It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Strange things were happening at the Nevada caucus

page: 2
25
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: Annee


Sorry, but I don't consider you a reliable source.


You should, unlike the establishment, consider the voter base as a reliable source.


I do my own research.

But, when you know a poster's history, and they only post far to one side --- that is biased opinion.




posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
I can't remember a time when I didn't have to wait in a long line to vote. Should older people get to break in line because they are old? Maybe AARP should take it on as cause, because now, there's no breaking in line.

And the photo is of a Clinton Tracker.

I don't understand the outrage.


I've been reading around the web.

Sounds like maybe they weren't fully organized, it's not a talent everyone has. I expect we'll see more of this from both sides.

Apparently nothing new:


But since its first run in 2008, the Nevada caucuses have been riddled with controversy, strife and turnout problems. www.bostonglobe.com...


And to get the "Bern's" all fired up:


The Sanders camp has been accused of recruiting Republicans to change their registrations and vote against the former secretary of State. “They are the ones inviting Republicans,” an unnamed source familiar with the Clinton operation in the state said. And the Sanders campaign has established an “election protection program” consisting of attorneys and a hotline for precinct captains in case anything goes awry. “You could see that there were a lot of concerns and even some conspiracy theories about what happened in Iowa, and this is the best way to avoid that type of situation and ensure the legitimacy of the process,” Chris Newman, a lawyer who is going to Las Vegas to monitor polls, told BuzzFeed. Longtime Nevada political operative Andres Ramirez, who is a superdelegate and has endorsed Clinton, called the Sanders strategy “bizarre.” thehill.com...

edit on 20-2-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

But, when you know a poster's history, and they only post far to one side --- that is biased opinion.


I believe in this situation, given the history everybody can read, we can assume your opinion is biased too.

Lots of of pots meeting kettles in 2016 it seems.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 11:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: Annee

But, when you know a poster's history, and they only post far to one side --- that is biased opinion.


I believe in this situation, given the history everybody can read, we can assume your opinion is biased too.

Lots of of pots meeting kettles in 2016 it seems.


I've been accused of being all over the place with my opinions.

Apparently I'm confusing.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Slanter

Caucuses are such a stupid way to do this and this is why it's stupid.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Bernie got burnt as Socialism got trumped by Hillary.

Now that she proved she can win States to go along with her already in the bag super delegates, Sanders is showing what he really was all along, a token candidate. Hillary doesn't have to face any strong Democrat just a Socialist, everybody should have known from day one she was given a winning hand by Party leadership.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 01:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: Annee

But, when you know a poster's history, and they only post far to one side --- that is biased opinion.


I believe in this situation, given the history everybody can read, we can assume your opinion is biased too.

Lots of of pots meeting kettles in 2016 it seems.


I've been accused of being all over the place with my opinions.

Apparently I'm confusing.

No ,apparently you havent been watching, reading etc. the news for the last 5 years.




posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 01:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
I've been accused of being all over the place with my opinions.

Apparently I'm confusing.


Confusing would be if you took a bunch of money from Goldman Sachs for useless speeches... or let Saudi Arabia pour money into your 'charity foundation'. What could she possibly offer either? She's all for women, except Saudi women... and she's against Wall Street, except when they pay her for speeches.

Hillary is confusing, you on the other hand, are less so.

ETA: I think we're done here, much like her campaign.
edit on 2/21/16 by Ksihkehe because: ETA: done with this... anybody that defends her at this point is hopelessly lost.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 06:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: Annee
I've been accused of being all over the place with my opinions.

Apparently I'm confusing.


.....for useless speeches...


Useless to who? Or is it whom?

Those two are confusing.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Slanter

Nothing unusual. Just typical Democrat Party establishment dirty tricks.



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

Useless to who? Or is it whom?

Those two are confusing.


She's getting a paycheck from Wall Street.

You can either acknowledged that or acknowledge being stupid.

The democratic party nomination is bought and paid for.



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: Annee

Useless to who? Or is it whom?

Those two are confusing.


She's getting a paycheck from Wall Street.

You can either acknowledged that or acknowledge being stupid.

The democratic party nomination is bought and paid for.


LOL, love that you try to make "bought and paid for" politicians exclusive to one party.



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I am wondering if anyone has noticed and can answer why the Republicans give votes in actual numbers and the Democrats give votes in percent of vote. Has this always been the practice? It would be nice to see actual votes on each party but I guess this is part of the game?



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: Annee
Did I miss the Trump thread on voting anomalies in SC.

Oh wait, it's only Hillary that's cause for investigation.


I haven't heard about any voting anomalies in SC, Annee, concerning Trump. Maybe I missed something, but if you know of any, please post a link.

Let's face it. Hillary is a dirty crook. Even people in her own party that vote for her think she can't be trusted. It has become expected of her.


Of course not! She was just following the democrat book of manipulation. Mention a lie and if no one calls you on it, some who see it will believe it. That poster is just as bad as the criminal Clinton supporters breaking the rules. Since it can help to void a valid vote...they should be deemed traitors (as they are) and hung.



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: queenofswords

Let's face it. Hillary is a dirty crook. Even people in her own party that vote for her think she can't be trusted. It has become expected of her.



No, I don't know that.

Do you personally know people in her party?

There is so much crap flying ---- I need real facts.

So Annie...why are you ignoring the questions by other posters. You mentioned voting issues regarding Trump and then when asked for a link or something...you provide nothing. Are you ADMITTING you simply lied and implied?



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I see people are still doing the Dem vs Rep, who is the bigger cheat. They are all just lame politicians trying to get in. Neither of these so called parties seems to really care about the average American.

As far as election shenanigans, remember when America use to be critical of this type of improprieties in other countries? Now it just part of our process.

But people in general will put up with it and think fairness still exists and will still defend some of these candidates. Sad times.



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: queenofswords

Let's face it. Hillary is a dirty crook. Even people in her own party that vote for her think she can't be trusted. It has become expected of her.



No, I don't know that.

Do you personally know people in her party?

There is so much crap flying ---- I need real facts.

So Annie...why are you ignoring the questions by other posters. You mentioned voting issues regarding Trump and then when asked for a link or something...you provide nothing. Are you ADMITTING you simply lied and implied?


I have a real life.

Not sure what I said about Trump. Personally, I don't accept him as a realistic candidate for president. Don't care if he is getting votes. It doesn't change my opinion.
edit on 22-2-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: queenofswords

Let's face it. Hillary is a dirty crook. Even people in her own party that vote for her think she can't be trusted. It has become expected of her.



No, I don't know that.

Do you personally know people in her party?

There is so much crap flying ---- I need real facts.

So Annie...why are you ignoring the questions by other posters. You mentioned voting issues regarding Trump and then when asked for a link or something...you provide nothing. Are you ADMITTING you simply lied and implied?


I have a real life.

Not sure what I said about Trump. Personally, I don't accept him as a realistic candidate for president. Don't care if he is getting votes. It doesn't change my opinion.


You implied there were voting anomolies in favour of Trump in SC. Having said it, you should post some links.



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: queenofswords

Let's face it. Hillary is a dirty crook. Even people in her own party that vote for her think she can't be trusted. It has become expected of her.



No, I don't know that.

Do you personally know people in her party?

There is so much crap flying ---- I need real facts.

So Annie...why are you ignoring the questions by other posters. You mentioned voting issues regarding Trump and then when asked for a link or something...you provide nothing. Are you ADMITTING you simply lied and implied?


I have a real life.

Not sure what I said about Trump. Personally, I don't accept him as a realistic candidate for president. Don't care if he is getting votes. It doesn't change my opinion.


You implied there were voting anomolies in favour of Trump in SC. Having said it, you should post some links.


Doesn't sound like me. Or I was having a "flippant" moment. Will have to go back and check. I'm in a very flaky Internet area for several days. Can't always get here.

I have said recently: "Trump throws out everything hoping something will stick".



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Slanter

Personally, I think the whole idea that the caucus process produces anything close a fair representation of the will of people, is pure delusion.

Short of closing down all business, (both public & private) in the state simultaneously, allowing all employees time off so they can caucus at the chosen hour, there is no way that everyone has equal opportunity to participate.

On top of that, the dates, times and processes for caucusing are different for different political parties, even within the same state. A total lack of uniformity!

We've heard of irregularities now from both the Iowa and Nevada caucuses. Everything from false vote counts, to unregistered participants, to funny math, to openly biased poll workers.

And despite the fact that I'm a union supporter, I can see where unions could also abuse the caucus process in a couple of ways.

First, the union could schedule those who oppose the union's endorsed candidate to work during the caucus time while freeing up their known supporters.

Second, the union's could use the democratic caucus process of gathering in groups to show support of a candidate, to make sure their membership knows they're being watched.

I'm not saying they do, just that they could.

I know there's such a thing as state's rights and all, but when it comes to federal elections, there should be some nationwide uniformity to the process.

Here in Texas, we cast votes. We use an electronic, secret ballot system. Both parties do it simultaneously. And....we have like two weeks of early voting so that everyone has the opportunity to participate.

With the exception of our B.S. Voter ID laws, it's a pretty good system.

What could be simpler? And.... Why don't we adopt something like that on a national scale for all federal elections?



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1   >>

log in

join