Topic: Is somebody trolling Hillary Clinton supporters?
Catherine !TGirlYJKXM started this discussion 10 years ago #57,176
Because this petition's goal keeps changing right at the point it meets the old goal.
It only needed 500,000 signatures and now it requires 1,443,541 out of 6,000,000.
Honestly, I'm surprised that it only needs that amount to meet its goal for this round.
It only needed 500,000 signatures and now it requires 1,443,541 out of 6,000,000.
Honestly, I'm surprised that it only needs that amount to meet its goal for this round.
Jubilee Starshine joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 42 minutes later[^] [v] #735,290
no, that's the way those work. they literally move the goal posts once you've hit a goal it like doubles or something. not sure why, but i've seen those things do that before.
OH YEAH, that's right, each goal is different.
so like 100k signatures it sends a letter or something
then at 250k it does something else
then it just keeps going up, and each new "level" like "unlocks" a new goal.
so when we were trolling Derek Smart on the Star Citizen sub we did one of these that would send him a letter calling him a disgraceful asshole every 10k signatures it got or something like that.
OH YEAH, that's right, each goal is different.
so like 100k signatures it sends a letter or something
then at 250k it does something else
then it just keeps going up, and each new "level" like "unlocks" a new goal.
so when we were trolling Derek Smart on the Star Citizen sub we did one of these that would send him a letter calling him a disgraceful asshole every 10k signatures it got or something like that.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #735,301
Metæ !goTRUMPlbg joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 12 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #735,303
@735,290 (Jubilee Starshine)
How did you feel in 2008 when Hillary won more votes than Obama, but lost the nomination?
How did you feel in 2008 when Hillary won more votes than Obama, but lost the nomination?
Jubilee Starshine replied with this 10 years ago, 38 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #735,315
@previous (Metæ !goTRUMPlbg)
satisfied. i liked obama and what he stood for, never really cared for hillary. i wasn't pleased when she ran this time, but i was more happy with her than with sanders. i felt like sanders didn't have a great shot later in the game. his open embrace of socialism, i felt, put him on the fringes for any undecided centrists and would be an open wound conservatives could just poke and poke and poke. at the time i thought trump was headed for the fringes himself, so i felt like a more establishment candidate would be best. so i was glad hillary beat bernie. and i still feel like against an establishment republican she would've won. the democrats would've pushed the obstructionist establishment in congress narrative and cleaned house. but when trump won and took the election down the rabbit hole her traditional by-the-book campaign was never able to take control of the narrative. 8 years of republican shenanigans got pinned on her emails and she took the fall for everyone in congress.
i was disappointed biden didn't take a stab at the nomination. i could certainly have lived with the worst thing being memes of the president washing his T-top thunderbird in front of the white house.
but, did biden actually have a shot? did ANY democrat have a shot with a populist wave of antiestablishmentarianism? idk. the demagogue won, so probably not.
satisfied. i liked obama and what he stood for, never really cared for hillary. i wasn't pleased when she ran this time, but i was more happy with her than with sanders. i felt like sanders didn't have a great shot later in the game. his open embrace of socialism, i felt, put him on the fringes for any undecided centrists and would be an open wound conservatives could just poke and poke and poke. at the time i thought trump was headed for the fringes himself, so i felt like a more establishment candidate would be best. so i was glad hillary beat bernie. and i still feel like against an establishment republican she would've won. the democrats would've pushed the obstructionist establishment in congress narrative and cleaned house. but when trump won and took the election down the rabbit hole her traditional by-the-book campaign was never able to take control of the narrative. 8 years of republican shenanigans got pinned on her emails and she took the fall for everyone in congress.
i was disappointed biden didn't take a stab at the nomination. i could certainly have lived with the worst thing being memes of the president washing his T-top thunderbird in front of the white house.
but, did biden actually have a shot? did ANY democrat have a shot with a populist wave of antiestablishmentarianism? idk. the demagogue won, so probably not.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #735,342
@735,303 (Metæ !goTRUMPlbg)
After the primary season wrapped up on Tuesday, Clinton commended her supporters and claimed once again that she had won the popular vote: "Nearly 18 million of you cast your votes for our campaign, carrying the popular vote with more votes than any primary candidate in history."
Did she? Now that all the primaries and caucuses are over we can take one, final look.
Obama won more total votes than Clinton in the contests where they both appeared on the ballot. Clinton won the popular vote only if you count votes from Michigan, where Obama’s name did not appear on the ballot.
Any way you cut it, the candidates’ vote totals are within less than 1 percent of each other. Both candidates got roughly 18 million votes, but since four states don’t list official counts, the precise totals can’t be known.
The political Web site Real Clear Politics has an excellent tally, with links to official reports from state election authorities. Those show that even counting Clinton’s win in Florida, where the two were on the ballot but did not campaign due to the state’s violation of party rules, Obama beat Clinton in the popular vote by 41,622 votes – a small margin, only 0.1 percent. Obama’s margin grows to 151,844 votes, or 0.4 percent, when estimates are included for Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, which did not release official totals of popular votes.
Only by counting Michigan, where Clinton’s name was on the ballot but Obama’s was not, can Clinton claim to have won more votes. Counting only officially reported results, Michigan puts Clinton’s total ahead nationally by 286,687 votes or 0.8 percent. Once estimated votes from the four non-reporting states are included, the margin becomes less significant: 176,465 votes, or 0.5 percent. And if Michigan’s "uncommited" votes were accorded to Obama, he’d have a 61,703-vote lead (0.2 percent), counting estimates from the non-reporting states.
For the record, Clinton hasn’t always been so eager to count Michigan votes. On Oct. 11, 2007, she said of the state, "It’s clear, this election they’re having isn’t going to count for anything." But that was when she was wooing New Hampshire voters, who cherish their first-in-the-nation primary and who were upset that Michigan was violating party rules designed to protect it. She was responding to an interviewer for New Hampshire Public Radio who asked, "So, if you value the DNC calendar, why not just pull out of Michigan? Why not just say, ‘Hey Michigan, I’m off the ballot?’ " Clinton went on to win the New Hampshire primary.
Did she? Now that all the primaries and caucuses are over we can take one, final look.
Obama won more total votes than Clinton in the contests where they both appeared on the ballot. Clinton won the popular vote only if you count votes from Michigan, where Obama’s name did not appear on the ballot.
Any way you cut it, the candidates’ vote totals are within less than 1 percent of each other. Both candidates got roughly 18 million votes, but since four states don’t list official counts, the precise totals can’t be known.
The political Web site Real Clear Politics has an excellent tally, with links to official reports from state election authorities. Those show that even counting Clinton’s win in Florida, where the two were on the ballot but did not campaign due to the state’s violation of party rules, Obama beat Clinton in the popular vote by 41,622 votes – a small margin, only 0.1 percent. Obama’s margin grows to 151,844 votes, or 0.4 percent, when estimates are included for Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, which did not release official totals of popular votes.
Only by counting Michigan, where Clinton’s name was on the ballot but Obama’s was not, can Clinton claim to have won more votes. Counting only officially reported results, Michigan puts Clinton’s total ahead nationally by 286,687 votes or 0.8 percent. Once estimated votes from the four non-reporting states are included, the margin becomes less significant: 176,465 votes, or 0.5 percent. And if Michigan’s "uncommited" votes were accorded to Obama, he’d have a 61,703-vote lead (0.2 percent), counting estimates from the non-reporting states.
For the record, Clinton hasn’t always been so eager to count Michigan votes. On Oct. 11, 2007, she said of the state, "It’s clear, this election they’re having isn’t going to count for anything." But that was when she was wooing New Hampshire voters, who cherish their first-in-the-nation primary and who were upset that Michigan was violating party rules designed to protect it. She was responding to an interviewer for New Hampshire Public Radio who asked, "So, if you value the DNC calendar, why not just pull out of Michigan? Why not just say, ‘Hey Michigan, I’m off the ballot?’ " Clinton went on to win the New Hampshire primary.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 3 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #735,369
@735,301 (C)
So long as someone believes in what Hillary believes in and has a great imagination, she surely can be their president.
So long as someone believes in what Hillary believes in and has a great imagination, she surely can be their president.
Svet !jzYkdX7lIw joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #735,385
Don't worry. Hillary can still run for potus next year.