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.
Bernie voters might just stay home. And I know a substantial number of Sanders > Trump > Clinton or Sanders > Trump = Clinton voters. Possibly enough to matter. Hillary is pretty arrogant right now for a candidate with a fragile lead.
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.
There are essentially 2 issues at play here:
DWS. I'm not a big fan of DWS for a number of reasons. What's going on is hardly making me like her more. Still, here she's taking the fall because she's the chair and this happened on her watch. That's pretty much it.
Separately, bias. People aren't professional 100% of the time. There's shit that me and my boss have said about some co workers, about our business partners that would cause significant problems for our company if the subject of our comments heard them. Still, we deal with them in our professional capacities... professionally. The members of the DNC had their biases. Did they let those biases unduly affect how they conducted business? No, and there's no evidence that they did. If there were truly anything untoward, it would be all over the news.
So feel free to continue being outraged over what's pretty much a simple fact of life and how people work. If this is what gets you riled up, I'm afraid life is going to be really fucking infuriating unless you become a hermit.
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.
There are essentially 2 issues at play here:
DWS. I'm not a big fan of DWS for a number of reasons. What's going on is hardly making me like her more. Still, here she's taking the fall because she's the chair and this happened on her watch. That's pretty much it.
Separately, bias. People aren't professional 100% of the time. There's shit that me and my boss have said about some co workers, about our business partners that would cause significant problems for our company if the subject of our comments heard them. Still, we deal with them in our professional capacities... professionally. The members of the DNC had their biases. Did they let those biases unduly affect how they conducted business? No, and there's no evidence that they did. If there were truly anything untoward, it would be all over the news.
So feel free to continue being outraged over what's pretty much a simple fact of life and how people work. If this is what gets you riled up, I'm afraid life is going to be really fucking infuriating unless you become a hermit.
So trying to actively sabotage Bernie by asking if he believes in god, and if he is an atheist in order to score some points from voters in religious states is just a lack of professionalism?
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."
To be fair I'm not sure they need a wildly successful doco to show how untrustworthy Clinton is. She's doing a good job digging her own grave in that department as is.
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.
There are essentially 2 issues at play here:
DWS. I'm not a big fan of DWS for a number of reasons. What's going on is hardly making me like her more. Still, here she's taking the fall because she's the chair and this happened on her watch. That's pretty much it.
Separately, bias. People aren't professional 100% of the time. There's shit that me and my boss have said about some co workers, about our business partners that would cause significant problems for our company if the subject of our comments heard them. Still, we deal with them in our professional capacities... professionally. The members of the DNC had their biases. Did they let those biases unduly affect how they conducted business? No, and there's no evidence that they did. If there were truly anything untoward, it would be all over the news.
So feel free to continue being outraged over what's pretty much a simple fact of life and how people work. If this is what gets you riled up, I'm afraid life is going to be really fucking infuriating unless you become a hermit.
So trying to actively sabotage Bernie by asking if he believes in god, and if he is an atheist in order to score some points from voters in religious states is just a lack of professionalism?
They didn't follow through, it's was an idea they never acted on. They are allowed to have bad ideas.
What I think is funny is how people presume that what was exposed was the worst of the worst. Like was said earlier, only total morons or cronies so deeply embedded would have even been dumb enough to send this type of stuff in email.
One would have to be one of the most naive people on the planet to really think those emails are anywhere near the worst of it.
If that's what they believe (that they don't know if breaking the charter is a problem), fine. But don't lie all primary and then say "yeah you were right, too bad it's too late", especially when it's not actually too late.
On July 25 2016 13:26 xDaunt wrote: Hah, so now the Clintons are pedaling the story that they wanted to remove DWS last fall, but Obama blocked them. So shameless.
Next they'lln say it was Obama's idea to remove the restrictions on lobbyists donating to the DNC (that he put in place). Sooooo Shameless. She worked for Hillary against Obama, but Obama's the one who fought to keep her there...
On July 25 2016 12:43 Plansix wrote: I think we all would like better options, but that isn't the reality sadly.
Not so sure about that. I think the Trump supporters in this thread are pretty happy with him. The republicans would have less support here if it was anyone else. If PA is any indication, democrats are the ones switching over. Meanwhile, billionaires are switching to endorsing Hillary.
The debate schedule was certainly the DNC putting its thumb on the scale for Clinton. Putting all those debates on weekends to bury them, helping the candidate with the higher name recognition.
On July 25 2016 13:30 ticklishmusic wrote: So where's the evidence that there was actual impropriety instead of some words being said and ideas being thrown around?
Plotting about how to take down someone you're supposed to be neutral about is more than enough. I don't really know who this argument is for though. The only people who don't already acknowledge it are Hillary superfans. Everyone else already has more than enough to conclude they weren't impartial as the charter suggests they must be.
As for the debate thing allow me to give you his response:
"Hillary did well in the debates, that wouldn't have helped Bernie (with some extra crap)". Which anyone knows is crap since it was about keeping people from knowing he even existed (as was the virtually non-existent news coverage prior to Iowa)
So in terms of stand-alone campaign stories this year, it's been 234 minutes for Trump, compared to 10 minutes for Sanders. And at ABC World News Tonight, it's been 81 minutes for Trump and less than one minute for Sanders.
On July 25 2016 13:26 xDaunt wrote: Hah, so now the Clintons are pedaling the story that they wanted to remove DWS last fall, but Obama blocked them. So shameless.