|
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. |
On July 23 2016 06:16 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2016 05:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2016 05:00 Mohdoo wrote:On July 23 2016 04:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
When someone's campaign's stated intent is to radically transform a party, it is a declaration against what the party currently is. This idea that there was no reason for people to fight Bernie is so stupid. He was trying to overthrow the party the same way Trump did. His language was never aimed at some kinda shift or change, he used the word revolution. The fight happened and he lost. But don't mistake just how wide a scope Bernie declared war on. He was an independent for a reason. The party has charter/bylaws which say what they did is against the rules. In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National
Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of
the Presidential nominating process, the Chairperson shall exercise
impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates
and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the
national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee
maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party
Presidential nominating process . SourceBy any reasonable measure she failed to do that. Definition of rig
rigged rigging
transitive verb
1
: to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means The primary was rigged period. You all knew it then, but it's undeniable now. When you lead a revolt against a group of people, openly, do not expect people to sit around doing nothing. Bernie was openly declaring a lot of people would lose their jobs as a result of a revolution. The people who you are trying to throw out of their job will probably seek to limit your effectiveness.
Yeah if they are willing to break the rules in order to do so. But then people shouldn't pretend they weren't or insult people for pointing it out.
There's a huge chasm between "The DNC is neutral" (their public position and obligated by rule) and "we're fighting against a candidate because he wants to change the party"
That it's a human reaction is irrelevant to the fact that it was against the rules, the process was rigged, they lied profusely, and it undermines the legitimacy of the process and outcome all around.
I'll accept apologies from those who tried to claim the process wasn't rigged though and insulted me and others for suggesting otherwise 
|
On July 23 2016 06:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2016 06:16 Mohdoo wrote:On July 23 2016 05:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2016 05:00 Mohdoo wrote:When someone's campaign's stated intent is to radically transform a party, it is a declaration against what the party currently is. This idea that there was no reason for people to fight Bernie is so stupid. He was trying to overthrow the party the same way Trump did. His language was never aimed at some kinda shift or change, he used the word revolution. The fight happened and he lost. But don't mistake just how wide a scope Bernie declared war on. He was an independent for a reason. The party has charter/bylaws which say what they did is against the rules. In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National
Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of
the Presidential nominating process, the Chairperson shall exercise
impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates
and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the
national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee
maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party
Presidential nominating process . SourceBy any reasonable measure she failed to do that. Definition of rig
rigged rigging
transitive verb
1
: to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means The primary was rigged period. You all knew it then, but it's undeniable now. When you lead a revolt against a group of people, openly, do not expect people to sit around doing nothing. Bernie was openly declaring a lot of people would lose their jobs as a result of a revolution. The people who you are trying to throw out of their job will probably seek to limit your effectiveness. Yeah if they are willing to break the rules in order to do so. But then people shouldn't pretend they weren't or insult people for pointing it out. There's a huge chasm between "The DNC is neutral" (their public position and obligated by rule) and "we're fighting against a candidate because he wants to change the party" That it's a human reaction is irrelevant to the fact that it was against the rules, the process was rigged, they lied profusely, and it undermines the legitimacy of the process and outcome all around. I'll accept apologies from those who tried to claim the process wasn't rigged though and insulted me and others for suggesting otherwise
If you're saying that email proves there was rigging, you're gonna need more evidence.
|
On July 23 2016 06:28 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2016 06:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2016 06:16 Mohdoo wrote:On July 23 2016 05:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2016 05:00 Mohdoo wrote:When someone's campaign's stated intent is to radically transform a party, it is a declaration against what the party currently is. This idea that there was no reason for people to fight Bernie is so stupid. He was trying to overthrow the party the same way Trump did. His language was never aimed at some kinda shift or change, he used the word revolution. The fight happened and he lost. But don't mistake just how wide a scope Bernie declared war on. He was an independent for a reason. The party has charter/bylaws which say what they did is against the rules. In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National
Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of
the Presidential nominating process, the Chairperson shall exercise
impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates
and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the
national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee
maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party
Presidential nominating process . SourceBy any reasonable measure she failed to do that. Definition of rig
rigged rigging
transitive verb
1
: to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means The primary was rigged period. You all knew it then, but it's undeniable now. When you lead a revolt against a group of people, openly, do not expect people to sit around doing nothing. Bernie was openly declaring a lot of people would lose their jobs as a result of a revolution. The people who you are trying to throw out of their job will probably seek to limit your effectiveness. Yeah if they are willing to break the rules in order to do so. But then people shouldn't pretend they weren't or insult people for pointing it out. There's a huge chasm between "The DNC is neutral" (their public position and obligated by rule) and "we're fighting against a candidate because he wants to change the party" That it's a human reaction is irrelevant to the fact that it was against the rules, the process was rigged, they lied profusely, and it undermines the legitimacy of the process and outcome all around. I'll accept apologies from those who tried to claim the process wasn't rigged though and insulted me and others for suggesting otherwise If you're saying that email proves there was rigging, you're gonna need more evidence.
There are quite a few emails, if you've read them it's pretty obvious.
Note: I posted the definition of "rigged" I'm using as to avoid the confusion you seem to be implying.
|
On July 23 2016 04:46 Mohdoo wrote:
Jeb endorsing Johnson would be amazing. Imagine if the whole Bush family backed Johnson and actively pushed for him.
That would probably make the Bush family lose all influence in the party. Having an opinion on and a grudge against a polarizing candidate is one thing. Active sabotage is another.
On July 23 2016 06:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2016 06:28 Doodsmack wrote:On July 23 2016 06:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2016 06:16 Mohdoo wrote:On July 23 2016 05:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2016 05:00 Mohdoo wrote:When someone's campaign's stated intent is to radically transform a party, it is a declaration against what the party currently is. This idea that there was no reason for people to fight Bernie is so stupid. He was trying to overthrow the party the same way Trump did. His language was never aimed at some kinda shift or change, he used the word revolution. The fight happened and he lost. But don't mistake just how wide a scope Bernie declared war on. He was an independent for a reason. The party has charter/bylaws which say what they did is against the rules. In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National
Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of
the Presidential nominating process, the Chairperson shall exercise
impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates
and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the
national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee
maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party
Presidential nominating process . SourceBy any reasonable measure she failed to do that. Definition of rig
rigged rigging
transitive verb
1
: to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means The primary was rigged period. You all knew it then, but it's undeniable now. When you lead a revolt against a group of people, openly, do not expect people to sit around doing nothing. Bernie was openly declaring a lot of people would lose their jobs as a result of a revolution. The people who you are trying to throw out of their job will probably seek to limit your effectiveness. Yeah if they are willing to break the rules in order to do so. But then people shouldn't pretend they weren't or insult people for pointing it out. There's a huge chasm between "The DNC is neutral" (their public position and obligated by rule) and "we're fighting against a candidate because he wants to change the party" That it's a human reaction is irrelevant to the fact that it was against the rules, the process was rigged, they lied profusely, and it undermines the legitimacy of the process and outcome all around. I'll accept apologies from those who tried to claim the process wasn't rigged though and insulted me and others for suggesting otherwise If you're saying that email proves there was rigging, you're gonna need more evidence. There are quite a few emails, if you've read them it's pretty obvious. Note: I posted the definition of "rigged" I'm using as to avoid the confusion you seem to be implying.
I listened to some interviews with DWS in the primary season. She had a pretty hard time pretending to be neutral about who she wanted to win the nomination. It was just so ridiculously obvious that she favored Hillary and all but directly stated so in those interviews.
|
On July 23 2016 06:42 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2016 04:46 Mohdoo wrote:
Jeb endorsing Johnson would be amazing. Imagine if the whole Bush family backed Johnson and actively pushed for him. That would probably make the Bush family lose all influence in the party. Having an opinion on and a grudge against a polarizing candidate is one thing. Active sabotage is another.
Influence doesn't fade that easily. It'd also depend a lot on whether trump wins or loses; and by how much.
|
On July 23 2016 06:42 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2016 04:46 Mohdoo wrote:
Jeb endorsing Johnson would be amazing. Imagine if the whole Bush family backed Johnson and actively pushed for him. That would probably make the Bush family lose all influence in the party. Having an opinion on and a grudge against a polarizing candidate is one thing. Active sabotage is another.
One could argue Trump is actively sabotaging and the Bushes are trying to save the party from Trump. Trump is a RINO, in one sense.
|
On July 23 2016 06:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2016 06:28 Doodsmack wrote:On July 23 2016 06:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2016 06:16 Mohdoo wrote:On July 23 2016 05:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2016 05:00 Mohdoo wrote:When someone's campaign's stated intent is to radically transform a party, it is a declaration against what the party currently is. This idea that there was no reason for people to fight Bernie is so stupid. He was trying to overthrow the party the same way Trump did. His language was never aimed at some kinda shift or change, he used the word revolution. The fight happened and he lost. But don't mistake just how wide a scope Bernie declared war on. He was an independent for a reason. The party has charter/bylaws which say what they did is against the rules. In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National
Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of
the Presidential nominating process, the Chairperson shall exercise
impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates
and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the
national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee
maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party
Presidential nominating process . SourceBy any reasonable measure she failed to do that. Definition of rig
rigged rigging
transitive verb
1
: to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means The primary was rigged period. You all knew it then, but it's undeniable now. When you lead a revolt against a group of people, openly, do not expect people to sit around doing nothing. Bernie was openly declaring a lot of people would lose their jobs as a result of a revolution. The people who you are trying to throw out of their job will probably seek to limit your effectiveness. Yeah if they are willing to break the rules in order to do so. But then people shouldn't pretend they weren't or insult people for pointing it out. There's a huge chasm between "The DNC is neutral" (their public position and obligated by rule) and "we're fighting against a candidate because he wants to change the party" That it's a human reaction is irrelevant to the fact that it was against the rules, the process was rigged, they lied profusely, and it undermines the legitimacy of the process and outcome all around. I'll accept apologies from those who tried to claim the process wasn't rigged though and insulted me and others for suggesting otherwise If you're saying that email proves there was rigging, you're gonna need more evidence. There are quite a few emails, if you've read them it's pretty obvious. Note: I posted the definition of "rigged" I'm using as to avoid the confusion you seem to be implying.
All he had to do to win was get people to vote for him. Unlike in 2008 with Hilary he had no claim that he won a single metric of the cause. He didnt win the most states, he didnt win the most votes, he didnt win the most delagates. The DNC had no control over who people voted for and he could just not win the votes needed to get the nomination.
|
On July 23 2016 06:44 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2016 06:42 LegalLord wrote:On July 23 2016 04:46 Mohdoo wrote:
Jeb endorsing Johnson would be amazing. Imagine if the whole Bush family backed Johnson and actively pushed for him. That would probably make the Bush family lose all influence in the party. Having an opinion on and a grudge against a polarizing candidate is one thing. Active sabotage is another. One could argue Trump is actively sabotaging and the Bushes are trying to save the party from Trump. Trump is a RINO, in one sense.
I'm sure Trump's Republican supporters would approve of that stance.
|
On July 23 2016 06:46 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2016 06:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2016 06:28 Doodsmack wrote:On July 23 2016 06:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2016 06:16 Mohdoo wrote:On July 23 2016 05:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2016 05:00 Mohdoo wrote:When someone's campaign's stated intent is to radically transform a party, it is a declaration against what the party currently is. This idea that there was no reason for people to fight Bernie is so stupid. He was trying to overthrow the party the same way Trump did. His language was never aimed at some kinda shift or change, he used the word revolution. The fight happened and he lost. But don't mistake just how wide a scope Bernie declared war on. He was an independent for a reason. The party has charter/bylaws which say what they did is against the rules. In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National
Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of
the Presidential nominating process, the Chairperson shall exercise
impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates
and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the
national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee
maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party
Presidential nominating process . SourceBy any reasonable measure she failed to do that. Definition of rig
rigged rigging
transitive verb
1
: to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means The primary was rigged period. You all knew it then, but it's undeniable now. When you lead a revolt against a group of people, openly, do not expect people to sit around doing nothing. Bernie was openly declaring a lot of people would lose their jobs as a result of a revolution. The people who you are trying to throw out of their job will probably seek to limit your effectiveness. Yeah if they are willing to break the rules in order to do so. But then people shouldn't pretend they weren't or insult people for pointing it out. There's a huge chasm between "The DNC is neutral" (their public position and obligated by rule) and "we're fighting against a candidate because he wants to change the party" That it's a human reaction is irrelevant to the fact that it was against the rules, the process was rigged, they lied profusely, and it undermines the legitimacy of the process and outcome all around. I'll accept apologies from those who tried to claim the process wasn't rigged though and insulted me and others for suggesting otherwise If you're saying that email proves there was rigging, you're gonna need more evidence. There are quite a few emails, if you've read them it's pretty obvious. Note: I posted the definition of "rigged" I'm using as to avoid the confusion you seem to be implying. All he had to do to win was get people to vote for him. Unlike in 2008 with Hilary he had no claim that he won a single metric of the cause. He didnt win the most states, he didnt win the most votes, he didnt win the most delagates. The DNC had no control over who people voted for and he could just not win the votes needed to get the nomination.
Whether he would have lost without them rigging it is also irrelevant, other than maybe making them look even more dumb for rigging a race they were going to win anyway.
|
On July 23 2016 06:44 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2016 06:42 LegalLord wrote:On July 23 2016 04:46 Mohdoo wrote:
Jeb endorsing Johnson would be amazing. Imagine if the whole Bush family backed Johnson and actively pushed for him. That would probably make the Bush family lose all influence in the party. Having an opinion on and a grudge against a polarizing candidate is one thing. Active sabotage is another. One could argue Trump is actively sabotaging and the Bushes are trying to save the party from Trump. Trump is a RINO, in one sense.
Except Trump won the primary shattering GOP records...
|
And again we are having a discussion where GH's use a term is different from the rest of humanity.
Yes he was disadvantaged, that's the price you pay as an outsider running in a party that is not yours. No it was not rigged.
|
Bernie endorsed Clinton. Can we please move on from the primary already? My god.
|
On July 23 2016 06:50 Gorsameth wrote:
And again we are having a discussion where GH's use a term is different from the rest of humanity.
Yes he was disadvantaged, that's the price you pay as an outsider running in a party that is not yours. No it was not rigged.
The definition is from Websters, it was most certainly rigged. What you all are arguing is that the rigging wasn't significant enough to matter or that it was justified.
On July 23 2016 06:52 Mohdoo wrote:
Bernie endorsed Clinton. Can we please move on from the primary already? My god.
Wouldn't count on it. If Hillary supporters don't see the light and they let the Democrats nominate someone less trusted than Trump to convince voters he's actually the one lying... good luck.
|
she's speaking right now in FL. basically doing what i said, laying out an alternative plan for america. i'm digging it.
cspan
|
On July 23 2016 06:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2016 06:50 Gorsameth wrote:
And again we are having a discussion where GH's use a term is different from the rest of humanity.
Yes he was disadvantaged, that's the price you pay as an outsider running in a party that is not yours. No it was not rigged.
The definition is from Websters, it was most certainly rigged. What you all are arguing is that the rigging wasn't significant enough to matter or that it was justified.
Yes, we joined a party with the sole purpose of taking advantage of their primary and voter base to their nomination. He gain his popularity on the back of their work in other states and running no their ticket. He never would have gotten this far if he had run third party.
The system wasn't rigged, it allowed Sanders to be relevant.
|
On July 23 2016 06:53 ticklishmusic wrote:she's speaking right now in FL. basically doing what i said, laying out an alternative plan for america. i'm digging it. cspan
Not very charismatic but at least she's talking policy rather than identity politics for once.
|
On July 23 2016 06:59 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2016 06:53 ticklishmusic wrote:she's speaking right now in FL. basically doing what i said, laying out an alternative plan for america. i'm digging it. cspan Not very charismatic but at least she's talking policy rather than identity politics for once.
I just started listening now... No substance thus far.
And hella biased. To me so far it's a similar structure to Trump's speeches, just the other side of them.
|
On July 23 2016 06:59 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2016 06:59 LegalLord wrote:On July 23 2016 06:53 ticklishmusic wrote:she's speaking right now in FL. basically doing what i said, laying out an alternative plan for america. i'm digging it. cspan Not very charismatic but at least she's talking policy rather than identity politics for once. I just started listening now... No substance thus far. And hella biased. To me so far it's a similar structure to Trump's speeches, just the other side of them.
What did you expect? Her to praise Trump for running the best live action Robo-Cop.
|
On July 23 2016 07:02 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2016 06:59 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 23 2016 06:59 LegalLord wrote:On July 23 2016 06:53 ticklishmusic wrote:she's speaking right now in FL. basically doing what i said, laying out an alternative plan for america. i'm digging it. cspan Not very charismatic but at least she's talking policy rather than identity politics for once. I just started listening now... No substance thus far. And hella biased. To me so far it's a similar structure to Trump's speeches, just the other side of them. What did you expect? Her to praise Trump for running the best live action Robo-Cop.
I don't think Republicans hold themselves to any kind of high standard... But it seems to me like Democrats like to hold themselves to a higher standard, or try to get that notion across anyway, and they're not.
|
On July 22 2016 23:00 Sent. wrote:Polls, for those who missed them. Didn't vote because I'm still undecided. FiWiFaKi's for everyone + Show Spoiler +On July 22 2016 13:12 FiWiFaKi wrote:Poll: Of the two, Trump or Hillary for President?Hillary (33) 52% Trump (30) 48% 63 total votes Your vote: Of the two, Trump or Hillary for President? (Vote): Trump
(Vote): Hillary
LegalLord's for metric system users + Show Spoiler +On July 22 2016 14:50 LegalLord wrote:Since I'm curious about this: Poll: Non-Americans: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?Hillary Clinton (23) 56% Donald Trump (18) 44% 41 total votes Your vote: Non-Americans: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? (Vote): Hillary Clinton
(Vote): Donald Trump
So, a repost for everyone who hasn't seen these polls yet.
Interesting to me that my poll has a solid 2/3 of the votes lol. It seems that this is in large part a "Europeans and Canadians talk about the United States" thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
