"No two people see the external world in exactly the same way. To every separate person a thing is what he thinks it is -- in other words, not a thing, but a think." - Penelope Fitzgerald
DONALD TRUMP'S FIVE-STATE VICTORYAPRIL 27, 2016 - Donald Trump crushes his opposition in five more GOP primaries, and Ted Cruz takes heat for referring to a basketball hoop as a "ring" during a speech in Indiana. (5:06)
How could Ted Cruz mess up such a common reference unless he's lying to win votes?
As reported by the Kansas City Star, Ted Cruz pointed the Indiana crowd to a man in a sweater vest standing on a red ladder with a measuring tape. The delivery should have been a complete layup. If done right, the impact could have been a slam dunk. Instead, Cruz took a cue from another sport and fumbled the opportunity completely.
“The amazing thing about that basketball ring here in Indiana, it’s the same height as it is in New York City. And every other place in this country.”
Lets take a look at how Hillary Clinton won New York by limiting access for voters to vote (smart GOP Establishment tactic, not a moral one or democratic one though)
Highlights of Bernie Sanders explaining how Hillary won by limiting access to voting;
Trevor Noah points out something is a tactic I noticed the Hillary prone left use (that will probably work VERY well against Hillary herself!) that Bernie is like a paranoid old man (which worked exceptionally well against Ron Paul as well);
You know how the saying goes, 'your not paranoid if they are really out to get you' (see links below) but I understand why people would think an old man is paranoid when facing a semi-cute old woman. That said, Hillary has done nothing but lie and deceive in this campaign... with help from the lefts traitorous media who have decided to cover truths in favor of a GOP Establishment person acting like a moral person.
Notice, for example: The part left out of the wordings from this Rachel Maddow interview in the amount of money Hillary's Super Pac spent on the election (read about Super Pac's here)
Ted Cruz is "Lucifer in the Flesh" say his closest colleagues. Creepy is what I have so far for Carly Fiorina. Lets look at the perception people have of these two people;
Ted Cruz is 'Lucifer in the flesh' - Rachel Maddow exposes the widespread distaste for Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz from members of his own party, including former House Speaker John Boehner who said Cruz was “Lucifer in the flesh” and would be elected “over my dead body.”
I pointed out how Ted Cruz is like the Joker (in an earlier post listed above) in how he likes to quote movies lines when he thinks it's a serious moment. When Ted Cruz announced he was running with Carly Fiorina (the heartless lady who fired 30,000 people before being fired herself) it struck me! We should call Ted Cruz the Joker and Carly Fiorina "The Wicked Witch of the West" (the "Wicked Witch of the East" being Hillary Clinton).
Carly The Witch With Ted Cruz The Joker... What Could Go Wrong?
Tonightly points out how creepy Carly Fiorina is (making her the perfect match for Ted Cruz);
News puts it accurately, i.e. Obama is sending troops...
But the actual word Obama used was"Personnel";
As Larry Wilmore puts it, Obama is being weird...
He can't say "troops" (or should rather) because it's against the War Powers Act;
Larry Wilmore mistook this for a flip flop, i.e. he thinks Obama is being careful because of what he said in 2007/8;
In reality Obama just followed the Iraqi Withdrawal plan that George Bush signed and actually showed NOTHING of candidate Obama (I don't even think he carried out the withdrawal);
Here is Rachel Maddow explaining how Congress REALLY needs to declare war on ISIS by now (to 60 days is way past the Iraq authorization... SYRIA IS A DIFFERENT COUNTRY);
Rep. McGovern rips 'cowardly Congress' on ducking ISIS war vote - Congressman Jim McGovern talks with Rachel Maddow about Congress avoiding debating and voting on the U.S. war against ISIS even as it votes on funding that war, and his effort to force that debate and vote with a resolution to withdraw from hostilities.
In other words... we have an unconstitutional war going on in Syria right now!
Hillary: Look, I think we have much more in common and I want to unify the Party, but my Wall Street plan is much more specific than his. We saw that when he couldn't even answer questions in the New York Daily News interview. I have laid out a very clear set of objectives about not just reining in the banks -- because we already have Dodd-Frank, which President Obama passed inside (ph) and I said I will implement it. But I've gone further. This post will make it clear that the Daily News interview was a hit job and Hillary probably knows this by now given the caliber of media reporting on her and that she is purposely out there spreading misinformation as part of her strategy of winning, i.e. she's awfully alot like an establishment Republican like George Bush who Obama compared her to in 2008 (accurately, apparently) First, an article from the Huffington Post that kinda exposes the Daily News in a way that is normal for a Democrat;
A notion is rapidly crystallizing among the national media that Bernie Sanders majorly bungled an interview with the editorial board of the New York Daily News. His rival, Hillary Clinton, has even sent a transcript of the interview to supporters as part of a fundraising push. A close look at that transcript, though, suggests the media may be getting worked up over nothing.
In fact, in several instances, it’s the Daily News editors who are bungling the facts in an interview designed to show that Sanders doesn’t understand the fine points of policy. In questions about breaking up big banks, the powers of the Treasury Department and drone strikes, the editors were simply wrong on details.
Take the exchange getting the most attention: Sanders’ supposed inability to describe exactly how he would break up the biggest banks. Sanders said that if the Treasury Department deemed it necessary to do so, the bank would go about unwinding itself as it best saw fit to get to a size that the administration considered no longer a systemic risk to the economy. Sanders said this could be done with new legislation, or through administrative authority under Dodd-Frank.
This is true, as economist Dean Baker,Peter Eavis at The New York Times, and HuffPost’s Zach Carter in a Twitter rant have all pointed out. It’s also the position of Clinton herself. “We now have power under the Dodd-Frank legislation to break up banks. And I’ve said I will use that power if they pose a systemic risk,” Clinton said at a February debate. No media outcry followed her assertion, because it was true.
As the interview went on, though, it began to appear that the Daily News editors didn’t understand the difference between the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve. Follow in the transcript how Sanders kept referring to the authority of the administration and the Treasury Department through Dodd-Frank, known as Wall Street reform, while the Daily News editors shifted to the Fed.
Daily News: Okay. Well, let’s assume that you’re correct on that point. How do you go about doing it?
Sanders: How you go about doing it is having legislation passed, or giving the authority to the secretary of treasury to determine, under Dodd-Frank, that these banks are a danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail.
Daily News: But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority?
Sanders: Well, I don’t know if the Fed has it. But I think the administrationcan have it.
Daily News: How? How does a president turn to JPMorgan Chase, or have the treasury turn to any of those banks and say, “Now you must do X, Y and Z?”
Sanders: Well, you do have authority under the Dodd-Frank legislation to do that, make that determination.
Daily News: You do, just by Federal Reserve fiat, you do?
This is simply a factual dispute between the Daily News and Sanders, not a matter of opinion. The Daily News was wrong.
Now note two things more things from the Daily News interview's transcript that show it was a lying hit job; Images from New York's Daily News online transcript;
The question basically says, about a company that is in an area to avoid taxes as given to them by thier bribed congressmen, that they have given us 115,000 PERMANENT employees. One day, when Hillary has shipped all our jobs abroad, these 115,000 people in a country of 400 million will have jobs and be nice to us. These will be our rulers. Do you really want to be mean to them? Or something like that. Related Article: 45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes (i.e. Hillary is pulling a Mitt Romney here) The Daily News continues with it's GOP Establishment them;
Super Delegates isn't really a controversial issue, though it should be. Everyone in the news was talking about how winning a State could shift momentum and make someone win. Here is an article example of what the PERCEPTION OF WINNING can mean to momentum;
In other words, simply winning ONE State can shift momentum. Imagine if the delegates were stacked in such a way Hillary always got the better of every or most contests? That's what Super Delegates do. They create an impression - a valid one - that the one with more delegates has more momentum, i.e. the one with MORE delegates is actually winning. The fact that some delegates were pledged to the political Establishment form the start doesn't matter when you crunch the numbers without changing the system. The media, more often then not, seems just to follow the talking points of the loudest person.
After Hubert Humphrey won the Democratic nomination in the 1968 election, against the wishes of most constituents, Bee explains, the party changed its rules "to give power to the people"—starting with reform commissions created to shift away from 'party bosses' and toward primaries and 'rank and file' party voters. "The people," Bee explains, celebrated these new changes in the rules by "dropping a shit-ton of acid with Hunter S. Thompson and nominating George McGovern." McGovern went on to win only Massachusetts and Washington, DC in the general election.
So "in 1982, the grown-ups said 'ENOUGH,'" Bee continues:
From now on, Democratic governors, members of Congress, and party movers and shakers get a say in the process. We shall call you 'ex-officio delegates'—that way, everyone who speaks Latin will know how you got this job. Normal people will call you 'superdelegates' and have no idea.
The only job of the superdelegates is to act in the best interest of the party. "That's why they have never tried to overrule the will of the voters. Not because they care about us—they don't—but because pissing off the voters is bad for their party, remember?" If Bernie Sanders receives more votes than Hillary Clinton, Bee says, her superdelegates will drop her and switch allegiances, just like they did in the 2008 presidential election.
But if superdelegates won't act against the wishes of the constituent majority, what purpose do they serve? "Think of them as the driving instructor with her foot hovering over the break," Bee jokes. "She'll only use her power if the party is about do a Thelma and Louise."
No. They create momentum for the establishment candidates who happen to be the Clinton in this case.
When you win a State and most of the Delegates go to someone else that's EXACTLY what is happening, i.e. the momentum shifts to the one who is winning cause people like winners. Samantha Bee just did an embarrassing stump for Hillary Clinton defending the Political Establishment's right to win elections by using the expectations created by the numbers of delegates to skew an election in the public's perception (proving that the Daily Show was right in not making her host... I understand Hillary has the genitals to qualify as a woman but I think it pretty much ends there, unless killing innocent women and children is considered to be OK if its a caring woman running for President).
What Samantha Bee did there at the end of the video is take Hillary's talking point as a fact and PROMOTE it. (Hillary is a woman so when she lies women automatically want to believe her... the way a Republican wants to believe a Republican and a Democrat wants to believe a Democrat... why do these parties have so much power anyways? It's unAmerican).
Obama was successful in getting Super Delegates to switch because he was brave enough to prove what Hillary Clinton is, i.e. like George Bush (THE GOP Establishment, pretty much). If it takes THAT much persuasion to gain an election advantage then CLEARLY the Super Delegate System is biased towards the Clinton's, who ARE the Democrat Establishment they way the Bush's ARE the GOP Establishment... and clearly, they are very similar. Here are related proofs;
Here is the insane argument being marketed to the people right now; HOWARD DEAN TALKS PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS APRIL 21, 2016 -Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean discusses his role as a superdelegate in the Democratic primary race and revisits his infamous "scream speech" from 2004. (5:19)
The following Democrat Establishment argument, bought wholesale by the media, is just plain hogwash as it leaves out how these can create moment for the establishment and what must be done to bring a Political Establishment person down;
This time the delegate stealing strategy to create momentum by showing how tough a person is to beat using fuzzy math... worked. Last time, with Obama, it didn't... but then, Obama actually exposed Hillary Clinton (then gave her so much power he practically stole the election for her highness Third Term Clinton here) Some stuff Obama said about Hillary Clinton that worked to overcome the Super Delegate pressure on non-Establishment candidates for dealing with HIllary Clinton;
