|
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 25 2016 11:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 10:38 ticklishmusic wrote:So if I'm getting this straight... some people in the DNC said some mean things about Bernie + his campaign and that's validation of them conspiring against him? Seems like they expressed irritation with him and that was about it. It's unprofessional, but it's not wrong (and heck, he deserved it in some cases). ![[image loading]](https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/13723905_10153802234731705_3216047776265453884_o.jpg) If you had to deal with this shit (and yes, it's framed in a way to make Bernie look particularly bad, but the facts of his campaign being impossible to work with stand for themselves) wouldn't you be frustrated? I also see some emails to the networks saying "yo we don't appreciate this please stop". I don't see any of this ordering people around shit that people have been talking about. I haven't seen a single story about about the DNC actually rigging a single thing against Bernie. If there were it would kind of be everywhere. Until I see more than an email saying "gosh this dude is an asshole", I'm not going to buy any accusations of bias when he's ultimately been treated pretty much the same as everyone else who ran. I don't like hiring DWS as honorary chairperson, whatever the heck that means. Optics are awful. Then again, I don't know the story behind it either. My conjecture is that it's some sort of deal to get her out as DNC chair and canceling her appearances at the convention. Ah hah! Hey guys, look! I found that rationalization!
Great post you got going on there. Let me know when you find some facts?
|
On July 25 2016 11:22 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 11:11 xDaunt wrote:This is priceless: Clinton Cash catapulted to the #2 trending topic on Facebook Sunday, in the wake of the global premiere of the motion picture adaptation of the New York Times best-selling book Clinton Cash authored by Government Accountability Institute President and Breitbart Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer.
Among the most impassioned supporters of the film were committed Bernie Sanders backers, who took to their respective Facebook accounts and prompted to them film to their followers.
Among them were: Veterans for Bernie Sanders, which boasts 50,889 Facebook followers; Jill Stein–Rockin’ in the Green World and Bernie Sanders for President 2016 which tout 47,079 and 116,922 Facebook followers, respectively; and Bernie Sanders is My Hero which has 68,763 Facebook followers.
In all, more than 283,000 dyed-in-the-wool Bernie Sanders supporters helped push Clinton Cash to the top of Facebook’s trending topics list.
UPDATE: “Clinton Cash” is now the #1 Facebook trending topic — screenshot has been updated. Source. Looks like the progressives are feeling just a wee-bit jilted. There's nothing quite like the brilliant journalistic minds at Breitbart, adding the total followers of a bunch of facebook pages to come up with a super legitimate number of how many die hard Bernie fans were into a documentary whose total number of views is much lower than that number.
The right has never been particularly good at dominating social media. I would be very surprised if it wasn't the Bernie supporters who are driving this.
|
On July 25 2016 11:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 11:22 Dan HH wrote:On July 25 2016 11:11 xDaunt wrote:This is priceless: Clinton Cash catapulted to the #2 trending topic on Facebook Sunday, in the wake of the global premiere of the motion picture adaptation of the New York Times best-selling book Clinton Cash authored by Government Accountability Institute President and Breitbart Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer.
Among the most impassioned supporters of the film were committed Bernie Sanders backers, who took to their respective Facebook accounts and prompted to them film to their followers.
Among them were: Veterans for Bernie Sanders, which boasts 50,889 Facebook followers; Jill Stein–Rockin’ in the Green World and Bernie Sanders for President 2016 which tout 47,079 and 116,922 Facebook followers, respectively; and Bernie Sanders is My Hero which has 68,763 Facebook followers.
In all, more than 283,000 dyed-in-the-wool Bernie Sanders supporters helped push Clinton Cash to the top of Facebook’s trending topics list.
UPDATE: “Clinton Cash” is now the #1 Facebook trending topic — screenshot has been updated. Source. Looks like the progressives are feeling just a wee-bit jilted. There's nothing quite like the brilliant journalistic minds at Breitbart, adding the total followers of a bunch of facebook pages to come up with a super legitimate number of how many die hard Bernie fans were into a documentary whose total number of views is much lower than that number. The right has never been particularly good at dominating social media. I would be very surprised if it wasn't the Bernie supporters who are driving this.
No one other than Breitbart is driving this, the documentary was created by one of their editors. And it's not 'dominating social media' by any means, it's got like 100k views. That's nothing, especially considering that they've been shitting out an article about it every few hours.
|
Likes don't matter. Views matter. If it reaches a fraction of gangnam style levels of views it might be relevant.
As someone who follows a bunch democrats on Twitter, that "documentary" has had zero impact. The emails seem to be a lot of "no shit, people say mean things in private."
|
What I find hilarious is that he's bragging about it being "#1 Facebook trending topic" when that's completely personalized. How can he not see that list and realize it's about what he's been writing/clicking.
|
On July 25 2016 11:49 Plansix wrote:
Likes don't matter. Views matter. If it reaches a fraction of gangnam style levels of views it might be relevant.
As someone who follows a bunch democrats on Twitter, that "documentary" has had zero impact. The emails seem to be a lot of "no shit, people say mean things in private."
yeah saying mean things in private is different from actively trying to sabotage one of the candidates. Nice try though
|
Yeah, that feature of face book is boarder line deceptive and not reflective of reality.
|
On July 25 2016 11:58 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 11:49 Plansix wrote:
Likes don't matter. Views matter. If it reaches a fraction of gangnam style levels of views it might be relevant.
As someone who follows a bunch democrats on Twitter, that "documentary" has had zero impact. The emails seem to be a lot of "no shit, people say mean things in private." yeah saying mean things in private is different from actively trying to sabotage one of the candidates. Nice try though
The RNC has the same emails about Trump. Political parties sole job is to get people elected. They have always had favorites. They didn't like Obama back in 2008. People forget that the 2008 primary was way nastier.
They are party run primaries and there is no evidence that the the DNC rigged through voter fraud.
|
On July 25 2016 11:30 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 11:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 25 2016 10:38 ticklishmusic wrote:So if I'm getting this straight... some people in the DNC said some mean things about Bernie + his campaign and that's validation of them conspiring against him? Seems like they expressed irritation with him and that was about it. It's unprofessional, but it's not wrong (and heck, he deserved it in some cases). If you had to deal with this shit (and yes, it's framed in a way to make Bernie look particularly bad, but the facts of his campaign being impossible to work with stand for themselves) wouldn't you be frustrated? I also see some emails to the networks saying "yo we don't appreciate this please stop". I don't see any of this ordering people around shit that people have been talking about. I haven't seen a single story about about the DNC actually rigging a single thing against Bernie. If there were it would kind of be everywhere. Until I see more than an email saying "gosh this dude is an asshole", I'm not going to buy any accusations of bias when he's ultimately been treated pretty much the same as everyone else who ran. I don't like hiring DWS as honorary chairperson, whatever the heck that means. Optics are awful. Then again, I don't know the story behind it either. My conjecture is that it's some sort of deal to get her out as DNC chair and canceling her appearances at the convention. Ah hah! Hey guys, look! I found that rationalization! Great post you got going on there. Let me know when you find some facts?
Brah, it;s probably closer to what Moh is saying since DWS is still trying to leverage into speaking at the convention.
Everyone is saying Dems screwed up except the most diehard Clinton supporters. If you think what the dems did was fine you're part of the problem and I suppose the stubbornness to admit the obvious is understandable.
On July 25 2016 12:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 11:58 biology]major wrote:On July 25 2016 11:49 Plansix wrote:
Likes don't matter. Views matter. If it reaches a fraction of gangnam style levels of views it might be relevant.
As someone who follows a bunch democrats on Twitter, that "documentary" has had zero impact. The emails seem to be a lot of "no shit, people say mean things in private." yeah saying mean things in private is different from actively trying to sabotage one of the candidates. Nice try though The RNC has the same emails about Trump. Political parties sole job is to get people elected. They have always had favorites. They didn't like Obama back in 2008. People forget that the 2008 primary was way nastier. They are party run primaries and there is no evidence that the the DNC rigged through voter fraud.
Probably should have taken the whole "neutral" stuff out of the charter then. Then they wouldn't be facing the class action fraud suit the DNC is.
|
On July 25 2016 11:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 10:38 ticklishmusic wrote:So if I'm getting this straight... some people in the DNC said some mean things about Bernie + his campaign and that's validation of them conspiring against him? Seems like they expressed irritation with him and that was about it. It's unprofessional, but it's not wrong (and heck, he deserved it in some cases). If you had to deal with this shit (and yes, it's framed in a way to make Bernie look particularly bad, but the facts of his campaign being impossible to work with stand for themselves) wouldn't you be frustrated? I also see some emails to the networks saying "yo we don't appreciate this please stop". I don't see any of this ordering people around shit that people have been talking about. I haven't seen a single story about about the DNC actually rigging a single thing against Bernie. If there were it would kind of be everywhere. Until I see more than an email saying "gosh this dude is an asshole", I'm not going to buy any accusations of bias when he's ultimately been treated pretty much the same as everyone else who ran. I don't like hiring DWS as honorary chairperson, whatever the heck that means. Optics are awful. Then again, I don't know the story behind it either. My conjecture is that it's some sort of deal to get her out as DNC chair and canceling her appearances at the convention. Ah hah! Hey guys, look! I found that rationalization!
To be fair he is kind of right. Everyone knows that the establishment supported Clinton, now you have validation. There is plenty of shit talking in internal emails all the time in every corporate environment or organization Ive worked in.
Heck if some of our clients saw how they get talked about in emails, when they do dumb shit and we have to clean it up they would probably leave us immediately. Doesnt mean that we arent earnest in doing our jobs properly or go out of our fucking way and spend sleepless nights just to keep them happy either. So I can see the parallels.
Its mean spirited but if anyone can sit here and pretend they havent been guilty of that in their professional lives when they though it was private then they are in some wierd kind of denial also.
Its still pretty bad though. If your gonna talk shit, dont get hacked. How to lose election and infuriate regressive left 101.
|
If my firm's internal emails got leaked, we would have no clients simply based on how much we shit talk them.
|
On July 25 2016 12:05 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 11:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 25 2016 10:38 ticklishmusic wrote:So if I'm getting this straight... some people in the DNC said some mean things about Bernie + his campaign and that's validation of them conspiring against him? Seems like they expressed irritation with him and that was about it. It's unprofessional, but it's not wrong (and heck, he deserved it in some cases). If you had to deal with this shit (and yes, it's framed in a way to make Bernie look particularly bad, but the facts of his campaign being impossible to work with stand for themselves) wouldn't you be frustrated? I also see some emails to the networks saying "yo we don't appreciate this please stop". I don't see any of this ordering people around shit that people have been talking about. I haven't seen a single story about about the DNC actually rigging a single thing against Bernie. If there were it would kind of be everywhere. Until I see more than an email saying "gosh this dude is an asshole", I'm not going to buy any accusations of bias when he's ultimately been treated pretty much the same as everyone else who ran. I don't like hiring DWS as honorary chairperson, whatever the heck that means. Optics are awful. Then again, I don't know the story behind it either. My conjecture is that it's some sort of deal to get her out as DNC chair and canceling her appearances at the convention. Ah hah! Hey guys, look! I found that rationalization! To be fair he is kind of right. Everyone knows that the establishment supported Clinton, now you have validation. There is plenty of shit talking in internal emails all the time in every corporate environment or organization Ive worked in. Heck if some of our clients saw how they get talked about in emails, when they do dumb shit and we have to clean it up they would probably leave us immediately. Doesnt mean that we arent earnest in doing our jobs properly or go out of our fucking way and spend sleepless nights just to keep them happy either. So I can see the parallels. Its mean spirited but if anyone can sit here and pretend they havent been guilty of that in their professional lives when they though it was private then they are in some wierd kind of denial also. Its still pretty bad though. If your gonna talk shit, dont get hacked. How to lose election and infuriate regressive left 101.
Sure but your job actually is helping your client, not arbitrating a situation between a client you like and a client you don't like.
|
On July 25 2016 11:49 Plansix wrote:
Likes don't matter. Views matter. If it reaches a fraction of gangnam style levels of views it might be relevant.
As someone who follows a bunch democrats on Twitter, that "documentary" has had zero impact. The emails seem to be a lot of "no shit, people say mean things in private."
Well, the issue with the emails is more that it provides proof to claims of favoritism. Everyone knew that the DNC was backing Clinton, but they had plausible deniability which worked well enough until there was direct, irrefutable proof to the contrary. I don't think anyone has been surprised by anything in those emails. They've already resulted in DWS being replaced which is legitimately a pretty massive deal by itself.
Clinton cash though is a complete nothing burger, the author it's based on has basically admitted he has no proof for most of the accusations. No idea why people don't just stick to the easily provable facts, those are already pretty irritating for Clinton.
|
On July 25 2016 12:10 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 12:05 Rebs wrote:On July 25 2016 11:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 25 2016 10:38 ticklishmusic wrote:So if I'm getting this straight... some people in the DNC said some mean things about Bernie + his campaign and that's validation of them conspiring against him? Seems like they expressed irritation with him and that was about it. It's unprofessional, but it's not wrong (and heck, he deserved it in some cases). If you had to deal with this shit (and yes, it's framed in a way to make Bernie look particularly bad, but the facts of his campaign being impossible to work with stand for themselves) wouldn't you be frustrated? I also see some emails to the networks saying "yo we don't appreciate this please stop". I don't see any of this ordering people around shit that people have been talking about. I haven't seen a single story about about the DNC actually rigging a single thing against Bernie. If there were it would kind of be everywhere. Until I see more than an email saying "gosh this dude is an asshole", I'm not going to buy any accusations of bias when he's ultimately been treated pretty much the same as everyone else who ran. I don't like hiring DWS as honorary chairperson, whatever the heck that means. Optics are awful. Then again, I don't know the story behind it either. My conjecture is that it's some sort of deal to get her out as DNC chair and canceling her appearances at the convention. Ah hah! Hey guys, look! I found that rationalization! To be fair he is kind of right. Everyone knows that the establishment supported Clinton, now you have validation. There is plenty of shit talking in internal emails all the time in every corporate environment or organization Ive worked in. Heck if some of our clients saw how they get talked about in emails, when they do dumb shit and we have to clean it up they would probably leave us immediately. Doesnt mean that we arent earnest in doing our jobs properly or go out of our fucking way and spend sleepless nights just to keep them happy either. So I can see the parallels. Its mean spirited but if anyone can sit here and pretend they havent been guilty of that in their professional lives when they though it was private then they are in some wierd kind of denial also. Its still pretty bad though. If your gonna talk shit, dont get hacked. How to lose election and infuriate regressive left 101. Sure but your job actually is helping your client, not arbitrating a situation between a client you like and a client you don't like.
Sometimes you have to fuck over a client for another one that will be better long term.
|
On July 25 2016 12:10 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 12:05 Rebs wrote:On July 25 2016 11:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 25 2016 10:38 ticklishmusic wrote:So if I'm getting this straight... some people in the DNC said some mean things about Bernie + his campaign and that's validation of them conspiring against him? Seems like they expressed irritation with him and that was about it. It's unprofessional, but it's not wrong (and heck, he deserved it in some cases). If you had to deal with this shit (and yes, it's framed in a way to make Bernie look particularly bad, but the facts of his campaign being impossible to work with stand for themselves) wouldn't you be frustrated? I also see some emails to the networks saying "yo we don't appreciate this please stop". I don't see any of this ordering people around shit that people have been talking about. I haven't seen a single story about about the DNC actually rigging a single thing against Bernie. If there were it would kind of be everywhere. Until I see more than an email saying "gosh this dude is an asshole", I'm not going to buy any accusations of bias when he's ultimately been treated pretty much the same as everyone else who ran. I don't like hiring DWS as honorary chairperson, whatever the heck that means. Optics are awful. Then again, I don't know the story behind it either. My conjecture is that it's some sort of deal to get her out as DNC chair and canceling her appearances at the convention. Ah hah! Hey guys, look! I found that rationalization! To be fair he is kind of right. Everyone knows that the establishment supported Clinton, now you have validation. There is plenty of shit talking in internal emails all the time in every corporate environment or organization Ive worked in. Heck if some of our clients saw how they get talked about in emails, when they do dumb shit and we have to clean it up they would probably leave us immediately. Doesnt mean that we arent earnest in doing our jobs properly or go out of our fucking way and spend sleepless nights just to keep them happy either. So I can see the parallels. Its mean spirited but if anyone can sit here and pretend they havent been guilty of that in their professional lives when they though it was private then they are in some wierd kind of denial also. Its still pretty bad though. If your gonna talk shit, dont get hacked. How to lose election and infuriate regressive left 101. Sure but your job actually is helping your client, not arbitrating a situation between a client you like and a client you don't like.
Thats true, but my point is what my personal opinions are can be quite irrelevant to how I operate in practice,
|
On July 25 2016 12:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 12:10 Nebuchad wrote:On July 25 2016 12:05 Rebs wrote:On July 25 2016 11:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 25 2016 10:38 ticklishmusic wrote:So if I'm getting this straight... some people in the DNC said some mean things about Bernie + his campaign and that's validation of them conspiring against him? Seems like they expressed irritation with him and that was about it. It's unprofessional, but it's not wrong (and heck, he deserved it in some cases). If you had to deal with this shit (and yes, it's framed in a way to make Bernie look particularly bad, but the facts of his campaign being impossible to work with stand for themselves) wouldn't you be frustrated? I also see some emails to the networks saying "yo we don't appreciate this please stop". I don't see any of this ordering people around shit that people have been talking about. I haven't seen a single story about about the DNC actually rigging a single thing against Bernie. If there were it would kind of be everywhere. Until I see more than an email saying "gosh this dude is an asshole", I'm not going to buy any accusations of bias when he's ultimately been treated pretty much the same as everyone else who ran. I don't like hiring DWS as honorary chairperson, whatever the heck that means. Optics are awful. Then again, I don't know the story behind it either. My conjecture is that it's some sort of deal to get her out as DNC chair and canceling her appearances at the convention. Ah hah! Hey guys, look! I found that rationalization! To be fair he is kind of right. Everyone knows that the establishment supported Clinton, now you have validation. There is plenty of shit talking in internal emails all the time in every corporate environment or organization Ive worked in. Heck if some of our clients saw how they get talked about in emails, when they do dumb shit and we have to clean it up they would probably leave us immediately. Doesnt mean that we arent earnest in doing our jobs properly or go out of our fucking way and spend sleepless nights just to keep them happy either. So I can see the parallels. Its mean spirited but if anyone can sit here and pretend they havent been guilty of that in their professional lives when they though it was private then they are in some wierd kind of denial also. Its still pretty bad though. If your gonna talk shit, dont get hacked. How to lose election and infuriate regressive left 101. Sure but your job actually is helping your client, not arbitrating a situation between a client you like and a client you don't like. Sometimes you have to fuck over a client for another one that will be better long term.
I feel like there's some ethical problems with this
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
DNC was stupid to offer written evidence of bias - both by having people stupid enough to straight up say it in the emails, and by being bad enough at data security to get hacked like this.
|
"I am glad that Debbie has agreed to serve as honorary chair of my campaign’s 50-state program to gain ground and elect Democrats in every part of the country, and will continue to serve as a surrogate for my campaign nationally, in Florida, and in other key states." - HRC
lmao
|
It's more like hearing a judge talk shit about a plaintiff, than a firm talking shit about a client, imo.
She should be fired, and Bernie voters should be pissed. But what can they do?
Someone (Bernie) dared to run a financially-decent campaign representing unions, workers, etc., and the chair of the DNC just shits on him. I'm fucking livid.
The inner-party election is more important than the general election. This is where we actually get to decide the candidate *WE* want, not just vote the party. I don't have enough words of contempt for the DNC right now.
|
On July 25 2016 12:26 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 12:13 Plansix wrote:On July 25 2016 12:10 Nebuchad wrote:On July 25 2016 12:05 Rebs wrote:On July 25 2016 11:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 25 2016 10:38 ticklishmusic wrote:So if I'm getting this straight... some people in the DNC said some mean things about Bernie + his campaign and that's validation of them conspiring against him? Seems like they expressed irritation with him and that was about it. It's unprofessional, but it's not wrong (and heck, he deserved it in some cases). If you had to deal with this shit (and yes, it's framed in a way to make Bernie look particularly bad, but the facts of his campaign being impossible to work with stand for themselves) wouldn't you be frustrated? I also see some emails to the networks saying "yo we don't appreciate this please stop". I don't see any of this ordering people around shit that people have been talking about. I haven't seen a single story about about the DNC actually rigging a single thing against Bernie. If there were it would kind of be everywhere. Until I see more than an email saying "gosh this dude is an asshole", I'm not going to buy any accusations of bias when he's ultimately been treated pretty much the same as everyone else who ran. I don't like hiring DWS as honorary chairperson, whatever the heck that means. Optics are awful. Then again, I don't know the story behind it either. My conjecture is that it's some sort of deal to get her out as DNC chair and canceling her appearances at the convention. Ah hah! Hey guys, look! I found that rationalization! To be fair he is kind of right. Everyone knows that the establishment supported Clinton, now you have validation. There is plenty of shit talking in internal emails all the time in every corporate environment or organization Ive worked in. Heck if some of our clients saw how they get talked about in emails, when they do dumb shit and we have to clean it up they would probably leave us immediately. Doesnt mean that we arent earnest in doing our jobs properly or go out of our fucking way and spend sleepless nights just to keep them happy either. So I can see the parallels. Its mean spirited but if anyone can sit here and pretend they havent been guilty of that in their professional lives when they though it was private then they are in some wierd kind of denial also. Its still pretty bad though. If your gonna talk shit, dont get hacked. How to lose election and infuriate regressive left 101. Sure but your job actually is helping your client, not arbitrating a situation between a client you like and a client you don't like. Sometimes you have to fuck over a client for another one that will be better long term. I feel like there's some ethical problems with this
By fuck over I mean, "sorry, we can't take that case or work on the appeal." It's not a perfect analogy.
Edit: we have had judges straight up tell us they do not like the way our clients do buisness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
