|
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 29 2016 08:26 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 08:21 Nevuk wrote:On July 29 2016 08:11 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 29 2016 08:05 Plansix wrote:
Side note: normally the call of votes would be stopped once the nominee reached the majority. The next state would pass and move to nominate. Rather than do that this year, every state voted and got to say something until Vermont, which when last. Then Bernie moved to close the vote an nominate Clinton. The DNC and him agreed that it was in the spirit of the convention to allow all the delegates to vote and have their say and his state could close it out.
There are some really nice, uplifting things happening at this event that are being over looked because cynicism and conspiracy theories seem to dominate everything. Come on, this was done purely to get more Bernie supports to like Hillary. It has nothing to do with being uplifting and happy. I wish you didn't try to defend Hillary and the DNC to the bone when she really doesn't deserve it. On July 29 2016 08:10 Nevuk wrote:I still think the arguments for why Guccifer 2.0 is a russian spy are the dumbest things not said by Trump this election cycle On July 29 2016 08:03 zlefin wrote:On July 29 2016 06:25 Slaughter wrote:
Apparently the DNC has been beating the RNC in TV viewers. Is that normal most years? I would have thought Trump would have swept the ratings. i dunno about normal; but Trump wasn't speaking most of the time. Maybe the DNC had better headliners? Much better, mainly due to the entertainment field being much more democrat aligned and due to a bunch of high name GOP-ers skipping out on the RNC A strategy to get eyes off of the things in the emails, and sadly I think it's working a bit. At the end of the day, I don't really think it matters if it was Russia, if it was some guy in his basement, a Trump supporter in the US, etc. We should judge the leaks at face value regardless of the source. @travis I agree. Yes, this election I do support Trump, and yes, the Bernie supporters are hurting Hillary's chances, but it's not a justification to remove them, and find other people and pay them to take their seat... Not to mention, specifically calling out to minorities. It's disgusting and propaganda at it's best. And you oblivious Hillary supporters have little issue with it because you don't like Trump, come on, evaluate what you're doing. Yeah, it's one of the few smart things Hillary's campaign has done this cycle. I just think the arguments are so bad they're kind of funny - it comes down to emoticon usage and grammar, neither of which are things hackers are known for using in a normal manner. I will admit it's a little puzzling that the media is running so hard with it when everyone that asks the FBI receives the "Uh, we're still looking into it, no clue who did it atm" response and no official source is backing the claim. This sort of counter strategy may be why wikileaks didn't dump all the emails at once initially. DWS not having been fired years ago is starting to be as big a mystery as Trump's success for me, personally. Yeah, it is a bit silly, but it's what people will eat up. The Trump message really got to me, and I thought news have always been absolute crap, especially when it was something subjective, but now... I dunno. I'm more likely to believe the opposite when reading the news now. Just seeing how easy it's to place pawns wherever you want to say what you want them to say. I've made my opinion that Trump would be good for America, and just because all media and almost all posters on the internet (recently me too I suppose, since an objective argument became impossible here for quite some time) became people just trying to trick you into voting for their nominee, listening to other people is futile at this point. So there is very little that Trump can do at this point for me to not support him, and likewise for Hillary. I still feel proud of the money I made on a bet with a friend that Trump would win the primaries like three weeks for the primaries began. I wont lie though, I did expect Trump to be beaten in a landslide by Hillary, and at times I was doubting supporting him, but he's really convinced me since the primaries ended. edit: I didn't know much about DWS until this debacle, but I wasn't aware that she was massive disliked or anything?
It seems to me that you are placing more emphasis on making sure your opinion was right than on re-evaluating your opinion in light of ongoing evidence. Which is natural, and human, and I do it too. But once you have succumbed to the belief that "all media" are trying to "trick you" into changing your opinion, you have completely closed the door on re-evaluating your opinion in new evidence-because all this new "evidence" will just be dismissed as a facsimile to trick you.
If we want to get really philosophical, I would say that an opinion that cannot be changed in light of new evidence represents an opinion that is ultimately pointless and that I may not want to have, since it closes me off from new information.
It's terrifying to me that people are as willing to do this as we are, honestly, and I think this election cycle (just like the "polls-are-wrong" craze during 2012) are really great illustrations of how dangerous it is.
And this all probably sounds super holier than thou and condescending but I really don't mean it that way. I'm definitely guilty of this far more of the time and would very much like to have it called out when I am-it's the only way to escape the trap.
+ Show Spoiler +which is why I try to edit my posts whenever I dismiss Rasmussen polls or whatever though I probably do a poor job of that
|
Oh my god that Trump bully montage rofl
|
"There will be none of that here"
Meanwhile the speaker throws in a Palestine reference and pleads to our morality... I can't even with the democrats anymore.
|
I rolled my eyes when another preacher came out, but I'm liking this speech much more than I thought I would... he even gave a shout out to the atheists!
|
preachers are so annoying, lol this guy is doing work though
LOL KAREEM "I'm Michael Jordan, i said that because donald trump can't tell the difference"
|
I can only hear Sarah Lynn from BoJack Horseman here.
|
This election has been insane.
Republicans went insane with lust for power and their blatant corruption allowed for Trump to sweep in and take the party running on a platform straight out of the internet chat-rooms. Democrats are going insane desperately trying to keep their party together while the entire world just collapses in their lap.
Both parties are completely doubling down on identity politics and a "race to the bottom" strategy. This whole thing has had this surreal feeling like the entire world is riding on this one moment in American history and everyone wants a piece of it. Even the complete low-information have opinions about this. These are the best known and most hated candidates in the history of the nation.
It's unfair to say this, but I really think Democrats needed to go with anyone except Hillary. Republicans were going Trump, there was no way to stop it. Democrats had a decision, and I think they chose wrong. The only way for either of them to win is to destroy the other one. Everyone is slowly being pulled into one side or another, and as soon as they hit dirt on their side they start lobbing bombs. What happens when one side loses, at this point? Both sides have said it's the end of America if the other side wins. So is either side going to back down when all is said and done?
We're on the razor's edge here, boys.
|
On July 29 2016 10:05 biology]major wrote:
preachers are so annoying, lol this guy is doing work though
LOL KAREEM "I'm Michael Jordan, i said that because donald trump can't tell the difference"
That was easily my favorite quote of the convention so far.
This strong appeal to nationalism working on disaffected republicans?
|
Jill Stein isn't anti-vaccine who was spreading that crap?
|
On July 29 2016 10:20 Cowboy24 wrote:
This election has been insane.
Republicans went insane with lust for power and their blatant corruption allowed for Trump to sweep in and take the party running on a platform straight out of the internet chat-rooms. Democrats are going insane desperately trying to keep their party together while the entire world just collapses in their lap.
Both parties are completely doubling down on identity politics and a "race to the bottom" strategy. This whole thing has had this surreal feeling like the entire world is riding on this one moment in American history and everyone wants a piece of it. Even the complete low-information have opinions about this. These are the best known and most hated candidates in the history of the nation.
It's unfair to say this, but I really think Democrats needed to go with anyone except Hillary. Republicans were going Trump, there was no way to stop it. Democrats had a decision, and I think they chose wrong. The only way for either of them to win is to destroy the other one. Everyone is slowly being pulled into one side or another, and as soon as they hit dirt on their side they start lobbing bombs. What happens when one side loses, at this point? Both sides have said it's the end of America if the other side wins. So is either side going to back down when all is said and done?
We're on the razor's edge here, boys.
razor's edge of what? we're nowhere near the point of civil war.
|
Take a guess lol.
I asked if they had anything else... silence. Just like when they got called out on spreading the "90% of Bernie supporters are going to vote for Hillary" propaganda. Shameless.
|
I feel like I'm listening to a campaign mission briefing in HALO or something : )
|
these people booing a medal of honor recipient are trash
|
The chants of "USA" were to drown out chants of "no more war" and "peace not war" which convention is this again?* (edited)
They weren't booing, there were also plenty of veterans participating. Just stop.
EDIT: Although since all of the major media networks right there hearing it aren't passing that information along I guess I'm not surprised.
|
On July 29 2016 09:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 09:24 TMagpie wrote:On July 29 2016 09:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2016 08:45 farvacola wrote:On July 29 2016 08:28 travis wrote:On July 29 2016 08:13 farvacola wrote:On July 29 2016 08:05 travis wrote:On July 29 2016 08:00 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 07:46 travis wrote:On July 29 2016 07:44 Gorsameth wrote:
Filling seats on the biggest night, the one where Hillary speaks is no big deal.
I think the bigger question is if the original delegates decided not to show up or if they were removed, and if so for what reason. I mean just look for yourself https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10153603623782077&id=545697076Obviously their seats were taken away because they are Bernie supporters. That is because the the small group of California delegates have been unable to shut up for 3 nights and have been assholes during speech. Other delegates have complained. NPR reported on this during their politics podcast and morning news report. I guess the people running the event decided it enough was enough. This isn't' some conspiracy. This is a group of people who have been actively been disruptive for 3 nights and likely knew this was coming. And they do not represent the majority of Bernie supporters or even all of the California delegation. http://www.npr.org/podcasts/510310/npr-politics-podcastThey talk about it toward the end. And they also talk about the 100 or so delegates that staged a walk out yesterday when Bernie called to nominate Hillary. ugh, just ugh I guess that's what you think of democracy huh democracy is everyone chanting the same thing, everyone applauding at the same time, and everyone showing support for the exact same person that's plansix's democracy fuck the millions of disenfranchised voters, it's ok to make up rules as we go along, as long as it makes our candidate look good. that's what it's about for you huh. I mean it certainly is what they think this is about, I guess you think that's what this is about too. I guess this is what a U.S. democrat looks like now yes, all U.S. democrats look like Plansix and necessarily agree with establishment tactics....come on dude, there's way more nuance here than you're pretending and it's all because Plansix and the convention seem to have riled you up. Literally every convention since television became popular has been nothing more than a mainline, inherently populist demonstration of what constitutes the party line in preparation for what is arguably the singularly most influential vote in US politics. Sure, there's a little more ridiculousness this year given the rise of Sanders, but this is really not some revelatory "oh the humanity" type demonstration unless you're like GH and those who bought something not being sold. well unless we see elected democratic representatives speak out about it then I have to assume that this behavior is something that as a whole the democratic party condones and thus it is something that being a democrat represents As for more nuance, go ahead and explain the 'more nuance' to me, because I don't get it. It seems to me that allowing dissent from your voters is inherently democratic and silencing dissent is specifically non-democratic. I don't really care about the white noise machine, or video/sound editing, panning cameras away, whatever other shit they want to do to project a certain image. But taking the seats away from the delegates is wrong. Voting for a particular candidate or party line hinges on far more than singular actions by members of that party at what amounts to a glorified PR event. There are local, state, and federal Democrats who do a host of things that I support, and there are also plenty who do the converse. Choosing a political affiliation is a component of what constitutes the substance of membership, and therein lies the nuance. Take me, for example. At the end of the day, I despise what DWS and the establishment party represents. I think Hillary has made a large number of terrible mistakes, but is also a very skilled politician and government administrator who knows how to direct federal agencies to do the sorts of things I personally approve of, mostly social safety net type stuff. I was an ardent Sanders supporter throughout his primary candidacy, and though his relationship with the Democratic Party is not exactly close, I firmly believe that his brand of politics is exactly where the party needs to go. Personally, my experiences with Republican policy only further reinforce the importance of my identification with Democrats, if not for purely pragmatic reasons of harm reduction. I find the presidential election overblown and have far more experience with state and local elections and their results; there the choice to vote Democrat seems even easier to me. Republicans in Michigan are literally tearing this state apart with their business-like approach to government (thanks Rick Snyder!). Shit just gets cut without a second thought by the very red state legislature, and it leads to stuff like numerous successful federal lawsuits mostly involving blatant abuses of due process rights, terrible public services (the roads in Michigan are seriously a fucking joke), Flint, and an overall statewide decay that puts an enormous strain on the few economic resources available, namely higher ed, which, you guessed it, has its budget cut all the time. So yeah, feel free to draw blanket, ultimately immature inferences based on fairly shallow demonstrations of PR amateurishness by Democrats, just know that there are literally millions of Democrats who don't condone that kind of behavior and yet still identify with the party. (this all applies to Republicans too, by the way. There are plenty of people with the inverse of my experience, and they similarly do not fall under a blanket sown from what went on at the RNC) If you were an ardent supporter of Bernie you would know that he shared the understanding that the Republican party was mostly a media/democrat creation. Without Democrats the Republican party wouldn't exist. It's just because of the dichotomy created by the party/media that either can continue in their current forms. As for the millions of Democrats who don't condone that type of stuff aren't very vocal (if they plan on supporting that establishment) I'm sure millions of people didn't agree with segregation, but that doesn't mean disagreeing in silence made them any less responsible than the people who silently agreed. This viewpoint is fairly naive and shortsighted. I usually expect better from you, or at least something entertaining. What view is "fairly naive and shortsighted"? EDIT: lol Even Rachel Maddow couldn't hold in how low energy the lineup is tonight to make Hillary look good by comparison. This is supposed to be the uptick. Thinking this has something to do with why the secret service is referring to them as "hot spots".
The reason we have a 2 party system is because to win in politics you need unity. Two groups that see eye to eye on more things than a 3rd group will win more often than all 3 fighting each other. A system with 2 "main" parties winning the most often will always be in place in the US until they give an incentive for splitting.
|
On July 29 2016 10:44 TMagpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 09:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2016 09:24 TMagpie wrote:On July 29 2016 09:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2016 08:45 farvacola wrote:On July 29 2016 08:28 travis wrote:On July 29 2016 08:13 farvacola wrote:On July 29 2016 08:05 travis wrote:On July 29 2016 08:00 Plansix wrote:That is because the the small group of California delegates have been unable to shut up for 3 nights and have been assholes during speech. Other delegates have complained. NPR reported on this during their politics podcast and morning news report. I guess the people running the event decided it enough was enough. This isn't' some conspiracy. This is a group of people who have been actively been disruptive for 3 nights and likely knew this was coming. And they do not represent the majority of Bernie supporters or even all of the California delegation. http://www.npr.org/podcasts/510310/npr-politics-podcastThey talk about it toward the end. And they also talk about the 100 or so delegates that staged a walk out yesterday when Bernie called to nominate Hillary. ugh, just ugh I guess that's what you think of democracy huh democracy is everyone chanting the same thing, everyone applauding at the same time, and everyone showing support for the exact same person that's plansix's democracy fuck the millions of disenfranchised voters, it's ok to make up rules as we go along, as long as it makes our candidate look good. that's what it's about for you huh. I mean it certainly is what they think this is about, I guess you think that's what this is about too. I guess this is what a U.S. democrat looks like now yes, all U.S. democrats look like Plansix and necessarily agree with establishment tactics....come on dude, there's way more nuance here than you're pretending and it's all because Plansix and the convention seem to have riled you up. Literally every convention since television became popular has been nothing more than a mainline, inherently populist demonstration of what constitutes the party line in preparation for what is arguably the singularly most influential vote in US politics. Sure, there's a little more ridiculousness this year given the rise of Sanders, but this is really not some revelatory "oh the humanity" type demonstration unless you're like GH and those who bought something not being sold. well unless we see elected democratic representatives speak out about it then I have to assume that this behavior is something that as a whole the democratic party condones and thus it is something that being a democrat represents As for more nuance, go ahead and explain the 'more nuance' to me, because I don't get it. It seems to me that allowing dissent from your voters is inherently democratic and silencing dissent is specifically non-democratic. I don't really care about the white noise machine, or video/sound editing, panning cameras away, whatever other shit they want to do to project a certain image. But taking the seats away from the delegates is wrong. Voting for a particular candidate or party line hinges on far more than singular actions by members of that party at what amounts to a glorified PR event. There are local, state, and federal Democrats who do a host of things that I support, and there are also plenty who do the converse. Choosing a political affiliation is a component of what constitutes the substance of membership, and therein lies the nuance. Take me, for example. At the end of the day, I despise what DWS and the establishment party represents. I think Hillary has made a large number of terrible mistakes, but is also a very skilled politician and government administrator who knows how to direct federal agencies to do the sorts of things I personally approve of, mostly social safety net type stuff. I was an ardent Sanders supporter throughout his primary candidacy, and though his relationship with the Democratic Party is not exactly close, I firmly believe that his brand of politics is exactly where the party needs to go. Personally, my experiences with Republican policy only further reinforce the importance of my identification with Democrats, if not for purely pragmatic reasons of harm reduction. I find the presidential election overblown and have far more experience with state and local elections and their results; there the choice to vote Democrat seems even easier to me. Republicans in Michigan are literally tearing this state apart with their business-like approach to government (thanks Rick Snyder!). Shit just gets cut without a second thought by the very red state legislature, and it leads to stuff like numerous successful federal lawsuits mostly involving blatant abuses of due process rights, terrible public services (the roads in Michigan are seriously a fucking joke), Flint, and an overall statewide decay that puts an enormous strain on the few economic resources available, namely higher ed, which, you guessed it, has its budget cut all the time. So yeah, feel free to draw blanket, ultimately immature inferences based on fairly shallow demonstrations of PR amateurishness by Democrats, just know that there are literally millions of Democrats who don't condone that kind of behavior and yet still identify with the party. (this all applies to Republicans too, by the way. There are plenty of people with the inverse of my experience, and they similarly do not fall under a blanket sown from what went on at the RNC) If you were an ardent supporter of Bernie you would know that he shared the understanding that the Republican party was mostly a media/democrat creation. Without Democrats the Republican party wouldn't exist. It's just because of the dichotomy created by the party/media that either can continue in their current forms. As for the millions of Democrats who don't condone that type of stuff aren't very vocal (if they plan on supporting that establishment) I'm sure millions of people didn't agree with segregation, but that doesn't mean disagreeing in silence made them any less responsible than the people who silently agreed. This viewpoint is fairly naive and shortsighted. I usually expect better from you, or at least something entertaining. What view is "fairly naive and shortsighted"? EDIT: lol Even Rachel Maddow couldn't hold in how low energy the lineup is tonight to make Hillary look good by comparison. This is supposed to be the uptick. https://twitter.com/Jordanfabian/status/758772670142054400Thinking this has something to do with why the secret service is referring to them as "hot spots". The reason we have a 2 party system is because to win in politics you need unity. Two groups that see eye to eye on more things than a 3rd group will win more often than all 3 fighting each other. A system with 2 "main" parties winning the most often will always be in place in the US until they give an incentive for splitting.
I see, you didn't understand what I was saying. My comment wasn't on the concept of a two party system, it was on the two parties that occupy that space currently.
|
On July 29 2016 10:27 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Jill Stein isn't anti-vaccine who was spreading that crap?
Looks like some absurd media spin on an AMA answer she gave.
The answer was still some really canned "corporate interests have invaded regulatory agencies" answer but it still takes some absurd bias to spin that into being anti-vax.
A year ago I would have said that it's pretty ridiculous and unlikely that someone who spent 25 years as a practicing internist would be anti-vax anyway, but after seeing Ben Carson's presidential run, who the fuck knows.
|
stein panders to the extreme hippie anti vaxx left and avoids saying that shes for them
she also said QE could be used to wipe out student debt
insists nuclear energy is bad
wants to cut military spending 50%
anti gmo
|
On July 29 2016 10:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
stein panders to the extreme hippie anti vaxx left and avoids saying that shes for them
she also said QE could be used to wipe out student debt
insists nuclear energy is bad
wants to cut military spending 50%
anti gmo
lol when I compare that list to my list on Hillary it's a no contest. I hope y'all have better than that. (ignoring the presentation).
|
"Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Claire McCaskill D-Mo., said Trump may have [violated the Logan Act] by telling Russia it should find Hillary Clinton's deleted emails."
Not to distract anyone from the DNC  .
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
