. There is a reason the neoconjobs have flocked to the Clinton banner...
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:52 PM
Jun 2016

...they recognize one of their own.

The Centurions of "New Rome" have found their new Caesar, and she wears a pantsuit.

Clinton has already displayed frightening capacity for authoritarian aggression. If she does reach the Oval Office, it is only a matter of time before she has us embroiled in an international conflict.

Consider this: Hillary's Iraq War vote. I maintain if there was ONE PERSON in Congress who had the inside info, it was Clinton. In addition to being privy to the inside information accorded to members of Congress, she was also privy to the Ex-POTUS CIA daily briefing. She was also more than just a passive First Lady; she was by their own admission, half of a very strong team. In other words, she had a damned good idea of what Saddam and Iraq did and did not have when it came to weaponry: she probably had seen the receipts! There is not doubt that Hillary voted for the bush*2 Iraq war, knowing that we were about to invade a sovereign country that had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 and had no weapons of mass destruction. I don't think she was fooled by bush* as she claimed, I think Hillary Clinton wanted a war, I think she wanted lives on the line.

passiveporcupine

(8,175 posts)
31. I wouldn't say she wanted lives on the line
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:56 PM
Jun 2016

I would say she didn't care that there were lives on the line, but otherwise, you are spot on.

pangaia

(24,324 posts)
9. Not only did she know......
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 09:22 PM
Jun 2016

but the wizard was really at work this time...

This is so much more blatant than even 2000.

Filthy, disgusting campaign..

 

anigbrowl

(13,889 posts)
14. Funny, my household will be voting for her tomorrow with a smile. In CA.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 09:37 PM
Jun 2016

Should we just ignore her strong showing in Puerto Rico as well as all the other contests where she's come first?

 

HerbChestnut

(3,649 posts)
8. Oh it could have unfolded much smoother...
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 09:22 PM
Jun 2016

You can thank Bernie and the rest of us supporting him for throwing a wrench into the process.

gaspee

(3,231 posts)
21. OK, then
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 09:49 PM
Jun 2016

why did they call it on an off day for Trump - could it possibly be the first time the number actually went over the threshold - nah, couldn't be anything simple like that.

Barack_America

(28,876 posts)
19. Mmm hmm. And who did the AP talk to?
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 09:43 PM
Jun 2016

And why were so many of them so willing to talk today?

Please, you're embarrassing yourself.

Blaukraut

(5,705 posts)
24. the only one who is embarrassing him/herself tonight is the one positing
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 09:59 PM
Jun 2016

various conspiracy theories. This jumping the gun by the AP was not in Clinton's best interest. Just read some of the posts in this forum. She'd probably much rather have claimed victory after all the votes were cast. But hey, far be it from me to get in the way of a good freakout.

 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
25. Your claims would make more sense if they weren't counting delegates
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:05 PM
Jun 2016

resulting from voting by voters. It really illustrates that what you're outraged about is that your candidate didn't win, but you can't bring yourself to admit that more voters preferred Clinton to Sanders, so you blame somebody else.

Barack_America

(28,876 posts)
26. Oh, sorry, I didn't realize they moved the primaries to today.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:14 PM
Jun 2016

I thought the AP said it was supers that put Hillary over tonight, not voters.

So, who won CA? Off to go search!

SidDithers

(44,228 posts)
33. Except that 24 million-ish voters have already spoken...
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 04:02 PM
Jun 2016

and they've overwhelmingly chosen Hillary.

That it became obvious that Hillary would win, before all of the votes had been cast, does not mean that the outcome was decided by someone other than the voters.

Sid

Marrah_G

(28,581 posts)
38. Her campaigns actions will have a detrimental effect come November
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 06:11 PM
Jun 2016

When people see such dishonest and sneaky actions it makes them far less likely to go out and cast a vote for her in November.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
39. Weren't the votes cast by the voters an important factor in the media calling it?
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 06:22 PM
Jun 2016

So I'm not sure how you get to "voters not necessary".

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Voters not necessary. Th...