|
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 October 15 2016 01:02 zlefin wrote:
I recommend against arguing with GH on this topic, it will go nowhere. Too far apart to have a good common zone from which to work; and he's made up his mind.
Well starting from the point of whether one admits the DNC at minimum played favorites and that it is against their rules (reality) is an important step.
But that reasoning could be used to end about 90% of the discussions here between anyone.
|
If everyone started at the minimum, instead of starting at their usual points; perhaps we could have more productive discussions. But most people do not start at the minimum.
and 90% of the discussions here are worthless, so I'd be fine with people ending them in based on the sound reasoning.
|
On October 15 2016 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 01:02 zlefin wrote:
I recommend against arguing with GH on this topic, it will go nowhere. Too far apart to have a good common zone from which to work; and he's made up his mind. Well starting from the point of whether one admits the DNC at minimum played favorites and that it is against their rules (reality) is an important step. But that reasoning could be used to end about 90% of the discussions here between anyone.
In what way did the DNC play favorites?
I'm not saying this believe I don't believe they did (I fully expect them to play favorite with the established party candidate vs the outside usurper) but because I would love to know what factual action the DNC undertook to prevent Bernie from winning.
|
I remember some interview or other with DWS early in the primary season, around Iowa time. It was very clear that she was playing favorites and she all but said so with her word choice in that interview. The DNC leaks should have surprised no one. But I guess it's a good thing that she did end up being unseated as the DNC chair.
|
On October 15 2016 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 01:02 zlefin wrote:
I recommend against arguing with GH on this topic, it will go nowhere. Too far apart to have a good common zone from which to work; and he's made up his mind. Well starting from the point of whether one admits the DNC at minimum played favorites and that it is against their rules (reality) is an important step. But that reasoning could be used to end about 90% of the discussions here between anyone.
Isn't the whole point of the Super Delegate system to give the DNC the power to play favourites and prevent candidates like Trump from getting picked?
Not that the Super Delegates were needed to give Hillary the win (and was laughably Bernie's last ditch hope after his supporters complained about it), but saying that playing favourites is against the rules seems rather stupid considering the entire primary system for the Democrats is so in your face about it.
|
GH says the DNC plays favorites, the thread mocks him for his conspiratorial outlook.
Event: emails released
GH says the DNC played favorites, the thread mocks him cause it's obvious they did based on the situation and the system
|
On October 15 2016 01:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:02 zlefin wrote:
I recommend against arguing with GH on this topic, it will go nowhere. Too far apart to have a good common zone from which to work; and he's made up his mind. Well starting from the point of whether one admits the DNC at minimum played favorites and that it is against their rules (reality) is an important step. But that reasoning could be used to end about 90% of the discussions here between anyone. Isn't the whole point of the Super Delegate system to give the DNC the power to play favourites and prevent candidates like Trump from getting picked? Not that the Super Delegates were needed to give Hillary the win (and was laughably Bernie's last ditch hope after his supporters complained about it), but saying that playing favourites is against the rules seems rather stupid considering the entire primary system for the Democrats is so in your face about it.
You mean crazy-like-Trump not-our-guy-like-Trump?
|
On October 15 2016 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:02 zlefin wrote:
I recommend against arguing with GH on this topic, it will go nowhere. Too far apart to have a good common zone from which to work; and he's made up his mind. Well starting from the point of whether one admits the DNC at minimum played favorites and that it is against their rules (reality) is an important step. But that reasoning could be used to end about 90% of the discussions here between anyone. In what way did the DNC play favorites? I'm not saying this believe I don't believe they did (I fully expect them to play favorite with the established party candidate vs the outside usurper) but because I would love to know what factual action the DNC undertook to prevent Bernie from winning.
"Prevent Bernie from winning" and "playing favorites" aren't always the same thing.
As the DNC’s chief executive, Dacey was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the party.
After Clinton became the presumptive Democratic nominee in June, she installed new aides at the DNC to manage the coordinated general election campaign, but Dacey was kept on and was given expanded responsibilities.
With the release of the WikiLeaks emails, however, Dacey was implicated in one of the most damaging exchanges, in which Marshall appeared to speculate about how Sanders’s Jewish heritage could be used against him.
Marshall posited that he believes Sanders “is an atheist” and that it could make a difference in the Kentucky and West Virginia primaries. The messages were sent to a group that included Dacey, Miranda and another communications aide, Mark Paustenbach.
“My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist,” Marshall wrote in an email.
Dacey responded: “AMEN”
Source
|
On October 15 2016 01:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:02 zlefin wrote:
I recommend against arguing with GH on this topic, it will go nowhere. Too far apart to have a good common zone from which to work; and he's made up his mind. Well starting from the point of whether one admits the DNC at minimum played favorites and that it is against their rules (reality) is an important step. But that reasoning could be used to end about 90% of the discussions here between anyone. Isn't the whole point of the Super Delegate system to give the DNC the power to play favourites and prevent candidates like Trump from getting picked? Not that the Super Delegates were needed to give Hillary the win (and was laughably Bernie's last ditch hope after his supporters complained about it), but saying that playing favourites is against the rules seems rather stupid considering the entire primary system for the Democrats is so in your face about it.
I think the disconnect is the fact that GH also believes that the core framework of the party system is unethical. The things that democrats are 100% within their right to do, are not things which allow for an entirely impartial election. Superdelegates are almost a parody on election corruption, as it is directly giving select people the voice of tens of thousands of people. Its absurd from a purely democratic perspective.
There is no argument to be made that the DNC rules are a purely democratic and "1 person 1 vote". It just isn't. The issues comes up when trying to assess whether that is ethical or not. Is it illegal? Of course not. But it isn't democratic.
I would argue it should not be democratic. Purely democratic processes favor ignorant populism like we get from Trump. Trump is EXACTLY the reason we created superdelegates. Primary processes favor die hards and lunatics. Parties do not want that.
In that way, I would say GH and everyone else are arguing two different things. GH seems to believe in a pure form of democracy, but he also takes it a couple steps too far by trying to say the democratic party is violating anything other than a code of ethics that could be attributed to pure democracy. But true democracy has never been the goal and it should not be the goal. That's how you get Trump.
|
On October 15 2016 01:21 Nebuchad wrote:
GH says the DNC plays favorites, the thread mocks him for his conspiratorial outlook.
Event: emails released
GH says the DNC played favorites, the thread mocks him cause it's obvious they did based on the situation and the system
I miss be miss remembering but I believe he was mocked for complaining it was rigged. not that there was a measure of favoritism.
I think there is a significant difference between the 2. Hence my question to him in what way the DNC actually favored Clinton.
|
On October 15 2016 01:21 Nebuchad wrote:
GH says the DNC plays favorites, the thread mocks him for his conspiratorial outlook.
Event: emails released
GH says the DNC played favorites, the thread mocks him cause it's obvious they did based on the situation and the system
No, there is still not very clear evidence that the primaries were changed or effected in a way that hurt Bernie's voter base. The biggest claim was that delays/slow polling lines were designed to give Hillary an edge, except that low voter turnout areas were where Bernie tended to win more than not (his wins were on both ends of voter turnout, but most of his states were with the low numbers).
This is a separate argument from the DNC being allowed to play favourites, because they clearly are. In fact, Bernie himself asked the DNC to play favourites and use the Super Delegate system to override popular vote.
|
On October 15 2016 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 01:02 zlefin wrote:
I recommend against arguing with GH on this topic, it will go nowhere. Too far apart to have a good common zone from which to work; and he's made up his mind. Well starting from the point of whether one admits the DNC at minimum played favorites and that it is against their rules (reality) is an important step. But that reasoning could be used to end about 90% of the discussions here between anyone.
All I need to concede that is a link to the email that says they actually DID something instead of one's that either say that people at the DNC were going to vote for her (they have that right) or that talked about things they could do but won't do because "Debbie doesn't want us to do anything"
After that in order to operate under the assumption that she knew I need something that could link the two together.
I'm not really asking for much. I just want some evidence for a claim that is being made and then I will accept it as true.
|
"In a 2013 radio interview on the "The Opie and Anthony Show" surfaced by Buzzfeed News on Thursday, Donald Trump Jr. complains about women making charges of sexual harassment in the workplace, suggesting that women who have a trouble with men making certain comments should go teach kindergarten."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-jr-2013-sexual-harassment
Seeing as how a kindergarten classroom is basically one adult taking care of 20+ crying, screaming babies wetting themselves, we can easily see how kindergarten teachers are similar to Trump's campaign managers. Except, of course, the fact that kindergarten teachers are largely good, moral people who are putting up with bullshit for noble reasons. What an asshole.
|
On October 15 2016 01:22 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 01:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 15 2016 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:02 zlefin wrote:
I recommend against arguing with GH on this topic, it will go nowhere. Too far apart to have a good common zone from which to work; and he's made up his mind. Well starting from the point of whether one admits the DNC at minimum played favorites and that it is against their rules (reality) is an important step. But that reasoning could be used to end about 90% of the discussions here between anyone. Isn't the whole point of the Super Delegate system to give the DNC the power to play favourites and prevent candidates like Trump from getting picked? Not that the Super Delegates were needed to give Hillary the win (and was laughably Bernie's last ditch hope after his supporters complained about it), but saying that playing favourites is against the rules seems rather stupid considering the entire primary system for the Democrats is so in your face about it. I think the disconnect is the fact that GH also believes that the core framework of the party system is unethical. The things that democrats are 100% within their right to do, are not things which allow for an entirely impartial election. Superdelegates are almost a parody on election corruption, as it is directly giving select people the voice of tens of thousands of people. Its absurd from a purely democratic perspective. There is no argument to be made that the DNC rules are a purely democratic and "1 person 1 vote". It just isn't. The issues comes up when trying to assess whether that is ethical or not. Is it illegal? Of course not. But it isn't democratic. I would argue it should not be democratic. Purely democratic processes favor ignorant populism like we get from Trump. Trump is EXACTLY the reason we created superdelegates. Primary processes favor die hards and lunatics. Parties do not want that. In that way, I would say GH and everyone else are arguing two different things. GH seems to believe in a pure form of democracy, but he also takes it a couple steps too far by trying to say the democratic party is violating anything other than a code of ethics that could be attributed to pure democracy. But true democracy has never been the goal and it should not be the goal. That's how you get Trump.
No I don't actually think it should be a purely democratic process, but that is what they have propagandized both primaries as for a while now, which is something worth noting.
On October 15 2016 01:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 01:21 Nebuchad wrote:
GH says the DNC plays favorites, the thread mocks him for his conspiratorial outlook.
Event: emails released
GH says the DNC played favorites, the thread mocks him cause it's obvious they did based on the situation and the system I miss be miss remembering but I believe he was mocked for complaining it was rigged. not that there was a measure of favoritism. I think there is a significant difference between the 2. Hence my question to him in what way the DNC actually favored Clinton.
Which comes from a misunderstanding of the definition of the word "rigged"
And much of this comes at me as a hangover from reddit posts that are superimposed on top of my arguments.
|
United States43210 Posts
On October 14 2016 22:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 22:02 a_flayer wrote:
Instead of rape, can we talk about Clintons suggestion to build a missile network around China if it doesn't force itself into North Korea? Wait... Nope, clearly surrounding a country with missiles doesn't strike the new Democratic party as problematic. It's almost like they genuinely don't see it coming.
Don't be an idiot GH. Firstly, the subject was missile defense shield, not missiles. Secondly, North Korea has perfected its nukes and is now working on a delivery system. Ideally they would have been invaded in the 90s before they got this far but now they have a nuke (and a working delivery system in their own country, they just detonate it when the wind is blowing south) that's no longer an option. And if you can't destroy them and they're slowly working on their missile delivery system, yes, a defensive system is necessary. It shouldn't have gotten this far but it has and it will go further.
|
On October 15 2016 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:02 zlefin wrote:
I recommend against arguing with GH on this topic, it will go nowhere. Too far apart to have a good common zone from which to work; and he's made up his mind. Well starting from the point of whether one admits the DNC at minimum played favorites and that it is against their rules (reality) is an important step. But that reasoning could be used to end about 90% of the discussions here between anyone. In what way did the DNC play favorites? I'm not saying this believe I don't believe they did (I fully expect them to play favorite with the established party candidate vs the outside usurper) but because I would love to know what factual action the DNC undertook to prevent Bernie from winning. "Prevent Bernie from winning" and "playing favorites" aren't always the same thing. Show nested quote +As the DNC’s chief executive, Dacey was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the party.
After Clinton became the presumptive Democratic nominee in June, she installed new aides at the DNC to manage the coordinated general election campaign, but Dacey was kept on and was given expanded responsibilities.
With the release of the WikiLeaks emails, however, Dacey was implicated in one of the most damaging exchanges, in which Marshall appeared to speculate about how Sanders’s Jewish heritage could be used against him.
Marshall posited that he believes Sanders “is an atheist” and that it could make a difference in the Kentucky and West Virginia primaries. The messages were sent to a group that included Dacey, Miranda and another communications aide, Mark Paustenbach.
“My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist,” Marshall wrote in an email.
Dacey responded: “AMEN” Source
Yes we had that one before and it was a yawn back then aswell. Is that your evidence of favoritism? Some DNC members talking about Bernie among themselves about how his faith might be attacked. (A line that was never used by Hillary if I remember correctly)
Again, Bernie is an outsider trying to take over the Democratic Party platform (as is allowed by the open primary structure, nothing wrong there). And then we should be astonished and shocked that the DNC wasn't very happy with it?
Look no further then Trump to see why the DNC thought what it did. I'm sure the GOP is loving the direction Trump took the party.
So yes. I think the DNC was favorites towards Hillary.
And No I don't think the DNC did something it should not have during the primaries.
It did not work to prevent people from being able to vote for Bernie. It did not alter voting rules to prevent Bernie from being elected candidate.
The primary happened with a minimum of irregularities (none is almost impossible). And as far as I know none that actually effected the outcome of any delegates.
Nothing was rigged.
Edit:
Fine, the goal posts have been moved.
Please provide your definition of rigged, I will eager await how it will deviate from the dictionary.
|
Thanks to Biff, Stratos_speAr and Thieving Magpie for their sensible comments on the topic of rape culture.
|
On October 15 2016 00:49 Nebuchad wrote:
For the record, rape culture, academically, means that we are in a society where rape happens a lot and where it's normalized. Normalized doesn't mean enabled or glorified, it just means normalized, i.e. people perceive that a lot of rapes happening is just the standard and that there's not much we can do about it. It's not about raping being normal, it's about a lot of rapes happening being normal. If you follow the actual definition of rape culture, it's kind of ridiculous to say we don't live in one.
I realize I'm coming after the battle, and I realize some feminists (particularly on internet) don't use rape culture correctly either, but I think it's important that we understand the actual meaning of the word when conversations like this happen.
I think Kickstarts and others fully knew about what the term means and how broad the term is regularly applied before writing their posts. Sadly, the topic was shot down with the parting shot more proof a debate cannot and will not be had when viewing it from opposing lenses.
|
On October 15 2016 01:34 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:02 zlefin wrote:
I recommend against arguing with GH on this topic, it will go nowhere. Too far apart to have a good common zone from which to work; and he's made up his mind. Well starting from the point of whether one admits the DNC at minimum played favorites and that it is against their rules (reality) is an important step. But that reasoning could be used to end about 90% of the discussions here between anyone. In what way did the DNC play favorites? I'm not saying this believe I don't believe they did (I fully expect them to play favorite with the established party candidate vs the outside usurper) but because I would love to know what factual action the DNC undertook to prevent Bernie from winning. "Prevent Bernie from winning" and "playing favorites" aren't always the same thing. As the DNC’s chief executive, Dacey was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the party.
After Clinton became the presumptive Democratic nominee in June, she installed new aides at the DNC to manage the coordinated general election campaign, but Dacey was kept on and was given expanded responsibilities.
With the release of the WikiLeaks emails, however, Dacey was implicated in one of the most damaging exchanges, in which Marshall appeared to speculate about how Sanders’s Jewish heritage could be used against him.
Marshall posited that he believes Sanders “is an atheist” and that it could make a difference in the Kentucky and West Virginia primaries. The messages were sent to a group that included Dacey, Miranda and another communications aide, Mark Paustenbach.
“My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist,” Marshall wrote in an email.
Dacey responded: “AMEN” Source Yes we had that one before and it was a yawn back then aswell. Is that your evidence of favoritism? Some DNC members talking about Bernie among themselves about how his faith might be attacked. (A line that was never used by Hillary if I remember correctly) Again, Bernie is an outsider trying to take over the Democratic Party platform (as is allowed by the open primary structure, nothing wrong there). And then we should be astonished and shocked that the DNC wasn't very happy with it? Look no further then Trump to see why the DNC thought what it did. I'm sure the GOP is loving the direction Trump took the party. So yes. I think the DNC was favorites towards Hillary. And No I don't think the DNC did something it should not have during the primaries. It did not work to prevent people from being able to vote for Bernie. It did not alter voting rules to prevent Bernie from being elected candidate. The primary happened with a minimum of irregularities (none is almost impossible). And as far as I know none that actually effected the outcome of any delegates. Nothing was rigged.
Yes, when "Chief executive in charge of day to day operations" transforms into "some DNC members" it is impossible to have a constructive dialogue.
|
On October 15 2016 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 01:34 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:02 zlefin wrote:
I recommend against arguing with GH on this topic, it will go nowhere. Too far apart to have a good common zone from which to work; and he's made up his mind. Well starting from the point of whether one admits the DNC at minimum played favorites and that it is against their rules (reality) is an important step. But that reasoning could be used to end about 90% of the discussions here between anyone. In what way did the DNC play favorites? I'm not saying this believe I don't believe they did (I fully expect them to play favorite with the established party candidate vs the outside usurper) but because I would love to know what factual action the DNC undertook to prevent Bernie from winning. "Prevent Bernie from winning" and "playing favorites" aren't always the same thing. As the DNC’s chief executive, Dacey was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the party.
After Clinton became the presumptive Democratic nominee in June, she installed new aides at the DNC to manage the coordinated general election campaign, but Dacey was kept on and was given expanded responsibilities.
With the release of the WikiLeaks emails, however, Dacey was implicated in one of the most damaging exchanges, in which Marshall appeared to speculate about how Sanders’s Jewish heritage could be used against him.
Marshall posited that he believes Sanders “is an atheist” and that it could make a difference in the Kentucky and West Virginia primaries. The messages were sent to a group that included Dacey, Miranda and another communications aide, Mark Paustenbach.
“My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist,” Marshall wrote in an email.
Dacey responded: “AMEN” Source Yes we had that one before and it was a yawn back then aswell. Is that your evidence of favoritism? Some DNC members talking about Bernie among themselves about how his faith might be attacked. (A line that was never used by Hillary if I remember correctly) Again, Bernie is an outsider trying to take over the Democratic Party platform (as is allowed by the open primary structure, nothing wrong there). And then we should be astonished and shocked that the DNC wasn't very happy with it? Look no further then Trump to see why the DNC thought what it did. I'm sure the GOP is loving the direction Trump took the party. So yes. I think the DNC was favorites towards Hillary. And No I don't think the DNC did something it should not have during the primaries. It did not work to prevent people from being able to vote for Bernie. It did not alter voting rules to prevent Bernie from being elected candidate. The primary happened with a minimum of irregularities (none is almost impossible). And as far as I know none that actually effected the outcome of any delegates. Nothing was rigged. Yes, when "Chief executive in charge of day to day operations" transforms into "some DNC members" it is impossible to have a constructive dialogue.
Does she stop being a person with her own idea's and values when she assuming a position?
Was this a public message in her position as Chief executive? or was this an internal email among colleagues?
and see my edit.
What is your custom definition of rigged?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
