Establishment Media in it for Establishment Hillary

rapbeats

Superstar
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
9,362
Reputation
1,900
Daps
12,858
Reppin
NULL
Establishment Media in it for Establishment Hillary

**just in case you thought you were the only one who saw it going down***

i dont want to see a single reply until all 3 videos are fully watched.

Bernie Fends Off Establishment Grilling On The View


Joy Behar Embarrasses Herself On Iraq To Bernie Sanders


Rachel Maddow Lets Vegas Insider Spread Anti-Bernie Propaganda




Bernie Supporter Confronts Vegas Reporter On Rachel Maddow

 

GzUp

Sleep, those slices of death; Oh how I loathe them
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
30,225
Reputation
6,695
Daps
56,810
Reppin
California
He got less votes so he lost, it's over.
 

I_Got_Da_Burna

Superstar
Joined
Jun 18, 2012
Messages
7,257
Reputation
1,000
Daps
28,812
Reppin
NULL
The Hillary supporters on this site are him and these weirdo dudes from other parts of the site who come in and treat her like she's great aunt Hilly
:russ:

some of them are lame pathetic trolls like @88m3 and some of them are just flat out tapdancin dikkridin c00ns like @GzUp
 

rapbeats

Superstar
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
9,362
Reputation
1,900
Daps
12,858
Reppin
NULL
He got less votes so he lost, it's over.
The same can be said for other corrupt regimes in other shady corrupt countries. "well i won the vote." the vote of who? a bunch of super delegates already in on it before bern or anyone else even got in the race. thats surely sounds like a corrupt country type of move. just because we aint making other politicians come up missing doesnt mean we aint playing around with a corrupt government/politicians.
never use "but she got the votes" as an excuse for the nonsense we have seen this election cycle.

now if old hil was a solid candidate that could be trusted by the people. and she was up in the numbers AFTER the race started and the media was not siding with her. Then by all means ...bernie you lost bro. But thats not what has happened or is happening. like someone said above the fix was in before it even started. if you're not afraid of that i hope you're ultra rich cause if not, you will feel the pain of that decision soon enough.
 

GzUp

Sleep, those slices of death; Oh how I loathe them
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
30,225
Reputation
6,695
Daps
56,810
Reppin
California
The same can be said for other corrupt regimes in other shady corrupt countries. "well i won the vote." the vote of who? a bunch of super delegates already in on it before bern or anyone else even got in the race. thats surely sounds like a corrupt country type of move. just because we aint making other politicians come up missing doesnt mean we aint playing around with a corrupt government/politicians.
never use "but she got the votes" as an excuse for the nonsense we have seen this election cycle.

now if old hil was a solid candidate that could be trusted by the people. and she was up in the numbers AFTER the race started and the media was not siding with her. Then by all means ...bernie you lost bro. But thats not what has happened or is happening. like someone said above the fix was in before it even started. if you're not afraid of that i hope you're ultra rich cause if not, you will feel the pain of that decision soon enough.
no, pledged delegates.
 

rapbeats

Superstar
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
9,362
Reputation
1,900
Daps
12,858
Reppin
NULL
no, pledged delegates.
after the super delegates and the media made it known "he aint winning".

people are sheeple. everyone knows this. the people are easily swayed by media (false or true) coverage as well as numbers. if 10 million people take a poll and say beer flavored ice cream is better tasting than any other flavor ever made. you would get another 5 million or so sheeples to agree just purely based on the size of the original group that voted for the beer flavor. thats how people are. so if you start off an insurmountable lead due to super delegates it will sway a lot of the public to either #1 vote for the majority winner or #2 no reason to vote at all since your choice has NO CHANCE...this is exactly what they wanted you to believe before it even started. If you dont understand this simple logic i dont know what to tell you.

lastly, you do realize southern/midwest leadership are the ones who pushed to make sure the south/midwest gets first dibs on the primaries. which means they have a lopsided /skewed voter turn out for someone from the south/midwest and not for someone from the west or north east. Why do you think we seem to keep getting these southerners as presidents. if southerners are the ones winning the primaries early on and swaying the others votes (i spoke on earlier). than you will only have two choices of southerners or at worse 1 southern vs a mid westerner. which again means a bernie type from the northeast aint got a chance in hell. he/she will always be down by a crazy margin once the primaries pass thru the south and some of the midwest. unless the candidate is from NY he/she will not be able to catchup to someone from the south/midwest.

...The staggered nature of the presidential primary season allows candidates to concentrate their resources in each area of the country one at a time instead of campaigning in every state simultaneously. In some of the less populous states, this allows campaigning to take place on a much more personal scale. However, the overall results of the primary season may not be representative of the U.S. electorate as a whole: voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and other less populous states which traditionally hold their primaries and caucuses in late-January/February usually have a major impact on the races, while voters in California and other large states which traditionally hold their primaries in June generally end up having no say because the races are usually over by then. As a result, more states vie for earlier primaries, known as "front-loading", to claim a greater influence in the process. The national parties have used penalties and awarded bonus delegates in efforts to stagger the system over broadly a 90 day window. Where state legislatures set the primary or caucus date, sometimes the out-party in that state has endured penalties in the number of delegates it can send to the national convention
 
Last edited:

GzUp

Sleep, those slices of death; Oh how I loathe them
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
30,225
Reputation
6,695
Daps
56,810
Reppin
California
after the super delegates and the media made it known "he aint winning".

people are sheeple. everyone knows this. the people are easily swayed by media (false or true) coverage as well as numbers. if 10 million people take a poll and say beer flavored ice cream is better tasting than any other flavor ever made. you would get another 5 million or so sheeples to agree just purely based on the size of the original group that voted for the beer flavor. thats how people are. so if you start off an insurmountable lead due to super delegates it will sway a lot of the public to either #1 vote for the majority winner or #2 no reason to vote at all since your choice has NO CHANCE...this is exactly what they wanted you to believe before it even started. If you dont understand this simple logic i dont know what to tell you.
people did not vote for her cuz she had more super delegates, u wont find one person who did... this is what bernie stans created cuz they lost, they have many excuses too... clinton got most of the sd when she ran with obama but they eventually shifted towards him cuz he started to win, bernie been behind over 200 since south carolina :mjlol:
 

rapbeats

Superstar
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
9,362
Reputation
1,900
Daps
12,858
Reppin
NULL
people did not vote for her cuz she had more super delegates, u wont find one person who did... this is what bernie stans created cuz they lost, they have many excuses too... clinton got most of the sd when she ran with obama but they eventually shifted towards him cuz he started to win, bernie been behind over 200 since south carolina :mjlol:
bernie stans created MSNBC? showing that bernie was losing by a super wide margin? NO, thats hillary camp right there.

The media has been saying that same thing since before bernie even joined in. and one he and big O' joined in they were still saying. "no one has a chance in hell look at her delegate count" only because you had bernie people crying about it that they start someone telling people there is a difference between super delegates within the total count.

dont be a sheep. you can vote for hil all you like. but dont lie to yourself. the media was doing their best to misinform people and to have them think the super delegates/pledged delegates are all the same delegates and no one can catch her due to those overall delegates. which makes people stay home and not vote for their other choices Or makes sheeple follow the lead of the majority if they were undecided.

more proof

Clinton, media still counting superdelegates despite DNC pleas

Clinton, media still counting superdelegates despite DNC pleas

On April 28, Luis Miranda, communications director for the Democratic National Committee, did an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper to formally clarify the official position of the Democratic Party on when superdelegates are, and are not, supposed to actually count in public vote tallies.

What he said shocked the hell out of me and should shock the hell out of you — in part because not a single media outlet or the Hillary Clinton campaign has paid one bit of attention to it before or since. Since election season began, networks, newspapers and pundits have included superdelegates in their tallies, but the DNC emphatically said that was wrong over a month ago.

Not on a hot mic or during a commercial break, but live on the air, Luis Miranda, in no uncertain terms, told Jake Tapper that the media should not be including them. Miranda said, "One of the problems is the way the media reports them. Any night that you have a primary or caucus, and the media lumps the superdelegates in, that they basically polled by calling them up and saying who are you supporting, they don't vote until the convention, and so they shouldn't be included in any count." :stopitslime:

Tapper, seemingly shocked by the candid honesty of Miranda, then asked, "But when we do our totals, do you think it's OK to include them?"

Miranda then doubled down — and completely blew my mind. "Not yet," he said. "Because they're not actually voting :ohhh: (until the convention in late July) and they are likely to change their mind. Look at 2008 and what happened then was there was all this assumption about what superdelegates were going to do and many of them did change their mind before the convention and it shifted the results in the end."

Hold up! Did the communications director of the DNC just say that superdelegates should not be counted because they are "likely to change their mind," that they basically did just that in 2008, and they "shifted the results" by doing so? Wow... just wow. Had a surrogate or staff for Bernie Sanders said this, they'd be called every foul name imaginable by the Clinton campaign, but Miranda is the communications director for the DNC. He worked for President Obama. He speaks for the Democratic Party.

Tapper, clearly befuddled, then concluded the interview with this summary, which again was shocking: "Very interesting. The DNC itself is saying don't include superdelegates in the totals to cable networks like our own."

Do you think CNN listened to the DNC? Of course not. See the infographic below — that's from earlier this morning, and it still includes the very delegates that the DNC clearly told CNN not to include:
Bernie :mjcry:

Hillary :troll:
Establishment Media :troll:
 

GzUp

Sleep, those slices of death; Oh how I loathe them
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
30,225
Reputation
6,695
Daps
56,810
Reppin
California
bernie stans created MSNBC? showing that bernie was losing by a super wide margin? NO, thats hillary camp right there.

The media has been saying that same thing since before bernie even joined in. and one he and big O' joined in they were still saying. "no one has a chance in hell look at her delegate count" only because you had bernie people crying about it that they start someone telling people there is a difference between super delegates within the total count.

dont be a sheep. you can vote for hil all you like. but dont lie to yourself. the media was doing their best to misinform people and to have them think the super delegates/pledged delegates are all the same delegates and no one can catch her due to those overall delegates. which makes people stay home and not vote for their other choices Or makes sheeple follow the lead of the majority if they were undecided.

more proof

Clinton, media still counting superdelegates despite DNC pleas


Bernie :mjcry:

Hillary :troll:
Establishment Media :troll:
u can bla,me the media all u want, he didnt lose cuz people saw that she had more delegates... he lost cuz more people liked clinton, the thing is bernie stans cant believe that anyone would like clinton over bernie.
 
Top