It's all scripted bro. They're actors, pawns in a game and they know it.

But yes, definite pro Hillary vibe.

They go over the scripts during their breaks.

Sanders lick my asshole at 3:45, I will lick yours at 6:45, you, yeah you, the other guy, lick my ass at 10:20. K, but what do I get? Shut the fuck up, and lick! Okaaaaayyyyy....

there is definitely a recognition that this is a national (if not global) stage. and that a certain level of mutual decorum is entirely appropriate among contenders. that does not mean that everyone is playing on the same team, or even agrees.

sanders has a long track record of his disgust with the big banks and the foreign wars -- voted against iraq:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/911-bernie-sanders-iraq-hillary-clinton_b_8121026.html

hillary has a long track record of supporting big banks and foreign wars.

to claim there is no difference is really inaccurate.

I'm pretty sure Sanders has supported wars in the past - supports Israel, and supported the Assault Weapons Ban in the 90s. He is just an authoritarian team-player like the rest of them.

Supporting the ban of assault weapons is not really an authoritarian move, its what the rest of the civilized world has done.

The "civilized world" - I.e. primarily white and/or racially homogenous nations. Cute try though.

Yeah, no. It's a sensible regulation, I've not met anyone outside of the US who feels assault rifles have any place in the civilian world outside of recreational shooting ranges.

You haven't met many Swiss, have you?

Oh you mean those guys who are inducted into a formal militia and given military-grade firearms training? Automatic weapons are still prohibited in Switzerland except as armament for this militia, in which case the ammunition is kept in the local military arsenal. Educate yourselves guys.

Rifles are used in a tiny fraction of gun violence cases; the vast majority of gun violence cases are done with handguns. Creating a new definition of firearms and placing "assault" in front of it is simply fear mongering.

Good job I haven't mentioned gun violence then (y) And what are you talking about? Assault Rifle is a well defined term referring to a rifle capable of selective fire, typically including automatic action, with a detachable magazine. I think I have made my point fairly clearly that the US is quite the anomaly (especially in 'The West') when it comes to allowing access to such weapons as part of the general civilian arsenal.

Select fire weapons haven't been manufactured for civilians since 1986 and every select fire or automatic weapon in the US has required registration of it's owner since 1934 and only 2 times in that whole period has one of these weapons been used in a crime and one of the two was a police officer.

So please tell me how banning legal assault rifles which have almost never been used in criminal violence is going to have any impact on gun violence?

Well the problem is that there are two separate issues. General gun violence and mass shootings. I agree that banning assault weapons is unlikely to greatly reduce gun violence in the US as the country is flooded with weapons already and as you rightly point out the majority of violence is an attritional process with a multitude of small events using smaller-sized weapons such as handguns etc. This is why I do try to take a wider holistic view of gun control in the US but also why I try to stay away from discussing it (unless drawn into it as I have here haha) as I understand it is very much a cultural issue that I will never understand as an outsider.

Now the issue of mass-shooting is what draws attention so this is where most of the media and political pressure ends up being applied. Again you're right that the majority of massacres are actually conducted using semi-auto weapons that would not be affected by banning assault weapons. This doesn't matter though. Do you honestly expect the media and government to put forwards a rational response to such an emotional topic? Ultimately assault weapons are perceived (i.e. your own opinion/factual reality is less important here) to be the more dangerous. They are seen as having a high rate of fire, are easy to rapidly reload, and can general cause an awful lot of destruction in fairly short order.

Anyway I'm done with guns for now I can see this is evidently pricking a lot of people. I will leave Jim Jefferies excellent sketch on gun control though as it covers most of the points that I would normally raise in such an argument, plus the guy is pretty funny :)

"Educate yourselves", lol. Take your own advice. Only military issued ammo is kept in military places. Civilians are allowed to own as much ammo as they want.

Yes and when buying personal ammunition citizens must provide identification, proof of address, and criminal background check. They are then permitted to buy ammunition for guns they are legally allowed to own. Ammunition for the militia rifles that are privately owned is limited to government-approved shooting ranges and must be used on site. Why do people argue this so much? Is it not just common sense that it's a good idea to have some regulations and restrictions on the purchasing and use of deadly weapons?

Good thing barely anyone in the U.S. owns assault rifles.

There is a reason that we are one of the progenitors of the idea of liberty. For a brief time in the late 20th century, we almost lived up to all ideals simultaneously.

There is no populist logic behind the idea that a militaristic state should wield much more powerful weapons than its citizens. It serves only to prevent revolution should an authoritarian oligarchy run off the rails.

One person is a man and one person is a woman. That is as far as their differences go.

I thought there were three people in the debate.

There were. The comment mentioned Sanders and Clinton and their differences on issues.

The moderators' tongues were toilet paper tonight.

lmao, yup.

Absolutely. We had a watch party at my house and it was so obvious. Fuck ABC

and F the DNC while we're at it.

The Gawker commentariat were complaining about it, and that system is worlds easier to game than this one.

And fuck Hillary too

The Cowboys vs. Jets game would have been a lot more entertaining watch party in my opinion. I would have changed the channel if I were at your house watching it :-)

You don't change the channel at my house but you're welcome to go home and watch whatever you'd like.

That's not very democratic of you.

Democracy is for chumps

Majority of these media companies sponsor/aid Hilary. That or they're being paid to boost her.

if the DNC doesn't nominate bernie, he should just run as an independent.

Definitely. PLEASE run as an independent, Bernie!

Maybe hell run with trump 😬

Trump/Sanders run as Independent on the ticket? Do you think that may work?

Also, who would win Trump vs Sanders in the Independent nomination, assuming they both ran?

No. Trump is only concerned with making money and those who have it and sanders is more concerned with the poor and working class. Also personality are completely different.

the enemy of my enemy is my friend

That would just gift wrap the presidency to the Republicans. I don't like Hillary all that much, but I'd still rather have her over any members of the goon squad on the right.

I'd rather have trump

At least the only head up his ass is his own, all the others have much larger assholes from having so many hands and heads up them(special interests).

Nobody would, he is a fascist. His support is illusory.

I see the MSM's gotten to your head?

if that is true, then America really has become a nation of idiots, and you deserve to have trump rule you.

Hilary and her policies are just as bad if not actually worse than a lot of the current rep. candidates, if you really think Hilary is the answer to how to fix how fucked up your country has become then things are even worse than i thought.

Voting in America is more like a sporting game than rational decision making. If Trump makes the Republican ticket then Republicans will tick the Republican box, no matter that Trump's an unqualified racist bigoted idiot. If Bernie runs independent he will steal Democrats from Hilary and the democrat vote will be split in half. Trump would win. It's stupid but it's how American politics works.

you guys are so fucked, and as a canadian i am not looking forward to having that clusterfuck next door. or the influx of americans who flee it and come here :(

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying she would be an excellent president. Hell, I'm camp Sanders all the way, as he's the only candidate who actually seems genuine. Ok, Trump does too, but he's a complete asshat. At this point, Sanders is my first and only choice. But if it comes down to it, yes I do think Hillary is the better choice against any of the Republicans. It would be a giant douche vs. a turd sandwich, but isn't that usually the case anyway.

He understood you perfectly. If you are willing to cast a vote for Hillary Clinton, you deserve her.

I guess I underestimated just how unpopular Hillary is on this sub. I never said I think she would be great. I thought I made it pretty clear I'm not overly fond of her, and you're making me out to be a Hillary supporter. Maybe not you specifically but that one guy sure is.

On the same token, I think you underestimate just how much I can't stand most of the candidates on the right. Carson's an idiot savant, Fiorina's more of a liar than Hillary, and Bush is well, Bush. As a New Jersey native I can tell you Christie is petty and vindictive and overly arrogant, and Rand Paul is a pompous ass who I'll never forgive for his response to Hurricane Sandy. I mean I've met rabid Star Wars fans that like Jar Jar more than I like Trump or Cruz.

Rubio's the only Republican that has any chance that I would consider voting for, and even he is, at best, just as phony as Clinton.

So yes, I would be willing to cast a vote for Clinton if it means keeping someone I see as even worse out of the White House. Please don't make me out to be a Clinton supporter. I'm not. I just happen to think the other side is a hell of a lot worse. Hopefully Sanders gets the nomination and I don't have to bite the bullet. As it stands, he's the only candidate I think positively of. Period.

thats a problem

Can someone please explain it to me how the Republicans can have 17 candidates, and 2 debates each time, but the Democrats only have 3 candidates? What about people like Tulsi Gabbard, why isn't she running for president? The DNC has clearly already decided to make Hillary the nominee, before the American people have even cast their first vote.

The DNC has already determined the nominee by limiting the options. Democrats are allowing it to happen, and that's the part that doesn't make sense to me. The DNC believes it knows what's best, and apparently the Democrats agree.

[deleted]

No, but it's certainly a lot better then having fewer I believe. My question is why are only 3 people running for president on the Democrat side?

Because everyone knows that Hilary is pre-chosen.

Tulsi Gabbard

She's extremely anti-LGBT rights akin to many of the hard liner Republicans. She has no chance at any national race.

Do what? This is the first time I've ever heard this claim. She is the vice DNC chairwoman, I find it hard to believe she could take such a conservative approach on LGBT issues and be selected for the vice DNC chairwoman. If you have a source for this, please share it.

Regardless, even is this is true, her positions on the things that actually matter in this world, and LGBT rights are not one of the things that actually fucking matter, I support her.

She's a nut.

She opposed LGBT rights, including same-sex marriage and civil unions. When voting against legalizing civil unions, she stated: "To try to act as if there is a difference between 'civil unions' and same-sex marriage is dishonest, cowardly and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii who have already made overwhelmingly clear our position on this issue.... As Democrats we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists." In August 2004, she defended her then-Republican father's anti-LGBT work, and called supporters of U.S. Congressman Ed Case "homosexual extremists".[20][21]

So she's a nut because she believes marriage should be between a man and a woman?

Yeah, isn't that crazy?

Not in the slightest actually.

The most important thing to people now is the voice of a small minority.

Yes, the 18 trillion dollar debt, war on Syria and shitty economy shouldn't be top priority because they dont fuck everyone collectively.

LGBT rights are not one of the things that actually fucking matter

wow

To me, LGBT rights don't matter I should have said.

I fucking despise responses like this.

She used to be strongly against it. I believe she has now changed her stance.

source?

http://gabbard.house.gov/index.php/news/in-the-news/15-media-center/press-releases/36-rep-tulsi-gabbard-statement-on-same-sex-marriage

“Mrs. President, what will your husband do when you are formally elected?”

Oh, and the wonderful Sanders cucking himself left and right.

“My wife is smarter than me,” “Hillary did a great job as First Lady,” etc.

Eh. Some of that was Bernie being genuinely respectful for his wife, and acknowledging how the role of First Lady has changed since Hillary held that position.

What was ridiculous was Muir allowing Clinton to have the last word for literally everything. Allowing Clinton to talk over the moderators without interruption, yet Sanders got shut down when he would try to reply at times. Clinton positioned at center. Clinton allowed to walk in late, during a question, and somehow it's treated as funny and not disrespectful. This debate showed obvious favoritism towards Hilary. It sucks, but she's got the support already.

She has the nomination already. It was granted to her as payment for stepping down in 2008.

Exactly.

Barry gets it this time, Hilary gets the next one.

Just like with Nixon.

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/029/118/036.png

I’ve seen an edit of this where the woman is behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office and Bernie is standing outside the window looking in. Unfortunately I can’t find it right now.

Is this your first time watching a debate?

It's cute to see people believing federal elections are fair.

How are they not fair? Besides the media and news channels pushing certain candidates

We had an election decided by the supreme court. Federal elections are incredibly corrupt.

and the guy who was running for President had an issue in his brother's state of Florida on counting dem dair votes by golly. oh look, it says Bush wins.

There were dozens of independent investigations by people all over the world who were desperate to find something wrong. It was a square deal, get over it.

On the surface, gerrymandering drastically skews the results in favor of incumbents. Superdelegates protect the established party structure without any accountability to the people. Winner-takes-all format for the Electoral College makes voting in the duopoly run-off pointless for the majority of citizens.

Underneath the surface, Diebold voting machines are unauditable and unaccountable. I would truly find it more surprising if these machines are not being exploited by power brokers to position their favored candidates. This is simple human nature.

No, because people that do not like her can not be swayed. It's a lot of smoke and mirrors. Bernie won me over once again when the commentator asked if big corporations would like him and he said "NO, and Wall Street will like me less"

this is why I find trump hilarious. They obviously meant to do the same thing with jeb, and it backfired horrifically. The icing on the cake would be jeb somehow winning the primary at this point, to face hillary in the scripted election, despite having only 3% of the vote.

The crazy thing is that that could actually happen.

jeb is a horrible actor.

I had to turn the debate off. It's obvious to me what's going on here, and I'm not usually type to buy into conspiracy theories.

you're not the type?

so you usually think the governments are very competent, not at all corrupt and always work in the interest of the majority?

you really think that?

That's a pretty big leap of logic you just made. I do think that corruption exists within the government and I do think they're largely incompetent. I just don't need to believe in conspiracies to see that.

I think an example would better illustrate what I mean. There are some who believe 9/11 was an inside job. I personally don't think the evidence holds up all that well, but I do think our government took advantage of the fear that came with it to convince the populace we should go to war in Iraq. The biggest difference between you and I is that you think the government causes a lot of these events whereas I think they simply take advantage of these events.

Besides, they'd have to be pretty damn competent to keep so many conspiracies under wrap for so long.

so you usually think the governments are very competent

Its funny, people claim the government is incompetent and inefficient (which it is) yet seem to have a hard time grasping that this same incompetence makes it unlikely that some of the more outlandish conspiracy theories out there could ever actually be managed in reality.

The government is a very intricate machine. It's like saying a car can't have an amazing transmission but a shitty motor. All parts are not equal. This is true with government agencies.

We know for a fact the bureaucratic parts are shitty. Your local DMV is probably a hellhole of barely competent people working at a snails pace. Similar with other federal agencies, like TSA and DHS.

Now we also know several black projects go on with utmost secrecy. The U-2 spy plane was one such project. Did it get leaked before by all the people working on it?

There's countless shit in Groom Lake that we will never know the details of. Has anything leaked there? So clearly the government can keep secrets if they want.

You are completely right, but it does depend on the department. I wonder if there is any evidence around to contrast and compare different departments like the FBI and the DoD? I have a feeling the black projects conducted by the DoD are by far the most restricted and controlled, especially projects like U-2 which represent a major tool to be used against other great powers.

The government is extremely efficient. It's just not there to help the constituents.

Hilary is bad. Trump is worse. Sanders seems the best option from where I'm standing. However, even though he's hardly a Zionist, Sanders is nevertheless Jewish, and in my opinion I think this will stop him coming down as hard as he should against Israel.

The players don't particularly matter though because it is the game which is fucked.

I'm curious as to those here who feel it's obvious the entire presidential race is being orchestrated can publicly predict the results of the primaries and the general election. I think it would lend some credence to your theories.

Sure: Sanders will suffer a media blackout like Ron Paul did, the media will misrepresent poll numbers to make him look less popular than he is, Sanders supporters will become discouraged and give up, Hillary will cruise to victory in the primaries.

Whoever her opponent is in the general election (it doesn't matter) will receive 45-48% of the popular vote and ~200 electoral college votes while Hillary receives ~300.

Sanders supporters don't give up. Nor will they support shillary.

Sanders supporters will give up on the political process, I mean, not give up on him in favor of another candidate. They aren't going to support Hillary, they are just not going to vote.

Besides the points about media blackout and misrepresenting poll numbers I think your predictions are more or less in line with mainstream projections at this point as well. If it's all a big puppet show, I think you should be able to point to who the Republican candidate will be as well.

Hillary will win the democratic primary, Trump the republican primary.

Hillary wins general election.

Hillary wins general election.

fuckyoufuckyoufuckyou

Naw man. You have to wait until something happens and then pat yourself on the back for being perceptive enough to see it coming.

It's interesting. The attraction to Hilary seems to be entirely a media construct. Here in the UK a Labour politician went on a brief bit about how excellent it would be if/when Hilary wins, a female president of the USA! Her passionate speech was met with absolute silence. Fucking hilarious. I do hope the people manage to overcome the attempts to control this election, though I do also kind of hope Trump wins. The quicker the US collapses and resets itself, the quicker we can start building a better world.

If by some miracle Trump wins, as was predicted in the Simpsons, I imagine he'll be promptly assassinated for going against the banks.

I'm shocked at how obvious they are letting it become that the Democratic system is a farce.

I'm curious to see what will happen if Trump is overwhelmly leading the polls and they end up with a different candidate. That will truly show it to the American people, and Trump won't stay quiet about it.

I suppose I'm referring to this whole campaign in general, but because the manipulation is so blatant, I think it's done a fine job in waking up a number of people to just how fixed it all is. So in that respect, I don't mind it.

Yeah, you would never have seen this many people on a /r.conspiracy thread before. Who would have thunk!

Or how most of her questions brought her to the false flag issue and Radicalization? She has a military agenda and an anti gun anti constitution agenda and the moderator catered to it. Where are the issues? NSA? Citizens United? CISPA? Free Speech? Dirty Money in Politics? Refugees? Student loan Debt? Wealth inequality? Bank bailouts? Police Brutality? Civil Forfeiture? WTF! Give us spoonfed fear mongering- Terrorism Radicalization and gun control. She IS the whore of Babalyon.

I talk to a lot of random folks in the Gold's Gym sauna and nobody has expressed any interest in Hillary as a candidate.

Wait.

It's a men's sauna.

That might explain everything.

sauna = butt stew.

She's just their investment. This is not conspiracy, it's out in the open. This is what money in politics does.

Non-dem voter chiming in here. I had to turn off the debate after a while, it was all about Clinton. Sanders was good at times and the other guy has been completely written off.

I saw Hillary diss Sanders regarding his vote for taking out Ghadaffi. Sanders was trying to reply back but his mic was muted. wtf?

That turd on CNN admitted he is working for her campaign.

What bothers me is after all that has happened within government/corporate corruption, and all that is happening now with decentralization projects you guys still think centralizing power within one institution is still the answer. That bothers me.

Yes

I'm just glad that other people are <finally> noticing

Next up, jet fuel something something steel beams

Sanders is a strawman candidate, brought in to give the impression that it isn't a coronation. Except that Clintons numbers have tanked and Sanders could actually take it. Now the Democratic Party and the MSM has to maneuver the situation to where it could be plausible for Clinton to take it.

Quite the pickle for them.

Elect Ann Coulter to cock block the democrats from electing the first female president. This is what the MSM wants. The Democrats want to be the party that puts the first female president in the office, like they did with Obama being the first black president.

no

Its only directed at the government programmed children. This will change once they are wakened!

hate to say it as a trump supporter but the baby boomers are going to vote for Billary in droves.

Hillary = Bill to them.

and them remember those Bill Clinton years fondly.

All the vegas gambling websites favor Hillary to win the Presidency by a large margin... and those are the people who are willing to take bets so they are actually putting their money where their mouth is.

Hillary has tons of dirt on lots of people going back 30 years.

i think theyre using hillary clinton to setup bernie sanders as the true blue outsider fwiw. i think trump scares the hell out of him

then again, trump could be pwned too.

We should not be bothered because we know that it is all just bs to legitmize the stealing of funds from the public and our resultant enslavement.

It seems like they have switched to making it super-obvious to turn non-brain-dead people away from politics. You can either join the 2-headed "PARTY" or you can remain a slave.

Eh. Some of that was Bernie being genuinely respectful for his wife, and acknowledging how the role of First Lady has changed since Hillary held that position.

What was ridiculous was Muir allowing Clinton to have the last word for literally everything. Allowing Clinton to talk over the moderators without interruption, yet Sanders got shut down when he would try to reply at times. Clinton positioned at center. Clinton allowed to walk in late, during a question, and somehow it's treated as funny and not disrespectful. This debate showed obvious favoritism towards Hilary. It sucks, but she's got the support already.

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/029/118/036.png

I thought there were three people in the debate.

She's a nut.

She opposed LGBT rights, including same-sex marriage and civil unions. When voting against legalizing civil unions, she stated: "To try to act as if there is a difference between 'civil unions' and same-sex marriage is dishonest, cowardly and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii who have already made overwhelmingly clear our position on this issue.... As Democrats we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists." In August 2004, she defended her then-Republican father's anti-LGBT work, and called supporters of U.S. Congressman Ed Case "homosexual extremists".[20][21]

LGBT rights are not one of the things that actually fucking matter

wow

That's not very democratic of you.