Trump's rally in Chicago stopped due to protests
Options
Comments
-
Figures a .org company that causes shit.mrussel1 said:
The entire premise of the article and the conclusions hinge on this one statement: Several admitted answering a Craig’s list ad paying $16.00 an hour for protesters.BS44325 said:Somebody on here was looking for evidence that Trump protestors were being paid.
This article claims that some New York protestors were paid $16.00 an hour through a craigslist ad...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/clinton-and-soros-are-behind-violent-riots-at-trump-rallies-not-sanders/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social#ixzz43ZMFWpQT
What are the names of these people? Do we have sworn affidavits, a name and address, a video of them talking about? How about evidence of the ad in Craigslist? The conclusion is then jumped to that they were paid for Clinton supporters, using that Reichstag analogy twice. Don't you think this is a littttle thinly sourced?
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/clinton-and-soros-are-behind-violent-riots-at-trump-rallies-not-sanders/#ixzz43l9lldMg0 -
C'mon... I'm really disappointed in the lack of critical analysis on these boards, from both sides. I find myself arguing with people because it's just copy and paste from opinion pieces, right and left wing rags, but no empirical evidence. Are we that lazy that we can't think anymore?PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
Figures a .org company that causes shit.mrussel1 said:
The entire premise of the article and the conclusions hinge on this one statement: Several admitted answering a Craig’s list ad paying $16.00 an hour for protesters.BS44325 said:Somebody on here was looking for evidence that Trump protestors were being paid.
This article claims that some New York protestors were paid $16.00 an hour through a craigslist ad...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/clinton-and-soros-are-behind-violent-riots-at-trump-rallies-not-sanders/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social#ixzz43ZMFWpQT
What are the names of these people? Do we have sworn affidavits, a name and address, a video of them talking about? How about evidence of the ad in Craigslist? The conclusion is then jumped to that they were paid for Clinton supporters, using that Reichstag analogy twice. Don't you think this is a littttle thinly sourced?
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/clinton-and-soros-are-behind-violent-riots-at-trump-rallies-not-sanders/#ixzz43l9lldMg0 -
If the story is true than that is the kind of people that would read and respond to craigslist so no doubt they are convincing at their protest.mrussel1 said:
C'mon... I'm really disappointed in the lack of critical analysis on these boards, from both sides. I find myself arguing with people because it's just copy and paste from opinion pieces, right and left wing rags, but no empirical evidence. Are we that lazy that we can't think anymore?PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
Figures a .org company that causes shit.mrussel1 said:
The entire premise of the article and the conclusions hinge on this one statement: Several admitted answering a Craig’s list ad paying $16.00 an hour for protesters.BS44325 said:Somebody on here was looking for evidence that Trump protestors were being paid.
This article claims that some New York protestors were paid $16.00 an hour through a craigslist ad...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/clinton-and-soros-are-behind-violent-riots-at-trump-rallies-not-sanders/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social#ixzz43ZMFWpQT
What are the names of these people? Do we have sworn affidavits, a name and address, a video of them talking about? How about evidence of the ad in Craigslist? The conclusion is then jumped to that they were paid for Clinton supporters, using that Reichstag analogy twice. Don't you think this is a littttle thinly sourced?
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/clinton-and-soros-are-behind-violent-riots-at-trump-rallies-not-sanders/#ixzz43l9lldMg
If it's not true than we are left with a few handful of real protesters causing shit.
No opinion article needed.0 -
But the whole premise of the article and our friend BS was that 1. They were paid from ads in Craigslist, and 2. It's Clinton's fault. Neither of these are supported by any evidence. It's pathetic journalism and for us to repeat that is fucking depressing. And lazy.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
If the story is true than that is the kind of people that would read and respond to craigslist so no doubt they are convincing at their protest.mrussel1 said:
C'mon... I'm really disappointed in the lack of critical analysis on these boards, from both sides. I find myself arguing with people because it's just copy and paste from opinion pieces, right and left wing rags, but no empirical evidence. Are we that lazy that we can't think anymore?PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
Figures a .org company that causes shit.mrussel1 said:
The entire premise of the article and the conclusions hinge on this one statement: Several admitted answering a Craig’s list ad paying $16.00 an hour for protesters.BS44325 said:Somebody on here was looking for evidence that Trump protestors were being paid.
This article claims that some New York protestors were paid $16.00 an hour through a craigslist ad...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/clinton-and-soros-are-behind-violent-riots-at-trump-rallies-not-sanders/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social#ixzz43ZMFWpQT
What are the names of these people? Do we have sworn affidavits, a name and address, a video of them talking about? How about evidence of the ad in Craigslist? The conclusion is then jumped to that they were paid for Clinton supporters, using that Reichstag analogy twice. Don't you think this is a littttle thinly sourced?
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/clinton-and-soros-are-behind-violent-riots-at-trump-rallies-not-sanders/#ixzz43l9lldMg
If it's not true than we are left with a few handful of real protesters causing shit.
No opinion article needed.
And then on the Hillary page, you have Free claiming there was voter fraud because A. the lines were long in AZ and B. some people posted some videos claiming it to be so. As if Bernie supporters were targeted for voter suppression somehow and if true, it didn't more adversely affect Trump and Clinton.
Please think for me.. I can't bare to...Post edited by mrussel1 on0 -
I touched earlier that society has become lazy google robots. Let google fight for you!mrussel1 said:
But the whole premise of the article and our friend BS was that 1. They were paid from ads in Craigslist, and 2. It's Clinton's fault. Neither of these are supported by any evidence. It's pathetic journalism and for us to repeat that is fucking depressing. And lazy.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
If the story is true than that is the kind of people that would read and respond to craigslist so no doubt they are convincing at their protest.mrussel1 said:
C'mon... I'm really disappointed in the lack of critical analysis on these boards, from both sides. I find myself arguing with people because it's just copy and paste from opinion pieces, right and left wing rags, but no empirical evidence. Are we that lazy that we can't think anymore?PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
Figures a .org company that causes shit.mrussel1 said:
The entire premise of the article and the conclusions hinge on this one statement: Several admitted answering a Craig’s list ad paying $16.00 an hour for protesters.BS44325 said:Somebody on here was looking for evidence that Trump protestors were being paid.
This article claims that some New York protestors were paid $16.00 an hour through a craigslist ad...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/clinton-and-soros-are-behind-violent-riots-at-trump-rallies-not-sanders/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social#ixzz43ZMFWpQT
What are the names of these people? Do we have sworn affidavits, a name and address, a video of them talking about? How about evidence of the ad in Craigslist? The conclusion is then jumped to that they were paid for Clinton supporters, using that Reichstag analogy twice. Don't you think this is a littttle thinly sourced?
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/clinton-and-soros-are-behind-violent-riots-at-trump-rallies-not-sanders/#ixzz43l9lldMg
If it's not true than we are left with a few handful of real protesters causing shit.
No opinion article needed.
Forget that.
Say what you think.0 -
I don't agree with "say what you think" when what you think isn't rooted in reality. How is that any better? Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts".PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
I touched earlier that society has become lazy google robots. Let google fight for you!mrussel1 said:
But the whole premise of the article and our friend BS was that 1. They were paid from ads in Craigslist, and 2. It's Clinton's fault. Neither of these are supported by any evidence. It's pathetic journalism and for us to repeat that is fucking depressing. And lazy.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
If the story is true than that is the kind of people that would read and respond to craigslist so no doubt they are convincing at their protest.mrussel1 said:
C'mon... I'm really disappointed in the lack of critical analysis on these boards, from both sides. I find myself arguing with people because it's just copy and paste from opinion pieces, right and left wing rags, but no empirical evidence. Are we that lazy that we can't think anymore?PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
Figures a .org company that causes shit.mrussel1 said:
The entire premise of the article and the conclusions hinge on this one statement: Several admitted answering a Craig’s list ad paying $16.00 an hour for protesters.BS44325 said:Somebody on here was looking for evidence that Trump protestors were being paid.
This article claims that some New York protestors were paid $16.00 an hour through a craigslist ad...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/clinton-and-soros-are-behind-violent-riots-at-trump-rallies-not-sanders/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social#ixzz43ZMFWpQT
What are the names of these people? Do we have sworn affidavits, a name and address, a video of them talking about? How about evidence of the ad in Craigslist? The conclusion is then jumped to that they were paid for Clinton supporters, using that Reichstag analogy twice. Don't you think this is a littttle thinly sourced?
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/clinton-and-soros-are-behind-violent-riots-at-trump-rallies-not-sanders/#ixzz43l9lldMg
If it's not true than we are left with a few handful of real protesters causing shit.
No opinion article needed.
Forget that.
Say what you think.0 -
A famous quote yes. He was just saying what he thought.mrussel1 said:
I don't agree with "say what you think" when what you think isn't rooted in reality. How is that any better? Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts".PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
I touched earlier that society has become lazy google robots. Let google fight for you!mrussel1 said:
But the whole premise of the article and our friend BS was that 1. They were paid from ads in Craigslist, and 2. It's Clinton's fault. Neither of these are supported by any evidence. It's pathetic journalism and for us to repeat that is fucking depressing. And lazy.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
If the story is true than that is the kind of people that would read and respond to craigslist so no doubt they are convincing at their protest.mrussel1 said:
C'mon... I'm really disappointed in the lack of critical analysis on these boards, from both sides. I find myself arguing with people because it's just copy and paste from opinion pieces, right and left wing rags, but no empirical evidence. Are we that lazy that we can't think anymore?PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
Figures a .org company that causes shit.mrussel1 said:
The entire premise of the article and the conclusions hinge on this one statement: Several admitted answering a Craig’s list ad paying $16.00 an hour for protesters.BS44325 said:Somebody on here was looking for evidence that Trump protestors were being paid.
This article claims that some New York protestors were paid $16.00 an hour through a craigslist ad...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/clinton-and-soros-are-behind-violent-riots-at-trump-rallies-not-sanders/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social#ixzz43ZMFWpQT
What are the names of these people? Do we have sworn affidavits, a name and address, a video of them talking about? How about evidence of the ad in Craigslist? The conclusion is then jumped to that they were paid for Clinton supporters, using that Reichstag analogy twice. Don't you think this is a littttle thinly sourced?
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/clinton-and-soros-are-behind-violent-riots-at-trump-rallies-not-sanders/#ixzz43l9lldMg
If it's not true than we are left with a few handful of real protesters causing shit.
No opinion article needed.
Forget that.
Say what you think.0 -
That's bullshit and intellectually lazy. Daily Caller prints something as fact when the sourcing is total bullshit. People who read it might believe it's true. Someone might even repeat the post on a board as fact. I'm not saying that we impede the DC's first amendment right, but to defend it or say 'all good' is pathetic. Like I said... what happened to critical thinking? People read shit that confirms their beliefs and it is trashing our country.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
A famous quote yes. He was just saying what he thought.mrussel1 said:
I don't agree with "say what you think" when what you think isn't rooted in reality. How is that any better? Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts".PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
I touched earlier that society has become lazy google robots. Let google fight for you!mrussel1 said:
But the whole premise of the article and our friend BS was that 1. They were paid from ads in Craigslist, and 2. It's Clinton's fault. Neither of these are supported by any evidence. It's pathetic journalism and for us to repeat that is fucking depressing. And lazy.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
If the story is true than that is the kind of people that would read and respond to craigslist so no doubt they are convincing at their protest.mrussel1 said:
C'mon... I'm really disappointed in the lack of critical analysis on these boards, from both sides. I find myself arguing with people because it's just copy and paste from opinion pieces, right and left wing rags, but no empirical evidence. Are we that lazy that we can't think anymore?PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
Figures a .org company that causes shit.mrussel1 said:
The entire premise of the article and the conclusions hinge on this one statement: Several admitted answering a Craig’s list ad paying $16.00 an hour for protesters.BS44325 said:Somebody on here was looking for evidence that Trump protestors were being paid.
This article claims that some New York protestors were paid $16.00 an hour through a craigslist ad...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/clinton-and-soros-are-behind-violent-riots-at-trump-rallies-not-sanders/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social#ixzz43ZMFWpQT
What are the names of these people? Do we have sworn affidavits, a name and address, a video of them talking about? How about evidence of the ad in Craigslist? The conclusion is then jumped to that they were paid for Clinton supporters, using that Reichstag analogy twice. Don't you think this is a littttle thinly sourced?
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/clinton-and-soros-are-behind-violent-riots-at-trump-rallies-not-sanders/#ixzz43l9lldMg
If it's not true than we are left with a few handful of real protesters causing shit.
No opinion article needed.
Forget that.
Say what you think.0 -
That is the problem with Americans. If anyone challenges a way of thinking they immediately run to the constitution and amendments. So you end up in a battle with who knows it better. No opinion just simple debate over what the scroll says.mrussel1 said:
That's bullshit and intellectually lazy. Daily Caller prints something as fact when the sourcing is total bullshit. People who read it might believe it's true. Someone might even repeat the post on a board as fact. I'm not saying that we impede the DC's first amendment right, but to defend it or say 'all good' is pathetic. Like I said... what happened to critical thinking? People read shit that confirms their beliefs and it is trashing our country.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
A famous quote yes. He was just saying what he thought.mrussel1 said:
I don't agree with "say what you think" when what you think isn't rooted in reality. How is that any better? Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts".PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
I touched earlier that society has become lazy google robots. Let google fight for you!mrussel1 said:
But the whole premise of the article and our friend BS was that 1. They were paid from ads in Craigslist, and 2. It's Clinton's fault. Neither of these are supported by any evidence. It's pathetic journalism and for us to repeat that is fucking depressing. And lazy.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
If the story is true than that is the kind of people that would read and respond to craigslist so no doubt they are convincing at their protest.mrussel1 said:
C'mon... I'm really disappointed in the lack of critical analysis on these boards, from both sides. I find myself arguing with people because it's just copy and paste from opinion pieces, right and left wing rags, but no empirical evidence. Are we that lazy that we can't think anymore?PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
Figures a .org company that causes shit.mrussel1 said:
The entire premise of the article and the conclusions hinge on this one statement: Several admitted answering a Craig’s list ad paying $16.00 an hour for protesters.BS44325 said:Somebody on here was looking for evidence that Trump protestors were being paid.
This article claims that some New York protestors were paid $16.00 an hour through a craigslist ad...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/clinton-and-soros-are-behind-violent-riots-at-trump-rallies-not-sanders/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social#ixzz43ZMFWpQT
What are the names of these people? Do we have sworn affidavits, a name and address, a video of them talking about? How about evidence of the ad in Craigslist? The conclusion is then jumped to that they were paid for Clinton supporters, using that Reichstag analogy twice. Don't you think this is a littttle thinly sourced?
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/clinton-and-soros-are-behind-violent-riots-at-trump-rallies-not-sanders/#ixzz43l9lldMg
If it's not true than we are left with a few handful of real protesters causing shit.
No opinion article needed.
Forget that.
Say what you think.0 -
Denial obviously satisfies you, because when I "claim" I always do it with fact based evidence to back up my stance, not opinion pieces. It is you who is denying that there you any voter fraud in Arizona yesterday after several factual links. But keep living in denial if it suits you.mrussel1 said:
But the whole premise of the article and our friend BS was that 1. They were paid from ads in Craigslist, and 2. It's Clinton's fault. Neither of these are supported by any evidence. It's pathetic journalism and for us to repeat that is fucking depressing. And lazy.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
If the story is true than that is the kind of people that would read and respond to craigslist so no doubt they are convincing at their protest.mrussel1 said:
C'mon... I'm really disappointed in the lack of critical analysis on these boards, from both sides. I find myself arguing with people because it's just copy and paste from opinion pieces, right and left wing rags, but no empirical evidence. Are we that lazy that we can't think anymore?PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
Figures a .org company that causes shit.mrussel1 said:
The entire premise of the article and the conclusions hinge on this one statement: Several admitted answering a Craig’s list ad paying $16.00 an hour for protesters.BS44325 said:Somebody on here was looking for evidence that Trump protestors were being paid.
This article claims that some New York protestors were paid $16.00 an hour through a craigslist ad...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/clinton-and-soros-are-behind-violent-riots-at-trump-rallies-not-sanders/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social#ixzz43ZMFWpQT
What are the names of these people? Do we have sworn affidavits, a name and address, a video of them talking about? How about evidence of the ad in Craigslist? The conclusion is then jumped to that they were paid for Clinton supporters, using that Reichstag analogy twice. Don't you think this is a littttle thinly sourced?
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/clinton-and-soros-are-behind-violent-riots-at-trump-rallies-not-sanders/#ixzz43l9lldMg
If it's not true than we are left with a few handful of real protesters causing shit.
No opinion article needed.
And then on the Hillary page, you have Free claiming there was voter fraud because A. the lines were long in AZ and B. some people posted some videos claiming it to be so. As if Bernie supporters were targeted for voter suppression somehow and if true, it didn't more adversely affect Trump and Clinton.
Please think for me.0 -
I don't understand this response in context of my message. Who's talking about the constitution?PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
That is the problem with Americans. If anyone challenges a way of thinking they immediately run to the constitution and amendments. So you end up in a battle with who knows it better. No opinion just simple debate over what the scroll says.mrussel1 said:
That's bullshit and intellectually lazy. Daily Caller prints something as fact when the sourcing is total bullshit. People who read it might believe it's true. Someone might even repeat the post on a board as fact. I'm not saying that we impede the DC's first amendment right, but to defend it or say 'all good' is pathetic. Like I said... what happened to critical thinking? People read shit that confirms their beliefs and it is trashing our country.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
A famous quote yes. He was just saying what he thought.mrussel1 said:
I don't agree with "say what you think" when what you think isn't rooted in reality. How is that any better? Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts".PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
I touched earlier that society has become lazy google robots. Let google fight for you!mrussel1 said:
But the whole premise of the article and our friend BS was that 1. They were paid from ads in Craigslist, and 2. It's Clinton's fault. Neither of these are supported by any evidence. It's pathetic journalism and for us to repeat that is fucking depressing. And lazy.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
If the story is true than that is the kind of people that would read and respond to craigslist so no doubt they are convincing at their protest.mrussel1 said:
C'mon... I'm really disappointed in the lack of critical analysis on these boards, from both sides. I find myself arguing with people because it's just copy and paste from opinion pieces, right and left wing rags, but no empirical evidence. Are we that lazy that we can't think anymore?PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
Figures a .org company that causes shit.mrussel1 said:
The entire premise of the article and the conclusions hinge on this one statement: Several admitted answering a Craig’s list ad paying $16.00 an hour for protesters.BS44325 said:Somebody on here was looking for evidence that Trump protestors were being paid.
This article claims that some New York protestors were paid $16.00 an hour through a craigslist ad...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/clinton-and-soros-are-behind-violent-riots-at-trump-rallies-not-sanders/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social#ixzz43ZMFWpQT
What are the names of these people? Do we have sworn affidavits, a name and address, a video of them talking about? How about evidence of the ad in Craigslist? The conclusion is then jumped to that they were paid for Clinton supporters, using that Reichstag analogy twice. Don't you think this is a littttle thinly sourced?
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/clinton-and-soros-are-behind-violent-riots-at-trump-rallies-not-sanders/#ixzz43l9lldMg
If it's not true than we are left with a few handful of real protesters causing shit.
No opinion article needed.
Forget that.
Say what you think.0 -
Free,Free said:
Denial obviously satisfies you, because when I "claim" I always do it with fact based evidence to back up my stance, not opinion pieces. It is you who is denying that there you any voter fraud in Arizona yesterday after several factual links. But keep living in denial if it suits you.mrussel1 said:
But the whole premise of the article and our friend BS was that 1. They were paid from ads in Craigslist, and 2. It's Clinton's fault. Neither of these are supported by any evidence. It's pathetic journalism and for us to repeat that is fucking depressing. And lazy.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
If the story is true than that is the kind of people that would read and respond to craigslist so no doubt they are convincing at their protest.mrussel1 said:
C'mon... I'm really disappointed in the lack of critical analysis on these boards, from both sides. I find myself arguing with people because it's just copy and paste from opinion pieces, right and left wing rags, but no empirical evidence. Are we that lazy that we can't think anymore?PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
Figures a .org company that causes shit.mrussel1 said:
The entire premise of the article and the conclusions hinge on this one statement: Several admitted answering a Craig’s list ad paying $16.00 an hour for protesters.BS44325 said:Somebody on here was looking for evidence that Trump protestors were being paid.
This article claims that some New York protestors were paid $16.00 an hour through a craigslist ad...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/clinton-and-soros-are-behind-violent-riots-at-trump-rallies-not-sanders/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social#ixzz43ZMFWpQT
What are the names of these people? Do we have sworn affidavits, a name and address, a video of them talking about? How about evidence of the ad in Craigslist? The conclusion is then jumped to that they were paid for Clinton supporters, using that Reichstag analogy twice. Don't you think this is a littttle thinly sourced?
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/clinton-and-soros-are-behind-violent-riots-at-trump-rallies-not-sanders/#ixzz43l9lldMg
If it's not true than we are left with a few handful of real protesters causing shit.
No opinion article needed.
And then on the Hillary page, you have Free claiming there was voter fraud because A. the lines were long in AZ and B. some people posted some videos claiming it to be so. As if Bernie supporters were targeted for voter suppression somehow and if true, it didn't more adversely affect Trump and Clinton.
Please think for me.
There are big differences between voter fraud, voter suppression, and incompetence. You are using them interchangeably. Everything I have seen shows incompetence. Even Bernie's campaign acknowledged it affected all candidates.0 -
Talking to you is redundant because you won't even face reality. It's a national disgrace what happened yesterday, but refusal of reality does not mean it didn't happen.mrussel1 said:
Free,Free said:
Denial obviously satisfies you, because when I "claim" I always do it with fact based evidence to back up my stance, not opinion pieces. It is you who is denying that there you any voter fraud in Arizona yesterday after several factual links. But keep living in denial if it suits you.mrussel1 said:
But the whole premise of the article and our friend BS was that 1. They were paid from ads in Craigslist, and 2. It's Clinton's fault. Neither of these are supported by any evidence. It's pathetic journalism and for us to repeat that is fucking depressing. And lazy.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
If the story is true than that is the kind of people that would read and respond to craigslist so no doubt they are convincing at their protest.mrussel1 said:
C'mon... I'm really disappointed in the lack of critical analysis on these boards, from both sides. I find myself arguing with people because it's just copy and paste from opinion pieces, right and left wing rags, but no empirical evidence. Are we that lazy that we can't think anymore?PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
Figures a .org company that causes shit.mrussel1 said:
The entire premise of the article and the conclusions hinge on this one statement: Several admitted answering a Craig’s list ad paying $16.00 an hour for protesters.BS44325 said:Somebody on here was looking for evidence that Trump protestors were being paid.
This article claims that some New York protestors were paid $16.00 an hour through a craigslist ad...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/clinton-and-soros-are-behind-violent-riots-at-trump-rallies-not-sanders/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social#ixzz43ZMFWpQT
What are the names of these people? Do we have sworn affidavits, a name and address, a video of them talking about? How about evidence of the ad in Craigslist? The conclusion is then jumped to that they were paid for Clinton supporters, using that Reichstag analogy twice. Don't you think this is a littttle thinly sourced?
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/clinton-and-soros-are-behind-violent-riots-at-trump-rallies-not-sanders/#ixzz43l9lldMg
If it's not true than we are left with a few handful of real protesters causing shit.
No opinion article needed.
And then on the Hillary page, you have Free claiming there was voter fraud because A. the lines were long in AZ and B. some people posted some videos claiming it to be so. As if Bernie supporters were targeted for voter suppression somehow and if true, it didn't more adversely affect Trump and Clinton.
Please think for me.
There are big differences between voter fraud, voter suppression, and incompetence. You are using them interchangeably. Everything I have seen shows incompetence. Even Bernie's campaign acknowledged it affected all candidates.Post edited by Free on0 -
Of course it's disgraceful. But it's not fraud and it likely did not hurt Sanders. His spokesman did not levy that complaint. Your accusation is fraud. That is something entirely different.Free said:
Talking to you is redundant because you won't even face reality. It's a national disgrace what happened yesterday, but refusal of reality does not mean it didn't happen.mrussel1 said:
Free,Free said:
Denial obviously satisfies you, because when I "claim" I always do it with fact based evidence to back up my stance, not opinion pieces. It is you who is denying that there you any voter fraud in Arizona yesterday after several factual links. But keep living in denial if it suits you.mrussel1 said:
But the whole premise of the article and our friend BS was that 1. They were paid from ads in Craigslist, and 2. It's Clinton's fault. Neither of these are supported by any evidence. It's pathetic journalism and for us to repeat that is fucking depressing. And lazy.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
If the story is true than that is the kind of people that would read and respond to craigslist so no doubt they are convincing at their protest.mrussel1 said:
C'mon... I'm really disappointed in the lack of critical analysis on these boards, from both sides. I find myself arguing with people because it's just copy and paste from opinion pieces, right and left wing rags, but no empirical evidence. Are we that lazy that we can't think anymore?PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
Figures a .org company that causes shit.mrussel1 said:
The entire premise of the article and the conclusions hinge on this one statement: Several admitted answering a Craig’s list ad paying $16.00 an hour for protesters.BS44325 said:Somebody on here was looking for evidence that Trump protestors were being paid.
This article claims that some New York protestors were paid $16.00 an hour through a craigslist ad...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/clinton-and-soros-are-behind-violent-riots-at-trump-rallies-not-sanders/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social#ixzz43ZMFWpQT
What are the names of these people? Do we have sworn affidavits, a name and address, a video of them talking about? How about evidence of the ad in Craigslist? The conclusion is then jumped to that they were paid for Clinton supporters, using that Reichstag analogy twice. Don't you think this is a littttle thinly sourced?
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/clinton-and-soros-are-behind-violent-riots-at-trump-rallies-not-sanders/#ixzz43l9lldMg
If it's not true than we are left with a few handful of real protesters causing shit.
No opinion article needed.
And then on the Hillary page, you have Free claiming there was voter fraud because A. the lines were long in AZ and B. some people posted some videos claiming it to be so. As if Bernie supporters were targeted for voter suppression somehow and if true, it didn't more adversely affect Trump and Clinton.
Please think for me.
There are big differences between voter fraud, voter suppression, and incompetence. You are using them interchangeably. Everything I have seen shows incompetence. Even Bernie's campaign acknowledged it affected all candidates.
Like I told you, I couldn't vote in Richmond because the lines were too long. It's not relegated to AZ.
0 -
What time did the poll open and what time did it close?mrussel1 said:
Of course it's disgraceful. But it's not fraud and it likely did not hurt Sanders. His spokesman did not levy that complaint. Your accusation is fraud. That is something entirely different.Free said:
Talking to you is redundant because you won't even face reality. It's a national disgrace what happened yesterday, but refusal of reality does not mean it didn't happen.mrussel1 said:
Free,Free said:
Denial obviously satisfies you, because when I "claim" I always do it with fact based evidence to back up my stance, not opinion pieces. It is you who is denying that there you any voter fraud in Arizona yesterday after several factual links. But keep living in denial if it suits you.mrussel1 said:
But the whole premise of the article and our friend BS was that 1. They were paid from ads in Craigslist, and 2. It's Clinton's fault. Neither of these are supported by any evidence. It's pathetic journalism and for us to repeat that is fucking depressing. And lazy.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
If the story is true than that is the kind of people that would read and respond to craigslist so no doubt they are convincing at their protest.mrussel1 said:
C'mon... I'm really disappointed in the lack of critical analysis on these boards, from both sides. I find myself arguing with people because it's just copy and paste from opinion pieces, right and left wing rags, but no empirical evidence. Are we that lazy that we can't think anymore?PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
Figures a .org company that causes shit.mrussel1 said:
The entire premise of the article and the conclusions hinge on this one statement: Several admitted answering a Craig’s list ad paying $16.00 an hour for protesters.BS44325 said:Somebody on here was looking for evidence that Trump protestors were being paid.
This article claims that some New York protestors were paid $16.00 an hour through a craigslist ad...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/clinton-and-soros-are-behind-violent-riots-at-trump-rallies-not-sanders/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social#ixzz43ZMFWpQT
What are the names of these people? Do we have sworn affidavits, a name and address, a video of them talking about? How about evidence of the ad in Craigslist? The conclusion is then jumped to that they were paid for Clinton supporters, using that Reichstag analogy twice. Don't you think this is a littttle thinly sourced?
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/clinton-and-soros-are-behind-violent-riots-at-trump-rallies-not-sanders/#ixzz43l9lldMg
If it's not true than we are left with a few handful of real protesters causing shit.
No opinion article needed.
And then on the Hillary page, you have Free claiming there was voter fraud because A. the lines were long in AZ and B. some people posted some videos claiming it to be so. As if Bernie supporters were targeted for voter suppression somehow and if true, it didn't more adversely affect Trump and Clinton.
Please think for me.
There are big differences between voter fraud, voter suppression, and incompetence. You are using them interchangeably. Everything I have seen shows incompetence. Even Bernie's campaign acknowledged it affected all candidates.
Like I told you, I couldn't vote in Richmond because the lines were too long. It's not relegated to AZ.
0 -
8 to 8 I believe. Maybe 7 to 80
-
Ok give or take one hour the poll was open for 12hrs on a known day that it would be open.mrussel1 said:8 to 8 I believe. Maybe 7 to 8
12hrs and they couldn't get the line through?
Something is fishy from these people that say they "couldn't vote"
edit - It's not like it was a line to buy a Pearl Jam sticker.Post edited by PJfanwillneverleave1 on0 -
Fraud.
Clinton Claims Victory but Arizona's Voting Fiasco Dubbed "National Disgrace"
Shuttered polling places, endless lines, and widespread disenfranchisement—particularly for minority communities
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/03/23/clinton-claims-victory-arizonas-voting-fiasco-dubbed-national-disgrace... "The Arizona Democratic Party is also investigating reports that numerous Democratic voters were mistakenly identified as "independent" in the voter database, which would exclude them from the closed primary. Many of the misidentified voters were given provisional ballots, which may not have even been counted.
As the Phoenix New Times reports, "the day was so hectic, that as it became clear Clinton won, Sanders supporter Sheila Ryan said she just couldn’t believe it: 'What about all the provisional ballots? What about all the ballots from [people still in line]? Are those getting counted?'0 -
In a nutshell every country has their own election process.
And bias aside, does it not make things a little easier to have one and one only day when you will vote for your leader?
The American election process is crazy. Pick one day ffs.
0 -
That's weird. Why would the AZ Dem Party investigate such a thing since it's clear that they would have orchestrated the fiasco, along with the pollsters, the Clinton campaign and AZ Executive Branch? Which conspiracy theory are we running with this evening?Free said:Fraud.
Clinton Claims Victory but Arizona's Voting Fiasco Dubbed "National Disgrace"
Shuttered polling places, endless lines, and widespread disenfranchisement—particularly for minority communities
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/03/23/clinton-claims-victory-arizonas-voting-fiasco-dubbed-national-disgrace... "The Arizona Democratic Party is also investigating reports that numerous Democratic voters were mistakenly identified as "independent" in the voter database, which would exclude them from the closed primary. Many of the misidentified voters were given provisional ballots, which may not have even been counted.
As the Phoenix New Times reports, "the day was so hectic, that as it became clear Clinton won, Sanders supporter Sheila Ryan said she just couldn’t believe it: 'What about all the provisional ballots? What about all the ballots from [people still in line]? Are those getting counted?'0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 273 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.6K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help