US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7059
Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On March 07 2017 06:56 WolfintheSheep wrote: Isn't this exactly the kind of thing that the Super Delegate system is for? I can understand not liking it, but it feels weird to have a system that allows the party greater influence and final say, and then not like that the party has greater influence. Yes, superdelegates exist exactly to prevent things like Trump from happening. I think this is my point though. Someone like Kwiz can point to all the reasons nothing was wrong and everything was ethical. But what if the argument is that the *entire* framework is, in itself, unethical? That's kind of my point here. You can tell everyone "no, this is totally legal", but the person you are saying that to believes the entire system should be illegal. There are quite a few people who believe the entire idea of super delegates is fundamentally unethical. Pulling this back a bit further: Ellison is someone I would have expected to get rid of super delegates. Do any posters here think Perez will abolish super delegates? | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 07 2017 06:58 xDaunt wrote: Just out of curiosity, how many of you on the left who think that the media screwed over Bernie during the primary also think that the media is biased against republicans? Not sure if I'm on the left but probably more so than not. I'd say biased yes, but the right also bullshits more often, making it difficult to say if it really isn't justified. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. | ||
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
Is this real? It just sounds like theonion material... | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 07 2017 07:01 TheDwf wrote: Is this real? It just sounds like theonion material... Carson has said stupider in the past. None of us are surprised. | ||
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On March 07 2017 06:58 xDaunt wrote: Just out of curiosity, how many of you on the left who think that the media screwed over Bernie during the primary also think that the media is biased against republicans? It is, but I think the degree to which it is is overstated by conservative media.It was very obvious from the moderators during the presidential debates. For the most part I think it's not really intentional on the part of news organizations, it's just unconscious bias leaking through due to most journalists being more liberal. NPR was more Clinton-biased during the primary than I found acceptable, but overall they're normally the least biased, I would say (they'll usually present a conflicting/opposing view even if it's one they likely disagree with). I will say, for all that CNN was called the Clinton News Network by conservatives, they practically gave Trump free air time by airing rallies unedited during the GOP primary. | ||
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
GreenHorizons
United States23250 Posts
On March 07 2017 06:58 xDaunt wrote: Just out of curiosity, how many of you on the left who think that the media screwed over Bernie during the primary also think that the media is biased against republicans? Yes, but so is reality. But the question is problematic for the same reason as that poll on trust was earlier. Do I think Fox News is unfair to Republicans, of course not, but is MSNBC unfair to Republicans, obviously. But, we got kwiz over here saying that putting a known cheater for Hillary in charge of the DNC doesn't indicate that it wasn't a fair primary, so the line between fair and unfair is clearly being blurred. Since Carson has come up, I think it's a good time to remind people why "the resistance" from the Democrat establishment was DOA. + Show Spoiler + https://twitter.com/shawneebadger/status/837431065723592704 Oops, meant this one: EDIT: Plansix, still think it will be hard to get 60 votes for a SCOTUS appointment? Democrats just gave Trump 62 for Carson, who himself said he wasn't qualified to be running shit. | ||
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On March 07 2017 06:58 xDaunt wrote: Just out of curiosity, how many of you on the left who think that the media screwed over Bernie during the primary also think that the media is biased against republicans? I think certain institutions naturally lend themselves well to science and cultural advancement. Things like climate change make it extremely difficult to be impartial. When there is not a single source of reputable refutation to man mad climate change, how is a journalist supposed to publish something? Climate science is just a huge amount of data and modeling. Entertainment is an industry that always focuses on the newest trends in culture. It also has a hefty minority and gay population. Entertainment is never going to be on the side of social conservatism so long as it is against gay rights. Think about marijuana. The entertainment industry accepted and perpetuated the idea that marijuana is ethical years ago. The country is still catching up. How about I'll word it this way: In 50 years, do you think issues like abortion, gay rights, or any other religiously-inspired republican issue will still be in contention? Entertainment is always ahead of policy. | ||
Biff The Understudy
France7890 Posts
On March 07 2017 06:58 xDaunt wrote: Just out of curiosity, how many of you on the left who think that the media screwed over Bernie during the primary also think that the media is biased against republicans? Who is the media? Breitbart, The NYT, Fox, CNN, Infowar? Precise and I'll be very happy to answer. You really will need to narrow it down for your question to make any sense at all. | ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On March 07 2017 07:00 Mohdoo wrote: Yes, superdelegates exist exactly to prevent things like Trump from happening. I think this is my point though. Someone like Kwiz can point to all the reasons nothing was wrong and everything was ethical. But what if the argument is that the *entire* framework is, in itself, unethical? That's kind of my point here. You can tell everyone "no, this is totally legal", but the person you are saying that to believes the entire system should be illegal. There are quite a few people who believe the entire idea of super delegates is fundamentally unethical. Pulling this back a bit further: Ellison is someone I would have expected to get rid of super delegates. Do any posters here think Perez will abolish super delegates? that's going to get into a larger and trickier questions of meta-ethics; and most people, as usual, base their opinions on whether it favors their side rather than an actual thorough understanding of the underlying ethical and practical questions. The idea of super delegates has its issues, and its merits. Do you want to go over them more fully? that quite a few people believe something doesn't mean all that much to me, because most people are idiots and thoroughly untrained in the subject matter. of course it matters to them. alot of people believe somethings or some other thing is unfair; and sometimes those conflict. there is no universally agreed upon sense of fairness, so some people will always believe they were treated unfairly regardless. if people were interested in talking abotu the process and whether superdelegates should exist, that's fine, and people would be happy to consider that. hmm, this post feels like it's probably useless, I'll just stop here. | ||
kwizach
3658 Posts
On March 07 2017 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote: But, we got kwiz over here saying that putting a known cheater for Hillary in charge of the DNC doesn't indicate that it wasn't a fair primary, so the line between fair and unfair is clearly being blurred. "kwiz over here" is saying that your usual obfuscation and outrage won't help you evade the fact that you haven't been able to produce a single piece of evidence to indicate that the DNC actively undermined the Sanders campaign. With regards to Donna Brazile becoming interim chair of the DNC after the primary was already over, I'll let Tad Devine, the chief strategist of the Sanders campaign, comment on that: "If Bernie Sanders had been the nominee of the party and the Russians hacked my emails instead of John [Podesta]’s, we'd be reading all these notes between Donna and I and they'd say Donna was cozying up to the Bernie campaign. This is taken out of context. I found her to be a fair arbiter, I think she did a good and honest job." I'm sure we'll be back to square one in less than a month though. I guess it's an easier escape than accepting that more people simply preferred Clinton. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States23250 Posts
On March 07 2017 07:21 kwizach wrote: "kwiz over here" is saying that your usual obfuscation and outrage won't help you evade the fact that you haven't been able to produce a single piece of evidence to indicate that the DNC actively undermined the Sanders campaign. With regards to Donna Brazile becoming interim chair of the DNC after the primary was already over, I'll let Tad Devine, the chief strategist of the Sanders campaign, comment on that: "If Bernie Sanders had been the nominee of the party and the Russians hacked my emails instead of John [Podesta]’s, we'd be reading all these notes between Donna and I and they'd say Donna was cozying up to the Bernie campaign. This is taken out of context. I found her to be a fair arbiter, I think she did a good and honest job." I'm sure we'll be back to square one in less than a month though. I guess it's an easier escape than accepting that more people simply preferred Clinton. Bruh... If there was an email of Donna cheating for Bernie it would have been released. She didn't cheat for Bernie, she cheated for Hillary, got booted off CNN for it and the DNC said "let's reward her cheating by putting her in charge". But yeah, clearly nothing to see there. I mean it was after the primary, so it's not like she was on CNN lying about being neutral the whole time. Tad is a terrible person to point to btw. | ||
kwizach
3658 Posts
On March 07 2017 07:26 GreenHorizons wrote: Bruh... If there was an email of Donna cheating for Bernie it would have been released. She didn't cheat for Bernie, she cheated for Hillary, got booted off CNN for it and the DNC said "let's reward her cheating by putting her in charge". But yeah, clearly nothing to see there. I mean it was after the primary, so it's not like she was on CNN lying about being neutral the whole time. Tad is a terrible person to point to btw. Except Devine said the exact opposite of what you're claiming with zero factual basis or inside knowledge, and since his e-mails were not hacked I guess we'll have to go by what he said, which is that Brazile was "a fair arbiter". That settles that. | ||
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
On March 07 2017 06:07 On_Slaught wrote: Obviously but I'm just saying I want that to happen sooner than later to end the suffering. I think that one thing every single person in this thread would agree to is that the drama is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Over the next year he will be going to war with his own party on a daily basis on numerous things. He will begin to feel more more isolated and the drama in Washington will subsequently get worse. I'm slightly worried that this could devolve into violence rather than just drama. Some of the comments I've been reading over at Breitbart make me wonder if that could be a possibility. There are a number of crazy people out there who will be with Trump no matter what happens. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States23250 Posts
On March 07 2017 07:31 kwizach wrote: Except Devine said the exact opposite of what you're claiming with zero factual basis or inside knowledge, and since his e-mails were not hacked I guess we'll have to go by what he said, which is that Brazile was "a fair arbiter". That settles that. No, we don't have to take the word of a Democratic party PR guy. That's a choice you're making because it fits your interpretation. Cheating isn't fair, even if they get someone desperate to work for them to say that it was (with no evidence of his claim). We have factual evidence that Donna cheated for Hillary btw or are you that far gone that you think we don't? | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On March 07 2017 07:32 Ayaz2810 wrote: I'm slightly worried that this could devolve into violence rather than just drama. Some of the comments I've been reading over at Breitbart make me wonder if that could be a possibility. There are a number of crazy people out there who will be with Trump no matter what happens. while it is a possibliity; don't read too much into comments from breitbart, or any news site really. comment sections are the worst of cesspools on the internet, and are terribly unrepresentative of actual numbers and beliefs. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I think I've established that I give few fucks about PC. One example more unique to me could be my use of "the Ukraine" to mock a genuinely stupid nationalistic idiocy. I think the same can be said for most of the more mainstream PC complaints. But damn. The way conservatives turn PC into a deep, systemic issue that is destroying America because no one can talk about anything and the media is killing discourse... well sorry, but I'm simply not on board. It's not nearly that bad. And same goes for right-wing accusations of biased, unfair media. I see it's true but the issue is overblown for political convenience. | ||
| ||