The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[The Romulan Republic]

You know, I do have to point out that Sanders is the only remaining candidate for either major party who is neither under FBI investigation nor being sued for fraud.

[Mr Bean]

So this is the state of our politics- a race to see who's going to get nailed by the law first.

Trump has an advantage there in that Trump University was a re-branding of an existing scam. That and this is a lawsuit so worst comes to worst Donald is out a few million dollars at most which he can throw into legal limbo until he secures the presidency. Which raises an legal issue if Donald secures the presidency and the case is no decided because if the case is active and ongoing hello conflict of interest for pretty much any judge appointment on his behalf.

[Flagg]

Yeah, those indictments, any day!

[The Romulan Republic]

I would think you'd be a little less confident after the State Department report. Maybe she won't be indicted, but this has moved past something that can just be dismissed as a Republican witch hunt.

[The Romulan Republic]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/d ... z4AUDpFYeH

Donald Trump escalated his attacks on the federal judge presiding over a civil fraud lawsuit against Trump University on Thursday, questioning his impartiality in handling the case because his Mexican heritage is "an inherent conflict of interest."

Less than six hours after securing the endorsement of House Speaker Paul Ryan, the presumptive Republican nominee said that U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” due to his ethnic background, adding, “I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest,” according to a interview in The Wall Street Journal.


Curiel was born in East Chicago, Indiana, to Mexican parents. He spent years prosecuting drug traffickers coming across the U.S.-Mexico border as a top official in the Justice Department's South District of California, and was later appointed to the federal bench by President Barack Obama.

Trump's comments come hours after he expressed confidence that he would win the case regardless of Curiel's alleged bias.

"Even though I have a very biased and unfair judge in the Trump U civil case in San Diego, I have thousands of great reviews & will win case!," he wrote earlier on Thursday. "After the litigation is disposed of and the case won, I have instructed my execs to open Trump U(?), so much interest in it! I will be pres."

It's not the first time Trump has attacked Curiel. At a rally on Friday in San Diego, he called him a "hater" during a 12-minute diatribe about the Trump University case and mentioned the judge's Mexican background, though he called it "great" and "fine."

His campaign has likewise gone after Curiel on ethnic grounds — though it apparently confused one Hispanic group with another.

"I think what's really interesting about this particular judge -- as Mr. Trump refers to him as a 'Trump hater' -- is he even mentions on his judicial questionnaire that he was a La Raza Lawyers Association member," Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson said on CNN earlier this week. "This is an organization that has been out there organizing anti-Trump protesters with the Mexican flags -- they are pushing it. The signs have been very apparent. And so Mr. Trump is just stating the obvious."

Pierson seems to have mixed up the La Raza Lawyers Association — an apolitical, professional group for Latino lawyers and judges — with the National Council of La Raza, a left-leaning Hispanic activist group headquartered in Washington, D.C.

Trump also leveled a new complaint against Curiel on Thursday: that he was friendly with one of the plaintiffs' lawyers in the Trump University case, a former colleague.

The lawyer, Jason Forge, denied that.

“Neither Judge Curiel’s ethnicity nor the fact that we crossed paths as prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office well over a decade ago is to blame,” Forge told the paper.

Curiel has yet to comment on Trump's accusations.

Later on Thursday night, an angry Megyn Kelly berated Trump supporter Bill Bennett about the real estate mogul's comments on her Fox News show.

“First of all, people are saying that this judge is a member of La Raza, the group that’s been protesting Donald Trump. He isn’t,” Kelly said. “He’s a member of a Hispanic lawyers' association that has no partisan stripes whatsoever. They support Hispanic lawyers and judges.”

Kelly, a former lawyer, pressed on.

“He has no conflict of interest, Bill,” she said. “Now Donald Trump is saying the judge needs to be investigated, someone should look into him just because he’s ruled against Donald Trump in his litigation repeatedly. That doesn’t make you biased. It just doesn’t.”

Kelly also speculated that Curiel is being harassed as a result of Trump’s attacks.

“When he does this, I guarantee you right now that this judge is getting threats and vitriol and who knows what else,” she said.

Trump apparently feels that being of Mexican heritage is "an inherent conflict of interest" for a judge in the Trump University case.

Let that sink in. He thinks that a judge does not have the right to judge him because of their race/nationality.

Can their be any doubt that, if given the chance, this man will rule with complete disregard for democracy, the judiciary, and the rule of law? That he intends to rule as a dictatorial strong man?

[the atom]

You know, I do have to point out that Sanders is the only remaining candidate for either major party who is neither under FBI investigation nor being sued for fraud.

Well there's that little F.E.C investigation, and then there's that fraud investigation into his wife's university which may include him.

[Thanas]

I would think you'd be a little less confident after the State Department report. Maybe she won't be indicted, but this has moved past something that can just be dismissed as a Republican witch hunt.

It will cease to appear as such once Dick Cheney is indicted for all the confidential documents he took home.

[Mr Bean]

I would think you'd be a little less confident after the State Department report. Maybe she won't be indicted, but this has moved past something that can just be dismissed as a Republican witch hunt.

It will cease to appear as such once Dick Cheney is indicted for all the confidential documents he took home.

First off if he was taking them to the VP official residence or he had a SCIF created in his own home that would be legal.

You forget that's Secretary Clinton investigation is not just for one thing

1. Negligence handling of classified information for the server, it's creation and maintenance

2. Allowing non-cleared persons access to said classified information (Her aides without security clearances, her IT guy and the cloud hosting company)

3. The coverup of the above two including unlawful destruction, perjury and more.

4. The big one, possible corruption and kickbacks from the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments in exchange for contracts during Secretary Clinton's time at State

[Purple]

So wait, she may actually have been selling secrets to foreign governments? Are we sure this one is better than Trump?

[Patroklos]

No, the Clinton Foundation is a corruption thing not an espionage thing. The timing of contributions from foreign sources coincide nicely with major decisions from state that impacted those entities. Additionally, top Clinton aides were simultaneously on the payroll of State and the Clinton Foundation, and Clinton friendly consulting firms.

[Purple]

Ah, I see. So it's not selling state secrets but state favors. That's much better.

[Mr Bean]

So wait, she may actually have been selling secrets to foreign governments? Are we sure this one is better than Trump?

Contracts not secrets, such as the deals with Merck also grants as in Muhammad Yunus case. It's a direct line in some cases of Person A Donates Money to Clinton Foundation->Person A meets with Secretary Clinton->Secretary Clinton makes State department issues go away. Sometimes step two becomes step one and step 1 becomes step 3.

The worst is likely the Boeing Deals. That story is a old but that kind of donating for access has been a long standing issue for Secretary Clinton.

[Wild Zontargs]

So, apparently a whole bunch of Trump supporters were attacked after the San Jose rally yesterday:

NBC (videos in source)

Protesters Assault Trump Supporters With Eggs, Bottles, Punches After Rally
by JACOB RASCON and ALI VITALI

SAN JOSE, Calif. — Donald Trump supporters were mobbed and assaulted by protesters on Thursday night after the candidate's campaign rally in California.

The violence broke out after the event in San Jose wrapped up just before 8 p.m. local time (11 p.m. ET). Some Trump supporters were punched. One woman wearing a "Trump" jersey was cornered, spit at, and pelted with eggs and water bottles.

Police held back at first but eventually moved in. San Jose Police Sgt. Enrique Garcia told NBC News that several protesters were arrested and one officer was assaulted in the melee.

Lan Hoang said anti-Trump protesters stole his "Make America Great Again" hat off of his head and set it on fire as he was leaving the rally.

The 24-year-old said he saw "a lot" of Trump supporters get attacked on the walk back to his car after the rally.

Protesters also smashed cars in a nearby parking structure and surrounded and taunted an elderly couple, according to Steve Tong.

"It was unbelievable," he told NBC Bay Area. "I've never seen anything like that in America before,"

Adam Rivas, a 22-year-old community college student who was born and raised in San Jose, was among those who turned out ahead of the rally to protest Trump.

Holding a "Dump Trump" sign, he told NBC Bay Area that Trump's remarks about Mexicans were offensive.

Hillary Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta condemned the violence, saying that "violence against supporters of any candidate has no place in this election."

"For any one Mexican here he bashes, there are about 20 Mexicans out there who are hard-working and just doing their job,'' Rivas said.

It wasn't the first Trump rally in California to turn violent. About 20 people were arrested after an April speech by Trump in Costa Mesa south of Los Angeles, when members of the crowd damaged five police vehicles.

Inside the San Jose Convention Center, Donald Trump was in full attack mode Thursday night, repeating his claim that Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email server was illegal.

Trump's assault on Clinton came just hours after the Democratic candidate gave a national security speech painting the GOP nominee as reckless and dangerous. Trump called Clinton's speech a "phony hit job" and retaliated by criticizing the former Secretary of State for her email scandal, foreign policy legacy, and her gun control policy proposals.

He also revived an attack line he famously used against former Republican rival Jeb Bush — energy level. "I watched Hillary's thing today, it's like Sominex ... you ever hear of Sominex? Sleep all night. It's hard to stay awake!" Trump said. "I'm not a big sleeper. I think [Clinton] could make more money if she made speeches and sold them to people who can't sleep."

At one point, the presumptive Republican nominee appeared sensitive to Clinton's attacks on his lack of foreign policy experience.

"Don't let the no experience fool you," Trump said. "I've been on the other side of the equation ... I was very much a part of the establishment. I was a big donor."

LA Times (more videos in source)

Protesters punch, throw eggs at Trump supporters in San Jose

Associated Press

A group of protesters attacked Donald Trump supporters who were leaving the candidate's rally in San Jose on Thursday night. A dozen or more people were punched, at least one person was pelted with an egg and Trump hats grabbed from supporters were set on fire.

Police stood their ground at first but after about 90 minutes moved into the remaining crowd to break it up and make arrests. At least four people were taken into custody, though police didn't release total arrest figures Thursday night. One officer was assaulted, police Sgt. Enrique Garcia said.

There were no immediate reports of injuries and no major property damage, police said.

The crowd, which had numbered over 300 just after the rally, had thinned significantly. Still, those that remained, filling about a city block near the San Jose Convention Center, were rowdy and angry.

Some banged on the cars of Trump supporters as they left the rally and chased after those on foot to frighten them.

Police were keeping their distance from the crowd as the scuffles played out but kept them from getting any closer to the convention center.

"Our police officers have done an extremely courageous and professional job so far," San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo told the Associated Press by phone. "We're all still holding our breath to see the outcome of this dangerous and explosive situation."

The mayor, a Democrat and Hillary Clinton supporter, criticized Trump for coming to cities and igniting problems that local police departments have to deal with.

"At some point Donald Trump needs to take responsibility for the irresponsible behavior of his campaign," Liccardo said.

The presumptive GOP nominee spoke for about 50 minutes at the rally, sniping at Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and calling her speech on foreign policy earlier in the day "pathetic" and "sad to watch."

Protesters before the speech included Adam Rivas, a 22-year-old community college student born and raised in San Jose who was holding a spray-painted sign that read "Dump Trump."

Rivas said he was particularly disturbed by Trump's remarks about Mexicans.

"For any one Mexican here he bashes, there are about 20 Mexicans out there who are hard-working and just doing their job," he said.

Trump supporter Debbie Tracey, a Navy veteran from San Jose, said she came to hear Trump speak. She left his rally with two hats, a T-shirt and a handful of signs that said "Veterans for Trump."

Passing in front of a wall of protesters, many chanting in Spanish, she said she supported Trump's call for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

"I'll go help build the wall because if you are going to come to this country, land of opportunity, you should be here legally," she said.

And here's a linkdump of reports and videos someone collected:

https://twitter.com/TomLlamasABC/status ... wsrc%5Etfw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmBXNE8gZvI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QPGeuduAr4
https://twitter.com/JimmyPrinceton/stat ... wsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/dcbigjohn/status/73 ... wsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/dcbigjohn/status/73 ... wsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/CandaceSmith_/statu ... wsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/Jacobnbc/status/738 ... wsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/stat ... wsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/SaraMurray/status/7 ... wsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/DefendWallSt/status ... wsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/SaraMurray/status/7 ... wsrc%5Etfw
https://www.periscope.tv/w/1OwxWbdgYEkJQ
https://twitter.com/JoePerticone/status ... wsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/MeOnAJourney/status ... wsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/marcusdipaola/statu ... wsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/juliacarriew/status ... wsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/NickyWoolf/status/7 ... wsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/TomLlamasABC/status ... wsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/smahaskey/status/73 ... wsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/Timcast/status/7385 ... wsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/artfulroger1/status ... wsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/TomLlamasABC/status ... wsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/Jacobnbc/status/738585705513787392
https://www.facebook.com/Dailytrumpmeme ... 953778815/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAAaivvNw_Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0NpqCm2OeM&app=desktop
https://twitter.com/smahaskey/status/738573795896610816
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnYXA3_UAv8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNIWixTOy94
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QFpyuE ... e=youtu.be
@23:40 https://www.periscope.tv/torbahax/1dRJZkLpPXrxB
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0TPZot ... e=youtu.be
https://twitter.com/JoePerticone/status ... 5067096065
https://twitter.com/KatyTurNBC/status/7 ... wsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/TomLlamasABC/status ... wsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/Timcast/status/7385 ... wsrc%5Etfw

[The Romulan Republic]

I would think you'd be a little less confident after the State Department report. Maybe she won't be indicted, but this has moved past something that can just be dismissed as a Republican witch hunt.

It will cease to appear as such once Dick Cheney is indicted for all the confidential documents he took home.

Because the Obama State Department is definitely only criticizing Clinton for partisan reasons.

Also, I'm tired of this ridiculous excuse, basically that because Republicans did it and got away with it, Clinton did nothing wrong and its all just a partisan attack on her.

"Republicans got away with it" is an excuse for possibly illegal acts since when? Is their a certain amount of law-breaking Democratic politicians are entitled to so they and the Republicans are on even ground?

I guess its okay for Obama to commit war crimes too, because Republicans weren't prosecuted for it.

Even if the two cases were identical, the fact that one criminal got away with something does not mean that anyone else accused of the same thing is innocent, or cannot/should not be prosecuted.

Or do you really think that "Cheney got away with it" should be precedent for how such cases are handled in the future?

Are Republicans going after Clinton on this but not Republicans hypocritical? Yeah, sure. Does that mean Clinton did nothing wrong? Of course not. More likely, it simply means that their are more people who also should have been prosecuted.

If you want to argue that Cheney should also be under investigation, then you'll get no argument here.

[The Romulan Republic]

You know, I do have to point out that Sanders is the only remaining candidate for either major party who is neither under FBI investigation nor being sued for fraud.

Well there's that little F.E.C investigation, and then there's that fraud investigation into his wife's university which may include him.

Is Sanders himself under investigation, or is their any evidence that he himself was involved in anything improper regarding the university?

As to the FEC investigation, I hadn't really heard anything about that, so I won't comment until I have more information.

Edit: As to the reports of attacks on Trump supporters, yeah, that pisses me off. Political violence is, of course, inexcusable no matter who its directed against, and the last thing I want to see is the Left going the way of the Tea Party/militia crowd.

Jackasses.

[Thanas]

I guess its okay for Obama to commit war crimes too, because Republicans weren't prosecuted for it.

Well, given that he did, seems that way.

That being said, this is still a storm in a teacup IMO. Nobody is going to indict Clinton. I live in a country where chancellors get to keep top secret stuff indefinitely at their homes and private archives. This is overblown.

[Patroklos]

Edit: As to the reports of attacks on Trump supporters, yeah, that pisses me off. Political violence is, of course, inexcusable no matter who its directed against, and the last thing I want to see is the Left going the way of the Tea Party/militia crowd.

Jackasses.

What is this mythical tea party violence of which you speak?

[LadyTevar]

SJW BULLSHIT HOSed. THIS IS YOUR ONE AND ONLY WARNING ON BANNED LANGUAGE AND HATE.

[FaxModem1]

CNN

Trump on black supporter: 'Look at my African-American over here'

By Jeremy Diamond, CNN
Updated 11:21 AM ET, Sat June 4, 2016


Redding, California (CNN)Donald Trump sought to tout his support among African-Americans on Friday by pointing out a black man in the crowd and calling him "my African-American."

"Oh, look at my African-American over here. Look at him," Trump said. "Are you the greatest?"
The remark didn't generate a noticeable response from Trump's audience.
Trump campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks told CNN Trump was "just referring to a supporter in the crowd. There's no ill will intended, obviously." She added Trump was "grateful for this person's support."
Hicks also rejected the suggestion that Trump's use of the possessive "my" to refer to the supporter was racist, saying such a charge was "ridiculous."
Gregory Cheadle, a Republican California congressional candidate, confirmed to CNN he was the supporter to whom Trump pointed. He told the Record Searchlight, a local newspaper, he was happy to be cited by Trump.
"That was me seriously. I got two autographs out of that," Cheadle told the newspaper. He added, "To give the black folk the time of the day, I was happy."
Trump's remark came as he recalled an incident in March when a black supporter of his assaulted a protester at a rally in Arizona as he was being escorted out of the building by police.
The comment also comes as Trump is under fire for calling on the federal judge presiding over one of the lawsuits against Trump University to recuse himself because of his Mexican heritage.
Trump again argued Friday in an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper that the judge is inherently biased against him because of the presumptive GOP nominee's plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
"If you are saying, he can't do his job because of his race, is that not the definition of racism?" Tapper asked him.
"No, I don't think so at all," Trump replied. "He's proud of his heritage. I respect him for that."
The presumptive Republican nominee has repeatedly hit back at charges that he is racist by insisting he is "the least racist person that you have ever met."
But Trump's rhetoric has repeatedly drawn charges of racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia.
In November, Trump retweeted a graphic of false crime statistics comparing percentages of "blacks killed by blacks" and "blacks killed by police" that included an image of a dark-skinned man wearing a bandana, military-style pants and holding a handgun sideways.
The graphic vastly overstated the number of homicides committed by blacks.
Trump kicked off his campaign by calling some undocumented immigrants from Mexico "rapists" and criminals and then stoked Islamophobic sentiment in December by calling for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."
Trump said in March that he believes "Islam hates us" and said last fall that a Black Lives Matter protester who disrupted his rally and was kicked and punched by Trump supporters probably "should have been roughed up."
Still, Trump has insisted that his campaign message will have enormous appeal among minority communities, particularly African-Americans and Hispanic Americans.
The de facto Republican nominee insists that his promise to bring jobs back to the U.S. and reduce unemployment in minority communities will draw those groups to his controversial candidacy.
CNN's Theodore Schleifer contributed to this report.

Well, this is a whoops.

[The Romulan Republic]

For any other candidate, this would be a massive, potentially career-ending scandal. For Dickless Donald, sadly, its just a drop in the bucket.

Anyhow, some new developments:

https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pr ... california

Bernie Sanders could pull off a win in next week's California primary, with a new poll showing the White House hopeful ahead by 1 percentage point.

ADVERTISEMENT

A USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll released Thursday evening shows Sanders leading with 44 percent to Clinton's 43 percent.
Sanders's 1-point lead falls within the poll's margin of error.

California's primary is open to independent voters that give Sanders a boost; among registered Democrats, Clinton still leads Sanders by 4 points, while Sanders has 50 percent support from independents to Clinton's 34 percent.

But, the poll found, Clinton has a 10-point lead among those likely to vote next week, primarily due to support from older voters.

Sanders has continued to close the gap between him and Clinton and has been campaigning hard across the state.

“Bernie Sanders has tapped into a wellspring of support in the Democratic primary over the last several weeks and he’s closing with a rush,” said Dan Schnur, director of USC’s Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics, which partnered with the L.A. Times to conduct the poll.

"If Clinton manages to hold him off and win the primary, it would be as a result of a low turnout that tilts the electorate in her direction."

Sanders has barnstormed California in recent weeks, hoping to grab a large share of the state's 475 pledged delegates up for grabs. However, if primary results are as close as recent polls indicate, Sanders and Clinton would split the 475 delegates evenly, which wouldn't give the Vermont senator much of a boost in his search for the nomination.

Clinton leads Sanders in the pledged delegate count 1,769 to 1,501. When superdelegates, the unbound party leaders who vote at the July convention, are factored in, the former first lady's lead blossoms to 2,313 and puts her just 70 delegates short of the Democratic nomination, according to The Associated Press delegate tracker.

Sanders has pledged to fight up until the Democratic National Convention to convince superdelegates to flip and hopes a convincing win in California will help.

The Los Angeles Times poll is just the latest to show it will be a close race for the two Democratic candidates.

A Field poll released Thursday morning showed Clinton leading Sanders by just 2 points, 45 percent to 43 percent, among likely Democratic primary voters.

And a NBC/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll released Wednesday similarly shows Clinton and Sanders within 2 points of each other: Clinton leads Sanders 49 percent to 47 percent in that poll.

The LA Times poll surveyed 1,500 voters from May 19-31 and has a margin of error of 2.9 percentage points. That included 903 Democratic voters, with a margin of error of 3.7 percentage points, and 503 likely Democratic voters, with a margin of error of 5 points.

Its just one poll, from a conservative source, so take it with a big grain of salt, but nonetheless, interesting.

While a one percent win in California obviously would not gain Sanders the nomination, it would net him more delegates and leverage (while also, regrettably, making Clinton look weaker in the general election), and would position Sanders more strongly to take the nomination if Clinton is indicted after all.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem- ... tes-223824

Sanders picks up more superdelegates
By DANIEL STRAUSS 06/02/16 11:33 AM EDT
Sen. Bernie Sanders picked up another superdelegate on Thursday: New Hampshire Democratic Party vice chairwoman Martha Fuller Clark, who also serves as a state senator.

Clark's backing on Thursday, confirmed by the Sanders campaign, is the latest in a string of superdelegate endorsements Sanders has gained in the past week.

On Thursday afternoon Maureen Monahan, vice chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party, announced that she would back Sanders and encouraged other unpledged superdelegates to support him.

"In the primaries and caucuses held so far, Senator Sanders has won about 45% of the pledged delegates, yet has pledges from only about 6% of the “super delegates.” No wonder Sanders voters are so frustrated with the party," Monahan said in a statement. "Party leaders need to acknowledge and embrace Senator Sanders and his supporters. That is why today I am pledging my super delegate vote to Senator Sanders. I am encouraging all still unpledged super delegates to support Senator Sanders as well. We need new energetic people in the Democratic Party to spread our effective message."

On Tuesday, Hawaii's Democratic Party elected Tim Vandeveer as its party chairman, meaning he also becomes a superdelegate. Vandeveer said he would vote for Sanders at the state party convention. A week earlier, West Virginia Democratic National Committeewoman Elaine Harris said she would support Sanders in her role as a superdelegate.

That newfound support for Sanders doesn't ease the steep uphill climb he faces to catch up to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Sanders, according to The Associated Press delegate tracker, has just 44 superdelegates, while Clinton has 543.

The article earns my ire for including a graph which repeats the lie of counting super delegates who have declared their allegiance as finalized votes for that candidate, when in fact they can switch right up to the convention. Still, interesting.

Obviously a few more super delegates, again, isn't going to change the outcome, so its more about the symbolic significance unless a bunch more delegates follow suite, but its interesting to see that some are still moving to Sanders even when conventional wisdom would suggest that its time to rally behind Clinton.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/e ... ent-223892

Harry Reid is quietly promoting Elizabeth Warren as a top pick to be Hillary Clinton’s running mate, and the Senate minority leader is already looking into Massachusetts law to see how quickly her Senate seat could be filled if Warren were to ascend to the vice presidency, a source close to him said Friday.

Reid views Warren as someone who can unite the Democratic Party after the longer-than-expected primary battle between Clinton and Bernie Sanders, the source said. The person confirmed a Boston Globe story that reported Reid is actively researching the state’s special election rules.


“He thinks Warren is a good choice to unify the party,” the person close to Reid said.

This is a shift of sorts for Reid, who said recently that he would object to Clinton choosing as vice-presidential nominee any Democratic senator from a state led by a GOP governor with the authority to name the senator's successor. That could create another hurdle for Democrats looking to regain Senate control this fall.

05_hillary_clinton_28_ap_1160.jpg
Echoing Warren, Clinton calls Trump 'urgent threat'
By NICK GASS
“If we have a Republican governor in any of those states the answer is not only no, but hell no,” Reid said in an MSNBC interview last month. “I would do whatever I can and I think most of my Democratic colleagues here would say the same thing.”

That stand from Reid would appear to eliminate Warren, because Massachusetts is led by Republican Gov. Charlie Baker, as well as Sens. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Cory Booker of New Jersey. The source close to Reid declined to say whether the senator is looking into similar rules in other states.

Aides to Warren declined to comment.

On the one hand, this suggests a sincere attempt by some in the Democratic establishment to reach out to progressives, which is good.

On the other hand, its my understanding that Warren's temporary replacement to the Senate would be appointed by a Republican governor, so that's bad.

Warren would be a decent choice, though part of me worries weather the country is not progressive enough to elect an all-female ticket.

Also, I believe Virgin Islands are holding a primary today, but no one seems to be covering it much.

Edits: Fixed second link. Also, I got a warning when I clicked on the first link. I've gone to that article before and never gotten a warning, only when I went their from this page (and only the first time I did so), so I believe its safe, but fair warning.

[Gaidin]

The article earns my ire for including a graph which repeats the lie of counting super delegates who have declared their allegiance as finalized votes for that candidate, when in fact they can switch right up to the convention. Still, interesting.

Obviously a few more super delegates, again, isn't going to change the outcome, so its more about the symbolic significance unless a bunch more delegates follow suite, but its interesting to see that some are still moving to Sanders even when conventional wisdom would suggest that its time to rally behind Clinton.

Then start bitching about the Republican primary. Because they sided with him when the AP started calling up unpledged delegates and asking them who they would vote for. When enough said they'd vote for Trump on a random day that happened to fall on a Thursday that wasn't a Primary, they called it for Trump and people a little more official like Representatives and Senators and such kinda went "Oh shi---" and started playing nicer after he declared victory.

You never know, however much we're bullshitting each other, they might vote for someone different and the Republican candidacy could theoretically still be up in the air until their next set of primaries technically.

Technically.

Be real.

[The Romulan Republic]

The article earns my ire for including a graph which repeats the lie of counting super delegates who have declared their allegiance as finalized votes for that candidate, when in fact they can switch right up to the convention. Still, interesting.

Obviously a few more super delegates, again, isn't going to change the outcome, so its more about the symbolic significance unless a bunch more delegates follow suite, but its interesting to see that some are still moving to Sanders even when conventional wisdom would suggest that its time to rally behind Clinton.

Then start bitching about the Republican primary. Because they sided with him when the AP started calling up unpledged delegates and asking them who they would vote for. When enough said they'd vote for Trump on a random day that happened to fall on a Thursday that wasn't a Primary, they called it for Trump and people a little more official like Representatives and Senators and such kinda went "Oh shi---" and started playing nicer after he declared victory.

You never know, however much we're bullshitting each other, they might vote for someone different and the Republican candidacy could theoretically still be up in the air until their next set of primaries technically.

Technically.

Be real.

The two situations are not remotely the same, as I'm sure you know.

For one, the Republican Party does not even fucking have super delegates.

For another, the opposition to Trump was divided between numerous candidates. The opposition to Clinton isn't.

For a third, their is no one still running against Trump on the Republican side.

Would you like me to continue?

Trump is the nominee, or at least presumptive nominee. It blows, and actually, despite your insinuation of hypocrisy on my part, I can and have said a lot of negative things about the Republican primary. But there it is. Trump won.

Clinton, however, is not yet the nominee.

[Gaidin]

The two situations are not remotely the same, as I'm sure you know.

For one, the Republican Party does not even fucking have super delegates.

For another, the opposition to Trump was divided between numerous candidates. The opposition to Clinton isn't.

For a third, their is no one still running against Trump on the Republican side.

Would you like me to continue?

Trump is the nominee, or at least presumptive nominee. It blows, and actually, despite your insinuation of hypocrisy on my part, I can and have said a lot of negative things about the Republican primary. But there it is. Trump won.

Clinton, however, is not yet the nominee.

So one side is allowed to count their unpledged delegates because you say so. Go forth and wave your hands. Because Clinton is not Bernie.

[The Romulan Republic]

The two situations are not remotely the same, as I'm sure you know.

For one, the Republican Party does not even fucking have super delegates.

For another, the opposition to Trump was divided between numerous candidates. The opposition to Clinton isn't.

For a third, their is no one still running against Trump on the Republican side.

Would you like me to continue?

Trump is the nominee, or at least presumptive nominee. It blows, and actually, despite your insinuation of hypocrisy on my part, I can and have said a lot of negative things about the Republican primary. But there it is. Trump won.

Clinton, however, is not yet the nominee.

So one side is allowed to count their unpledged delegates because you say so. Go forth and wave your hands. Because Clinton is not Bernie.

Is it possible that a bunch of unpledged Republican delegates could suddenly abandon Trump? Maybe, theoretically. And I don't believe I ever said otherwise.

But so fucking what? It doesn't change the fact that your attempt to portray the two situations as analogous/equivalent is highly dishonest.

[Gaidin]

Is it possible that a bunch of unpledged Republican delegates could suddenly abandon Trump? Maybe, theoretically. And I don't believe I ever said otherwise.

But so fucking what? It doesn't change the fact that your attempt to portray the two situations as analogous/equivalent is highly dishonest.

Is it possible that Clinton loses California? Maybe, theoretically. And I don't believe I ever said otherwise.

But so fucking what? It doesn't change the fact that she gets the nomination. It only changes how much of an ass Bernie's going to be.

Everybody in this thread knows it. Except for you.