|
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 November 03 2017 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 09:19 Plansix wrote:
Why even have primaries then? Just let people pay for a slot and cut the bullshit. Exactly, but they wanted their cake and to eat it to. They want the pageantry of primaries but not the actual process.
There is a process! We have 50 something primary elections run by 50 something (I think 57) ~state level Democratic party organizations. The DNC has zero control over these elections. If you want to assume that it was rigged to make yourself feel better about Bernie losing by millions of votes, then you need to show exactly how the DNC was able to control the 50 something ~state/territory primary elections/caucuses. Show your work.
EDIT: here is the Nevada 2016 democratic primary/caucus mess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Democratic_caucuses_and_convention,_2016
This is your best possible chance of showing actual rigging. Go through it. Find where the DNC rigged it. I will be waiting.
|
On November 03 2017 09:22 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 03 2017 09:19 Plansix wrote:
Why even have primaries then? Just let people pay for a slot and cut the bullshit. Exactly, but they wanted their cake and to eat it to. They want the pageantry of primaries but not the actual process. There is a process! We have 50 something primary elections run by 50 something (I think 57) ~state level Democratic party organizations. The DNC has zero control over these elections. If you want to assume that it was rigged to make yourself feel better about Bernie losing by millions of votes, then you need to show exactly how the DNC was able to control the 50 something ~state/territory primary elections/caucuses. Show your work.
I think the issue is that Hillary used money from the DNC fund (granted, money she raised in their name) for her personal campaign prior to her nomination.
While not illegal it would certainly be unethical.
|
On November 03 2017 09:21 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 03 2017 09:13 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 03 2017 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 03 2017 09:06 Wulfey_LA wrote:What is the scandal here? That HRC used her fundraising to exert influence over the DNC? DNC was a financial wreck post Obama and HRC bailed it out. Also remember, the DNC runs ZERO primary elections. The state level parties each run their own primary election according to their own zany rules (see, every caucus having their own undemocratic rules). + Show Spoiler +Note that Bernie himself had a fundraising agreement with the DNC and signed it 2 months after HRC. But Bernie being Bernie, he raised zero dollars for the DNC and got zero influence. Why support downticket races when you know you don't have the votes to win the nom? Bernie didn't even try to win any insiders over to his side and then he didn't win enough votes from voters to win. I guess it makes sense that Socialist Bernie would think that he was entitled to exactly the same influence over the direction of the party as someone who actually raised money for the party and put in work make the party stronger.
The move, which comes more than two months after Hillary Clinton's campaign signed such an agreement in August, will allow Sanders' team to raise up to $33,400 for the committee as well as $2,700 for the campaign from individual donors at events.
The candidate rarely headlines fundraising events, and is not close with many big-money Democratic donors, but he has been working to prove his proximity to the party in recent months as he competes with Clinton.
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/bernie-sanders-2016-fundraising-dnc-215559 lol This was shot down as fast as it came out. First let's stop trying to make this ethical in an effort to stan for Hillary. It's obviously unethical even if you want to argue it's strategically sound. The agreement was obviously different as it's missing the key "tight reins" phrase that Hillary stans have been showing from the 2015 politico article they say makes this old news. Turns out the "troubles coming to terms" was Hillary saying "I'll watch you go broke and die if you don't do exactly what I say and lie about it the whole time " Defending this trash is not a good look. How is it unethical? Explain. Politician A raises money for the party and then gets influence over the direction of the national organization. It is a party. It needs money. Where is the crime? The lying man, the lying... Come on now. If Hillary and the DNC said "Hillary owns DNC decision making process now because she bailed them out (of debt her VP and former Co-Chair got them in while losing 1000+ seats and paying millions in unnecessary consultants and firms)" Then it would at least be on the verge of ethical. At any point during 2016 did anyone ever think that HRC didn't have more influence over the DNC than Bernie? She made it a point to help the DNC and actually raised money for it. If you want to allege some lies then you need to post up some examples. At this point your "lies" are really just your expectations that socialist Bernie is entitled to as much influence as someone who actually helped the DNC.
lol, this would be more fun if it wasn't ripped right out of twitter arguments that got lost by your side of this hours ago.
The DNC and the bylaws didn't say "Hillary's campaign will have absolute final say on any significant decision the DNC makes during the primary" They had a bunch of bullshit fluff about fair arbiter (which doesn't mean lean toward who pays their salary) and so on.
It's gross and inexplicable the lengths people will go to in order to keep defending obviously unethical behavior. If it wasn't unethical they would have just admitted it when they were accused through the entire primary.
On November 03 2017 09:22 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 03 2017 09:19 Plansix wrote:
Why even have primaries then? Just let people pay for a slot and cut the bullshit. Exactly, but they wanted their cake and to eat it to. They want the pageantry of primaries but not the actual process. There is a process! We have 50 something primary elections run by 50 something (I think 57) ~state level Democratic party organizations. The DNC has zero control over these elections. If you want to assume that it was rigged to make yourself feel better about Bernie losing by millions of votes, then you need to show exactly how the DNC was able to control the 50 something ~state/territory primary elections/caucuses. Show your work. EDIT: here is the Nevada 2016 democratic primary/caucus mess. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Democratic_caucuses_and_convention,_2016This is your best possible chance of showing actual rigging. Go through it. Find where the DNC rigged it. I will be waiting.
So your read on Hillary extracting practically all of the money she put into the party by funneling it through states, many of which saw little to nothing of what they raised, was that the DNC has no influence on state parties?
jfc I know you're just regurgitating this stuff from a thread and not thinking about it because you're arguing against some twitter memes and not what people are telling you.
|
People within party are saying the DNC had its finger on the scale. Even if Bernie would still have lost, it would have been a fair loss. This deal was cut in 2015. Clinton had the national party under her thumb before the races even started.
|
On November 03 2017 09:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 09:21 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 03 2017 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 03 2017 09:13 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 03 2017 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 03 2017 09:06 Wulfey_LA wrote:What is the scandal here? That HRC used her fundraising to exert influence over the DNC? DNC was a financial wreck post Obama and HRC bailed it out. Also remember, the DNC runs ZERO primary elections. The state level parties each run their own primary election according to their own zany rules (see, every caucus having their own undemocratic rules). + Show Spoiler +Note that Bernie himself had a fundraising agreement with the DNC and signed it 2 months after HRC. But Bernie being Bernie, he raised zero dollars for the DNC and got zero influence. Why support downticket races when you know you don't have the votes to win the nom? Bernie didn't even try to win any insiders over to his side and then he didn't win enough votes from voters to win. I guess it makes sense that Socialist Bernie would think that he was entitled to exactly the same influence over the direction of the party as someone who actually raised money for the party and put in work make the party stronger.
The move, which comes more than two months after Hillary Clinton's campaign signed such an agreement in August, will allow Sanders' team to raise up to $33,400 for the committee as well as $2,700 for the campaign from individual donors at events.
The candidate rarely headlines fundraising events, and is not close with many big-money Democratic donors, but he has been working to prove his proximity to the party in recent months as he competes with Clinton.
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/bernie-sanders-2016-fundraising-dnc-215559 lol This was shot down as fast as it came out. First let's stop trying to make this ethical in an effort to stan for Hillary. It's obviously unethical even if you want to argue it's strategically sound. The agreement was obviously different as it's missing the key "tight reins" phrase that Hillary stans have been showing from the 2015 politico article they say makes this old news. Turns out the "troubles coming to terms" was Hillary saying "I'll watch you go broke and die if you don't do exactly what I say and lie about it the whole time " Defending this trash is not a good look. How is it unethical? Explain. Politician A raises money for the party and then gets influence over the direction of the national organization. It is a party. It needs money. Where is the crime? The lying man, the lying... Come on now. If Hillary and the DNC said "Hillary owns DNC decision making process now because she bailed them out (of debt her VP and former Co-Chair got them in while losing 1000+ seats and paying millions in unnecessary consultants and firms)" Then it would at least be on the verge of ethical. At any point during 2016 did anyone ever think that HRC didn't have more influence over the DNC than Bernie? She made it a point to help the DNC and actually raised money for it. If you want to allege some lies then you need to post up some examples. At this point your "lies" are really just your expectations that socialist Bernie is entitled to as much influence as someone who actually helped the DNC. lol, this would be more fun if it wasn't ripped right out of twitter arguments that got lost by your side of this hours ago. The DNC and the bylaws didn't say "Hillary's campaign will have absolute final say on any significant decision the DNC makes during the primary" They had a bunch of bullshit fluff about fair arbiter (which doesn't mean lean toward who pays their salary) and so on. It's gross and inexplicable the lengths people will go to in order to keep defending obviously unethical behavior. If it wasn't unethical they would have just admitted it when they were accused through the entire primary.
Can you show even 1 instance of an actual unfair decision with respect to a primary/caucus? Something that affected an outcome at an electoral or caucus level? Anything?
All you have is the debates timing talking points, which is ridiculous. 5 debates versus 8 debates would not have changed anything.
|
On November 03 2017 09:26 Plansix wrote:
People within party are saying the DNC had its finger on the scale. Even if Bernie would still have lost, it would have been a fair loss. This deal was cut in 2015. Clinton had the national party under her thumb before the races even started.
Show your work. We all knew the DNC was staffed with people that were biased against non-democrat Bernie. But where is the thumb? Show an actual instance of them biasing the process. As I said above, all you are going to turn up are arguments about debate timing schedules.
EDIT: A diagram.
(1) workers within DNC hate Bernie
(2) actual manipulation of process to tilt the outcome
(3) Rigged!
We are getting a lot of (1) and (3). Let's see some (2). Showing bias is one thing, showing manipulation another.
|
On November 03 2017 09:28 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 09:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 03 2017 09:21 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 03 2017 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 03 2017 09:13 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 03 2017 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 03 2017 09:06 Wulfey_LA wrote:What is the scandal here? That HRC used her fundraising to exert influence over the DNC? DNC was a financial wreck post Obama and HRC bailed it out. Also remember, the DNC runs ZERO primary elections. The state level parties each run their own primary election according to their own zany rules (see, every caucus having their own undemocratic rules). + Show Spoiler +Note that Bernie himself had a fundraising agreement with the DNC and signed it 2 months after HRC. But Bernie being Bernie, he raised zero dollars for the DNC and got zero influence. Why support downticket races when you know you don't have the votes to win the nom? Bernie didn't even try to win any insiders over to his side and then he didn't win enough votes from voters to win. I guess it makes sense that Socialist Bernie would think that he was entitled to exactly the same influence over the direction of the party as someone who actually raised money for the party and put in work make the party stronger.
The move, which comes more than two months after Hillary Clinton's campaign signed such an agreement in August, will allow Sanders' team to raise up to $33,400 for the committee as well as $2,700 for the campaign from individual donors at events.
The candidate rarely headlines fundraising events, and is not close with many big-money Democratic donors, but he has been working to prove his proximity to the party in recent months as he competes with Clinton.
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/bernie-sanders-2016-fundraising-dnc-215559 lol This was shot down as fast as it came out. First let's stop trying to make this ethical in an effort to stan for Hillary. It's obviously unethical even if you want to argue it's strategically sound. The agreement was obviously different as it's missing the key "tight reins" phrase that Hillary stans have been showing from the 2015 politico article they say makes this old news. Turns out the "troubles coming to terms" was Hillary saying "I'll watch you go broke and die if you don't do exactly what I say and lie about it the whole time " Defending this trash is not a good look. How is it unethical? Explain. Politician A raises money for the party and then gets influence over the direction of the national organization. It is a party. It needs money. Where is the crime? The lying man, the lying... Come on now. If Hillary and the DNC said "Hillary owns DNC decision making process now because she bailed them out (of debt her VP and former Co-Chair got them in while losing 1000+ seats and paying millions in unnecessary consultants and firms)" Then it would at least be on the verge of ethical. At any point during 2016 did anyone ever think that HRC didn't have more influence over the DNC than Bernie? She made it a point to help the DNC and actually raised money for it. If you want to allege some lies then you need to post up some examples. At this point your "lies" are really just your expectations that socialist Bernie is entitled to as much influence as someone who actually helped the DNC. lol, this would be more fun if it wasn't ripped right out of twitter arguments that got lost by your side of this hours ago. The DNC and the bylaws didn't say "Hillary's campaign will have absolute final say on any significant decision the DNC makes during the primary" They had a bunch of bullshit fluff about fair arbiter (which doesn't mean lean toward who pays their salary) and so on. It's gross and inexplicable the lengths people will go to in order to keep defending obviously unethical behavior. If it wasn't unethical they would have just admitted it when they were accused through the entire primary. Can you show even 1 instance of an actual unfair decision with respect to a primary/caucus? Something that affected an outcome at an electoral or caucus level? Anything? All you have is the debates timing talking points, which is ridiculous. 5 debates versus 8 debates would not have changed anything.
Yeah, telling the DNC if they don't do what she says she'll bankrupt them. Evidence of what that made them do is a pretty stupid thing to ask for. Unless all you care about is outcomes and not the corruption, lying, and manipulation that preceded it.
|
On November 03 2017 09:30 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 09:26 Plansix wrote:
People within party are saying the DNC had its finger on the scale. Even if Bernie would still have lost, it would have been a fair loss. This deal was cut in 2015. Clinton had the national party under her thumb before the races even started. Show your work. We all knew the DNC was staffed with people that were biased against non-democrat Bernie. But where is the thumb? Show an actual instance of them biasing the process. As I said above, all you are going to turn up are arguments about debate timing schedules.
When Elizabeth fucking Warren and Donna Brazil say the process was rigged in her favor. If the word from former and current party leadership and senators is not sufficient, nothing else will be.
|
The Wulfey segment of the Democratic party is somewhat hopeless.
Wulfey right now "But where's the evidence that you, as a bought and paid for member of team Hillary, were forced to support Hillary!?"
|
On November 03 2017 09:17 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 09:13 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2017 09:06 Wulfey_LA wrote:What is the scandal here? That HRC used her fundraising to exert influence over the DNC? DNC was a financial wreck post Obama and HRC bailed it out. Also remember, the DNC runs ZERO primary elections. The state level parties each run their own primary election according to their own zany rules (see, every caucus having their own undemocratic rules). + Show Spoiler +Note that Bernie himself had a fundraising agreement with the DNC and signed it 2 months after HRC. But Bernie being Bernie, he raised zero dollars for the DNC and got zero influence. Why support downticket races when you know you don't have the votes to win the nom? Bernie didn't even try to win any insiders over to his side and then he didn't win enough votes from voters to win. I guess it makes sense that Socialist Bernie would think that he was entitled to exactly the same influence over the direction of the party as someone who actually raised money for the party and put in work make the party stronger.
The move, which comes more than two months after Hillary Clinton's campaign signed such an agreement in August, will allow Sanders' team to raise up to $33,400 for the committee as well as $2,700 for the campaign from individual donors at events.
The candidate rarely headlines fundraising events, and is not close with many big-money Democratic donors, but he has been working to prove his proximity to the party in recent months as he competes with Clinton.
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/bernie-sanders-2016-fundraising-dnc-215559EDIT: remember 2008? I know no one does. But I do. Candidate Obama made a concerted effort to win over party insiders and he busted his hump and won over actual voters too. Candidate Clinton had been working insiders for years then as well. But what do you know, the candidate that got more votes and organized better actually won! Maybe if Bernie had studied how Obama beat HRC and emulated those tactics, then he might have actually beaten HRC. This kinda feels like explaining how a woman could have also dressed differently and not walked around at night if she wanted to not get sexually assaulted. There's a lot Bernie could have done, but it doesn't mean you pretend there wasn't a finger on the scale. Numerous people still decided to facilitate what could easily be understood as unfairness. Regardless of what the rules, regulations etc etc of the DNC are, we can still take a step back from legality and examine ethics without relying on legality. From a purely ethical perspective, it is very difficult to defend the DNC's favoritism in the primary. Raising money for the party and then placing your kind of people in the party is how politics works. Politicians raise money and try to expand their circle of influence. You need to explain precisely how this is unethical. Bernie insistence on being independent and having no allies and never raising money for downticket candidates lead straight to him having less influence than HRC. WHy is that a good thing?
"is how politics work" feels like an appeal to tradition rather than an argument of ethics. I think that raising money should not directly lead to influence. I think that in a more ethical scenario, a candidate will raise money for a political party and do their best to help the party. Through collaboration, this may naturally lead to working with like-minded people. But the idea of "you raise the money, you fill the seats" is basically saying political parties should be something you can freely purchase. If Bill Gates donated $3B to the DNC, should that grant him immediate guarantee as the 2020 nominee?
|
On November 03 2017 09:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 09:30 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 03 2017 09:26 Plansix wrote:
People within party are saying the DNC had its finger on the scale. Even if Bernie would still have lost, it would have been a fair loss. This deal was cut in 2015. Clinton had the national party under her thumb before the races even started. Show your work. We all knew the DNC was staffed with people that were biased against non-democrat Bernie. But where is the thumb? Show an actual instance of them biasing the process. As I said above, all you are going to turn up are arguments about debate timing schedules. When Elizabeth fucking Warren and Donna Brazil say the process was rigged in her favor. If the word from former and current party leadership and senators is not sufficient, nothing else will be.
what's the quote from warren?
|
On November 03 2017 09:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 09:28 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 03 2017 09:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 03 2017 09:21 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 03 2017 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 03 2017 09:13 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 03 2017 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 03 2017 09:06 Wulfey_LA wrote:What is the scandal here? That HRC used her fundraising to exert influence over the DNC? DNC was a financial wreck post Obama and HRC bailed it out. Also remember, the DNC runs ZERO primary elections. The state level parties each run their own primary election according to their own zany rules (see, every caucus having their own undemocratic rules). + Show Spoiler +Note that Bernie himself had a fundraising agreement with the DNC and signed it 2 months after HRC. But Bernie being Bernie, he raised zero dollars for the DNC and got zero influence. Why support downticket races when you know you don't have the votes to win the nom? Bernie didn't even try to win any insiders over to his side and then he didn't win enough votes from voters to win. I guess it makes sense that Socialist Bernie would think that he was entitled to exactly the same influence over the direction of the party as someone who actually raised money for the party and put in work make the party stronger.
The move, which comes more than two months after Hillary Clinton's campaign signed such an agreement in August, will allow Sanders' team to raise up to $33,400 for the committee as well as $2,700 for the campaign from individual donors at events.
The candidate rarely headlines fundraising events, and is not close with many big-money Democratic donors, but he has been working to prove his proximity to the party in recent months as he competes with Clinton.
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/bernie-sanders-2016-fundraising-dnc-215559 lol This was shot down as fast as it came out. First let's stop trying to make this ethical in an effort to stan for Hillary. It's obviously unethical even if you want to argue it's strategically sound. The agreement was obviously different as it's missing the key "tight reins" phrase that Hillary stans have been showing from the 2015 politico article they say makes this old news. Turns out the "troubles coming to terms" was Hillary saying "I'll watch you go broke and die if you don't do exactly what I say and lie about it the whole time " Defending this trash is not a good look. How is it unethical? Explain. Politician A raises money for the party and then gets influence over the direction of the national organization. It is a party. It needs money. Where is the crime? The lying man, the lying... Come on now. If Hillary and the DNC said "Hillary owns DNC decision making process now because she bailed them out (of debt her VP and former Co-Chair got them in while losing 1000+ seats and paying millions in unnecessary consultants and firms)" Then it would at least be on the verge of ethical. At any point during 2016 did anyone ever think that HRC didn't have more influence over the DNC than Bernie? She made it a point to help the DNC and actually raised money for it. If you want to allege some lies then you need to post up some examples. At this point your "lies" are really just your expectations that socialist Bernie is entitled to as much influence as someone who actually helped the DNC. lol, this would be more fun if it wasn't ripped right out of twitter arguments that got lost by your side of this hours ago. The DNC and the bylaws didn't say "Hillary's campaign will have absolute final say on any significant decision the DNC makes during the primary" They had a bunch of bullshit fluff about fair arbiter (which doesn't mean lean toward who pays their salary) and so on. It's gross and inexplicable the lengths people will go to in order to keep defending obviously unethical behavior. If it wasn't unethical they would have just admitted it when they were accused through the entire primary. Can you show even 1 instance of an actual unfair decision with respect to a primary/caucus? Something that affected an outcome at an electoral or caucus level? Anything? All you have is the debates timing talking points, which is ridiculous. 5 debates versus 8 debates would not have changed anything. Yeah, telling the DNC if they don't do what she says she'll bankrupt them. Evidence of what that made them do is a pretty stupid thing to ask for. Unless all you care about is outcomes and not the corruption, lying, and manipulation that preceded it.
Hah! I knew you had nothing. You aren't even attempting to show process manipulation!
The facts we have are that DNC staffers hated/biased against Bernie. You aren't showing the critical missing link between bias -> process manipulation -> rigged. We both know the facts already. We both know all you have are arguments about debate timing.
|
On November 03 2017 09:35 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 09:32 Plansix wrote:On November 03 2017 09:30 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 03 2017 09:26 Plansix wrote:
People within party are saying the DNC had its finger on the scale. Even if Bernie would still have lost, it would have been a fair loss. This deal was cut in 2015. Clinton had the national party under her thumb before the races even started. Show your work. We all knew the DNC was staffed with people that were biased against non-democrat Bernie. But where is the thumb? Show an actual instance of them biasing the process. As I said above, all you are going to turn up are arguments about debate timing schedules. When Elizabeth fucking Warren and Donna Brazil say the process was rigged in her favor. If the word from former and current party leadership and senators is not sufficient, nothing else will be. what's the quote from warren?
On November 03 2017 09:36 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 09:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 03 2017 09:28 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 03 2017 09:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 03 2017 09:21 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 03 2017 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 03 2017 09:13 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 03 2017 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 03 2017 09:06 Wulfey_LA wrote:What is the scandal here? That HRC used her fundraising to exert influence over the DNC? DNC was a financial wreck post Obama and HRC bailed it out. Also remember, the DNC runs ZERO primary elections. The state level parties each run their own primary election according to their own zany rules (see, every caucus having their own undemocratic rules). + Show Spoiler +Note that Bernie himself had a fundraising agreement with the DNC and signed it 2 months after HRC. But Bernie being Bernie, he raised zero dollars for the DNC and got zero influence. Why support downticket races when you know you don't have the votes to win the nom? Bernie didn't even try to win any insiders over to his side and then he didn't win enough votes from voters to win. I guess it makes sense that Socialist Bernie would think that he was entitled to exactly the same influence over the direction of the party as someone who actually raised money for the party and put in work make the party stronger.
The move, which comes more than two months after Hillary Clinton's campaign signed such an agreement in August, will allow Sanders' team to raise up to $33,400 for the committee as well as $2,700 for the campaign from individual donors at events.
The candidate rarely headlines fundraising events, and is not close with many big-money Democratic donors, but he has been working to prove his proximity to the party in recent months as he competes with Clinton.
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/bernie-sanders-2016-fundraising-dnc-215559 lol This was shot down as fast as it came out. First let's stop trying to make this ethical in an effort to stan for Hillary. It's obviously unethical even if you want to argue it's strategically sound. The agreement was obviously different as it's missing the key "tight reins" phrase that Hillary stans have been showing from the 2015 politico article they say makes this old news. Turns out the "troubles coming to terms" was Hillary saying "I'll watch you go broke and die if you don't do exactly what I say and lie about it the whole time " Defending this trash is not a good look. How is it unethical? Explain. Politician A raises money for the party and then gets influence over the direction of the national organization. It is a party. It needs money. Where is the crime? The lying man, the lying... Come on now. If Hillary and the DNC said "Hillary owns DNC decision making process now because she bailed them out (of debt her VP and former Co-Chair got them in while losing 1000+ seats and paying millions in unnecessary consultants and firms)" Then it would at least be on the verge of ethical. At any point during 2016 did anyone ever think that HRC didn't have more influence over the DNC than Bernie? She made it a point to help the DNC and actually raised money for it. If you want to allege some lies then you need to post up some examples. At this point your "lies" are really just your expectations that socialist Bernie is entitled to as much influence as someone who actually helped the DNC. lol, this would be more fun if it wasn't ripped right out of twitter arguments that got lost by your side of this hours ago. The DNC and the bylaws didn't say "Hillary's campaign will have absolute final say on any significant decision the DNC makes during the primary" They had a bunch of bullshit fluff about fair arbiter (which doesn't mean lean toward who pays their salary) and so on. It's gross and inexplicable the lengths people will go to in order to keep defending obviously unethical behavior. If it wasn't unethical they would have just admitted it when they were accused through the entire primary. Can you show even 1 instance of an actual unfair decision with respect to a primary/caucus? Something that affected an outcome at an electoral or caucus level? Anything? All you have is the debates timing talking points, which is ridiculous. 5 debates versus 8 debates would not have changed anything. Yeah, telling the DNC if they don't do what she says she'll bankrupt them. Evidence of what that made them do is a pretty stupid thing to ask for. Unless all you care about is outcomes and not the corruption, lying, and manipulation that preceded it. Hah! I knew you had nothing. You aren't even attempting to show process manipulation! The facts we have are that DNC staffers hated/biased against Bernie. You aren't showing the critical missing link between bias -> process manipulation -> rigged. We both know the facts already. We both know all you have are arguments about debate timing.
I'm embarrassed for you.
|
On November 03 2017 09:35 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 09:32 Plansix wrote:On November 03 2017 09:30 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 03 2017 09:26 Plansix wrote:
People within party are saying the DNC had its finger on the scale. Even if Bernie would still have lost, it would have been a fair loss. This deal was cut in 2015. Clinton had the national party under her thumb before the races even started. Show your work. We all knew the DNC was staffed with people that were biased against non-democrat Bernie. But where is the thumb? Show an actual instance of them biasing the process. As I said above, all you are going to turn up are arguments about debate timing schedules. When Elizabeth fucking Warren and Donna Brazil say the process was rigged in her favor. If the word from former and current party leadership and senators is not sufficient, nothing else will be. what's the quote from warren?
GH got it.
|
On November 03 2017 08:49 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 03 2017 08:30 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2017 08:23 Danglars wrote:On November 03 2017 06:58 Nevuk wrote:On November 03 2017 06:35 Gorsameth wrote:On November 03 2017 06:13 Nevuk wrote:
This explains a lot :
He who represents himself has a fool for a client Explains why he keeps going on talk shows to further incriminate himself. He doesn't have a lawyer, but he does have "formal and informal advisers", whatever that means. Elizabeth Warren gets memo from Donna Brazile that it's okay to trash Hillary in the context of the DNC now. Perez's DNC official shakeup looks like its going to be a while before they get their act together. I think it's just that candidates only have points to gain by admitting it was rigged. Warren being the one who said the race was rigged, and always being most people's #2 pick after Bernie, really poises her well to actually bring progressives out to vote in 2020. If she can manage to be the nominee while also throwing mild shade on the party along the way, I think she'll do a lot better than Clinton did. They are about a year and half late for real points. It's not as if Hillary's dominance over the party was actually a surprise to folks like Brazile or Warren. Hell if they just admitted it before the election instead of gaslighting the fuck out of us for the whole thing maybe forgiveness would have come easier. I can't help but be sympathetic for Warren and others who were too afraid to speak out. Similar to this whole sexual assault in Hollywood ordeal, I think it is very possible that Clinton had the power to completely snap people's careers in half. I think it is entirely possible that fighting Clinton would have hurt Warren's 2020 run more than supporting her. If Clinton has already woven her vines throughout the DNC so thoroughly to where Warren knew she had 0% chance of actually helping Bernie, you could argue she is better off at least holding on to her career. I think it is the sort of thing we may never know. A lot of people I would have expected to speak up and fight Clinton just bowed their heads in fear, it seems. What if there actually wasn't anything Warren could do? What if it would have been guaranteed suicide (HIS NAME WAS SETH RICH...just kidding) for her to defy Clinton and the result would have been the same anyway?
From what I can make of it part of what Brazile is claiming is that before she was made acting head of the DNC there was no way for her to have found out this information, that the party apparatus was flat out lying to her about all of it. So Warren, et al would have had no proof either and just had to take DWS' word on it. Brazile couldn't have made this public before the DNC convention, and I don't blame her for not making it public before the general election. I wish she'd done it sooner (before Perez was elected) but I'm glad she did come forward and have some level of sympathy for her position..
Seriously guys, read Brazile's article on the matter. She was one of Clinton's biggest backers and it's utterly damning.
|
On November 03 2017 09:35 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 09:17 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 03 2017 09:13 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2017 09:06 Wulfey_LA wrote:What is the scandal here? That HRC used her fundraising to exert influence over the DNC? DNC was a financial wreck post Obama and HRC bailed it out. Also remember, the DNC runs ZERO primary elections. The state level parties each run their own primary election according to their own zany rules (see, every caucus having their own undemocratic rules). + Show Spoiler +Note that Bernie himself had a fundraising agreement with the DNC and signed it 2 months after HRC. But Bernie being Bernie, he raised zero dollars for the DNC and got zero influence. Why support downticket races when you know you don't have the votes to win the nom? Bernie didn't even try to win any insiders over to his side and then he didn't win enough votes from voters to win. I guess it makes sense that Socialist Bernie would think that he was entitled to exactly the same influence over the direction of the party as someone who actually raised money for the party and put in work make the party stronger.
The move, which comes more than two months after Hillary Clinton's campaign signed such an agreement in August, will allow Sanders' team to raise up to $33,400 for the committee as well as $2,700 for the campaign from individual donors at events.
The candidate rarely headlines fundraising events, and is not close with many big-money Democratic donors, but he has been working to prove his proximity to the party in recent months as he competes with Clinton.
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/bernie-sanders-2016-fundraising-dnc-215559EDIT: remember 2008? I know no one does. But I do. Candidate Obama made a concerted effort to win over party insiders and he busted his hump and won over actual voters too. Candidate Clinton had been working insiders for years then as well. But what do you know, the candidate that got more votes and organized better actually won! Maybe if Bernie had studied how Obama beat HRC and emulated those tactics, then he might have actually beaten HRC. This kinda feels like explaining how a woman could have also dressed differently and not walked around at night if she wanted to not get sexually assaulted. There's a lot Bernie could have done, but it doesn't mean you pretend there wasn't a finger on the scale. Numerous people still decided to facilitate what could easily be understood as unfairness. Regardless of what the rules, regulations etc etc of the DNC are, we can still take a step back from legality and examine ethics without relying on legality. From a purely ethical perspective, it is very difficult to defend the DNC's favoritism in the primary. Raising money for the party and then placing your kind of people in the party is how politics works. Politicians raise money and try to expand their circle of influence. You need to explain precisely how this is unethical. Bernie insistence on being independent and having no allies and never raising money for downticket candidates lead straight to him having less influence than HRC. WHy is that a good thing? "is how politics work" feels like an appeal to tradition rather than an argument of ethics. I think that raising money should not directly lead to influence. I think that in a more ethical scenario, a candidate will raise money for a political party and do their best to help the party. Through collaboration, this may naturally lead to working with like-minded people. But the idea of "you raise the money, you fill the seats" is basically saying political parties should be something you can freely purchase. If Bill Gates donated $3B to the DNC, should that grant him immediate guarantee as the 2020 nominee?
You are missing a colossal middle step in your hypothetical.
(1) BG donates huge money to DNC via a fundraising agreement
(2) BG goes out, campaigns, supports others within party, wins votes in primaries/caucuses run by state level party orgs (not the DNC)
(3) BG becomes nominee
If BG busts his hump and actually wins the votes and he funds the Democratic party with enough money to last it for 20 something years, man that sounds great. I am in on this all the way.
|
On November 03 2017 09:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 09:30 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 03 2017 09:26 Plansix wrote:
People within party are saying the DNC had its finger on the scale. Even if Bernie would still have lost, it would have been a fair loss. This deal was cut in 2015. Clinton had the national party under her thumb before the races even started. Show your work. We all knew the DNC was staffed with people that were biased against non-democrat Bernie. But where is the thumb? Show an actual instance of them biasing the process. As I said above, all you are going to turn up are arguments about debate timing schedules. When Elizabeth fucking Warren and Donna Brazil say the process was rigged in her favor. If the word from former and current party leadership and senators is not sufficient, nothing else will be.
People have god to be completely dumb to not realize this
|
warren started walking her statement back pretty quick. and looks like donna's having second thoughts as well.
|
On November 03 2017 09:43 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 09:35 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2017 09:17 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 03 2017 09:13 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2017 09:06 Wulfey_LA wrote:What is the scandal here? That HRC used her fundraising to exert influence over the DNC? DNC was a financial wreck post Obama and HRC bailed it out. Also remember, the DNC runs ZERO primary elections. The state level parties each run their own primary election according to their own zany rules (see, every caucus having their own undemocratic rules). + Show Spoiler +Note that Bernie himself had a fundraising agreement with the DNC and signed it 2 months after HRC. But Bernie being Bernie, he raised zero dollars for the DNC and got zero influence. Why support downticket races when you know you don't have the votes to win the nom? Bernie didn't even try to win any insiders over to his side and then he didn't win enough votes from voters to win. I guess it makes sense that Socialist Bernie would think that he was entitled to exactly the same influence over the direction of the party as someone who actually raised money for the party and put in work make the party stronger.
The move, which comes more than two months after Hillary Clinton's campaign signed such an agreement in August, will allow Sanders' team to raise up to $33,400 for the committee as well as $2,700 for the campaign from individual donors at events.
The candidate rarely headlines fundraising events, and is not close with many big-money Democratic donors, but he has been working to prove his proximity to the party in recent months as he competes with Clinton.
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/bernie-sanders-2016-fundraising-dnc-215559EDIT: remember 2008? I know no one does. But I do. Candidate Obama made a concerted effort to win over party insiders and he busted his hump and won over actual voters too. Candidate Clinton had been working insiders for years then as well. But what do you know, the candidate that got more votes and organized better actually won! Maybe if Bernie had studied how Obama beat HRC and emulated those tactics, then he might have actually beaten HRC. This kinda feels like explaining how a woman could have also dressed differently and not walked around at night if she wanted to not get sexually assaulted. There's a lot Bernie could have done, but it doesn't mean you pretend there wasn't a finger on the scale. Numerous people still decided to facilitate what could easily be understood as unfairness. Regardless of what the rules, regulations etc etc of the DNC are, we can still take a step back from legality and examine ethics without relying on legality. From a purely ethical perspective, it is very difficult to defend the DNC's favoritism in the primary. Raising money for the party and then placing your kind of people in the party is how politics works. Politicians raise money and try to expand their circle of influence. You need to explain precisely how this is unethical. Bernie insistence on being independent and having no allies and never raising money for downticket candidates lead straight to him having less influence than HRC. WHy is that a good thing? "is how politics work" feels like an appeal to tradition rather than an argument of ethics. I think that raising money should not directly lead to influence. I think that in a more ethical scenario, a candidate will raise money for a political party and do their best to help the party. Through collaboration, this may naturally lead to working with like-minded people. But the idea of "you raise the money, you fill the seats" is basically saying political parties should be something you can freely purchase. If Bill Gates donated $3B to the DNC, should that grant him immediate guarantee as the 2020 nominee? You are missing a colossal middle step in your hypothetical. (1) BG donates huge money to DNC via a fundraising agreement (2) BG goes out, campaigns, supports others within party, wins votes in primaries/caucuses run by state level party orgs (not the DNC) (3) BG becomes nominee If BG busts his hump and actually wins the votes and he funds the Democratic party with enough money to last it for 20 something years, man that sounds great. I am in on this all the way.
The issue is that she pocketed money that the DNC said would be for DNC candidates all over the country (like, in local races, state races, etc.) for her own campaign. That's both blatantly corrupt and utter incompetence at politics.
|
ok, that's enough for me to not completely disregard the matter as your usual crying wolf.
but I'd like a lot more than an answer "yes" followed by the immediate end of the clip. there's no followup, no clarification, no questioning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
