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 06:50 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.
That's a slightly different argument but it doesn't mean they didn't rig it, it just means that before they rigged it, it already had design flaws allowing an opening for someone like Bernie.
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.
That's a slightly different argument but it doesn't mean they didn't rig it, it just means that before they rigged it, it already had design flaws allowing an opening for someone like Bernie.
That's still rigged though.
The system isn't designed to be fair to people just join up right before the election. Someone like Bernie should have joined the party earlier. And gotten more votes if he wanted to win. That last part is the key part.
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
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.
Except they didnt actually DO anything. They talked of doing things they considered doing things and they might have had it gone badly but at no point did he ever become credible enough for them to actually do anything to stop him.
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.
That's a slightly different argument but it doesn't mean they didn't rig it, it just means that before they rigged it, it already had design flaws allowing an opening for someone like Bernie.
That's still rigged though.
Who are you expecting to convince here? You are wasting everyone's time by continuously bringing up the same subject over and over. We're heard it and we've moved on. You say the same shit and we disregard it the same way every time.
Sanders got as many votes as he did by offering policies that Democrats found to be in their best interest. Far as I care that fully justifies him running on the Dem ticket. Same goes for Trump or Cruz or any other political non-party-favorite candidate. And the parties should stay true to their word, and let the candidates sort it out between themselves.
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.
That's a slightly different argument but it doesn't mean they didn't rig it, it just means that before they rigged it, it already had design flaws allowing an opening for someone like Bernie.
That's still rigged though.
The system isn't designed to be fair to people just join up right before the election. Someone like Bernie should have joined the party earlier. And gotten more votes if he wanted to win. That last part is the key part.
It's not about being designed to be fair. They violated the charter, plain and simple. All these arguments are avoiding the central point I made in the first place.
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.
That's a slightly different argument but it doesn't mean they didn't rig it, it just means that before they rigged it, it already had design flaws allowing an opening for someone like Bernie.
That's still rigged though.
Who are you expecting to convince here? You are wasting everyone's time by continuously bringing up the same subject over and over. We're heard it and we've moved on. You say the same shit and we disregard it the same way every time.
Before, people made the claim that there wasn't evidence, now there's evidence and the argument has shifted to "who cares". Well, millions of Bernie supporters and Democrats to start.
"The rules are the rules" as Hillary supporters would say about campaign finance or many other issues. This is a "rules are rules" situation and they were undeniably violated.
On Twitter, many international observers reacted with shock to Trump's speech, with some drawing parallels between it and foreign strongmen.
'Stumped'
The international press reaction to Trump's rise has been largely negative, with Russian outlets being among the few to actively praise the Republican nominee.
Also, not sure how common it's for speeches, but I'm absolutely loving the whole sphere to view the speech at. Am I late to the party, and was it possible to watch it this way the entire time? D:
On Twitter, many international observers reacted with shock to Trump's speech, with some drawing parallels between it and foreign strongmen.
'Stumped'
The international press reaction to Trump's rise has been largely negative, with Russian outlets being among the few to actively praise the Republican nominee.
Monday: First Lady Michelle Obama, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Astrid Silva. Silva is a "Dreamer" from Nevada who will talk about her personal immigration story and her activism.
Tuesday: Former President Bill Clinton will be joined by Mothers of the Movement, mothers of black men and women who have been killed by gun violence or in police custody, including the mothers of Eric Garner, Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown.
Wednesday: President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.
Thursday: Hillary Clinton and Chelsea Clinton.
Below are more prominent Democratic names who were added to the list on Thursday and who will address the convention:
Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro of Texas U.S. Rep. James E. Clyburn of South Carolina Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire
Aside from the political figures who have agreed to speak at the Democratic National Convention, some celebs have also signed on to speak in Philadelphia next week.
Chloe Grace Moretz, Lena Dunham, America Ferrera, Debra Messing and Star Jones are among the Hollywood stars who will take the stage to support Hillary Clinton.
On Twitter, many international observers reacted with shock to Trump's speech, with some drawing parallels between it and foreign strongmen.
'Stumped'
The international press reaction to Trump's rise has been largely negative, with Russian outlets being among the few to actively praise the Republican nominee.
On July 23 2016 07:34 GGTeMpLaR wrote: mothers of black men and women who have been killed by gun violence or in police custody, including the mothers of Eric Garner, Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown.
On July 23 2016 07:34 GGTeMpLaR wrote: mothers of black men and women who have been killed by gun violence or in police custody, including the mothers of Eric Garner, Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown.
Wow. Not a fan.
lmao do we really need THREE of them? They better be eloquent, well spoken people. What a mess.
Hopefully they give them terrible times so that we technically patted them on the head and gave our condolences, but not to where people are seeing that shit when they're off work.
On July 23 2016 07:34 GGTeMpLaR wrote: mothers of black men and women who have been killed by gun violence or in police custody, including the mothers of Eric Garner, Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown.
Wow. Not a fan.
lmao do we really need THREE of them? They better be eloquent, well spoken people. What a mess.
Hopefully they give them terrible times so that we technically patted them on the head and gave our condolences, but not to where people are seeing that shit when they're off work.
I'm more impressed by the "Dreamer" from Nevada who will "talk about her personal immigration story and her activism". Load of crap, this kind of emotion driven propaganda does not work to me. Just go for facts and policies.
On July 23 2016 07:34 GGTeMpLaR wrote: mothers of black men and women who have been killed by gun violence or in police custody, including the mothers of Eric Garner, Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown.
Wow. Not a fan.
lmao do we really need THREE of them? They better be eloquent, well spoken people. What a mess.
Hopefully they give them terrible times so that we technically patted them on the head and gave our condolences, but not to where people are seeing that shit when they're off work.
Law enforcement is speaking as well. From the reports, the Democrats want to give equal time to both sides and promote discussion. Nothing gets better if everyone stays in their corner.
Michelle Obama first is a mistake, who organized this lol. She is an excellent speaker and should be towards the end. She killed it at the last convention.
EPT
