|
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 February 26 2017 06:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Is there a significant difference between "Perez then Ellison" and "Ellison then Perez"? It seems like they were equally supported and don't have hugely differing views, afaik. I see their willingness to work together as a great benefit for the DNC.
As far as I see it, it would have just been a symbolic gesture to the progressive wing of the Democratic party. It wouldn't have represented much functional difference in the DNC.
Which makes it unclear to me why the DNC wouldn't just extend the olive branch to the most disillusioned segment of their party on something that doesn't really matter.
|
On February 26 2017 06:42 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2017 06:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Is there a significant difference between "Perez then Ellison" and "Ellison then Perez"? It seems like they were equally supported and don't have hugely differing views, afaik. I see their willingness to work together as a great benefit for the DNC. As far as I see it, it would have just been a symbolic gesture to the progressive wing of the Democratic party. It wouldn't have represented much functional difference in the DNC. Which makes it unclear to me why the DNC wouldn't just extend the olive branch to the most disillusioned segment of their party on something that doesn't really matter.
They are tools of the donor class that happen to not be total troglodytes on social issues.
|
On February 26 2017 06:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Is there a significant difference between "Perez then Ellison" and "Ellison then Perez"? It seems like they were equally supported and don't have hugely differing views, afaik. I see their willingness to work together as a great benefit for the DNC.
The biggest point at large is in perception, as GH has explained. It's also a question of logic; when centrist democrats tell you that they are perfectly fine with both candidates, and leftwing democrats tell you that they favor one of the candidates very much, logic dictates that you please people 150% instead of 50%, if the partnership is equal. Of course, it isn't, but next election we're going to pretend it is equal again. You have to unite with us to stop the others, so that we get what we want and you get nothing. That's a cool partnership we have there.
There is also a more substantive argument that has to do with state funding vs national funding. Apparently there are firms who have vested interests in keeping the budget of the DNC going exactly the way it's going and those firms have consultants who take part in the decision making process and choose how the budget is allocated, which explains in part why democrats are so weak at the state level. Ellison has pledged to do something about those consultants' conflicts of interests and Perez has said that he wants a large spectrum of positions to be heard or whatever he said not to answer the question. I didn't follow that very closely though so my account is most likely sketchy, you should research that on your own if you're interested.
|
As long as were on epic fails in the mainstream
How pathetic does corporate media look letting Trump beat them to the punch on this? If corporate media and Democrats are the best we have against Trump we might as well start preparing for Trump's second term now.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
GH sniped me on one troll-twit. I now post the other.
|
They can't not invite him. The dinner isn't hosted by the White House or government.
|
On February 26 2017 07:15 Plansix wrote:
They can't not invite him. The dinner isn't hosted by the White House or government.
C'mon man! They were supposed to say they weren't going before he did. Use your noggin.
To their credit, I think Time and 1 other publication had the sense to do it before he did iirc. Though I bet several are putting out stories right now about how they weren't going and just hadn't told anyone yet.
|
|
|
I fail to see how the President hiding from the scary media is a win for him.
|
It isn't. They will just make fun of him and play b-roll of Obama.
|
On February 26 2017 07:22 Plansix wrote:
It isn't. They will just make fun of him and play b-roll of Obama.
No one is going to go, or watch. It's going to make them look pathetic if they try to hold it anyway (they will, they sell those tables for big $$$ and don't do anything else as an organization). Think Samantha Bee is doing something at the same time (she was an early adopter of the "why the hell would people go to that"), it will probably get better ratings.
|
Smart move by Trump to not go. There exist no world where he would come out of that dinner looking better than how he went in.
|
On February 26 2017 07:32 On_Slaught wrote:
Smart move by Trump to not go. There exist no world where he would come out of that dinner looking better than how he went in.
Probably would have went something like this tweet
|
The emperor's clothes sure look great.
|
On February 26 2017 06:05 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2017 04:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:White House officials said a report disputing the threat posed by travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries included in President Donald Trump's executive order was "not the intelligence assessment the president asked for," according to a report published Saturday by the Wall Street Journal.
“The President asked for an intelligence assessment. This is not the intelligence assessment the President asked for,” an unnamed senior administration official said as quoted in the Wall Street Journal's report.
Unnamed officials said that the report ignored information that supports the travel ban, per the report, and that they have not yet been presented with the report they requested.
The Associated Press reported on Friday that it had obtained a draft document of the report, which concluded that citizenship of the countries included in Trump's ban is an "unlikely indicator" of terrorism threat level.
When Trump announced the now-blocked ban in January, however, he specifically cited "foreign terrorist entry" as one threat it would eliminate.
“We all know what that means,” he said.
Gillian M. Christensen, acting press secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, told the Wall Street Journal that the dispute over the report was on the basis of "sources and quality, not politics."
Neither the White House nor the Department of Homeland Security immediately responded to TPM's requests for comment. Source 'This is not the truth we want. Go away with these facts and make up new ones. We can't outright make bad decisions, just tell us it's good so we can blame you if all goes wrong' Or another case of ' it doesn't matter what the facts are it matters how people feel'
Kind of like the Mainstream Media Accountability Survey where they emailed everybody that took it to take it again because thousands of democrats took the quiz and "sabotaged" the results.
|
On February 26 2017 07:44 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2017 06:05 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On February 26 2017 04:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:White House officials said a report disputing the threat posed by travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries included in President Donald Trump's executive order was "not the intelligence assessment the president asked for," according to a report published Saturday by the Wall Street Journal.
“The President asked for an intelligence assessment. This is not the intelligence assessment the President asked for,” an unnamed senior administration official said as quoted in the Wall Street Journal's report.
Unnamed officials said that the report ignored information that supports the travel ban, per the report, and that they have not yet been presented with the report they requested.
The Associated Press reported on Friday that it had obtained a draft document of the report, which concluded that citizenship of the countries included in Trump's ban is an "unlikely indicator" of terrorism threat level.
When Trump announced the now-blocked ban in January, however, he specifically cited "foreign terrorist entry" as one threat it would eliminate.
“We all know what that means,” he said.
Gillian M. Christensen, acting press secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, told the Wall Street Journal that the dispute over the report was on the basis of "sources and quality, not politics."
Neither the White House nor the Department of Homeland Security immediately responded to TPM's requests for comment. Source 'This is not the truth we want. Go away with these facts and make up new ones. We can't outright make bad decisions, just tell us it's good so we can blame you if all goes wrong' Or another case of ' it doesn't matter what the facts are it matters how people feel' Kind of like the Mainstream Media Accountability Survey where they emailed everybody that took it to take it again because thousands of democrats took the quiz and "sabotaged" the results.
You cannot post this without highlighting question 22.
"Do you believe that if Republicans were obstructing Obama like Democrats are doing to President Trump, the mainstream media would attack Republicans?"
They're not even pretending to not be dishonest at this point, I have some admiration for how openly they are assuming their supporters are ignorant.
|
Happy for Perez, happy that Ellison was chosen as deputy chair (and gets to keep his seat in the House), and happy for the party that these two will work together at the helm.
|
On February 26 2017 07:50 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2017 07:44 Gahlo wrote:On February 26 2017 06:05 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On February 26 2017 04:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:White House officials said a report disputing the threat posed by travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries included in President Donald Trump's executive order was "not the intelligence assessment the president asked for," according to a report published Saturday by the Wall Street Journal.
“The President asked for an intelligence assessment. This is not the intelligence assessment the President asked for,” an unnamed senior administration official said as quoted in the Wall Street Journal's report.
Unnamed officials said that the report ignored information that supports the travel ban, per the report, and that they have not yet been presented with the report they requested.
The Associated Press reported on Friday that it had obtained a draft document of the report, which concluded that citizenship of the countries included in Trump's ban is an "unlikely indicator" of terrorism threat level.
When Trump announced the now-blocked ban in January, however, he specifically cited "foreign terrorist entry" as one threat it would eliminate.
“We all know what that means,” he said.
Gillian M. Christensen, acting press secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, told the Wall Street Journal that the dispute over the report was on the basis of "sources and quality, not politics."
Neither the White House nor the Department of Homeland Security immediately responded to TPM's requests for comment. Source 'This is not the truth we want. Go away with these facts and make up new ones. We can't outright make bad decisions, just tell us it's good so we can blame you if all goes wrong' Or another case of ' it doesn't matter what the facts are it matters how people feel' Kind of like the Mainstream Media Accountability Survey where they emailed everybody that took it to take it again because thousands of democrats took the quiz and "sabotaged" the results. You cannot post this without highlighting question 22. "Do you believe that if Republicans were obstructing Obama like Democrats are doing to President Trump, the mainstream media would attack Republicans?" They're not even pretending to not be dishonest at this point, I have some admiration for how openly they are assuming their supporters are ignorant.
The ridiculousness of the sum is better than its parts. It just has a really good punchline. After about 3 questions I realized that the answers they want to here were all "A. Yes" unless it was only a text box.
|
On February 26 2017 05:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Perez advocates, what benefit do we have with Perez as the chair rather than deputy chair?
So Kwiz posted and didn't have anything (unless you count Ellison keeping his seat, which I don't think he was under any obligation to leave unless they added a rule?) so I think that answers your question. There aren't any.
|
On February 26 2017 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2017 05:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Perez advocates, what benefit do we have with Perez as the chair rather than deputy chair? So Kwiz posted and didn't have anything (unless you count Ellison keeping his seat, which I don't think he was under any obligation to leave unless they added a rule?) so I think that answers your question. There aren't any.
I think kwiz posted a succinct comment on his feelings about the election, had already explained at length previously why he supported Perez, and is tired of your passive-aggressive posting about him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
