|
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 March 07 2017 04:37 LightSpectra wrote:
I agree with LL, nobody in their right mind thinks the Democratic primary was even and fair. The media coverage of Clinton versus Sanders was preposterously one-sided.
Shield asked a specific question: did Sanders get "screwed by his own party so Hillary Clinton could keep running for president?". The factual answer to that question is that there is zero evidence that this was the case, as I explained. With regards to media coverage, the Clinton candidacy did receive more coverage than Sanders', which is completely unsurprising considering Clinton's name recognition, her resume, the fact that she was the runner-up in 2008, and the fact that she was overwhelmingly favorite to win it, as she did. However, although Clinton's candidacy received more coverage, that coverage was also substantially more negative in tone than the coverage Sanders' candidacy received.
In any case, I don't really see the point of reviving this discussion yet again -- Shield's question was answered, and the thread history is there for anyone to scroll through :-)
|
But the DNC wasn't even his party... How did he get screwed by his "own" party... lol... Either way, this shit already passed. Let's discuss how Trump is still shitting up the WH.
|
On March 07 2017 04:37 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz said Monday that he has seen no evidence that would support President Donald Trump’s accusation that former President Barack Obama had ordered an illegal wiretap of Trump Tower during last year’s presidential campaign.
“I learned a long time ago, I'm going to keep my eyes wide open,” Chaffetz (R-Utah) said on “CBS This Morning.” “You never know when you turn a corner what you may or may not see. But thus far I have not seen anything directly that would support what the president has said.”
Trump made his explosive and unsubstantiated accusation on Saturday morning, when he wrote on Twitter that he had “just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory.” While the president leveled the charge with certainty, White House officials have not yet offered any proof to back Trump’s claims and have instead called for a Congressional investigation to verify them.
Chaffetz was seemingly open to the notion of a Congressional inquiry into Trump’s allegation, telling “CBS This Morning” that the House Intelligence Committee, chaired by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), would take the lead in checking it out. The House Oversight Committee, Chaffetz said, “will play a supporting role.”
And while he conceded that he had not yet seen any evidence to support Trump’s claim, Chaffetz seemed open to the idea that Trump might be in possession of some proof that has yet to come to light. Both Obama and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper have flatly denied that such a wiretap was ever put into place, but the Utah lawmaker said Trump likely would not have made the accusation without some piece of evidence.
If Trump’s allegation is true, Chaffetz said, “the paper trail should be there” from whatever court authorized the wiretap.
“Look, it’s a very serious allegation. The president has at his fingertips tens of billions of dollars in intelligence apparatus,” he said. “I’ve got to believe -- I think he might have something there, but if not, we're going to find out.” Source
Nunes and Chaffetz tentatively jumping on Trump's call for a probe as if it delegitimizes the Trump/Russia story.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 07 2017 04:44 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 04:33 LegalLord wrote:
It does take a special amount of cognitive dissonance (or, at the very least, conflict of interest) to look at what transpired over the course of the Democratic primaries and conclude that it was all just peachy and great and well-done. I believe it about as much as I believe DWS saying post-resignation, "I did nothing wrong and just took one for the team guys!" Speaking of learning to scroll past the discussions that suck, should I just skip the next 5-10 pages? I don't remember the last time someone said something new in the "was Bernie cheated" debate, but it doesn't stop it from shitting up the thread every time it comes up. If someone brought up something the DNC did to screw Bernie, not just stuff they said in internal emails, that'd be new ground.
What you have is all you're going to get; if what you have seen isn't going to convince you (as it takes some very impressive idiots to give blatant written proof of deliberate bias) then you probably disagree. As it stands, though, this time around we have above average reason to relive the campaign over and over again because we elected a clown because of the faults of his opponent, and said opponent's core base of denialists will not admit it beyond a vague "she did things wrong, but general unspecified things, not specific things."
I know you don't like that answer. But hey, I'm not the one that brought it back just now. I could possibly point to specific items, like debate schedules, but those have more plausible deniability than DNC emails.
|
|
|
did you read the shorenstein report that Kwiz linked and is also in my sig?
there's a big difference between some imperfections and a grossly unfair process. The question depends alot on what exact claim is being made. and there's also a big difference between issues with how media reports on things, and any impropriety in the electing process itself. these distinctions are extremely important to the discussion.
It's not like Sanders got zero coverage, and was completely ignored.
relying on your memory isn't recommended, as there's a VAST amount of literature that proves the flaws in human memory.
|
On March 07 2017 04:48 ShoCkeyy wrote:
But the DNC wasn't even his party... How did he get screwed by his "own" party... lol... Either way, this shit already passed. Let's discuss how Trump is still shitting up the WH.
I and many others want to see Trump out of the White House. But that's not going to happen if outrage and insanity gobbles up all of the mainstream media's attention whilst reasonable people go mostly unheard. There are systemic problems that need to be addressed.
|
|
|
On March 07 2017 04:55 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 04:48 ShoCkeyy wrote:
But the DNC wasn't even his party... How did he get screwed by his "own" party... lol... Either way, this shit already passed. Let's discuss how Trump is still shitting up the WH. I and many others want to see Trump out of the White House. But that's not going to happen if outrage and insanity gobbles up all of the mainstream media's attention whilst reasonable people go mostly unheard. There are systemic problems that need to be addressed.
Unfortunately, the problem there isn't a result of the media, but a result of people themselves; the media show what people want to watch, and people don't want to watch reasonable people, they want to watch outrageous things.
|
On March 07 2017 04:54 zlefin wrote:did you read the shorenstein report that Kwiz linked and is also in my sig? there's a big difference between some imperfections and a grossly unfair process. The question depends alot on what exact claim is being made. and there's also a big difference between issues with how media reports on things, and any impropriety in the electing process itself.
Tell me which part you have a problem with:
1. The DNC strongly favored Clinton and did some things that were biased in her favor.
2. Nevertheless there is no evidence that the DNC were actively rigging the primary in her favor.
3. The mainstream media coverage was overwhelmingly better for Clinton, even though a greater percentage of it was negative in tone.
|
By the way, I'm not sure this article was linked in the thread. I found it to be an insightful read into Session's character.
'Gun for hire': how Jeff Sessions used his prosecuting power to target Democrats
It was 1989 and Outlaw, the Republican mayor of Mobile, Alabama, was girding himself for his re-election campaign. Word was that Lambert Mims, a popular local Democrat, would run against him. Some Republicans were growing skittish.
But a close friend of Outlaw’s had something planned. The friend had been president of the state Young Republicans, chairman of the regional GOP, then a senior official in the Mobile County Republican party. And now he was the top federal prosecutor in southern Alabama.
“Jeff says that Mims won’t be around by that time,” an Outlaw aide said ominously, while discussing the election at a City Hall meeting that February, according to a sworn affidavit from an official who was in the room.
A few months later, Mims confirmed that he would be challenging Outlaw. Then Jeff Sessions made his move.
Sessions, then the US attorney for Alabama’s southern district, indicted Mims on criminal corruption charges relating to obscure four-year-old negotiations over a planned recycling plant. Mims was the ninth notable Democrat in the area to be indicted by Sessions since the young Republican was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. He would not be the last.
Opponents concluded that Sessions used his federal prosecutor’s office, and the FBI agents who worked for him, as political weapons, according to more than half a dozen veterans of Mobile’s 1980s legal and political circles. Some alleged in court filings that the ambitious young Republican actually worked from a “hitlist” of Democratic targets.
“Sessions was a gun for hire,” said Tom Purvis, a former sheriff of Mobile County, “and he went after political enemies.” Purvis was acquitted of charges against him that Sessions oversaw after Purvis unseated another Outlaw ally from the elected sheriff’s position.
Source
|
On March 07 2017 04:58 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 04:54 zlefin wrote:did you read the shorenstein report that Kwiz linked and is also in my sig? there's a big difference between some imperfections and a grossly unfair process. The question depends alot on what exact claim is being made. and there's also a big difference between issues with how media reports on things, and any impropriety in the electing process itself. Tell me which part you have a problem with: 1. The DNC strongly favored Clinton and did some things that were biased in her favor. 2. Nevertheless there is no evidence that the DNC were actively rigging the primary in her favor. 3. The mainstream media coverage was overwhelmingly better for Clinton, even though a greater percentage of it was negative in tone.
The problem is that Kwiz etc are arguing a matter of technicality regarding rules and regulations. But it is a fruitless effort because no one cares about that.
|
I don't think there's any question that Sessions is a total scumbag.
On my social media, I saw overwhelmingly protest against DeVos which confused me. I always thought Sessions was by far the most evil person Trump associated with.
|
On March 07 2017 04:58 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 04:54 zlefin wrote:did you read the shorenstein report that Kwiz linked and is also in my sig? there's a big difference between some imperfections and a grossly unfair process. The question depends alot on what exact claim is being made. and there's also a big difference between issues with how media reports on things, and any impropriety in the electing process itself. Tell me which part you have a problem with: 1. The DNC strongly favored Clinton and did some things that were biased in her favor. 2. Nevertheless there is no evidence that the DNC were actively rigging the primary in her favor. 3. The mainstream media coverage was overwhelmingly better for Clinton, even though a greater percentage of it was negative in tone.
I dispute 3, based on the aforementioned report, which had far more effort put into it than your memory.
I agree with 2.
On 1, I largely agree, but would question how much real effect they had, and whether it was in fact untoward or unreasonable. and I may dispute which exact actions were taken, were you to list them. The question is, was he given a fair shake, not a perfect ideal world shake, but a fair chance.
|
On March 07 2017 05:01 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 04:58 LightSpectra wrote:On March 07 2017 04:54 zlefin wrote:did you read the shorenstein report that Kwiz linked and is also in my sig? there's a big difference between some imperfections and a grossly unfair process. The question depends alot on what exact claim is being made. and there's also a big difference between issues with how media reports on things, and any impropriety in the electing process itself. Tell me which part you have a problem with: 1. The DNC strongly favored Clinton and did some things that were biased in her favor. 2. Nevertheless there is no evidence that the DNC were actively rigging the primary in her favor. 3. The mainstream media coverage was overwhelmingly better for Clinton, even though a greater percentage of it was negative in tone. The problem is that Kwiz etc are arguing a matter of technicality regarding rules and regulations. But it is a fruitless effort because no one cares about that.
No, I'm arguing a matter of factual reality. If you have facts that make the statement "Sanders got screwed by his own party so Hillary Clinton could keep running for president" true, feel free to bring them up. Otherwise, I don't see the point of starting this discussion again.
|
Well it's true that the overwhelming super-delegate preference for Clinton screwed over Sanders a bit. If you just look at the delegate count by itself then Clinton still would have won, but it's questionable if more Sanders supporters/less Clinton supporters would've come to the polls on primary days if the super-delegate preference didn't seem predestined.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 07 2017 05:10 LightSpectra wrote:
Well it's true that the overwhelming super-delegate preference for Clinton screwed over Sanders a bit. If you just look at the delegate count by itself then Clinton still would have won, but it's questionable if more Sanders supporters/less Clinton supporters would've come to the polls on primary days if the super-delegate preference didn't seem predestined.
The party very clearly chose their favorite candidate and broadcasted an overwhelming consensus (of party officials) to say as much. Bernie was just an annoying distraction.
|
On March 07 2017 05:10 LightSpectra wrote:
Well it's true that the overwhelming super-delegate preference for Clinton screwed over Sanders a bit. If you just look at the delegate count by itself then Clinton still would have won, but it's questionable if more Sanders supporters/less Clinton supporters would've come to the polls on primary days if the super-delegate preference didn't seem predestined.
possibly.
But of course he still did quite well. Isn't it also possible that sanders got just as many votes as he would have if the superdelegates hadn't existed? and that they had no real effect on it?
Or that some clinton supporters didn't bother to go out and vote for her because they felt it was in the bag? but would have if the superdelegates weren't involved? and it's known that superdelegates are loath to override the winner of the popular vote.
so i'd say it's not so clear that the super-delegate preference for clinton (which in itself is entirely justifiable) screwed over sanders. It might have been an issue, but it's hard to be sure, and it really could go either way. It certainly creates a question in how to cover the matter, which has no clear answer.
the margins of clinton's victory were high enough that it'd require a modification of quite a few % in the vote totals to actually have changed the outcome.
|
On March 07 2017 05:10 LightSpectra wrote:
Well it's true that the overwhelming super-delegate preference for Clinton screwed over Sanders a bit. If you just look at the delegate count by itself then Clinton still would have won, but it's questionable if more Sanders supporters/less Clinton supporters would've come to the polls on primary days if the super-delegate preference didn't seem predestined.
Firstly, I have yet to hear of a single voter whose vote was decided by how many superdelegates supported Clinton. Secondly, even if you completely removed the superdelegate count (superdelegates who, by the way, have never gone against the will of the voters), Clinton would just as much have been considered the favorite, for the reasons I mentioned previously. Thirdly, what evidence do you have that the system did not actually reduce the number of Clinton supporters who went to the polls on primary days? Because if your argument is that many people's decision to go to polls was impacted due to how superdelegates made the race look, it can just as well be argued that it led Clinton voters not to go to the polls, since it looked like their favorite was going to win anyway. (edit: sniped by zlefin :p)
In short, not only did the superdelegate system likely not have the slightest impact on how people voted, even if it did it's not clear that it can be said it favored Clinton, and her win was in any case by a much wider margin than any difference we could reasonably assume the system could make with regards to people's votes.
|
On Trump's new travel ban:
Trump’s Revised Travel Ban Spares Iraqis
President Trump on Monday signed a revised version of his executive order that would for the first time rewrite American immigration policy to bar migrants from predominantly Muslim nations, removing citizens of Iraq from the original travel embargo and scrapping a provision that explicitly protected religious minorities.
The order, which comes about a month after federal judges blocked Mr. Trump’s haphazardly executed ban in January on residents from seven Middle Eastern and African countries, will not affect people who had previously been issued visas — a change that the administration hopes will avoid the chaos, protests and legal challenges that followed the first order.
But it did little to halt criticism from Democrats and immigrant rights groups, which predicted a renewed fight in the courts. Mr. Trump’s initial, hastily issued order on Jan. 27 prompted protests across the country, leaving tearful families stranded at airports abroad and in the United States.
The new measure will be phased in over the next two weeks, according to officials with the Department of Homeland Security.
John F. Kelly, the Homeland Security secretary, said the order was “prospective” and applied “only to foreign nationals outside of the United States” who do not have a valid visa.
“If you have a current valid visa to travel, we welcome you,” said Mr. Kelly, appearing alongside Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson and Attorney General Jeff Sessions at the Ronald Reagan Federal Building in Washington early Monday — before leaving without taking reporters’ questions.
“Unregulated, unvetted travel is not a universal privilege, especially when national security is at stake,” Mr. Kelly added.
The indefinite ban on refugees from Syria also has been reduced to a 120-day ban, requiring review and renewal. The new order retains a temporary ban on all refugees.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
