BoyNextDoor
I hate liars
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2010
- Posts
- 14,159
Wining by .2% is not really a "victory".
When you are right, you are right

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wining by .2% is not really a "victory".

When you are right, you are right![]()
Wining by .2% is not really a "victory".
Wining by .2% is not really a "victory".
Wait? Where do you live where that's not a victory and it should be put in quotes. Cus here on Earth winning by .000000000000001 is really a victory and if you think it's not I'd like to take you to the Kentucky Derby.
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders
It's outrageous that in the industrialized world, the United States is No. 1 in billionaires and No. 1 in childhood poverty. This must end!
He was talking about developed nations.I don't believe the US is #1 in childhood poverty. Of course, this may be a matter of how you define poverty.
He was talking about developed nations.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...pare-on-child-poverty-the-u-s-is-ranked-34th/
That's from 2013. Searching for articles in the past year only it seems the US has moved to #1.
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders
It's outrageous that in the industrialized world, the United States is No. 1 in billionaires and No. 1 in childhood poverty. This must end!
So, lemme get this straight... Either Clinton won narrowly or Sanders might upon review or re-count. Either way it's essentially a tie and the difference is a delegate or three one way or the other.
The superdelegates can switch at any time for any reason, but they certainly aren't going to switch barring evidence that Sanders would be a stronger general election candidate than Clinton, which no one seems to believe is the case.
There's also the small matter of the fact that Sanders isn't actually in the Democratic party, which is going to matter more to Dem officeholders than it will to voters.
I still see little possibility Sanders can win any state in the primaries/caucuses where the Democratic vote isn't dominated by white liberals, as it is in Iowa. In other words, nothing outside of New England, Minnesota, and Oregon.
Your logic is impeccable.As I expected, they are defining poverty by comparing incomes. By that logic, if you have a wealthy community where the average income is $1,000,000, a family with an income of $800,000 would be considered to be impoverished.
Yeah, I ws just reiterating the point that superdelegates aren't locked to a particular person.The superdelegates can switch at any time for any reason, but they certainly aren't going to switch barring evidence that Sanders would be a stronger general election candidate than Clinton, which no one seems to believe is the case.
Go to a "ghetto" big box store and see the EBT card use. Then talk to me about the poverty. Same old Democratic song and dance.
So, lemme get this straight... Either Clinton won narrowly or Sanders might upon review or re-count. Either way it's essentially a tie and the difference is a delegate or three one way or the other.
If she gets indicted, I can see superdelegates switching (but also madly looking for someone else to come into the race, not necessarily switching to Sanders, who superdelegates know doesn't have a chance in hell of passing his wish list even if he gets that far). The superdelegates, unlike several posting here, can see down the road on primaries and count noses. They are concerned but not panicked at this point. If Clinton isn't at 60 percent or more after super Tuesday they might begin looking around to switch to someone currently undeclared.
