|
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 18:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 14:57 Alur wrote: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). ![[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! 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. Wouldn't there be a conflict of interest? Is that legal? Please read follow up post.
Ah I see, that makes more a lot more sense.
|
On July 25 2016 18:56 CorsairHero wrote:Don't think this has been posted but wow... Show nested quote + An influential reporter at Politico made an apparent "agreement" with the Democratic National Committee to let it review a story about Hillary Clinton's fundraising machine before it was submitted to his editors, leaked emails published by WikiLeaks on Friday revealed.
Reporter Kenneth Vogel sent an advanced copy of his story to DNC national press secretary Mark Paustenbach in late April.
The email's subject line read: "per agreement ... any thoughts appreciated."
"Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before it goes to his editors as long as I didn't share it," Paustenbach wrote in an email to Luis Miranda, the DNC's communications director.
"Let me know if you see anything that's missing and I'll push back," he added.
The final copy of the story did not appear have any significant edits, and Clinton's campaign seemed unhappy with the final copy of the article. But sending an advanced copy of a story to a subject represents a break from typical journalistic ethics.
Neither Vogel nor a representative for Politico were available for comment at the time of publication.
A person with knowledge of the agreement, however, said that it was made to ensure accuracy in a complex story. Source
That doesn't seem unreasonable. The "agreement" just seems like fact checking, since there were no major edits.
|
On July 25 2016 19:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 18:56 CorsairHero wrote:Don't think this has been posted but wow... An influential reporter at Politico made an apparent "agreement" with the Democratic National Committee to let it review a story about Hillary Clinton's fundraising machine before it was submitted to his editors, leaked emails published by WikiLeaks on Friday revealed.
Reporter Kenneth Vogel sent an advanced copy of his story to DNC national press secretary Mark Paustenbach in late April.
The email's subject line read: "per agreement ... any thoughts appreciated."
"Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before it goes to his editors as long as I didn't share it," Paustenbach wrote in an email to Luis Miranda, the DNC's communications director.
"Let me know if you see anything that's missing and I'll push back," he added.
The final copy of the story did not appear have any significant edits, and Clinton's campaign seemed unhappy with the final copy of the article. But sending an advanced copy of a story to a subject represents a break from typical journalistic ethics.
Neither Vogel nor a representative for Politico were available for comment at the time of publication.
A person with knowledge of the agreement, however, said that it was made to ensure accuracy in a complex story. Source That doesn't seem unreasonable. The "agreement" just seems like fact checking, since there were no major edits.
If the DNC wanted to kill a story or delay it from coming out or break the news to someone else, they could. The DNC should never have to review an article before it goes out because there should be multiple sources that confirm the story.
Anyways this caught my attention because MMA's greatest reporter recently lost his press credentials because the UFC said he didn't give them a copy of the story he was about to break. The UFC has in the past squashed stories when indeed the source was true because the journalist asked them to review it. At this point it wouldn't surprise me if the DNC did the same.
WaPo executive editor
The practice of sharing unedited, unpublished material with sources is something we discourage.
Politico spokesman
Sharing the full piece was a mistake and not consistent with our policies.
|
On July 25 2016 19:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 18:56 CorsairHero wrote:Don't think this has been posted but wow... An influential reporter at Politico made an apparent "agreement" with the Democratic National Committee to let it review a story about Hillary Clinton's fundraising machine before it was submitted to his editors, leaked emails published by WikiLeaks on Friday revealed.
Reporter Kenneth Vogel sent an advanced copy of his story to DNC national press secretary Mark Paustenbach in late April.
The email's subject line read: "per agreement ... any thoughts appreciated."
"Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before it goes to his editors as long as I didn't share it," Paustenbach wrote in an email to Luis Miranda, the DNC's communications director.
"Let me know if you see anything that's missing and I'll push back," he added.
The final copy of the story did not appear have any significant edits, and Clinton's campaign seemed unhappy with the final copy of the article. But sending an advanced copy of a story to a subject represents a break from typical journalistic ethics.
Neither Vogel nor a representative for Politico were available for comment at the time of publication.
A person with knowledge of the agreement, however, said that it was made to ensure accuracy in a complex story. Source That doesn't seem unreasonable. The "agreement" just seems like fact checking, since there were no major edits.
The story as it is is inconclusive. I agree that, as presented, it doesn't seem like a big deal. The question is what would happen if the reviewers didn't agree with the story and didn't want it published. Does the agreement allow them to prevent the article from publishing or to edit it heavilly?
|
So the big story is that the guy not liked by fellow democrats was not actually liked by fellow democrats and the person suspected of wanting to help Hilary get into office now works directly with Hilary to get her into office?
That's the big story?
|
On July 25 2016 19:27 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 19:06 Plansix wrote:On July 25 2016 18:56 CorsairHero wrote:Don't think this has been posted but wow... An influential reporter at Politico made an apparent "agreement" with the Democratic National Committee to let it review a story about Hillary Clinton's fundraising machine before it was submitted to his editors, leaked emails published by WikiLeaks on Friday revealed.
Reporter Kenneth Vogel sent an advanced copy of his story to DNC national press secretary Mark Paustenbach in late April.
The email's subject line read: "per agreement ... any thoughts appreciated."
"Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before it goes to his editors as long as I didn't share it," Paustenbach wrote in an email to Luis Miranda, the DNC's communications director.
"Let me know if you see anything that's missing and I'll push back," he added.
The final copy of the story did not appear have any significant edits, and Clinton's campaign seemed unhappy with the final copy of the article. But sending an advanced copy of a story to a subject represents a break from typical journalistic ethics.
Neither Vogel nor a representative for Politico were available for comment at the time of publication.
A person with knowledge of the agreement, however, said that it was made to ensure accuracy in a complex story. Source That doesn't seem unreasonable. The "agreement" just seems like fact checking, since there were no major edits. The story as it is is inconclusive. I agree that, as presented, it doesn't seem like a big deal. The question is what would happen if the reviewers didn't agree with the story and didn't want it published. Does the agreement allow them to prevent the article from publishing or editing it heavilly?
I bet the agreement was more informal that we are thinking. The Clinton camp likely found out about the story, contact politico and they made some agreement were they got to see an advance for some other form of access. Or just to confirm there were no inaccuracies. Its not perfect, but its not like Politico held the story at the DNC's request.
On July 25 2016 19:43 TMagpie wrote:
So the big story is that the guy not liked by fellow democrats was not actually liked by fellow democrats and the person suspected of wanting to help Hilary get into office now works directly with Hilary to get her into office?
That's the big story?
Yep. Political parties are still political parties. They are dead set on infiltrating every section of government and they want your vote to do it.
|
On July 25 2016 19:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 19:27 NukeD wrote:On July 25 2016 19:06 Plansix wrote:On July 25 2016 18:56 CorsairHero wrote:Don't think this has been posted but wow... An influential reporter at Politico made an apparent "agreement" with the Democratic National Committee to let it review a story about Hillary Clinton's fundraising machine before it was submitted to his editors, leaked emails published by WikiLeaks on Friday revealed.
Reporter Kenneth Vogel sent an advanced copy of his story to DNC national press secretary Mark Paustenbach in late April.
The email's subject line read: "per agreement ... any thoughts appreciated."
"Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before it goes to his editors as long as I didn't share it," Paustenbach wrote in an email to Luis Miranda, the DNC's communications director.
"Let me know if you see anything that's missing and I'll push back," he added.
The final copy of the story did not appear have any significant edits, and Clinton's campaign seemed unhappy with the final copy of the article. But sending an advanced copy of a story to a subject represents a break from typical journalistic ethics.
Neither Vogel nor a representative for Politico were available for comment at the time of publication.
A person with knowledge of the agreement, however, said that it was made to ensure accuracy in a complex story. Source That doesn't seem unreasonable. The "agreement" just seems like fact checking, since there were no major edits. The story as it is is inconclusive. I agree that, as presented, it doesn't seem like a big deal. The question is what would happen if the reviewers didn't agree with the story and didn't want it published. Does the agreement allow them to prevent the article from publishing or editing it heavilly? I bet the agreement was more informal that we are thinking. The Clinton camp likely found out about the story, contact politico and they made some agreement were they got to see an advance for some other form of access. Or just to confirm there were no inaccuracies. Its not perfect, but its not like Politico held the story at the DNC's request. Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 19:43 TMagpie wrote:
So the big story is that the guy not liked by fellow democrats was not actually liked by fellow democrats and the person suspected of wanting to help Hilary get into office now works directly with Hilary to get her into office?
That's the big story? Yep. Political parties are still political parties. They are dead set on infiltrating every section of government and they want your vote to do it.
Thank god for debates! I was almost a Bernie supporter until I watched him try to argue with Hilary. But now it seems his supporters get excited over the dumbest of things.
|
Omg DWS is brain damaged? She just got booed hard on national television by the Florida delegation.
I really hope she speaks at the convention
|
On July 25 2016 19:43 TMagpie wrote:
So the big story is that the guy not liked by fellow democrats was not actually liked by fellow democrats and the person suspected of wanting to help Hilary get into office now works directly with Hilary to get her into office?
That's the big story?
Pretty much. I am still waiting for actual evidence of bias in actual conduct of business, though people would rather be condescending and outraged about it. Pretty much par for the course.
Worth adding, Eva Longoria was Obama's 2012 honorary chair. The position pays zero dollars. It sounds like a lot more than it actually is, though I expect the Clinton campaign to make DWS useful in some way. She's a useful idiot, hopefully she starts being the useful part ore than the idiot part.
|
I hope the booing clues her in that she can only hurt the DNC at this point. I respect loyalty, but not to a fault.
Hopefully Bernie can clear the air and make the case they are better off getting along. The progressive wing of the DNC can’t do it alone, no matter how much they want to believe that. The Republicans and centrist section of the DNC aren’t going on vacation for 4 years.
|
On July 25 2016 22:27 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 19:43 TMagpie wrote:
So the big story is that the guy not liked by fellow democrats was not actually liked by fellow democrats and the person suspected of wanting to help Hilary get into office now works directly with Hilary to get her into office?
That's the big story? Pretty much. I am still waiting for actual evidence of bias in actual conduct of business, though people would rather be condescending and outraged about it. Pretty much par for the course. Worth adding, Eva Longoria was Obama's 2012 honorary chair. The position pays zero dollars. It sounds like a lot more than it actually is, though I expect the Clinton campaign to make DWS useful in some way. She's a useful idiot, hopefully she starts being the useful part ore than the idiot part.
It's not the direct compensation of the position that matters. It's the connections that the position affords that matter. This is why appointments to the boards of federal commissions are so sought after. This is also why the DNC is now going to get into trouble for awarding these positions to donors (not that we ever expected that anything else was happening on either side of the aisle).
|
On July 25 2016 22:51 Plansix wrote:
I hope the booing clues her in that she can only hurt the DNC at this point. I respect loyalty, but not to a fault.
Hopefully Bernie can clear the air and make the case they are better off getting along. The progressive wing of the DNC can’t do it alone, no matter how much they want to believe that. The Republicans and centrist section of the DNC aren’t going on vacation for 4 years.
You kidding me? Bernie better not clear the air, and he better denounce DNC for what they've done. If he has any level of dignity left in him, he'll retract his endorsement, and claim that DNC Is corrupt to the bone and the election was completely rigged from the start.
It's like if someone comes to rob my house this week and succeeds, I'm not going to fucking hand them a reward to them personally when I see them in the future.
Glad Wikileaks has popped up with the info to show the critics on this thread about how us Bernie supporters who complained out-loud weren't crazy tinfoilsts with conspiracy plans but it was actually reality to how disgusting and undemocratic our election was.
My vote is going to Trump, #neverhillary
|
Yeah I'll be very surprised if Bernie doesn't retract his endorsement. Hell, if I were him I'd even resign from the democratic party. What a bunch of twats
|
Here are some of the internals from the latest CNN poll that should give Hillary supporters nightmares:
The poll also reflects a sharpening of the education divide among whites that has been prevalent throughout the campaign. Among white voters with college degrees, Clinton actually gained ground compared with pre-convention results, going from an even 40% to 40% split to a 44% to 39% edge over Trump. That while Trump expanded his lead with white voters who do not hold a college degree from a 51% to 31% lead before the convention to a 62% to 23% lead now.
Beyond boosting his overall support, Trump's favorability rating is also on the rise (46% of registered voters say they have a positive view, up from 39% pre-convention), while his advantage over Clinton on handling top issues climbs. He now holds double-digit margins over Clinton as more trusted on the economy and terrorism. Trump also cut into Clinton's edge on managing foreign policy (50% said they trusted her more, down from 57% pre-convention).
The convention also helped Trump make strides in his personal image. A majority (52%) now say Trump is running for president for the good of the country rather than personal gain, just 44% say the same about Clinton. He's increased the share who call him honest and trustworthy (from 38% to 43%), and who would be proud to have him as president (from 32% to 39%). And nearly half now say he's in touch with the problems ordinary Americans face in their daily lives (46% say so, 37% did before the convention).
Despite Democratic criticism of the Republican convention's message as divisive, the percentage who say Trump will unite the country rather than divide it has increased to 42%, compared with 34% pre-convention.
Clinton's ratings on these same measures took a hit, though in most cases her drop-off was not quite as large as Trump's gain. Perhaps most troubling for the Clinton supporters gathering in Philadelphia this week: 68% now say Clinton is not honest and trustworthy, her worst rating on that measure in CNN/ORC polling.
Those positives for Trump come despite some sharply negative reviews for the convention itself. Almost 6 in 10 (58%) said the Republican convention spent too much time attacking Democrats, and 18% called Trump's speech "terrible," the highest by far since CNN started began the question in 1996. Still, 40% called the speech excellent or good and about half of voters (45%) said Trump's speech reflected the way they feel about things in the U.S. today; 48% said it did not reflect their views.
The public rendered a split decision on whether the convention made them more or less likely to back Trump, 42% said more likely while 44% said less so, but the shift in voter preferences suggests the "more likely" side carried more weight. And most came away feeling ready to decide about Trump's fitness for the job: 78% say they already know enough to know whether he'd be a good president. Another 20% think they need more information.
|
On July 25 2016 22:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 22:27 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 25 2016 19:43 TMagpie wrote:
So the big story is that the guy not liked by fellow democrats was not actually liked by fellow democrats and the person suspected of wanting to help Hilary get into office now works directly with Hilary to get her into office?
That's the big story? Pretty much. I am still waiting for actual evidence of bias in actual conduct of business, though people would rather be condescending and outraged about it. Pretty much par for the course. Worth adding, Eva Longoria was Obama's 2012 honorary chair. The position pays zero dollars. It sounds like a lot more than it actually is, though I expect the Clinton campaign to make DWS useful in some way. She's a useful idiot, hopefully she starts being the useful part ore than the idiot part. It's not the direct compensation of the position that matters. It's the connections that the position affords that matter. This is why appointments to the boards of federal commissions are so sought after. This is also why the DNC is now going to get into trouble for awarding these positions to donors (not that we ever expected that anything else was happening on either side of the aisle).
The actual email says:
Any folks who you’d like to be considered to be on the board of (for example) USPS, NEA, NEH. Basically anyone who has a niche interest and might like to serve on the board of one of these orgs.
It seems like they're reaching into their network for people who might be good fits for these positions? Perish the thought. If I happen to know someone who I had a good working relationship with and there was a position I knew about where they'd be a good fit, I might recommend them. These folks donated, yes, but most of them are going to pretty qualified for these positions. There's going to be some more egregious cases of nepotism, and that's wrong. However, it's a fact of life. Relationships are important, though they shouldn't be all the end all be all.
For example, I work 60 hours a week (I love my job, usually) and I do a pretty solid job, paid pretty decently as well. As part of my responsibilities, I have access to all the salaries of our employees, or a pretty good estimate. We have a guy who graduated last year with a degree in politics, his dad happens to be in the C-suite. Although he's not particularly qualified, he's a "project manager" and makes a decent bit more than me. He's in the office less than 40 hrs a week, and I'm not exactly sure what project he manages. Does it suck? Yes. But I understand why that's a thing though I wish it weren't.
|
On July 25 2016 22:56 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 22:51 Plansix wrote:
I hope the booing clues her in that she can only hurt the DNC at this point. I respect loyalty, but not to a fault.
Hopefully Bernie can clear the air and make the case they are better off getting along. The progressive wing of the DNC can’t do it alone, no matter how much they want to believe that. The Republicans and centrist section of the DNC aren’t going on vacation for 4 years.
You kidding me? Bernie better not clear the air, and he better denounce DNC for what they've done. If he has any level of dignity left in him, he'll retract his endorsement, and claim that DNC Is corrupt to the bone and the election was completely rigged from the start. It's like if someone comes to rob my house this week and succeeds, I'm not going to fucking hand them a reward to them personally when I see them in the future. Glad Wikileaks has popped up with the info to show the critics on this thread about how us Bernie supporters who complained out-loud weren't crazy tinfoilsts with conspiracy plans but it was actually reality to how disgusting and undemocratic our election was. My vote is going to Trump, #neverhillary
The only way Bernie gets anything he wants is if Clinton wins. If he denounces the DNC, he might as well tell his supporters that they fought for nothing and he doesn’t care anymore. I doubt he is seeking your approval or cares if you think he respects himself.
XDaunt; The current polling are bad and the DNC needs to have a successful convention and fire on all cylinders going forward.
|
Lol at the people thinking Bernie would rescind his endorsement.
You are all forgetting that a Trump presidency is something Bernie wants to avoid at all costs.
|
On July 25 2016 23:11 Gorsameth wrote:
Lol at the people thinking Bernie would rescind his endorsement.
You are all forgetting that a Trump presidency is something Bernie wants to avoid at all costs.
But if you view the world through the lens of reality show drama, that is what you do. Luck for all of us Bernie isn’t into the reality show game and has been actively opposing Trump since the endorsement. Also he knew about all this stuff already, so its not like he is going to be suddenly surprised.
Though I bet a couple DNC staffers get let go for some of the worst of those emails.
|
I feel like Bernie is better poised to win than Clinton at this point. Would the DNC dumping Clinton not be a good thing at this point? I would argue this could make Bernie way more viable than he was previously. The victim of corruption who everyone replied in favor of. Somewhat poetic. It doesn't matter if there's no evidence of directly shredding Bernie documents or something. The headline happened and all the headline readers of our country have made up their mind.
|
Oh well, too late. Should have thought about it in the primary season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
