|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 15 2016 04:04 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 04:01 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 03:57 Nebuchad wrote:On October 15 2016 03:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 15 2016 03:26 Nebuchad wrote: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. See here's the problem. When someone like WolfintheSheep mentions conspiracies, someone like Gorsameth should jump on him, cause he has argued that it would be perfectly normal for the DNC to play favourites. But he doesn't. Cause WolfintheSheep is on the right side of the debate, as he argues against GH. There are countless examples of that. You're not arguing positions, you're arguing against him. I take issue with that. No, I spent the previous two pages arguing positions and asking for evidence, and after getting the usual runaround I reiterated that it's pointless to have discussions with GH. If you would like to discuss DNC favouritism, that would be great. Let me reiterate my points on that: yes, it's normal for the system to allow favouritism because the Super Delegate system is very bluntly about the party having the power to override popular vote. It's is dishonest to say internal emails talking about opinions is against the rules when there is a much more blatant and official system that allows for far greater manipulation of results right in the open. With that said, the question is if favouritism resulted in manipulation or impact on the popular vote, which is what requires evidence, and which is also a "conspiracy" so long as it's built only on supposition and suspicion. It's obvious that it has impact. The question that you ask is whether this impact should be criticized or not. Please provide evidence that the impact on votes from DNC favoritism is obvious. Hi, I'm the establishment. My stranglehold on politics in the US is so big that it's completely impossible to get elected without the help of one of the two major parties. However, when I'm one of those two major parties and I choose one candidate as my favourite over another, it has absolutely no impact on the chances of this candidate.
Hi, I'm Obama ssup ?
User was warned for this post
|
On October 15 2016 04:11 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 04:08 WhiteDog wrote:On October 15 2016 03:56 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 03:45 Nyxisto wrote:On October 15 2016 03:38 IgnE wrote:
so you personally are opposed to UBI because you are opposed to charity handouts but value keynesian stimulation as long as you get to decide how its spent. so in other words my criticism was dead on.
im not the one trying to tell the trumpkins how to spend their share of society's bounty. i am just pointing out that a discussion with you about your pseudofascist ordoliberal welfare schemes oppose UBI is going to be different than one with a conservative mid westerner who opposed welfare all together.
I still don't see what's fascist about it, it seems like a basic idea of fairness that if we redistribute money we don't do so unconditionally, this is already true for almost all tax redistribution. We don't just hand you your healthcare benefits in cash, we pay for your medical bills. Is this fascist? Should we just send you a syringe and and a bonesaw and you can have at it? Is paid childcare authoritarian? Almost all form of social benefits are supplied in the form of goods, institutions or assistance why is this offensive all of the sudden? I'd rather see that expanded because it is a material benefit for the poor rather than reducing it and handing you bitcoin because that's much less 'technocratic'. because the real affliction for those in poverty is not the material deprivation, it's the lack of autonomy. the assertion that almost all forms of social benefits are supplied in the form of goods, institutions or assistance is incoherent on its own terms (what is "assistance"?) but is also clearly wrong. social security is a cash payment that is a significant portion of the budget. disability and unemployment are cash payment with strings attached. @whitedog i don't see why you can't have both. jobs need doing. UBI is not the same as enforcing completely egalitarian incomes. provide a base level of UBI w no strings and jobs. Don't you think ot will be used as such ? In europe, most UBI i've learned about goes with the end of social security. It's an individualization of welfare. I saw it more as a "making a good socialized program is hard so let's just hand out a lump sum of money instead!" system in most UBI proposals I saw.
Buy dem Nikez or pay for insurance. What you do ?
|
On October 15 2016 04:04 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 04:01 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 03:57 Nebuchad wrote:On October 15 2016 03:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 15 2016 03:26 Nebuchad wrote: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. See here's the problem. When someone like WolfintheSheep mentions conspiracies, someone like Gorsameth should jump on him, cause he has argued that it would be perfectly normal for the DNC to play favourites. But he doesn't. Cause WolfintheSheep is on the right side of the debate, as he argues against GH. There are countless examples of that. You're not arguing positions, you're arguing against him. I take issue with that. No, I spent the previous two pages arguing positions and asking for evidence, and after getting the usual runaround I reiterated that it's pointless to have discussions with GH. If you would like to discuss DNC favouritism, that would be great. Let me reiterate my points on that: yes, it's normal for the system to allow favouritism because the Super Delegate system is very bluntly about the party having the power to override popular vote. It's is dishonest to say internal emails talking about opinions is against the rules when there is a much more blatant and official system that allows for far greater manipulation of results right in the open. With that said, the question is if favouritism resulted in manipulation or impact on the popular vote, which is what requires evidence, and which is also a "conspiracy" so long as it's built only on supposition and suspicion. It's obvious that it has impact. The question that you ask is whether this impact should be criticized or not. Please provide evidence that the impact on votes from DNC favoritism is obvious. Hi, I'm the establishment. My stranglehold on politics in the US is so big that it's completely impossible to get elected without the help of one of the two major parties. However, when I'm one of those two major parties and I choose one candidate as my favourite over another, it has absolutely no impact on the chances of this candidate.
In light of this fact, I do find it sort of disingenuous that people talk about "parties can do what they want because it's their party." It really isn't; it's a coalition that aligns itself closely enough with about half the nation to have a chance of being elected. They are the only game in town and they really are not like the European definition of a party without FPTP.
|
Summary of the Gloria Allred conference from Reddit :
Holy shit. It is an Apprentice Candidate alleging sexual abuse.
Watching press conference live:
Accosted by Donald Trump at the Beverly Hills hotel while discussing employment opportunities.
Kissing, touching breasts, leading into bedroom when she went for job interview
In 2007, contacted Mr. Trump for lunch, was asked to meet him in office. Kissed on lips, thought "maybe it was his way of greeting..."
This is going a bit slow due to crying. She was upset by Trump's kiss, called her friends and called her parents [corroboration].
Met at the Beverly Hills hotel for dinner, assumed they were going to a restaurant, and instead were taken to a private Bungalow.
Walked into Bungalow, Trump started kissing immedeately, she moved away. He grabbed her shoulder and began kissing aggressively, he placed hand on breast. She walked away. He grabbed her and pulled her into bedroom.
She tried to leave, pushed him away, began "thrusting genitals" at her.
asked her to hide while waiter delivered dinner. She tried to talk business and job offers. Gave her debt advice on dealing with her home mortgage, told her to default.
she left after dinner.
lots of crying.
spoke to father [corroboration].
Trump got her a job at golf course for half the salary she requested. When she called trump, he gave her the runaround.
Trump told her that she should never call him again.
Questions:
Q: Do you have corroborating information?
A: Witnesses she shared the experiences with Trump with.
Q: Do you support any political party?
A: She is a Republican.
No intention of litigation at this time
Q: What does she hope comes out of this?
A: (Victim, not Allred) I want to be able to sleep when I am seventy at night.
Q: More women?
A: Allred says she has been contacted by many more women
that's the end.
|
On October 15 2016 04:14 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 04:08 LegalLord wrote:
The biggest favoritism was probably simply the massive superdelegate advantage Hillary started with. That basically crowded out all other viable establishment opposition, leaving Bernie Sanders as the only possible viable opposition. He also suffered strongly from poor exposure early on in the campaign, probably also because of Hillary's superdelegate advantage. And people really do have a tendency to just fall in line with the party line option, which in this case was Hillary without a doubt. If he had more exposure earlier in the campaign, he may well have managed to edge Hillary out. Judging by the fact that there have been quite a few people who said they chose Hillary but now wonder if Sanders might have been better, while most Sanders people still think they were right to make that choice, timing might have made a substantial difference. Yeah that sounds right. I wouldn't call that favoritism tho. Hillary is a Democrat who has worked with Democrat super delegates for years. Bernie was an outsider coming in. The super delegates favoring Hillary early on makes perfect sense.
Well they also favored Hillary over all other possible establishment candidates which didn't give them any chance of victory. I saw not that much of O'Malley, but he seemed like a pretty good, principled candidate with some oratorical prowess. But no one cared about him because he didn't have a chance because Hillary took the establishment vote by having all the superdelegates support her from the start.
The most likely result was decided before any votes were even cast.
|
On October 15 2016 04:16 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 04:11 LegalLord wrote:On October 15 2016 04:08 WhiteDog wrote:On October 15 2016 03:56 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 03:45 Nyxisto wrote:On October 15 2016 03:38 IgnE wrote:
so you personally are opposed to UBI because you are opposed to charity handouts but value keynesian stimulation as long as you get to decide how its spent. so in other words my criticism was dead on.
im not the one trying to tell the trumpkins how to spend their share of society's bounty. i am just pointing out that a discussion with you about your pseudofascist ordoliberal welfare schemes oppose UBI is going to be different than one with a conservative mid westerner who opposed welfare all together.
I still don't see what's fascist about it, it seems like a basic idea of fairness that if we redistribute money we don't do so unconditionally, this is already true for almost all tax redistribution. We don't just hand you your healthcare benefits in cash, we pay for your medical bills. Is this fascist? Should we just send you a syringe and and a bonesaw and you can have at it? Is paid childcare authoritarian? Almost all form of social benefits are supplied in the form of goods, institutions or assistance why is this offensive all of the sudden? I'd rather see that expanded because it is a material benefit for the poor rather than reducing it and handing you bitcoin because that's much less 'technocratic'. because the real affliction for those in poverty is not the material deprivation, it's the lack of autonomy. the assertion that almost all forms of social benefits are supplied in the form of goods, institutions or assistance is incoherent on its own terms (what is "assistance"?) but is also clearly wrong. social security is a cash payment that is a significant portion of the budget. disability and unemployment are cash payment with strings attached. @whitedog i don't see why you can't have both. jobs need doing. UBI is not the same as enforcing completely egalitarian incomes. provide a base level of UBI w no strings and jobs. Don't you think ot will be used as such ? In europe, most UBI i've learned about goes with the end of social security. It's an individualization of welfare. I saw it more as a "making a good socialized program is hard so let's just hand out a lump sum of money instead!" system in most UBI proposals I saw. Buy dem Nikez or pay for insurance. What you do ?
It is depressing how many people I know who have made the wrong choice in a situation like that. Especially with paying rent.
|
On October 15 2016 04:17 Nevuk wrote:Summary of the Gloria Allred conference from Reddit : Show nested quote +Holy shit. It is an Apprentice Candidate alleging sexual abuse.
Watching press conference live:
Accosted by Donald Trump at the Beverly Hills hotel while discussing employment opportunities.
Kissing, touching breasts, leading into bedroom when she went for job interview
In 2007, contacted Mr. Trump for lunch, was asked to meet him in office. Kissed on lips, thought "maybe it was his way of greeting..."
This is going a bit slow due to crying. She was upset by Trump's kiss, called her friends and called her parents [corroboration].
Met at the Beverly Hills hotel for dinner, assumed they were going to a restaurant, and instead were taken to a private Bungalow.
Walked into Bungalow, Trump started kissing immedeately, she moved away. He grabbed her shoulder and began kissing aggressively, he placed hand on breast. She walked away. He grabbed her and pulled her into bedroom.
She tried to leave, pushed him away, began "thrusting genitals" at her.
asked her to hide while waiter delivered dinner. She tried to talk business and job offers. Gave her debt advice on dealing with her home mortgage, told her to default.
she left after dinner.
lots of crying.
spoke to father [corroboration].
Trump got her a job at golf course for half the salary she requested. When she called trump, he gave her the runaround.
Trump told her that she should never call him again.
Questions:
Q: Do you have corroborating information?
A: Witnesses she shared the experiences with Trump with.
Q: Do you support any political party?
A: She is a Republican.
No intention of litigation at this time
Q: What does she hope comes out of this?
A: (Victim, not Allred) I want to be able to sleep when I am seventy at night.
Q: More women?
A: Allred says she has been contacted by many more women
that's the end.
My heart always sinks when I read these things. What a fucking goddamn... I hate him. We needed a Ron Paul-esque republican candidate that would retreat America's military out of occupying the world and we're stuck with a fucking rapist.
|
I see UBI as an essential counterbalance to the constant metamorphosis (redistribution) of labor into capital, especially since capital is now suddenly no longer in need of even highly-exploited labor.
That way some of the accumulated capital goes back to the masses who in fact generate most of the added value.
After all, who owns the Earth? Who has bought the bees and the geological processes that generate endless weatlh? Some of the Earth must belong to every person by virtue of being born on this planet.
Furthermore, something has to offset the lack of societally available resources that are drained into the black hole gutter by cancer-economy such as speculation, market manipulation and financial "products".
If you argue against forced redistribution, you should understand that capitalism itself inherently contains mechanisms of forced redistribution that apply to all humanity and arise from the properties of enormous capital accumulation.
|
|
|
On October 15 2016 04:27 Kickboxer wrote:
I see UBI as an essential counterbalance to the constant metamorphosis (redistribution) of labor into capital, especially since capital is now suddenly no longer in need of even highly-exploited labor.
That way some of the accumulated capital goes back to the masses who in fact generate most of the added value.
After all, who owns the Earth? Who has bought the bees and the geological processes that generate endless weatlh? Some of the Earth must belong to every person by virtue of being born on this planet.
Furthermore, something has to offset the lack of societally available resources that are drained into the black hole gutter by cancer-economy such as speculation, market manipulation and financial "products".
If you argue against forced redistribution, you should understand that capitalism itself inherently contains mechanisms of forced redistribution that apply to all humanity and arise from the properties of enormous capital accumulation.
I think I love you Kickboxer.
|
On October 15 2016 04:04 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 04:01 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 03:57 Nebuchad wrote:On October 15 2016 03:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 15 2016 03:26 Nebuchad wrote: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. See here's the problem. When someone like WolfintheSheep mentions conspiracies, someone like Gorsameth should jump on him, cause he has argued that it would be perfectly normal for the DNC to play favourites. But he doesn't. Cause WolfintheSheep is on the right side of the debate, as he argues against GH. There are countless examples of that. You're not arguing positions, you're arguing against him. I take issue with that. No, I spent the previous two pages arguing positions and asking for evidence, and after getting the usual runaround I reiterated that it's pointless to have discussions with GH. If you would like to discuss DNC favouritism, that would be great. Let me reiterate my points on that: yes, it's normal for the system to allow favouritism because the Super Delegate system is very bluntly about the party having the power to override popular vote. It's is dishonest to say internal emails talking about opinions is against the rules when there is a much more blatant and official system that allows for far greater manipulation of results right in the open. With that said, the question is if favouritism resulted in manipulation or impact on the popular vote, which is what requires evidence, and which is also a "conspiracy" so long as it's built only on supposition and suspicion. It's obvious that it has impact. The question that you ask is whether this impact should be criticized or not. Please provide evidence that the impact on votes from DNC favoritism is obvious. Hi, I'm the establishment. My stranglehold on politics in the US is so big that it's completely impossible to get elected without the help of one of the two major parties. However, when I'm one of those two major parties and I choose one candidate as my favourite over another, it has absolutely no impact on the chances of this candidate.
Minus the current standing president and current Republican candidate, of course.
The discussion over the two party system is another issue entirely, and one I've been fairly vocal on how dumb it is having ~60% of the population deciding the only real options for the rest of the country.
But within each party, the question still remains if the parties can, or did, actually cause a statistically significant change in the voting (not even a change in overall results). Trump was actually actively attacked by the party itself, and none of the establishment candidates even came close to good percentage.
|
On October 15 2016 02:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 02:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 02:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 01:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:53 Plansix wrote:On October 15 2016 01:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 01:39 Gorsameth 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:[quote] "Prevent Bernie from winning" and "playing favorites" aren't always the same thing. [quote] Source Yes we had that one before and it was a yawn back then aswell. Is that your evidence of favoritism? Some DNC members talking about Bernie among themselves about how his faith might be attacked. (A line that was never used by Hillary if I remember correctly) Again, Bernie is an outsider trying to take over the Democratic Party platform (as is allowed by the open primary structure, nothing wrong there). And then we should be astonished and shocked that the DNC wasn't very happy with it? Look no further then Trump to see why the DNC thought what it did. I'm sure the GOP is loving the direction Trump took the party. So yes. I think the DNC was favorites towards Hillary. And No I don't think the DNC did something it should not have during the primaries. It did not work to prevent people from being able to vote for Bernie. It did not alter voting rules to prevent Bernie from being elected candidate. The primary happened with a minimum of irregularities (none is almost impossible). And as far as I know none that actually effected the outcome of any delegates. Nothing was rigged. Yes, when "Chief executive in charge of day to day operations" transforms into "some DNC members" it is impossible to have a constructive dialogue. Does she stop being a person with her own idea's and values when she assuming a position? Was this a public message in her position as Chief executive? or was this an internal email among colleagues? and see my edit. What is your custom definition of rigged? 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> Source 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:
[quote]
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:
[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.
Dacey responded: “AMEN” Source Yes we had that one before and it was a yawn back then aswell. Is that your evidence of favoritism? Some DNC members talking about Bernie among themselves about how his faith might be attacked. (A line that was never used by Hillary if I remember correctly) Again, Bernie is an outsider trying to take over the Democratic Party platform (as is allowed by the open primary structure, nothing wrong there). And then we should be astonished and shocked that the DNC wasn't very happy with it? Look no further then Trump to see why the DNC thought what it did. I'm sure the GOP is loving the direction Trump took the party. So yes. I think the DNC was favorites towards Hillary. And No I don't think the DNC did something it should not have during the primaries. It did not work to prevent people from being able to vote for Bernie. It did not alter voting rules to prevent Bernie from being elected candidate. The primary happened with a minimum of irregularities (none is almost impossible). And as far as I know none that actually effected the outcome of any delegates. Nothing was rigged. Yes, when "Chief executive in charge of day to day operations" transforms into "some DNC members" it is impossible to have a constructive dialogue. 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. If she starts acting as stupid, racist, and elitist as Bernie Sanders then I would be more willing to vote for someone else; but being that someone else is Trump I would still vote for her even then. So *IF* she turned into bernie 2.0 and was facing off against someone like Romney, McCain, then I would vote for Romney and McCain. But right now, the past 8 years has been the best that's happened to this country in a long time and I would vote for 16-32 more years of Obama if I could, so someone aiming to maintain, expand, and defend his policies would be fantastic. Pretty much I would only vote against her if she turned into Bernie. When asked about how to save Muslims in Syria, Bernie responded that we should throw more muslims into the grinder. When told Dodd Frank was already doing what he was promising, he said that was crazy, when asked what he would do instead he said Dodd Frank. When asked how he would convince the majority republican congress to cede where Obama could not, he emphasized that it will magically happen anyway. He's an isolationist old white guy who pretends globalization does not happen and goes against the scientific consensus on food science research. So the only way I would not vote for Hilary would be if she turned out to be sanders in disguise. But the Hilary we have now? The one who will say anything to get what she wants, the one willing to mingle with deplorables to find middle ground, the one whose aims are to find what works and not what looks good on a tweet. The Hilary who, when asked about minimum wage, references research studies and PhDs over youtube videos. The Hilary who when asked what her plan is, goes to it in depth, tells us to go to her website where more details are at, and whose emphasis is on providing scientific backing to her statements. I am willing to vote for that Hillary.
hillary wants to arm the rebels in Aleppo that are spearheaded by Alqaeda, you americans never learn.. do you really want to give more weapons and support to Alqaeda? Would that be your grand plan to "save muslims".
|
On October 15 2016 04:20 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 04:14 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 04:08 LegalLord wrote:
The biggest favoritism was probably simply the massive superdelegate advantage Hillary started with. That basically crowded out all other viable establishment opposition, leaving Bernie Sanders as the only possible viable opposition. He also suffered strongly from poor exposure early on in the campaign, probably also because of Hillary's superdelegate advantage. And people really do have a tendency to just fall in line with the party line option, which in this case was Hillary without a doubt. If he had more exposure earlier in the campaign, he may well have managed to edge Hillary out. Judging by the fact that there have been quite a few people who said they chose Hillary but now wonder if Sanders might have been better, while most Sanders people still think they were right to make that choice, timing might have made a substantial difference. Yeah that sounds right. I wouldn't call that favoritism tho. Hillary is a Democrat who has worked with Democrat super delegates for years. Bernie was an outsider coming in. The super delegates favoring Hillary early on makes perfect sense. Well they also favored Hillary over all other possible establishment candidates which didn't give them any chance of victory. I saw not that much of O'Malley, but he seemed like a pretty good, principled candidate with some oratorical prowess. But no one cared about him because he didn't have a chance because Hillary took the establishment vote by having all the superdelegates support her from the start. The most likely result was decided before any votes were even cast.
How much of that is (1) HRC's strength and lifelong network building in Democratic party circles and (2) Democrats colluding for HRC. I think it is a lot more (1). Yeah, HRC did clear the field of any real challengers ahead of time by using her network power and loyalty. But that is because she really is that strong in Democratic circles. I also would have liked to see O'Malley get farther. But he just didn't have the donors or decades of connections.
EDIT: Obama level talent did beat the Clinton machine in 2008, but I didn't see anyone with Obama's skills this year. Bernie organizational skills were simply inferior to community-organizer-Obama.
|
I don't see it as a problem that the fraction of the country that is more involved in the government process has a stronger voice. One of the ways that is done is by voting, including in primaries. If the most involved 60% votes and the other 40% votes for apathy, that's not a bad thing.
|
On October 15 2016 04:16 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 04:11 LegalLord wrote:On October 15 2016 04:08 WhiteDog wrote:On October 15 2016 03:56 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 03:45 Nyxisto wrote:On October 15 2016 03:38 IgnE wrote:
so you personally are opposed to UBI because you are opposed to charity handouts but value keynesian stimulation as long as you get to decide how its spent. so in other words my criticism was dead on.
im not the one trying to tell the trumpkins how to spend their share of society's bounty. i am just pointing out that a discussion with you about your pseudofascist ordoliberal welfare schemes oppose UBI is going to be different than one with a conservative mid westerner who opposed welfare all together.
I still don't see what's fascist about it, it seems like a basic idea of fairness that if we redistribute money we don't do so unconditionally, this is already true for almost all tax redistribution. We don't just hand you your healthcare benefits in cash, we pay for your medical bills. Is this fascist? Should we just send you a syringe and and a bonesaw and you can have at it? Is paid childcare authoritarian? Almost all form of social benefits are supplied in the form of goods, institutions or assistance why is this offensive all of the sudden? I'd rather see that expanded because it is a material benefit for the poor rather than reducing it and handing you bitcoin because that's much less 'technocratic'. because the real affliction for those in poverty is not the material deprivation, it's the lack of autonomy. the assertion that almost all forms of social benefits are supplied in the form of goods, institutions or assistance is incoherent on its own terms (what is "assistance"?) but is also clearly wrong. social security is a cash payment that is a significant portion of the budget. disability and unemployment are cash payment with strings attached. @whitedog i don't see why you can't have both. jobs need doing. UBI is not the same as enforcing completely egalitarian incomes. provide a base level of UBI w no strings and jobs. Don't you think ot will be used as such ? In europe, most UBI i've learned about goes with the end of social security. It's an individualization of welfare. I saw it more as a "making a good socialized program is hard so let's just hand out a lump sum of money instead!" system in most UBI proposals I saw. Buy dem Nikez or pay for insurance. What you do ?
this facile critique is the opposite of "stalinist commune or gulag? what do you do?" how about college is free and there are plenty of valuable jobs that you might wish to take but you are also going to be provided with a minor stipend to spend as you see fit to create a less deprived space for you to pursue yur own goals rather than living where we tell you to live, working where we tell you to work, and consuming what we tell you to consume. the danger in having a welfare system determined by the state is falling into the productivist trap that destroyed 20th century socialism
|
|
|
On October 15 2016 04:37 LegalLord wrote:
I don't see it as a problem that the fraction of the country that is more involved in the government process has a stronger voice. One of the ways that is done is by voting, including in primaries. If the most involved 60% votes and the other 40% votes for apathy, that's not a bad thing.
I used 60% as a base line of party committed population.
Reality is probably more like 20% actually vote in primaries? But someone could probably provide that number.
|
On October 15 2016 04:36 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 04:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 15 2016 04:14 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 04:08 LegalLord wrote:
The biggest favoritism was probably simply the massive superdelegate advantage Hillary started with. That basically crowded out all other viable establishment opposition, leaving Bernie Sanders as the only possible viable opposition. He also suffered strongly from poor exposure early on in the campaign, probably also because of Hillary's superdelegate advantage. And people really do have a tendency to just fall in line with the party line option, which in this case was Hillary without a doubt. If he had more exposure earlier in the campaign, he may well have managed to edge Hillary out. Judging by the fact that there have been quite a few people who said they chose Hillary but now wonder if Sanders might have been better, while most Sanders people still think they were right to make that choice, timing might have made a substantial difference. Yeah that sounds right. I wouldn't call that favoritism tho. Hillary is a Democrat who has worked with Democrat super delegates for years. Bernie was an outsider coming in. The super delegates favoring Hillary early on makes perfect sense. Well they also favored Hillary over all other possible establishment candidates which didn't give them any chance of victory. I saw not that much of O'Malley, but he seemed like a pretty good, principled candidate with some oratorical prowess. But no one cared about him because he didn't have a chance because Hillary took the establishment vote by having all the superdelegates support her from the start. The most likely result was decided before any votes were even cast. How much of that is (1) HRC's strength and lifelong network building in Democratic party circles and (2) Democrats colluding for HRC. I think it is a lot more (1). Yeah, HRC did clear the field of any real challengers ahead of time by using her network power and loyalty. But that is because she really is that strong in Democratic circles. I also would have liked to see O'Malley get farther. But he just didn't have the donors or decades of connections. EDIT: Obama level talent did beat the Clinton machine in 2008, but I didn't see anyone with Obama's skills this year. Bernie organizational skills were simply inferior to community-organizer-Obama.
Hillary built a truly impressive coalition in her favor this election, nowhere near what anyone else had before. In fact Nate Silver called her the "most establishment favored candidate in history" based on endorsements. She really did crowd out all the establishment opposition.
All that connection building is, of course, a big ugly game of political favor trading, especially over the past eight years. There are worse things that could be done, but the notion that establishment favoritism got Hillary a primary win is perfectly valid.
|
On October 15 2016 04:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 04:37 LegalLord wrote:
I don't see it as a problem that the fraction of the country that is more involved in the government process has a stronger voice. One of the ways that is done is by voting, including in primaries. If the most involved 60% votes and the other 40% votes for apathy, that's not a bad thing. I used 60% as a base line of party committed population. Reality is probably more like 20% actually vote in primaries? But someone could probably provide that number.
Vote or don't, but a vote for no one is a vote for apathy. Besides the separate issue of voter suppression, you can only blame the people who didn't express their preference for their preference not being considered.
|
On October 15 2016 04:38 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 04:16 WhiteDog wrote:On October 15 2016 04:11 LegalLord wrote:On October 15 2016 04:08 WhiteDog wrote:On October 15 2016 03:56 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 03:45 Nyxisto wrote:On October 15 2016 03:38 IgnE wrote:
so you personally are opposed to UBI because you are opposed to charity handouts but value keynesian stimulation as long as you get to decide how its spent. so in other words my criticism was dead on.
im not the one trying to tell the trumpkins how to spend their share of society's bounty. i am just pointing out that a discussion with you about your pseudofascist ordoliberal welfare schemes oppose UBI is going to be different than one with a conservative mid westerner who opposed welfare all together.
I still don't see what's fascist about it, it seems like a basic idea of fairness that if we redistribute money we don't do so unconditionally, this is already true for almost all tax redistribution. We don't just hand you your healthcare benefits in cash, we pay for your medical bills. Is this fascist? Should we just send you a syringe and and a bonesaw and you can have at it? Is paid childcare authoritarian? Almost all form of social benefits are supplied in the form of goods, institutions or assistance why is this offensive all of the sudden? I'd rather see that expanded because it is a material benefit for the poor rather than reducing it and handing you bitcoin because that's much less 'technocratic'. because the real affliction for those in poverty is not the material deprivation, it's the lack of autonomy. the assertion that almost all forms of social benefits are supplied in the form of goods, institutions or assistance is incoherent on its own terms (what is "assistance"?) but is also clearly wrong. social security is a cash payment that is a significant portion of the budget. disability and unemployment are cash payment with strings attached. @whitedog i don't see why you can't have both. jobs need doing. UBI is not the same as enforcing completely egalitarian incomes. provide a base level of UBI w no strings and jobs. Don't you think ot will be used as such ? In europe, most UBI i've learned about goes with the end of social security. It's an individualization of welfare. I saw it more as a "making a good socialized program is hard so let's just hand out a lump sum of money instead!" system in most UBI proposals I saw. Buy dem Nikez or pay for insurance. What you do ? this facile critique is the opposite of "stalinist commune or gulag? what do you do?" how about college is free and there are plenty of valuable jobs that you might wish to take but you are also going to be provided with a minor stipend to spend as you see fit to create a less deprived space for you to pursue yur own goals rather than living where we tell you to live, working where we tell you to work, and consuming what we tell you to consume. the danger in having a welfare system determined by the state is falling into the productivist trap that destroyed 20th century socialism
The nice thing about UBI in theory is the incredibly low overhead cost compared to targeted efforts. It also hopefully allows for efficient solutions to take over and leverages things like the fact that in a lot of areas it's cheaper to give a homeless person housing then it is to leave them homeless.
On October 15 2016 04:50 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 04:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 15 2016 04:37 LegalLord wrote:
I don't see it as a problem that the fraction of the country that is more involved in the government process has a stronger voice. One of the ways that is done is by voting, including in primaries. If the most involved 60% votes and the other 40% votes for apathy, that's not a bad thing. I used 60% as a base line of party committed population. Reality is probably more like 20% actually vote in primaries? But someone could probably provide that number. Vote or don't, but a vote for no one is a vote for apathy. Besides the separate issue of voter suppression, you can only blame the people who didn't express their preference for their preference not being considered.
With the electoral college (and in an age of pretty good polling) a vote for no one is often a vote for someone in particular.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
