A single post I wanted to make: So much for the delusion Cruz might come back in if he won Nebraska. Trump's over 1.100 delegates right now.

Is Trump giving a victory speech and if so, is there a live stream?

   

(05-10-2016 09:28 PM)Lucky Wrote:  Is Trump giving a victory speech and if so, is there a live stream?

Not sure. Here's Donald Trump's full interview with Bill O'Reilly from today:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVyu0n75Xc4

CNN Stream (Talking Heads):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tne8ux_hh_A

Fox News Stream (Talking Heads):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oImlPrzWv_Y

Breaking: GOP grows some balls?

GOP sinks teeth into Facebook bias allegations

Quote:Allegations of political bias at Facebook exploded into national view on Tuesday as a Senate chairman pressed the company on whether conservative content is suppressed on the site.

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) sent a letter asking Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to address the “serious allegations” that conservative content has been excluded from the site’s “Trending Topics” section.

“Any attempt by a neutral and inclusive social media platform to censor or manipulate political discussion is an abuse of trust and inconsistent with the values of an open Internet,” Thune said in a statement.

The controversy arose from a report on the website Gizmodo. Quoting a former Facebook worker, it alleged that Facebook has routinely omitted conservative topics and media reports from the Trending section of its site.

Facebook vehemently denies the charge, with an executive stating flatly on Tuesday that the company has “found no evidence that the anonymous allegations are true.”

“Facebook does not allow or advise our reviewers to systematically discriminate against sources of any ideological origin and we’ve designed our tools to make that technically not feasible,” said Tom Stocky, vice president for search at the social network, in a post. “At the same time, our reviewers’ actions are logged and reviewed, and violating our guidelines is a fireable offense.”

The charges of bias are a serious threat to Facebook, which has long touted its platform as a neutral space where people can engage in politics by “liking” candidates, sharing articles and contributing comments.

Any perception that Facebook favors one political party could do lasting damage to its brand and its business — particularly in a year when passions are running high due to the presidential campaigns of Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Facebook scrambled to get ahead of the issue on Tuesday, with an aide to the House Energy and Commerce Committee saying the company would provide a briefing on issues related to the allegations.

And in a statement issued Tuesday afternoon, a Facebook spokesperson stressed that the company was “continuing to investigate” whether Trending “curators” had violated guidelines designed to guard against partisan politics.

“As we investigate, we will also keep reviewing our operational practices around Trending Topics — and if we find they are inadequate, we will take immediate steps to fix them,” the spokesperson said. “We have received Sen. Thune’s request for more information about how Trending Topics works, and look forward to addressing his questions.”

The controversy has highlighted the growing centrality of Facebook to the political process, with both parties relying on the site’s massive user base to court voters and raise money.

Facebook’s Trending section, which displays in the upper right corner of users’ News Feeds in full-size browsers, tends to drive web traffic to stories it features. It is produced by a group of curators who work from a list of stories that are popular on Facebook, as determined by an algorithm.

“All news organizations, they have editorial filters, I think, that they use, and individual reporters obviously do as well. But when you’ve got an organization that’s predicated upon and conveys to the American public that ‘we use an objective algorithm when it comes to determining what our trending topics are going to be,’ we expect that to be followed,” Thune told reporters. “Otherwise it would be misleading to the American people.”

“Part of the jurisdiction of our committee is consumer protection, so we think it’s a perfectly legitimate line of inquiry. We’re not suggesting anything untoward on their part, we’re just simply responding to some media reports and asking them to clarify what their policy is and whether or not they’ve been following it.”

Democrats in Washington downplayed the controversy.

The White House said it was “pleased” by Facebook’s response, and an aide to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) accused the GOP of ignoring pressing legislative business.

“The Republican Senate refuses to hold hearings on Judge [Merrick] Garland, refuses to fund the President’s request for Zika aid and takes the most days off of any Senate since 1956, but thinks Facebook hearings are a matter of urgent national interest,” said Adam Jentleson, an aide to Reid, in a statement.

Questions about Facebook’s political leanings have been building in recent months.

Zuckerberg, a prominent advocate of immigration reform legislation, last month criticized “fearful voices calling for building walls” in what was seen as a clear shot at Trump. A Gizmodo report subsequently said a Facebook employee had tried to pose a question to Zuckerberg asking what the company should do to stop Trump’s candidacy.

It all comes as Facebook tries to build relationships on both sides of the aisle to advance its policy goals and get a share of the estimated billion dollars that will be spent on online political advertising in this election cycle.

The company has sponsored lounges at the presidential debates and will be sponsoring both the Republican and Democratic national conventions this summer. It also has a team dedicated to selling ad products to political campaigns up and down the ballot.

(05-10-2016 08:02 PM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:  We just won Nebraska.

Quote:Breaking: GOP grows some balls?

GOP sinks teeth into Facebook bias allegations

[quote]Allegations of political bias at Facebook exploded into national view on Tuesday as a Senate chairman pressed the company on whether conservative content is suppressed on the site.

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) sent a letter asking Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to address the “serious allegations” that conservative content has been excluded from the site’s “Trending Topics” section.

Ugly chicks, billionaire dicks.






I hope that Trump lights into Mark Zuckerbucks and the Chanster.

There's unlimited material there.

Sanders hugely outperformed tonight and wiped the floor with Haggard Hillary's ass. #byebitch

delete, double post

(05-10-2016 08:19 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

Of 100% reporting counties, Trump exceeded 82% in:

Logan County: 89.6%
Mingo County: 89.5%
Wyoming County: 87.8%
Boone County: 86.0%
Nicholas County: 83.8%
Calhoun County: 83.5%
Mercer County: 82.9%
Lincoln County: 82.3%

Trump won 76.5% of the state overall (84% reporting). Are we tired of winning yet?

http://www.politico.com/2016-election/re...t-virginia

From everyones favorite click bait site
https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/clin....kyNVKP2ql

Top right

Some Democrat lady on Bill OReilley said tonight that women are less inclined to vote if the campaign is really negative. I checked it out on google, this book claims that is the truth:



Conclusion: SHOW NO MERCY! He has no hope in winning the single cat lady/blue haired SJW female, and any woman voting Trump now is probably already locked in. Maybe going really negative will keep the politically apathetic Kardashian-obsessed female demographic at home on voting day, while bringing men out in droves.

Edit- mobile formatting

Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:I think what people are saying is true: Polls are inaccurate because people won't admit liking the guy in public for fear of retribution, name-calling, etc. The ballot box shows the truth, though.

Some tried to measure this effect last year:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/21/study-...t/?print=1

Quote:The Morning Consult interviewed around 2,400 Republicans and varied how the respondents completed the survey. Some completed the survey completely online, while some completed the survey over the phone. The phone interviews were split further between a live interviewer and an automated voice response.

The study found that 38 percent of people who answered on the phone supported Trump, while just 32 percent chose him while on the phone with a live interviewer. An additional 36 percent chose Trump while completing the survey via an automated recording.

“That six point difference was not seen with other candidates between the different polling methods,” the study reads. “Ted Cruz, for example, did about 2 points better on live telephone, as did Ben Carson. Jeb Bush had no difference between the methods.”

Authors of the study explained the discrepancy as a “social desirability bias.” Basically, people identify with the things Trump says, but they don’t want to admit it because they don’t think their friends will like it.

(05-10-2016 08:26 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2...ects-dots/



Opens in the U.S. on July 24th






Trump should rent out some theaters in key states and give free screenings of the film

Thanks for the heads up GM.

For those who haven't seen this classic from the 1990s:





And the always excellent blogger James Corbett who carefully revisits the Clinton Body Count and Vince Foster:

(05-10-2016 08:47 PM)Veloce Wrote:  I was hiking up to Red Rock today, at icebox canyon. Really a glorious hike, especially this time of year. Lots of water.

We're starting out and run into a few other hikers. About 20 minutes into the hike I hear voice in front of us, getting closer.

It's a hiker and his friend, they're returning from the top, and I can hear him as they're getting closer:

"Look how these rocks are laid out, almost like stepping stones. It makes a perfect trail. What a perfect day, look at all this beautiful nature!"

In my head I'm thinking this guy is shrooming or just a total stoner nature boy.

We cross paths and he's a large, heavy set guy, curly black hair, giant smile, kind of a Greek looking mofo. Says to me, "How about this perfect day? This weather?" I reply, "Can't beat it! It's great!"

He continues walking along with his silent friend, saying outloud, "I can't believe this day, look at all this beautiful nature. We're here in the middle of it, in this nature, in this beautiful country! We're going to elect Trump and we're going to make America great again!"

Shit you not, this is verbatim. I got goosebumps and just smiled.

You know, even if the worst happens, even if Trump doesn't get elected, there's something great going on in this country when people are walking around completely high on life all thanks to DJT. Hillary and Bernie supporters are a bunch of sullen, pissed off, bitter, angry motherfuckers.

Trump? He's got chubby guys out hiking around with their shirts off talking about how much they love life, love nature, and love this country.

If they were hiking, they are Trump supporters, Bernie supporters are to damn lazy to move outside the comfort zone, and Hillary supporters are to old.

I bet El Rato feels pretty stupid now.

(05-11-2016 02:23 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  I bet El Rato feels pretty stupid now.

Just wait until Trump is indicted for his ummm... secret skin oranging cream. Then who will be laughing? That's right Ted Cruz. #NeverTrump #CruzMissle #GlennBeckisGod

Standard-issue "democracy":



Even if you exclude the superdelegates it's still only a pitiful 16:11 difference that doesn't match the actual ratios of votes won.

Man that's funny. I wonder what they are saying in the bernie hugbox reddit forums.

Bernie is flat-out getting screwed but unlike Trump - he doesn't have the testicular fortitude to say anything about it.

Or, and this is an idea I think is accurate - he is just a ringer and his popularity was carefully manufactured specifically to try and shift them all over to Hillary's camp as soon as general election season begins.

Either way, he's a shill.

(05-11-2016 10:10 PM)mpr Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 10:23 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  Some great news


http://www.breitbart.com/hillary-clinton...mail-case/

I wouldn't rely on this too heavily. David Petraeus was intentionally passing classified information [a felony] to a reporter he was banging [a crime under the military law] and got off with only pleading guilty to a misdemeanor. He got to keep his rank, his pension, and didn't serve a day in jail.

If they won't seriously punish a military officer who is intentionally handing over classified information to his mistress; then what makes anyone think that they'll punish Hilary Clinton for her negligence? The rich and powerful play by a different set of rules then we do.

This story isn't about any potential criminal charges brought by the government, this is regarding a FOIA civil lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch. It's potentially a great opportunity to get damaging information out there as it's not up to the AG or Obama administration what happens in this case, it's a judge.

Quote:U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted us “discovery” into Clinton’s email system. The order allows us to take testimony from former top Clinton State Department aides Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin and Bryan Pagliano. The court also notes that “based on information learned during discovery, the deposition of Mrs. Clinton may be necessary.” The discovery will take place over the next eight weeks.

This arises out of our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking records of the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former deputy chief of staff to Clinton. The lawsuit was reopened because of revelations about the clintonemail.com system.


In his Memorandum and Order, Judge Sullivan found that:

Judicial Watch raises significant questions in its Motion for Discovery about whether the State Department processed documents in good faith in response to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request. Judicial Watch is therefore entitled to limited discovery.

Judge Sullivan also questions, citing Supreme Court precedent, whether the State Department and Mrs. Clinton “purposefully routed … document[s] out of agency possession in order to circumvent a FOIA request.”

Sullivan ruled that the scope of discovery includes:

The creation and operation of clintonemail.com for State Department business, as well as the State Department’s approach and practice for processing FOIA requests that potentially implicated former Secretary Clinton’s and Ms. Abedin’s emails and State’s processing of the FOIA request that is the subject of this action.

The judge also ruled that Clinton may have to testify:

Based on information learned during discovery, the deposition of Mrs. Clinton may be necessary. If Plaintiff believes Mrs. Clinton’s testimony is required, it will request permission from the Court at the appropriate time.

It's this election's biggest dilemma for all of us:

Option 1. Clinton gets arrested and imprisoned for her crimes.

Option 2. Clinton is nominated and gets publically schlonged into an aneurysm during a debate.

I cannot choose!

Seriously, what would be more gratifying than seeing her demolished by Trump? Well, maybe seeing her convicted and finally have everyone know, including her rabid supporters, what an immoral woman she is. Can you image the debates, though? Would be glorious. Would she cry? Would she attempt to physically attack him only to trip and break her hip?

Dear FBI (we know you're all reading this forum), can you please go for an alternative option?

Option 3. Clinton is nominated, gets schlonged and is then arrested. Off to gitmo!

Much appreciated, love, RVF.

Observation:
Trump or whoever handling his facebook account is starting to reply to the top comments of his facebook status. He also started to post more on facebook, the type of long statements that he can't post on twitter (except with a picture).

I've been wanting Trump to shift from Twitter to Facebook because I think it's a better, more popular medium compared to the collapsing twitter, and he has been getting more likes and shares on Facebook than he got retweets on Twitter. Looks like it's finally happening.



His video with Hillary laughing villainously has 2.46 mil+ views in his facebook alone.