|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Also, to put all reporting on Trump into perspective:
http://deadline.com/2016/02/cbs-les-moonves-election-attacks-ad-sales-donald-trump-1201711621/
The CBS chief sounds mildly amused by all of the name-calling and attack ads this election year — especially as Donald Trump gains ground in the GOP presidential campaign.
“Who would have thought that this circus would come to town?” Les Moonves told investors today at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference. “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS. The money is rolling in” to the company’s local TV and radio stations.
Most of the ads so far are not about issues, he adds. “They’re like the debates: ‘He did this or did that.’…It’s a terrible thing to say, but bring it on, Donald.” Moonves says he’s not taking sides, but “for us, Donald’s place in this election is a good thing.”
The additional demand for commercials is well timed as CBS and other networks approach the upfront sales market.
The scatter market was “higher than ever” in Q4, and the current quarter “is even better than that.” As a result “we’re looking at a much much stronger upfront than a year ago.” Last year “we took in a little less volume than we would have liked.”
But in 2016 “advertisers will not make the same mistake and buy in October what they could have bought in June for 20% less…Bring it on.”
Digital companies including Google and Yahoo are competing to win ad dollars away from TV, “but the thought that network advertising is going down isn’t true.” Some 20 million people watch CBS shows including The Big Bang Theory and NCIS each week “and you can’t replace that” online.
Moonves says that while CBS “selfishly” wanted to keep the Thursday Night Football deal to itself (and the NFL Network), he’s not concerned by the NFL’s decision to add NBC to the mix. CBS will still have five games and the deal is “profitable.”
The CEO adds that he thinks “we will get a deal” enabling his company to stream next season’s NFL games to those paying $5.99 a month for CBS All Access — although “we’re doing fine without it.”
Moonves also talked up Showtime and it’s stand-alone streaming service that competes with HBO Go and Netflix. Showtime’s web offering is performing “above expectations, which everybody would say whether it’s true or not — but it is true.”
The company has worked out most of the technological kinks. And he likes the original programs including Homeland, Ray Donovan, The Affair, and its recently launched Billions.
“Billions was the highest rated new show in the history of Showtime,”” Moonves says. “It’s a great soap opera. It’s Dallas — two families vying for control of New York City… I’d put our content against any premium cable channel. Show for show I think we’re better than anybody.” He says that Showtime now “is a much more viable channel than it was five years ago.”
Its like they have no idea how they influence the country and just want to sell ads. Forget facts, what is clear is we need more ads. Get some polls out there that show Trump doing well, people click on those all the time.
|
I'm gonna write some fanfiction about a billionaire parking lot tycoon named Drumpf from Southern California with bad hair who fantasizes about his daughter. Stay tuned.
|
United States42024 Posts
On March 01 2016 06:58 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 06:50 KwarK wrote:On February 29 2016 16:23 ErectedZenith wrote:
Yeah most people wants to work and be productive member of society instead of having a welfare state. A strong welfare state with a functioning safety net and universal availability of healthcare and education are necessary for a hard working and productive society. You can't have one without the other. But that will come from productive members of the society that can't benefit from it and is barely breaking even with the government taxing them more. The point is that currently government sucks at balancing budget and allocating resources. People pay enough taxes as they do.
Welfare is not simply stealing from the productive and burning the resources. Welfare is what gives people the chance to become productive members of society. It is the foundation that productivity is built on. Public education, public healthcare and social services are the guarantee that a child will not only live to join the workforce but also get an education. The safety net and public healthcare keep people who are between jobs (often not for lack of trying to find work, take the example of a large employer outsourcing a plant, there simply will not be enough jobs to pick up the slack immediately) from starving or resorting to crime before they return to the workforce.
Welfare money isn't money stolen from the productive and then burned. Quite the opposite. Welfare money is money invested in society to enable productive money to exist. There isn't a divide between welfare recipients and productive members of society. Nobody productive got where they got alone. Society is interconnected and interdependent. If you are in favour of a productive hard working society then you are by definition also in favour of a welfare state, the alternative is a state ruled by the capricious whims of forces outside of the control of the individuals within it which condemns hardworking people by chance and rewards only those who won the birth lottery.
|
On March 01 2016 07:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 07:19 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:16 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:13 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 07:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
This is seeming to hinge on a misunderstanding of what the word "rig" means.
It does not mean "make it impossible for an undesirable outcome". It means "to manipulate dishonestly for personal gain" I didn't respond to Kwiz's request because there's already been ample evidence of it happening posted and even Ticklish has admitted the DNC (ran by a former Hillary co-chair for her 08 campaign) manipulated the process and hid behind dishonesty as to the reasons (even if he comes to the conclusion that it's acceptable). What did Hillary "manipulate dishonestly for personal gain" with regards to how this election has been proceeding? The debate process for one. Please use more details, rather than leave us all to guess exactly what you are talking about. Shouldn't be hard to guess. I've talked about it more than once. So just vague accusations and then silence when people ask for specific details? Because that sounds like the argument of a sore loser. No just lazy folks who ignored or missed the issues be pointed out already and refusing to even try to look into it. I'm not going to lay it out again just for you folks to say "but you can't prove it in a court of law". Anyone with any sense of objectivity can see how the debate process was manipulated by Hillary and the DNC which was most clearly displayed when Hillary suddenly wanted a debate in NH. Bernie's always wanted more debates same with O'Malley, as soon as Hillary actually wanted more debates, she got them and DWS abandoned her repeated statements that they weren't needed and wouldn't happen. It's obvious the DNC didn't change it's opinion all of the sudden because of Sanders, clearly the only person standing in the way of more debates earlier in the process was Hillary.
So, the DNC decided to sanction six debates, which is the same number of sanctioned debates as in 2004 and 2008. This time, however, they decided to attempt to limit (or avoid completely) unsanctioned debates, with basically the exact same rule as the RNC. Was the RNC also trying to favor Hillary Clinton? Or could the complete debacle that were the high number of Republican debates in the 2012 election perhaps have factored into the decision from both national committees to limit the number of debates in their primaries and have a firmer grasp on them?
Now, of course, having a limited number of debates favors the prior front-runner since it gives less opportunity to lesser-known candidates to make their case to the public. And it's likely that Shultz did not see the number of debates as a big issue since she underestimated how interested in Sanders many voters would become. But let's not present the decisions made over the debate process as Hillary dishonestly manipulating the election -- the DNC wanted a smooth process and to avoid the kind of shit-show that were the 2012 Republican debates, and it backfired.
Any other element to support the idea that Hillary has tried to rigged the election? Or was that it?
|
On March 01 2016 07:46 ticklishmusic wrote:
I'm gonna write some fanfiction about a billionaire parking lot tycoon named Drumpf from Southern California with bad hair who fantasizes about his daughter. Stay tuned.
Knowing Trump by now, he probably said it as a joke in the moment. Come on you're going to take what he says on Howard Stern and View seriously? If Trump's wife looked a lot like Ivanka then there is something funky going on but now it's just anti-Trump fantasizing.
|
Considering there is a "town hall" two Candidate question and answer session once a week, I think 6 debates is enough. I initially thought 6 was too low, but with all these other events I think there are plenty of Bernie v Clinton events. I get that at the outset, if there were only going to be 6 events in total, that looks biased. But the townhall style events really helped fill out the airwaves.
|
On March 01 2016 07:53 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 07:46 ticklishmusic wrote:
I'm gonna write some fanfiction about a billionaire parking lot tycoon named Drumpf from Southern California with bad hair who fantasizes about his daughter. Stay tuned. Knowing Trump by now, he probably said it as a joke in the moment. Come on you're going to take what he says on Howard Stern and View seriously? If Trump's wife looked a lot like Ivanka then there is something funky going on but now it's just anti-Trump fantasizing.
It's satire. I just want Drumpf-senpai to notice me.
On March 01 2016 07:53 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
Considering there is a "town hall" two Candidate question and answer session once a week, I think 6 debates is enough. I initially thought 6 was too low, but with all these other events I think there are plenty of Bernie v Clinton events. I get that at the outset, if there were only going to be 6 events in total, that looks biased. But the townhall style events really helped fill out the airwaves.
Pretty much. I've watched every single town hall and it's basically the same thing each time. The only thing that changes is if Hillary and/or Bernie have a cold it seems. The questions aren't bad though.
|
On March 01 2016 07:51 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 07:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:19 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:16 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:13 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 07:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
This is seeming to hinge on a misunderstanding of what the word "rig" means.
It does not mean "make it impossible for an undesirable outcome". It means "to manipulate dishonestly for personal gain" I didn't respond to Kwiz's request because there's already been ample evidence of it happening posted and even Ticklish has admitted the DNC (ran by a former Hillary co-chair for her 08 campaign) manipulated the process and hid behind dishonesty as to the reasons (even if he comes to the conclusion that it's acceptable). What did Hillary "manipulate dishonestly for personal gain" with regards to how this election has been proceeding? The debate process for one. Please use more details, rather than leave us all to guess exactly what you are talking about. Shouldn't be hard to guess. I've talked about it more than once. So just vague accusations and then silence when people ask for specific details? Because that sounds like the argument of a sore loser. No just lazy folks who ignored or missed the issues be pointed out already and refusing to even try to look into it. I'm not going to lay it out again just for you folks to say "but you can't prove it in a court of law". Anyone with any sense of objectivity can see how the debate process was manipulated by Hillary and the DNC which was most clearly displayed when Hillary suddenly wanted a debate in NH. Bernie's always wanted more debates same with O'Malley, as soon as Hillary actually wanted more debates, she got them and DWS abandoned her repeated statements that they weren't needed and wouldn't happen. It's obvious the DNC didn't change it's opinion all of the sudden because of Sanders, clearly the only person standing in the way of more debates earlier in the process was Hillary. So, the DNC decided to sanction six debates, which is the same number of sanctioned debates as in 2004 and 2008. This time, however, they decided to attempt to limit (or avoid completely) unsanctioned debates, with basically the exact same rule as the RNC. Was the RNC also trying to favor Hillary Clinton? Or could the complete debacle that were the high number of Republican debates in the 2012 election perhaps have factored in the decision from both national committees to limit the number of debates in their primaries and have a firmer grasp on them? Now, of course, having a limited number of debates favors the prior front-runner since it gives less opportunity to lesser-known candidates to make their case to the public. And it's likely that Shultz did not see the number of debates as a big issue since she underestimated how interested in Sanders many voters would become. But let's not present the decisions made over the debate process as Hillary dishonestly manipulating the election -- the DNC wanted a smooth process and to avoid the kind of shit-show that were the 2012 Republican debates, and it backfired. Any other element to support the idea that Hillary has tried to rigged the election? Or was that it?
Yeah that was more or less the best case interpretation up until it was exposed as bullshit by what happened with NH.
You don't have any interest in addressing the truth just putting a pro HRC spin on things. HRC dishonestly suggested she wanted more debates long before NH and nothing happened. She knew she didn't want more debates at the time but she lied and said she did. When she ACTUALLY wanted one, the DNC folded faster than Superman on laundry day.
But you knew that before you attempted to defend her.
|
On March 01 2016 07:16 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 03:47 xDaunt wrote:
It should be very clear to everyone that Trump is a master media manipulator, and far more skilled at it than any other politician in the race. This is why I'm not buying this notion Trump is going to be exposed come the general election or that the democrats are going to get out some message on Trump that isn't already out there. People thought Reagan was the Teflon man, but he doesn't have anything on Trump. I can't think of any serious candidate that could be so wishy washy on the KKK and not see his support melt away. I can think of zero of my favourite leaders, politicians, or candidates that I would continue supporting after that sort of thing, and yet the man marches on unphased. I don't know if he is such a manipulator as he has found a base that just could NOT care less.
It's both. He has so artfully managed the way people expect him to say things that he has carte blanche to say whatever he wants. And when you talk to people who support him, they will very quickly tell you that they don't give a fuck about his bombast and what he says.
|
On March 01 2016 07:58 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 07:53 Deathstar wrote:On March 01 2016 07:46 ticklishmusic wrote:
I'm gonna write some fanfiction about a billionaire parking lot tycoon named Drumpf from Southern California with bad hair who fantasizes about his daughter. Stay tuned. Knowing Trump by now, he probably said it as a joke in the moment. Come on you're going to take what he says on Howard Stern and View seriously? If Trump's wife looked a lot like Ivanka then there is something funky going on but now it's just anti-Trump fantasizing. It's satire. I just want Drumpf-senpai to notice me. Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 07:53 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
Considering there is a "town hall" two Candidate question and answer session once a week, I think 6 debates is enough. I initially thought 6 was too low, but with all these other events I think there are plenty of Bernie v Clinton events. I get that at the outset, if there were only going to be 6 events in total, that looks biased. But the townhall style events really helped fill out the airwaves. Pretty much. I've watched every single town hall and it's basically the same thing each time. The only thing that changes is if Hillary and/or Bernie have a cold it seems. The questions aren't bad though.
The problem is that the Democratic side looks anemic compared to the horrible reality show spectacle of the Republican debates. In a Non-Trump year the Democratic debate/townhall shows would have been enough. but man can Trump drive the ratings in those awful Republican debates. They are such shiatshows that everyone wants to watch. The Democratic debates are droll TV by comparison.
|
On March 01 2016 07:58 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 07:53 Deathstar wrote:On March 01 2016 07:46 ticklishmusic wrote:
I'm gonna write some fanfiction about a billionaire parking lot tycoon named Drumpf from Southern California with bad hair who fantasizes about his daughter. Stay tuned. Knowing Trump by now, he probably said it as a joke in the moment. Come on you're going to take what he says on Howard Stern and View seriously? If Trump's wife looked a lot like Ivanka then there is something funky going on but now it's just anti-Trump fantasizing. It's satire. I just want Drumpf-senpai to notice me. Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 07:53 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
Considering there is a "town hall" two Candidate question and answer session once a week, I think 6 debates is enough. I initially thought 6 was too low, but with all these other events I think there are plenty of Bernie v Clinton events. I get that at the outset, if there were only going to be 6 events in total, that looks biased. But the townhall style events really helped fill out the airwaves. Pretty much. I've watched every single town hall and it's basically the same thing each time. The only thing that changes is if Hillary and/or Bernie have a cold it seems. The questions aren't bad though.
President-senpai will grace us all. Can't wait for his inauguration speech.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On March 01 2016 08:04 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 07:58 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 01 2016 07:53 Deathstar wrote:On March 01 2016 07:46 ticklishmusic wrote:
I'm gonna write some fanfiction about a billionaire parking lot tycoon named Drumpf from Southern California with bad hair who fantasizes about his daughter. Stay tuned. Knowing Trump by now, he probably said it as a joke in the moment. Come on you're going to take what he says on Howard Stern and View seriously? If Trump's wife looked a lot like Ivanka then there is something funky going on but now it's just anti-Trump fantasizing. It's satire. I just want Drumpf-senpai to notice me. On March 01 2016 07:53 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
Considering there is a "town hall" two Candidate question and answer session once a week, I think 6 debates is enough. I initially thought 6 was too low, but with all these other events I think there are plenty of Bernie v Clinton events. I get that at the outset, if there were only going to be 6 events in total, that looks biased. But the townhall style events really helped fill out the airwaves. Pretty much. I've watched every single town hall and it's basically the same thing each time. The only thing that changes is if Hillary and/or Bernie have a cold it seems. The questions aren't bad though. President-senpai will grace us all. Can't wait for his inauguration speech. + Show Spoiler +
that is the smile of someone who kind of wishes she was adopted, but then realizes if she were it'd be technically okay for her 'dad' to bang her.
|
On March 01 2016 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 07:51 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 07:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:19 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:16 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:13 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 07:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
This is seeming to hinge on a misunderstanding of what the word "rig" means.
It does not mean "make it impossible for an undesirable outcome". It means "to manipulate dishonestly for personal gain" I didn't respond to Kwiz's request because there's already been ample evidence of it happening posted and even Ticklish has admitted the DNC (ran by a former Hillary co-chair for her 08 campaign) manipulated the process and hid behind dishonesty as to the reasons (even if he comes to the conclusion that it's acceptable). What did Hillary "manipulate dishonestly for personal gain" with regards to how this election has been proceeding? The debate process for one. Please use more details, rather than leave us all to guess exactly what you are talking about. Shouldn't be hard to guess. I've talked about it more than once. So just vague accusations and then silence when people ask for specific details? Because that sounds like the argument of a sore loser. No just lazy folks who ignored or missed the issues be pointed out already and refusing to even try to look into it. I'm not going to lay it out again just for you folks to say "but you can't prove it in a court of law". Anyone with any sense of objectivity can see how the debate process was manipulated by Hillary and the DNC which was most clearly displayed when Hillary suddenly wanted a debate in NH. Bernie's always wanted more debates same with O'Malley, as soon as Hillary actually wanted more debates, she got them and DWS abandoned her repeated statements that they weren't needed and wouldn't happen. It's obvious the DNC didn't change it's opinion all of the sudden because of Sanders, clearly the only person standing in the way of more debates earlier in the process was Hillary. So, the DNC decided to sanction six debates, which is the same number of sanctioned debates as in 2004 and 2008. This time, however, they decided to attempt to limit (or avoid completely) unsanctioned debates, with basically the exact same rule as the RNC. Was the RNC also trying to favor Hillary Clinton? Or could the complete debacle that were the high number of Republican debates in the 2012 election perhaps have factored in the decision from both national committees to limit the number of debates in their primaries and have a firmer grasp on them? Now, of course, having a limited number of debates favors the prior front-runner since it gives less opportunity to lesser-known candidates to make their case to the public. And it's likely that Shultz did not see the number of debates as a big issue since she underestimated how interested in Sanders many voters would become. But let's not present the decisions made over the debate process as Hillary dishonestly manipulating the election -- the DNC wanted a smooth process and to avoid the kind of shit-show that were the 2012 Republican debates, and it backfired. Any other element to support the idea that Hillary has tried to rigged the election? Or was that it? Yeah that was more or less the best case interpretation up until it was exposed as bullshit by what happened with NH. You don't have any interest in addressing the truth just putting a pro HRC spin on things. HRC dishonestly suggested she wanted more debates long before NH and nothing happened. She knew she didn't want more debates at the time but she lied and said she did. When she ACTUALLY wanted one, the DNC folded faster than Superman on laundry day. But you knew that before you attempted to defend her.
I didn't "attempt to defend her", I answered the one element you managed to bring up, and it wasn't even about Hillary but about the DNC.
With regards to the changes that were agreed upon at the end of January, Hillary came to be of the opinion that more debates should be added (she apparently thought it would help her, just like Sanders wanted more debates from the start because he felt it would help him), Sanders agreed and both campaigns struck a deal which was validated by the DNC. I'm not sure how that implies any more "rigging" by Hillary.
So, any other element to support the idea that Hillary has been rigging the election? Or was that it?
|
On March 01 2016 08:14 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:51 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 07:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:19 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:16 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:13 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 07:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
This is seeming to hinge on a misunderstanding of what the word "rig" means.
It does not mean "make it impossible for an undesirable outcome". It means "to manipulate dishonestly for personal gain" I didn't respond to Kwiz's request because there's already been ample evidence of it happening posted and even Ticklish has admitted the DNC (ran by a former Hillary co-chair for her 08 campaign) manipulated the process and hid behind dishonesty as to the reasons (even if he comes to the conclusion that it's acceptable). What did Hillary "manipulate dishonestly for personal gain" with regards to how this election has been proceeding? The debate process for one. Please use more details, rather than leave us all to guess exactly what you are talking about. Shouldn't be hard to guess. I've talked about it more than once. So just vague accusations and then silence when people ask for specific details? Because that sounds like the argument of a sore loser. No just lazy folks who ignored or missed the issues be pointed out already and refusing to even try to look into it. I'm not going to lay it out again just for you folks to say "but you can't prove it in a court of law". Anyone with any sense of objectivity can see how the debate process was manipulated by Hillary and the DNC which was most clearly displayed when Hillary suddenly wanted a debate in NH. Bernie's always wanted more debates same with O'Malley, as soon as Hillary actually wanted more debates, she got them and DWS abandoned her repeated statements that they weren't needed and wouldn't happen. It's obvious the DNC didn't change it's opinion all of the sudden because of Sanders, clearly the only person standing in the way of more debates earlier in the process was Hillary. So, the DNC decided to sanction six debates, which is the same number of sanctioned debates as in 2004 and 2008. This time, however, they decided to attempt to limit (or avoid completely) unsanctioned debates, with basically the exact same rule as the RNC. Was the RNC also trying to favor Hillary Clinton? Or could the complete debacle that were the high number of Republican debates in the 2012 election perhaps have factored in the decision from both national committees to limit the number of debates in their primaries and have a firmer grasp on them? Now, of course, having a limited number of debates favors the prior front-runner since it gives less opportunity to lesser-known candidates to make their case to the public. And it's likely that Shultz did not see the number of debates as a big issue since she underestimated how interested in Sanders many voters would become. But let's not present the decisions made over the debate process as Hillary dishonestly manipulating the election -- the DNC wanted a smooth process and to avoid the kind of shit-show that were the 2012 Republican debates, and it backfired. Any other element to support the idea that Hillary has tried to rigged the election? Or was that it? Yeah that was more or less the best case interpretation up until it was exposed as bullshit by what happened with NH. You don't have any interest in addressing the truth just putting a pro HRC spin on things. HRC dishonestly suggested she wanted more debates long before NH and nothing happened. She knew she didn't want more debates at the time but she lied and said she did. When she ACTUALLY wanted one, the DNC folded faster than Superman on laundry day. But you knew that before you attempted to defend her. I didn't "attempt to defend her", I answered the one element you managed to bring up, and it wasn't even about Hillary but about the DNC. With regards to the changes that were agreed upon at the end of January, Hillary apparently came to be of the opinion that more debates should be added (she probably thought it would help her, just like Sanders wanted more debates from the start because he felt it would help him), Sanders agreed and both campaigns struck a deal which was validated by the DNC. I'm not sure how that implies any more "rigging" by Hillary. So, any other element to support the idea that Hillary has been rigging the election? Or was that it?
Except you aren't even comprehending what happened. Hillary said months before NH that she wanted more debates, when she obviously didn't, that's what makes it dishonest.
Which is why I wouldn't bother engaging further on the topic with you.
|
On March 01 2016 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 08:14 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:51 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 07:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:19 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:16 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:13 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
What did Hillary "manipulate dishonestly for personal gain" with regards to how this election has been proceeding? The debate process for one. Please use more details, rather than leave us all to guess exactly what you are talking about. Shouldn't be hard to guess. I've talked about it more than once. So just vague accusations and then silence when people ask for specific details? Because that sounds like the argument of a sore loser. No just lazy folks who ignored or missed the issues be pointed out already and refusing to even try to look into it. I'm not going to lay it out again just for you folks to say "but you can't prove it in a court of law". Anyone with any sense of objectivity can see how the debate process was manipulated by Hillary and the DNC which was most clearly displayed when Hillary suddenly wanted a debate in NH. Bernie's always wanted more debates same with O'Malley, as soon as Hillary actually wanted more debates, she got them and DWS abandoned her repeated statements that they weren't needed and wouldn't happen. It's obvious the DNC didn't change it's opinion all of the sudden because of Sanders, clearly the only person standing in the way of more debates earlier in the process was Hillary. So, the DNC decided to sanction six debates, which is the same number of sanctioned debates as in 2004 and 2008. This time, however, they decided to attempt to limit (or avoid completely) unsanctioned debates, with basically the exact same rule as the RNC. Was the RNC also trying to favor Hillary Clinton? Or could the complete debacle that were the high number of Republican debates in the 2012 election perhaps have factored in the decision from both national committees to limit the number of debates in their primaries and have a firmer grasp on them? Now, of course, having a limited number of debates favors the prior front-runner since it gives less opportunity to lesser-known candidates to make their case to the public. And it's likely that Shultz did not see the number of debates as a big issue since she underestimated how interested in Sanders many voters would become. But let's not present the decisions made over the debate process as Hillary dishonestly manipulating the election -- the DNC wanted a smooth process and to avoid the kind of shit-show that were the 2012 Republican debates, and it backfired. Any other element to support the idea that Hillary has tried to rigged the election? Or was that it? Yeah that was more or less the best case interpretation up until it was exposed as bullshit by what happened with NH. You don't have any interest in addressing the truth just putting a pro HRC spin on things. HRC dishonestly suggested she wanted more debates long before NH and nothing happened. She knew she didn't want more debates at the time but she lied and said she did. When she ACTUALLY wanted one, the DNC folded faster than Superman on laundry day. But you knew that before you attempted to defend her. I didn't "attempt to defend her", I answered the one element you managed to bring up, and it wasn't even about Hillary but about the DNC. With regards to the changes that were agreed upon at the end of January, Hillary apparently came to be of the opinion that more debates should be added (she probably thought it would help her, just like Sanders wanted more debates from the start because he felt it would help him), Sanders agreed and both campaigns struck a deal which was validated by the DNC. I'm not sure how that implies any more "rigging" by Hillary. So, any other element to support the idea that Hillary has been rigging the election? Or was that it? Except you aren't even comprehending what happened. Hillary said months before NH that she wanted more debates, when she obviously didn't, that's what makes it dishonest.
Except you have been accusing Hillary of rigging the process, not of making unconvincing statements about wanting something. Either substantiate your claim or stop making it.
|
On March 01 2016 08:18 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 08:14 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:51 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 07:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:19 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:16 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
The debate process for one. Please use more details, rather than leave us all to guess exactly what you are talking about. Shouldn't be hard to guess. I've talked about it more than once. So just vague accusations and then silence when people ask for specific details? Because that sounds like the argument of a sore loser. No just lazy folks who ignored or missed the issues be pointed out already and refusing to even try to look into it. I'm not going to lay it out again just for you folks to say "but you can't prove it in a court of law". Anyone with any sense of objectivity can see how the debate process was manipulated by Hillary and the DNC which was most clearly displayed when Hillary suddenly wanted a debate in NH. Bernie's always wanted more debates same with O'Malley, as soon as Hillary actually wanted more debates, she got them and DWS abandoned her repeated statements that they weren't needed and wouldn't happen. It's obvious the DNC didn't change it's opinion all of the sudden because of Sanders, clearly the only person standing in the way of more debates earlier in the process was Hillary. So, the DNC decided to sanction six debates, which is the same number of sanctioned debates as in 2004 and 2008. This time, however, they decided to attempt to limit (or avoid completely) unsanctioned debates, with basically the exact same rule as the RNC. Was the RNC also trying to favor Hillary Clinton? Or could the complete debacle that were the high number of Republican debates in the 2012 election perhaps have factored in the decision from both national committees to limit the number of debates in their primaries and have a firmer grasp on them? Now, of course, having a limited number of debates favors the prior front-runner since it gives less opportunity to lesser-known candidates to make their case to the public. And it's likely that Shultz did not see the number of debates as a big issue since she underestimated how interested in Sanders many voters would become. But let's not present the decisions made over the debate process as Hillary dishonestly manipulating the election -- the DNC wanted a smooth process and to avoid the kind of shit-show that were the 2012 Republican debates, and it backfired. Any other element to support the idea that Hillary has tried to rigged the election? Or was that it? Yeah that was more or less the best case interpretation up until it was exposed as bullshit by what happened with NH. You don't have any interest in addressing the truth just putting a pro HRC spin on things. HRC dishonestly suggested she wanted more debates long before NH and nothing happened. She knew she didn't want more debates at the time but she lied and said she did. When she ACTUALLY wanted one, the DNC folded faster than Superman on laundry day. But you knew that before you attempted to defend her. I didn't "attempt to defend her", I answered the one element you managed to bring up, and it wasn't even about Hillary but about the DNC. With regards to the changes that were agreed upon at the end of January, Hillary apparently came to be of the opinion that more debates should be added (she probably thought it would help her, just like Sanders wanted more debates from the start because he felt it would help him), Sanders agreed and both campaigns struck a deal which was validated by the DNC. I'm not sure how that implies any more "rigging" by Hillary. So, any other element to support the idea that Hillary has been rigging the election? Or was that it? Except you aren't even comprehending what happened. Hillary said months before NH that she wanted more debates, when she obviously didn't, that's what makes it dishonest. Except you have been accusing Hillary of rigging the process, not of making unconvincing statements about wanting something. Either substantiate your claim or stop making it.
She says she wants more debates(lie), nothing happens. She thinks another debate will help her, suddenly it happens and DWS is on board. Your willful disbelief doesn't mean much to me.
|
On March 01 2016 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 08:18 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 08:14 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:51 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 07:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:19 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:16 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Please use more details, rather than leave us all to guess exactly what you are talking about. Shouldn't be hard to guess. I've talked about it more than once. So just vague accusations and then silence when people ask for specific details? Because that sounds like the argument of a sore loser. No just lazy folks who ignored or missed the issues be pointed out already and refusing to even try to look into it. I'm not going to lay it out again just for you folks to say "but you can't prove it in a court of law". Anyone with any sense of objectivity can see how the debate process was manipulated by Hillary and the DNC which was most clearly displayed when Hillary suddenly wanted a debate in NH. Bernie's always wanted more debates same with O'Malley, as soon as Hillary actually wanted more debates, she got them and DWS abandoned her repeated statements that they weren't needed and wouldn't happen. It's obvious the DNC didn't change it's opinion all of the sudden because of Sanders, clearly the only person standing in the way of more debates earlier in the process was Hillary. So, the DNC decided to sanction six debates, which is the same number of sanctioned debates as in 2004 and 2008. This time, however, they decided to attempt to limit (or avoid completely) unsanctioned debates, with basically the exact same rule as the RNC. Was the RNC also trying to favor Hillary Clinton? Or could the complete debacle that were the high number of Republican debates in the 2012 election perhaps have factored in the decision from both national committees to limit the number of debates in their primaries and have a firmer grasp on them? Now, of course, having a limited number of debates favors the prior front-runner since it gives less opportunity to lesser-known candidates to make their case to the public. And it's likely that Shultz did not see the number of debates as a big issue since she underestimated how interested in Sanders many voters would become. But let's not present the decisions made over the debate process as Hillary dishonestly manipulating the election -- the DNC wanted a smooth process and to avoid the kind of shit-show that were the 2012 Republican debates, and it backfired. Any other element to support the idea that Hillary has tried to rigged the election? Or was that it? Yeah that was more or less the best case interpretation up until it was exposed as bullshit by what happened with NH. You don't have any interest in addressing the truth just putting a pro HRC spin on things. HRC dishonestly suggested she wanted more debates long before NH and nothing happened. She knew she didn't want more debates at the time but she lied and said she did. When she ACTUALLY wanted one, the DNC folded faster than Superman on laundry day. But you knew that before you attempted to defend her. I didn't "attempt to defend her", I answered the one element you managed to bring up, and it wasn't even about Hillary but about the DNC. With regards to the changes that were agreed upon at the end of January, Hillary apparently came to be of the opinion that more debates should be added (she probably thought it would help her, just like Sanders wanted more debates from the start because he felt it would help him), Sanders agreed and both campaigns struck a deal which was validated by the DNC. I'm not sure how that implies any more "rigging" by Hillary. So, any other element to support the idea that Hillary has been rigging the election? Or was that it? Except you aren't even comprehending what happened. Hillary said months before NH that she wanted more debates, when she obviously didn't, that's what makes it dishonest. Except you have been accusing Hillary of rigging the process, not of making unconvincing statements about wanting something. Either substantiate your claim or stop making it. She says she wants more debates(lie), nothing happens. She thinks another debate will help her, suddenly it happens and DWS is on board. Your willful disbelief doesn't mean much to me.
There initially was no agreement between the campaigns to make more debates happen. Then there was agreement. Again, where is the rigging? Like I said, you have been accusing Hillary of rigging the process, not of making unconvincing statements about wanting something or of changing her mind on whether or not more debates would help her.
|
On March 01 2016 08:08 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 08:04 Deathstar wrote:On March 01 2016 07:58 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 01 2016 07:53 Deathstar wrote:On March 01 2016 07:46 ticklishmusic wrote:
I'm gonna write some fanfiction about a billionaire parking lot tycoon named Drumpf from Southern California with bad hair who fantasizes about his daughter. Stay tuned. Knowing Trump by now, he probably said it as a joke in the moment. Come on you're going to take what he says on Howard Stern and View seriously? If Trump's wife looked a lot like Ivanka then there is something funky going on but now it's just anti-Trump fantasizing. It's satire. I just want Drumpf-senpai to notice me. On March 01 2016 07:53 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
Considering there is a "town hall" two Candidate question and answer session once a week, I think 6 debates is enough. I initially thought 6 was too low, but with all these other events I think there are plenty of Bernie v Clinton events. I get that at the outset, if there were only going to be 6 events in total, that looks biased. But the townhall style events really helped fill out the airwaves. Pretty much. I've watched every single town hall and it's basically the same thing each time. The only thing that changes is if Hillary and/or Bernie have a cold it seems. The questions aren't bad though. President-senpai will grace us all. Can't wait for his inauguration speech. + Show Spoiler + that is the smile of someone who kind of wishes she was adopted, but then realizes if she were it'd be technically okay for her 'dad' to bang her.
Weirdly having sex with an adopted daughter is still considered incest. The law is nonsensical.
|
On March 01 2016 08:28 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 08:18 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 08:14 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:51 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 07:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:19 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Shouldn't be hard to guess. I've talked about it more than once. So just vague accusations and then silence when people ask for specific details? Because that sounds like the argument of a sore loser. No just lazy folks who ignored or missed the issues be pointed out already and refusing to even try to look into it. I'm not going to lay it out again just for you folks to say "but you can't prove it in a court of law". Anyone with any sense of objectivity can see how the debate process was manipulated by Hillary and the DNC which was most clearly displayed when Hillary suddenly wanted a debate in NH. Bernie's always wanted more debates same with O'Malley, as soon as Hillary actually wanted more debates, she got them and DWS abandoned her repeated statements that they weren't needed and wouldn't happen. It's obvious the DNC didn't change it's opinion all of the sudden because of Sanders, clearly the only person standing in the way of more debates earlier in the process was Hillary. So, the DNC decided to sanction six debates, which is the same number of sanctioned debates as in 2004 and 2008. This time, however, they decided to attempt to limit (or avoid completely) unsanctioned debates, with basically the exact same rule as the RNC. Was the RNC also trying to favor Hillary Clinton? Or could the complete debacle that were the high number of Republican debates in the 2012 election perhaps have factored in the decision from both national committees to limit the number of debates in their primaries and have a firmer grasp on them? Now, of course, having a limited number of debates favors the prior front-runner since it gives less opportunity to lesser-known candidates to make their case to the public. And it's likely that Shultz did not see the number of debates as a big issue since she underestimated how interested in Sanders many voters would become. But let's not present the decisions made over the debate process as Hillary dishonestly manipulating the election -- the DNC wanted a smooth process and to avoid the kind of shit-show that were the 2012 Republican debates, and it backfired. Any other element to support the idea that Hillary has tried to rigged the election? Or was that it? Yeah that was more or less the best case interpretation up until it was exposed as bullshit by what happened with NH. You don't have any interest in addressing the truth just putting a pro HRC spin on things. HRC dishonestly suggested she wanted more debates long before NH and nothing happened. She knew she didn't want more debates at the time but she lied and said she did. When she ACTUALLY wanted one, the DNC folded faster than Superman on laundry day. But you knew that before you attempted to defend her. I didn't "attempt to defend her", I answered the one element you managed to bring up, and it wasn't even about Hillary but about the DNC. With regards to the changes that were agreed upon at the end of January, Hillary apparently came to be of the opinion that more debates should be added (she probably thought it would help her, just like Sanders wanted more debates from the start because he felt it would help him), Sanders agreed and both campaigns struck a deal which was validated by the DNC. I'm not sure how that implies any more "rigging" by Hillary. So, any other element to support the idea that Hillary has been rigging the election? Or was that it? Except you aren't even comprehending what happened. Hillary said months before NH that she wanted more debates, when she obviously didn't, that's what makes it dishonest. Except you have been accusing Hillary of rigging the process, not of making unconvincing statements about wanting something. Either substantiate your claim or stop making it. She says she wants more debates(lie), nothing happens. She thinks another debate will help her, suddenly it happens and DWS is on board. Your willful disbelief doesn't mean much to me. There initially was no agreement between the campaigns to make more debates happen. Then there was agreement. Again, where is the rigging? Like I said, you have been accusing Hillary of rigging the process, not of making unconvincing statements about wanting something or of changing her mind on whether or not more debates would help her.
Actually DWS decided the number of debates even to the astonishment of the co-Governors(?) who said they had no say at all or why she was doing it going as far to set the times.
|
to sort of play devil's advocate or rather provide an alternate perspective, what if the DNC was just not willing to change the # of debates when only one candidate wanted more, but then they were willing to make a change because both candidates were interested in additional debates? i mean, the DNC kind of needs both candidates to show up to debates so the events are, yknow, debates.
i mean, i agree that the DNC definitely showed favoritism to hillary, but i don't think it's quite as clear cut as you say it is. they could have been like "yo hilldawg bernie wants more debates you in" or something in the name of being principled, etc. etc., but its not like hillary is controlling all the strings. besides, maybe the DNC didn't want to have more events for the simple reason there are already a ton of events anyways.
we don't know what happens in the alternate reality where there are 2+ debate/town hall events a week starting from before the iowa caucuses. however, i find it hard to believe that it would have afforded bernie the chance to make more progress-- i imagine it as additional exposure leading to him being a bit of a doofus on foreign policy and people getting tired of his 'wall street billionahs' schtick earlier on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.motherjones.com/files/imagecache/top-of-content-main/ivanka.jpeg)
