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.
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.
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 Drumpf to see why the DNC thought what it did. I'm sure the GOP is loving the direction Drumpf 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.
Correct, the people running the DNC should be opinion less robots. Never mind the fact that their opinions were not overly reflected in any wrong doing.
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.
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.
That still doesn’t make them capable of rigging the voting process. Remember that Obama won against Clinton and they heavily favored her in 2008.
GH, its easy to get everyone here to agree with you. Just say the DNC favored Clinton and that seems unfair. Saying the system was rigged implies that the DNC manipulated 2 million votes. That kinda robs the voters of a lot of agency.
On October 14 2016 17:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 14 2016 16:56 WhiteDog wrote:
On October 14 2016 14:08 JW_DTLA wrote:
On October 14 2016 13:17 Nyxisto wrote: Haven't followed the thread much yesterday so I've got no idea if the Michelle speech has been posted but it was pretty great, best one of the election imo
I just watched it after work. I teared up. Michelle: + Show Spoiler +
I am now watching the DJT Florida speech in full. DJT literally can't say a true thing. He has gone completely Assange/Wikileaks. DJT doesn't even bother to offer counter evidence to all the accusers. All he has is "false smears" and "lies". He talks and talks about everyone in the world is lying about him, but he won't sue anyone. Can't his goons see this? + Show Spoiler +
"This is so bad, this is so sad, Trump is obscene and brag about gropping women. He is so bad. Moral, moral, moral, moral, moral."
I'm not defending Trump at all, especially if he actually did what he was bragging about. But the fact is that a campaign that has nothing to say aside than talking about the moral of its candidates is a failed campaign. It's the degree 0 of politics. And this is somewhat described as a great speech.
It's not just "moral". Sexism and rape culture are among the n.1 pronlems of today's society. I know that in France we are veeeeery tolerant to people's private life, but the fact that the president might be a sexist pig who brag about sexual aggressions is not ok.
Sexism and rape culture are among the number 1 problems in today's society?
Are you high? Or in saudi arabia? It's exaggerations like this that make it hard to take this term seriously.
Alternatively you might not be the best judge on how much of a problem sexism is when you're not on the receiving side of the problem.
Neither would you or the person saying its among the number 1 problem by that logic.
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.
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.
That still doesn’t make them capable of rigging the voting process. Remember that Obama won against Clinton and they heavily favored her in 2008.
GH, its easy to get everyone here to agree with you. Just say the DNC favored Clinton and that seems unfair. Saying the system was rigged implies that the DNC manipulated 2 million votes. That kinda robs the voters of a lot of agency.
So far the furthest I would go is the DNC members favored Clinton, the DNC as an entity appears to have done it'd job and remained neutral until I see evidence otherwise.
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.
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.
That still doesn’t make them capable of rigging the voting process. Remember that Obama won against Clinton and they heavily favored her in 2008.
GH, its easy to get everyone here to agree with you. Just say the DNC favored Clinton and that seems unfair. Saying the system was rigged implies that the DNC manipulated 2 million votes. That kinda robs the voters of a lot of agency.
When GH loses an argument he starts changing the definition of words. He did it with racism before (in the 'blacks cannot be racist') discussion and he is doing it now by wanting to redefining Rigged.
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.
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.
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?
She has responsibilities and rules that govern her behavior in that role. Chatting about how they can hit another candidate with an attack on their religion is absurd to dismiss as just "her own idea's and values" when she's the Chief exec in charge of operations.
Definition of rig rigged rigging transitive verb 1 : to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means <rig an election>
People are under the false belief that an outcome must be fixed for it to be rigged, no, people can lose something rigged for them to win. You all are imposing the implication of "fixed" to rigged. A simple misunderstanding but for sake of not losing any argument to me people have stubbornly refused to let go.
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.
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.
That still doesn’t make them capable of rigging the voting process. Remember that Obama won against Clinton and they heavily favored her in 2008.
GH, its easy to get everyone here to agree with you. Just say the DNC favored Clinton and that seems unfair. Saying the system was rigged implies that the DNC manipulated 2 million votes. That kinda robs the voters of a lot of agency.
When GH loses an argument he starts changing the definition of words. He did it with racism before (in the 'blacks cannot be racist') discussion and he is doing it now by wanting to redefining Rigged.
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.
Given he's a foreigner, you see where this is heading Plansix?
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.
How did I get implicated in this conversation ='[, I purposefully didn't comment at all on it?!
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.
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?
She has responsibilities and rules that govern her behavior in that role. Chatting about how they can hit another candidate with an attack on their religion is absurd to dismiss as just "her own idea's and values" when she's the Chief exec in charge of operations.
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.
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.
That still doesn’t make them capable of rigging the voting process. Remember that Obama won against Clinton and they heavily favored her in 2008.
GH, its easy to get everyone here to agree with you. Just say the DNC favored Clinton and that seems unfair. Saying the system was rigged implies that the DNC manipulated 2 million votes. That kinda robs the voters of a lot of agency.
When GH loses an argument he starts changing the definition of words. He did it with racism before (in the 'blacks cannot be racist') discussion and he is doing it now by wanting to redefining Rigged.
On October 15 2016 01:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 15 2016 01:23 Gorsameth wrote:
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.
Given he's a foreigner, you see where this is heading Plansix?
If she send out the email as a message from the management to others in the DNC you might have a point. If it was a public email, you might have a point. In an internal email exchange among colleges? No you don't have a point. Not every word she ever utters is done so with the authority of Chief executive.
And again, there is no actual evidence of the DNC doing anything to change the outcome of the election outside of an internal email that was never acted upon.
Glad to see we're talking about the same definition of rigged tho. Doesnt make me any less confused but good to know.
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.
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.
That still doesn’t make them capable of rigging the voting process. Remember that Obama won against Clinton and they heavily favored her in 2008.
GH, its easy to get everyone here to agree with you. Just say the DNC favored Clinton and that seems unfair. Saying the system was rigged implies that the DNC manipulated 2 million votes. That kinda robs the voters of a lot of agency.
You forget to mention that GH takes it a step further by blaming Clinton for the fraud that didn't happen from the DNC.
It's a bit like when I lost to Monopoly, blamed the rules for having had bad luck with the dice and hated my opponent and thought she was the worst person in the world because she outplayed me.
The only difference being that I was 6 and I only resented my sister for about 15 minutes.
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.
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?
She has responsibilities and rules that govern her behavior in that role. Chatting about how they can hit another candidate with an attack on their religion is absurd to dismiss as just "her own idea's and values" when she's the Chief exec in charge of operations.
People are under the false belief that an outcome must be fixed for it to be rigged, no, people can lose something rigged for them to win. You all are imposing the implication of "fixed" to rigged. A simple misunderstanding but for sake of not losing any argument to me people have stubbornly refused to let go.
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.
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.
That still doesn’t make them capable of rigging the voting process. Remember that Obama won against Clinton and they heavily favored her in 2008.
GH, its easy to get everyone here to agree with you. Just say the DNC favored Clinton and that seems unfair. Saying the system was rigged implies that the DNC manipulated 2 million votes. That kinda robs the voters of a lot of agency.
When GH loses an argument he starts changing the definition of words. He did it with racism before (in the 'blacks cannot be racist') discussion and he is doing it now by wanting to redefining Rigged.
On October 15 2016 01:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 15 2016 01:23 Gorsameth wrote:
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.
Given he's a foreigner, you see where this is heading Plansix?
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.
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?
She has responsibilities and rules that govern her behavior in that role. Chatting about how they can hit another candidate with an attack on their religion is absurd to dismiss as just "her own idea's and values" when she's the Chief exec in charge of operations.
Definition of rig rigged rigging transitive verb 1 : to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means <rig an election>
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.
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.
That still doesn’t make them capable of rigging the voting process. Remember that Obama won against Clinton and they heavily favored her in 2008.
GH, its easy to get everyone here to agree with you. Just say the DNC favored Clinton and that seems unfair. Saying the system was rigged implies that the DNC manipulated 2 million votes. That kinda robs the voters of a lot of agency.
When GH loses an argument he starts changing the definition of words. He did it with racism before (in the 'blacks cannot be racist') discussion and he is doing it now by wanting to redefining Rigged.
On October 15 2016 01:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 15 2016 01:23 Gorsameth wrote:
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.
Given he's a foreigner, you see where this is heading Plansix?
If she send out the email as a message from the management to others in the DNC you might have a point. If it was a public email, you might have a point. In an internal email exchange among colleges? No you don't have a point. Not every word she ever utters is done so with the authority of Chief executive.
And again, there is no actual evidence of the DNC doing anything to change the outcome of the election outside of an internal email that was never acted upon.
Glad to see we're talking about the same definition of rigged tho. Doesnt make me any less confused but good to know.
No, not every, but the ones using her official email are. You don't have to change the outcome to manipulate an election. But I mean we're having to pretend it also doesn't speak to an atmosphere where people felt comfortable sending suggestions of how they could defeat Bernie to the lead arbiter of the process.
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.
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?
She has responsibilities and rules that govern her behavior in that role. Chatting about how they can hit another candidate with an attack on their religion is absurd to dismiss as just "her own idea's and values" when she's the Chief exec in charge of operations.
Definition of rig rigged rigging transitive verb 1 : to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means <rig an election>
People are under the false belief that an outcome must be fixed for it to be rigged, no, people can lose something rigged for them to win. You all are imposing the implication of "fixed" to rigged. A simple misunderstanding but for sake of not losing any argument to me people have stubbornly refused to let go.
On October 15 2016 01:48 Gorsameth wrote:
On October 15 2016 01:42 Plansix wrote:
On October 15 2016 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
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.
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.
That still doesn’t make them capable of rigging the voting process. Remember that Obama won against Clinton and they heavily favored her in 2008.
GH, its easy to get everyone here to agree with you. Just say the DNC favored Clinton and that seems unfair. Saying the system was rigged implies that the DNC manipulated 2 million votes. That kinda robs the voters of a lot of agency.
When GH loses an argument he starts changing the definition of words. He did it with racism before (in the 'blacks cannot be racist') discussion and he is doing it now by wanting to redefining Rigged.
On October 15 2016 01:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 15 2016 01:23 Gorsameth wrote:
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.
Given he's a foreigner, you see where this is heading Plansix?
What are you talking about?
The foreigner part meaning I don't expect him to understand the implications of the rhetoric regarding race in America.
When GH loses an argument he starts changing the definition of words. He did it with racism before (in the 'blacks cannot be racist') discussion and he is doing it now by wanting to redefining Rigged
But I know you know what's both wrong with that statement and how it gives credibility to the argument that I was making regarding plenty of the same crap we get from the right coming out of Hillary supporters regarding racism in America.
On October 15 2016 01:52 Biff The Understudy 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.
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.
That still doesn’t make them capable of rigging the voting process. Remember that Obama won against Clinton and they heavily favored her in 2008.
GH, its easy to get everyone here to agree with you. Just say the DNC favored Clinton and that seems unfair. Saying the system was rigged implies that the DNC manipulated 2 million votes. That kinda robs the voters of a lot of agency.
You forget to mention that GH takes it a step further by blaming Clinton for the fraud that didn't happen from the DNC.
It's a bit like when I lost to Monopoly, blamed the rules for having had bad luck with the dice and hated my opponent and thought she was the worst person in the world because she outplayed me.
The only difference being that I was 6 and I only resented my sister for about 15 minutes.
She went and stumped for the person in charge overseeing all of the stuff that resulted in both the person she stumped for and other having to resign due to their inappropriate behavior. This is why I typically don't bother with your posts. Every single one of your posts to/about me has created a disingenuous strawman to argue with and it's grown quite tiresome.
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.
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?
She has responsibilities and rules that govern her behavior in that role. Chatting about how they can hit another candidate with an attack on their religion is absurd to dismiss as just "her own idea's and values" when she's the Chief exec in charge of operations.
Definition of rig rigged rigging transitive verb 1 : to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means <rig an election>
On October 15 2016 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
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.
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.
That still doesn’t make them capable of rigging the voting process. Remember that Obama won against Clinton and they heavily favored her in 2008.
GH, its easy to get everyone here to agree with you. Just say the DNC favored Clinton and that seems unfair. Saying the system was rigged implies that the DNC manipulated 2 million votes. That kinda robs the voters of a lot of agency.
When GH loses an argument he starts changing the definition of words. He did it with racism before (in the 'blacks cannot be racist') discussion and he is doing it now by wanting to redefining Rigged.
On October 15 2016 01:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 15 2016 01:23 Gorsameth wrote:
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.
Given he's a foreigner, you see where this is heading Plansix?
If she send out the email as a message from the management to others in the DNC you might have a point. If it was a public email, you might have a point. In an internal email exchange among colleges? No you don't have a point. Not every word she ever utters is done so with the authority of Chief executive.
And again, there is no actual evidence of the DNC doing anything to change the outcome of the election outside of an internal email that was never acted upon.
Glad to see we're talking about the same definition of rigged tho. Doesnt make me any less confused but good to know.
No, not every, but the ones using her official email are. You don't have to change the outcome to manipulate an election. But I mean we're having to pretend it also doesn't speak to an atmosphere where people felt comfortable sending suggestions of how they could defeat Bernie to the lead arbiter of the process.
I get what you're saying, it's just ludicrous.
Ehm, to attempt to rig an election you actually have to take action...
Me sitting in my chair thinking about how I can vote in a dozen different polling places because there is no ID requirement doesn't mean I tried to rig an election until I actually go out and try to vote twice.
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.
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?
She has responsibilities and rules that govern her behavior in that role. Chatting about how they can hit another candidate with an attack on their religion is absurd to dismiss as just "her own idea's and values" when she's the Chief exec in charge of operations.
Definition of rig rigged rigging transitive verb 1 : to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means <rig an election>
On October 15 2016 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
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.
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.
That still doesn’t make them capable of rigging the voting process. Remember that Obama won against Clinton and they heavily favored her in 2008.
GH, its easy to get everyone here to agree with you. Just say the DNC favored Clinton and that seems unfair. Saying the system was rigged implies that the DNC manipulated 2 million votes. That kinda robs the voters of a lot of agency.
When GH loses an argument he starts changing the definition of words. He did it with racism before (in the 'blacks cannot be racist') discussion and he is doing it now by wanting to redefining Rigged.
On October 15 2016 01:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 15 2016 01:23 Gorsameth wrote:
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.
Given he's a foreigner, you see where this is heading Plansix?
If she send out the email as a message from the management to others in the DNC you might have a point. If it was a public email, you might have a point. In an internal email exchange among colleges? No you don't have a point. Not every word she ever utters is done so with the authority of Chief executive.
And again, there is no actual evidence of the DNC doing anything to change the outcome of the election outside of an internal email that was never acted upon.
Glad to see we're talking about the same definition of rigged tho. Doesnt make me any less confused but good to know.
No, not every, but the ones using her official email are. You don't have to change the outcome to manipulate an election. But I mean we're having to pretend it also doesn't speak to an atmosphere where people felt comfortable sending suggestions of how they could defeat Bernie to the lead arbiter of the process.
I get what you're saying, it's just ludicrous.
In breaking news, candidate who was known to be hard to work with does not have as many allies in his place of work. Updates at "fo' realz?"
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.
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?
She has responsibilities and rules that govern her behavior in that role. Chatting about how they can hit another candidate with an attack on their religion is absurd to dismiss as just "her own idea's and values" when she's the Chief exec in charge of operations.
Definition of rig rigged rigging transitive verb 1 : to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means <rig an election>
On October 15 2016 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
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.
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.
That still doesn’t make them capable of rigging the voting process. Remember that Obama won against Clinton and they heavily favored her in 2008.
GH, its easy to get everyone here to agree with you. Just say the DNC favored Clinton and that seems unfair. Saying the system was rigged implies that the DNC manipulated 2 million votes. That kinda robs the voters of a lot of agency.
When GH loses an argument he starts changing the definition of words. He did it with racism before (in the 'blacks cannot be racist') discussion and he is doing it now by wanting to redefining Rigged.
On October 15 2016 01:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 15 2016 01:23 Gorsameth wrote:
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.
Given he's a foreigner, you see where this is heading Plansix?
If she send out the email as a message from the management to others in the DNC you might have a point. If it was a public email, you might have a point. In an internal email exchange among colleges? No you don't have a point. Not every word she ever utters is done so with the authority of Chief executive.
And again, there is no actual evidence of the DNC doing anything to change the outcome of the election outside of an internal email that was never acted upon.
Glad to see we're talking about the same definition of rigged tho. Doesnt make me any less confused but good to know.
No, not every, but the ones using her official email are. You don't have to change the outcome to manipulate an election. But I mean we're having to pretend it also doesn't speak to an atmosphere where people felt comfortable sending suggestions of how they could defeat Bernie to the lead arbiter of the process.
I get what you're saying, it's just ludicrous.
Yes but in order to manipulate an election you have to actually well do some manipulating. No one at the DNC so far as far as you have show, did anything to help the Clinton campaign. You haven't shown any public assistance or backing of her or even private trickery behind the scenes. You have shown nothing but that some people had opinions but nothing to suggest it affected their jobs in any way.
On October 15 2016 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
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.
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?
She has responsibilities and rules that govern her behavior in that role. Chatting about how they can hit another candidate with an attack on their religion is absurd to dismiss as just "her own idea's and values" when she's the Chief exec in charge of operations.
Definition of rig rigged rigging transitive verb 1 : to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means <rig an election>
On October 15 2016 01:11 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] 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.
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.
That still doesn’t make them capable of rigging the voting process. Remember that Obama won against Clinton and they heavily favored her in 2008.
GH, its easy to get everyone here to agree with you. Just say the DNC favored Clinton and that seems unfair. Saying the system was rigged implies that the DNC manipulated 2 million votes. That kinda robs the voters of a lot of agency.
When GH loses an argument he starts changing the definition of words. He did it with racism before (in the 'blacks cannot be racist') discussion and he is doing it now by wanting to redefining Rigged.
On October 15 2016 01:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 15 2016 01:23 Gorsameth wrote:
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.
Given he's a foreigner, you see where this is heading Plansix?
If she send out the email as a message from the management to others in the DNC you might have a point. If it was a public email, you might have a point. In an internal email exchange among colleges? No you don't have a point. Not every word she ever utters is done so with the authority of Chief executive.
And again, there is no actual evidence of the DNC doing anything to change the outcome of the election outside of an internal email that was never acted upon.
Glad to see we're talking about the same definition of rigged tho. Doesnt make me any less confused but good to know.
No, not every, but the ones using her official email are. You don't have to change the outcome to manipulate an election. But I mean we're having to pretend it also doesn't speak to an atmosphere where people felt comfortable sending suggestions of how they could defeat Bernie to the lead arbiter of the process.
I get what you're saying, it's just ludicrous.
Yes but in order to manipulate an election you have to actually well do some manipulating. No one at the DNC so far as far as you have show, did anything to help the Clinton campaign. You haven't shown any public assistance or backing of her or even private trickery behind the scenes. You have shown nothing but that some people had opinions but nothing to suggest it affected their jobs in any way.
Could you imagine a world where doctors have to help people they disagree with? Or if police have to protect people they disliked? Good thing we live in GH world where people only do things for others they are in love with.
There is no evidence that would convince GH that Clinton did not conspire with the DNC to rig the election against Bernie and that Bernie was the rightful nominee. Nobody can prove a negative, ever. Thus, view his posts purely as the worst possible interpretation of available evidence for Clinton and you'll extract the maximal benefit from his posts. But don't even try to convince him Clinton isn't the devil made flesh, it's futile.
On October 15 2016 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
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.
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?
She has responsibilities and rules that govern her behavior in that role. Chatting about how they can hit another candidate with an attack on their religion is absurd to dismiss as just "her own idea's and values" when she's the Chief exec in charge of operations.
Definition of rig rigged rigging transitive verb 1 : to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means <rig an election>
On October 15 2016 01:11 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] 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.
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.
That still doesn’t make them capable of rigging the voting process. Remember that Obama won against Clinton and they heavily favored her in 2008.
GH, its easy to get everyone here to agree with you. Just say the DNC favored Clinton and that seems unfair. Saying the system was rigged implies that the DNC manipulated 2 million votes. That kinda robs the voters of a lot of agency.
When GH loses an argument he starts changing the definition of words. He did it with racism before (in the 'blacks cannot be racist') discussion and he is doing it now by wanting to redefining Rigged.
On October 15 2016 01:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 15 2016 01:23 Gorsameth wrote:
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.
Given he's a foreigner, you see where this is heading Plansix?
If she send out the email as a message from the management to others in the DNC you might have a point. If it was a public email, you might have a point. In an internal email exchange among colleges? No you don't have a point. Not every word she ever utters is done so with the authority of Chief executive.
And again, there is no actual evidence of the DNC doing anything to change the outcome of the election outside of an internal email that was never acted upon.
Glad to see we're talking about the same definition of rigged tho. Doesnt make me any less confused but good to know.
No, not every, but the ones using her official email are. You don't have to change the outcome to manipulate an election. But I mean we're having to pretend it also doesn't speak to an atmosphere where people felt comfortable sending suggestions of how they could defeat Bernie to the lead arbiter of the process.
I get what you're saying, it's just ludicrous.
Ehm, to attempt to rig an election you actually have to take action...
Me sitting in my chair thinking about how I can vote in a dozen different polling places because there is no ID requirement doesn't mean I tried to rig an election until I actually try to vote twice.
No action was ever actually taken by the DNC.
I find it hilarious to see this juxtaposed to the argument about Trump's sexual harassment.
Just to be clear, we know they were discussing how to help Hillary defeat Bernie (a clear violation of the rules on it's own), but your presumption is that it never left their imagination, so that makes it fine/not rigging?
Rigging isn't really voting twice, rigging is setting up a system that makes it easier for someone to vote twice (whether it happens/is outcome determinate or not). For that particular example (though not technically about voting twice) we could look at Nevada where unregistered people were allowed to caucus after Harry Reid called in a special favor.
LAS VEGAS — Senator Harry Reid of Nevada has had discussions with the head of the state’s most powerful union to make sure tens of thousands of casino workers can easily participate in the Democratic caucuses here on Saturday.
In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Reid said he had spoken to D. Taylor, the president of the parent union of the Culinary Workers Union, which has 57,000 members, more than half of which are Latino. The union wields enormous power in the state and declined to endorse a presidential candidate this year.
“He’s been extremely cooperative,” Mr. Reid said. “Probably 100 organizers will be at the caucus sites and in hotels to make sure people know what they’re doing.”
Hillary Clinton’s supporters, in particular, have expressed concern that the caucus format could be difficult for low-wage workers who have to leave their jobs and find child care to publicly support a candidate.
Although Mrs. Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders have courted the Culinary Workers, the union decided not to endorse anyone because it is entering contract negotiations, leaving both candidates to fight for the support of its members who are the cocktail waitress, bartenders, and card dealers who make Las Vegas run.
Then here you see people walking right past the registration table and participating in the caucus.
But since we're accepting the most naive interpretations possible, I'm sure that's still not enough.
On October 15 2016 02:14 TheTenthDoc wrote: There is no evidence that would convince GH that Clinton did not conspire with the DNC to rig the election against Bernie and that Bernie was the rightful nominee. Nobody can prove a negative, ever. Thus, view his posts purely as the worst possible interpretation of available evidence for Clinton and you'll extract the maximal benefit from his posts. But don't even try to convince him Clinton isn't the devil made flesh, it's futile.
Because that's what I'm saying. It's like you guys are so used to bobble heads you aren't even trying anymore.
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.
How did I get implicated in this conversation ='[, I purposefully didn't comment at all on it?!
Kickboxer & Kickstarts posting on my phone. Got interchanged!
EPT
