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.
Dang, the thread went back to normal, oh well, at least I tried, sort of.
I should add something more substantive too, hmmm. I think we're gonna have to raise retirement age for social security sooner or later, and we may as well setup the system with a better auto-adjusting mechanism. I have no idea how to address the issues with racial and other disparities in social security; there's no good apparent answer there.
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: [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?
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 01:42 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.
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.
No my friend, I don't strawman you, just repeat what you are saying.
I asked you earlier what's the problem with Clinton and you answered "DNC".
Even if she supports and kept supporting the person who appeared favouring her, it doesn't make her responsible for the action of said person. And it looks like that said person didn't break the law in any way. You can be pissed at the Democratic party or the DNC, but you basically carefully explained to me how much of a horrible person Clinton is because of something someone else apparently did.
Other than that, every party in every primary in the history of the world has had a favourite. A party is made of people who think, and have a judgment over stuff. They usually go with the person they think has the best chance to win the elections. But then again, if the democratic party rigged its elections, Obama wouldn't have won in 2008. The core problem, dear GH, is that Bernie lost by a couple million votes.
On October 15 2016 02:18 zlefin wrote: Dang, the thread went back to normal, oh well, at least I tried, sort of.
I should add something more substantive too, hmmm. I think we're gonna have to raise retirement age for social security sooner or later, and we may as well setup the system with a better auto-adjusting mechanism. I have no idea how to address the issues with racial and other disparities in social security; there's no good apparent answer there.
Ditch it and minimum wage for universal basic income?
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>
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: [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?
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 01:42 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.
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.
No my friend, I don't strawman you, just repeat what you are saying.
I asked you earlier what's the problem with Clinton and you answered "DNC".
Even if she supports and kept supporting the person who appeared favouring her, it doesn't make her responsible for the action of said person. And it looks like that said person didn't break the law in any way. You can be pissed at the Democratic party or the DNC, but you basically carefully explained to me how much of a horrible person Clinton is because of something someone else apparently did.
Other than that, every party in every primary in the history of the world has had a favourite. A party is made of people who think, and have a judgment over stuff. They usually go with the person they think has the best chance to win the elections. But then again, if the democratic party rigged its elections, Obama wouldn't have won in 2008. The core problem, dear GH, is that Bernie lost by a couple million votes.
Anyway. I'm talking to a nice, solid, brick wall.
I think there was some miscommunication because if the request was for what's wrong with Hillary I would have given you that instead. I didn't even have any real interest in this conversation, I really wanted to know what, if anything, would stop someone who is going to vote for her from doing so, then what they would do instead. That rehashing the DNC was the preferred topic of her supporters comes as no surprise though.
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>
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: [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?
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 01:42 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.
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.
No my friend, I don't strawman you, just repeat what you are saying.
I asked you earlier what's the problem with Clinton and you answered "DNC".
Even if she supports and kept supporting the person who appeared favouring her, it doesn't make her responsible for the action of said person. And it looks like that said person didn't break the law in any way. You can be pissed at the Democratic party or the DNC, but you basically carefully explained to me how much of a horrible person Clinton is because of something someone else apparently did.
Other than that, every party in every primary in the history of the world has had a favourite. A party is made of people who think, and have a judgment over stuff. They usually go with the person they think has the best chance to win the elections. But then again, if the democratic party rigged its elections, Obama wouldn't have won in 2008. The core problem, dear GH, is that Bernie lost by a couple million votes.
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.
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>
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.
And we are now equating a possible angle of attack on a political opponent with boasting about sexual assault. Go us... Trump was a bad person for casually talking about sexual assault, then potential evidence came out that he actually did it.
The DNC person is a bad person for talking about attacking someones faith....and then nothing happened.
I believe the DNC was favoring Hillary and may have considered possible avenues of attack against him. He was an outsider trying to take over their party. So long as they did not interfere with the ability of people to vote for the candidate of their choosing I do not believe they rigged the primary. And yes by the definition of Rigging you need to actually do anything yes. not just imagine it. Hence my confusion of your use of the term and request for clarification.
And no a youtube video of people walking into a hall is not evidence of anything. Surely among those thousands of emails you can find some actual evidence if the DNC actually attempted to rig the primary.
On October 15 2016 02:26 WolfintheSheep wrote: Nice to have this reminder why people stopped trying to have discussions with GH...
Claims made, conspiracies parroted, youtube/twitter embedded, insult everyone disagreeing with him, ignore all requests for evidence and details.
Good to have this all reiterated.
Conspiracy theories are strong this election. It is to bad because they overshadow substantive issues that could be talked about. Some of the things the DNC did were not great and eroded peoples trust in the party. But its impossible to talk about them without slipping into conspiracy nonsense.
On October 15 2016 02:18 zlefin wrote: Dang, the thread went back to normal, oh well, at least I tried, sort of.
I should add something more substantive too, hmmm. I think we're gonna have to raise retirement age for social security sooner or later, and we may as well setup the system with a better auto-adjusting mechanism. I have no idea how to address the issues with racial and other disparities in social security; there's no good apparent answer there.
Ditch it and minimum wage for universal basic income?
the country is not yet rich enough for ubi. But it is rich enough for a social security system. Also, part of the point of social security is to give it to people too old/unfit to work. ubi doesn't do that. I also rather doubt the political feasibilty of ubi at this time in the US. (as in it'd be even harder to do than reforming social security)
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.
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>
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.
You will post any article or email that reflects poorly on Bill or Hillary Clinton in an instant without exercising even a modicum of critical thought. And when people rebuff you, you will instantly dismiss them as biased towards Clinton or at best say "well they might be wrong BUT they have a point." If that's not assuming the worst of Clinton in every scenario, I don't know what is. And that is why I suggest posters use you as a barometer to detect the worst possible interpretation of anything but not try to convince you otherwise.
Unless you actually think anything could change your mind at this point about the election being rigged?
On October 15 2016 02:18 zlefin wrote: Dang, the thread went back to normal, oh well, at least I tried, sort of.
I should add something more substantive too, hmmm. I think we're gonna have to raise retirement age for social security sooner or later, and we may as well setup the system with a better auto-adjusting mechanism. I have no idea how to address the issues with racial and other disparities in social security; there's no good apparent answer there.
Ditch it and minimum wage for universal basic income?
the country is not yet rich enough for ubi. But it is rich enough for a social security system. Also, part of the point of social security is to give it to people too old/unfit to work. ubi doesn't do that. I also rather doubt the political feasibilty of ubi at this time in the US. (as in it'd be even harder to do than reforming social security)
"Says wealthiest nation on earth"
@gore. Well, we disagree that rhetoric can't manipulate, so I think we're done.
On October 15 2016 02:18 zlefin wrote: Dang, the thread went back to normal, oh well, at least I tried, sort of.
I should add something more substantive too, hmmm. I think we're gonna have to raise retirement age for social security sooner or later, and we may as well setup the system with a better auto-adjusting mechanism. I have no idea how to address the issues with racial and other disparities in social security; there's no good apparent answer there.
Ditch it and minimum wage for universal basic income?
the country is not yet rich enough for ubi. But it is rich enough for a social security system. Also, part of the point of social security is to give it to people too old/unfit to work. ubi doesn't do that. I also rather doubt the political feasibilty of ubi at this time in the US. (as in it'd be even harder to do than reforming social security)
I hate the concept of UBI, but I might be okay with it if you got rid of my income tax. :D
On October 15 2016 02:26 WolfintheSheep wrote: Nice to have this reminder why people stopped trying to have discussions with GH...
Claims made, conspiracies parroted, youtube/twitter embedded, insult everyone disagreeing with him, ignore all requests for evidence and details.
Good to have this all reiterated.
Conspiracy theories are strong this election. It is to bad because they overshadow substantive issues that could be talked about. Some of the things the DNC did were not great and eroded peoples trust in the party. But its impossible to talk about them without slipping into conspiracy nonsense.
It's not, but those "not so great" things took far too much work just to be recognized as that (and still aren't by some). I imagine most independents and Republicans can see clearly that Democrats would be eating Republicans alive if they had done the same stuff, but Democrats (particularly longtime Hillary supporters) can't seem to see it at all.
On October 15 2016 02:18 zlefin wrote: Dang, the thread went back to normal, oh well, at least I tried, sort of.
I should add something more substantive too, hmmm. I think we're gonna have to raise retirement age for social security sooner or later, and we may as well setup the system with a better auto-adjusting mechanism. I have no idea how to address the issues with racial and other disparities in social security; there's no good apparent answer there.
Ditch it and minimum wage for universal basic income?
the country is not yet rich enough for ubi. But it is rich enough for a social security system. Also, part of the point of social security is to give it to people too old/unfit to work. ubi doesn't do that. I also rather doubt the political feasibilty of ubi at this time in the US. (as in it'd be even harder to do than reforming social security)
"Says wealthiest nation on earth"
@gore. Well, we disagree that rhetoric can't manipulate, so I think we're done.
What public rhetoric was there? All you have shown is an internal email. How does an internal email manipulate the public?
On October 15 2016 02:18 zlefin wrote: Dang, the thread went back to normal, oh well, at least I tried, sort of.
I should add something more substantive too, hmmm. I think we're gonna have to raise retirement age for social security sooner or later, and we may as well setup the system with a better auto-adjusting mechanism. I have no idea how to address the issues with racial and other disparities in social security; there's no good apparent answer there.
Ditch it and minimum wage for universal basic income?
the country is not yet rich enough for ubi. But it is rich enough for a social security system. Also, part of the point of social security is to give it to people too old/unfit to work. ubi doesn't do that. I also rather doubt the political feasibilty of ubi at this time in the US. (as in it'd be even harder to do than reforming social security)
"Says wealthiest nation on earth"
@gore. Well, we disagree that rhetoric can't manipulate, so I think we're done.
What public rhetoric was there? All you have shown is an internal email. How does an internal email manipulate the public?
It did happen to correlate with an uptick in questions about his religiosity but we also disagree that rhetoric would need to be public to be manipulative.
For proof of concept, imagine an email that says "here's how we'll beat Bernie Sanders: Not for Public consumption" sent from the DNC chief exec. Even if no one acts on it, it's still deceptively manipulating the process which meets the threshold of rigging. But this is an utterly inane topic.
On October 15 2016 02:26 WolfintheSheep wrote: Nice to have this reminder why people stopped trying to have discussions with GH...
Claims made, conspiracies parroted, youtube/twitter embedded, insult everyone disagreeing with him, ignore all requests for evidence and details.
Good to have this all reiterated.
Conspiracy theories are strong this election. It is to bad because they overshadow substantive issues that could be talked about. Some of the things the DNC did were not great and eroded peoples trust in the party. But its impossible to talk about them without slipping into conspiracy nonsense.
It's not, but those "not so great" things took far too much work just to be recognized as that (and still aren't by some). I imagine most independents and Republicans can see clearly that Democrats would be eating Republicans alive if they had done the same stuff, but Democrats (particularly longtime Hillary supporters) can't seem to see it at all.
What? You mean like all those 'Cruz must not win' and 'How do we stop Trump' GOP meetings we learned about? I don't think I saw a single person say that the GOP was being unfair or trying to rig the system.
I am quite sure there are about as many women as there are years in Trumps life. Possibly a lot more, but I'd wager at least 50-100 women that Trump has touched inappropriately in one way or another. The guy is a horrible sleazebag, this has been a known fact for decades.
EPT
