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 09:26 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.
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).
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.
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.
Seriously? An argument from authority is all you have? You truly have nothing. All this time we fight on this topic and you didn't even bother to source any facts on your own.
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).
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.
EDIT: 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.
You're missing the critical part of the reality where
(1)b. Forces them to be an extension of their campaign (despite clear rules against it) around the country and both sides lie about it
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.
On November 03 2017 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
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.
Seriously? An argument from authority is all you have? You truly have nothing. All this time we fight on this topic and you didn't even bother to source any facts on your own.
Several people have tried to politely tell you that's not how ethics work, but you do you.
On November 03 2017 09:45 ticklishmusic wrote: warren started walking her statement back pretty quick. and looks like donna's having second thoughts as well.
Cat is out of the bag. Just fucking own it and move on. I get that there are a lot of old democrats that still like Clinton, but that ship has sailed.
On November 03 2017 09:45 zlefin wrote: 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.
That was the end of the interview. This has a bit more context (but not full interview) :
Also, I don't see where Warren or Brazile are backing down
I do like how people have become to committed to winning argument with GH they won't take one of Clintons biggest supporters word for it. You can just admit you got played. Its happens to the best of us.
On November 03 2017 09:45 zlefin wrote: 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.
On November 03 2017 09:49 Plansix wrote: I do like how people have become to committed to winning argument with GH they won't take one of Clintons biggest supporters word for it. You can just admit you got played. Its happens to the best of us.
(1) DNC staffers biased against Bernie (2) Elizabeth warren's word is good enough for me! Citable facts showing process manipulation are not necessary. (3) Rigged!
Not going to try to make the argument with some citations? Just going with Warren? Nothing?
On November 03 2017 09:49 Plansix wrote: I do like how people have become to committed to winning argument with GH they won't take one of Clintons biggest supporters word for it. You can just admit you got played. Its happens to the best of us.
(1) DNC staffers biased against Bernie (2) Elizabeth warren's word is good enough for me! Citable facts showing process manipulation are not necessary. (3) Rigged!
Not going to try to make the argument with some citations? Just going with Warren? Nothing?
I don't understand where you get its not a huge moral issue when Hillary got the party a loan and in return she was allowed to post her own people to the posts that would decide how the party would run the primary that Hillary was suppose to be an equal member to anyone else running in the primary, let alone the fundraising shenanigans of the DNC funneling money from state orgs to the national org to Hillary's org constantly throughout the primary being a clear indication of who the DNC was influenced by Hillaries initial loan deal.
Clearly the GOP was very unhappy about trump getting the nomination but I've never heard that they did anything untword to stop his candidacy. And he was trump.
On November 03 2017 09:49 Plansix wrote: I do like how people have become to committed to winning argument with GH they won't take one of Clintons biggest supporters word for it. You can just admit you got played. Its happens to the best of us.
(1) DNC staffers biased against Bernie (2) Elizabeth warren's word is good enough for me! Citable facts showing process manipulation are not necessary. (3) Rigged!
Not going to try to make the argument with some citations? Just going with Warren? Nothing?
I'm sorry, am I supposed to find you documents showing election fraud? Because that isn't the topic. We are talking about the DNC denying Bernie sanders resources during the primary. The DNC is not supposed to do that.
I've said from the start that political parties exist to play kingmaker. There's really no other reason for them to exist, and it confuses me that there's still discussions ongoing like they're not.
Now, if it involves election fraud or financial fraud, or what have you (no idea what the rules are around that), then that's another matter entirely.
On November 03 2017 09:49 Plansix wrote: I do like how people have become to committed to winning argument with GH they won't take one of Clintons biggest supporters word for it. You can just admit you got played. Its happens to the best of us.
(1) DNC staffers biased against Bernie (2) Elizabeth warren's word is good enough for me! Citable facts showing process manipulation are not necessary. (3) Rigged!
Not going to try to make the argument with some citations? Just going with Warren? Nothing?
I'm sorry, am I supposed to find you documents showing election fraud? Because that isn't the topic. We are talking about the DNC denying Bernie sanders resources during the primary. The DNC is not supposed to do that.
Conservatism to the rescue!
Cliffs: -Barack Obama bankrupted the party -Hillary Clinton broke the party, screwed Sanders massively -Sanders will most likely win the 2020 nomination if he runs, because of this.
-Also, great breakdown on the new tax plan and how it affects people. It's pretty well done from a conservatism pov, as it screws blue states and pushes them to reduce taxes by eliminating deductions.
Parties can pick their candidates and I don't care how they do it. But they best not lie about the process if they claim its open and done through primary voting.
Edit: Ben Sharpio is the Nickleback of conservatives. I would rather pull my own teeth out than listen to him.
Edit 2: how does Obama bankrupt the DNC when he is so busy running the entire fucking executive branch?!?! That isn't how this shit works.
On November 03 2017 09:45 ticklishmusic wrote: warren started walking her statement back pretty quick. and looks like donna's having second thoughts as well.
Cat is out of the bag. Just fucking own it and move on. I get that there are a lot of old democrats that still like Clinton, but that ship has sailed.
Where is the proof in the FEC filings or all those leaked emails?
You can look at the FEC filings. There are transfers between the different committees. There are receipts and expenditures. All the transactions were disclosed.
There's plenty unflattering in the latter like grumblings about Bernie, Donna leaking questions and Podesta's risotto recipe, but not a single whiff of what Donna's talking about.
On November 03 2017 09:57 Sermokala wrote: I don't understand where you get its not a huge moral issue when Hillary got the party a loan and in return she was allowed to post her own people to the posts that would decide how the party would run the primary that Hillary was suppose to be an equal member to anyone else running in the primary, let alone the fundraising shenanigans of the DNC funneling money from state orgs to the national org to Hillary's org constantly throughout the primary being a clear indication of who the DNC was influenced by Hillaries initial loan deal.
Clearly the GOP was very unhappy about trump getting the nomination but I've never heard that they did anything untword to stop his candidacy. And he was trump.
I can't account for others' but ofr me there's these points: 1) was sanders given a similar opportunity and declined to take it? 2) more evidence needed; right now we seem to just have brazile's word. and I don't value her word and haven't for some time. if he went back a year we could probably find quotes from GH saying brazile is corrupt and not trustworthy. I don't have the thread tools to check for that myself. It seems more like a case wherein a person is disbelieved when they're saying what you don't want to hear, then all of a sudden regarded as trustworthy whne they're saying what you want to hear. 3) such a long, extensive history of crying wolf and other issues that I'm not reading most of the posts.
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).
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.
EDIT: 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.
Total Spent $529,524,145 Clinton, Hillary D C Pres $158,200,000 DNC Services Corp D P $107,533,318 That leaves ~112,407,990** million for the state parties after accounting for the vendor expenses.
There are other articles out there that take a snapshot of HVF spending in March of 2016 without accounting for its total fundraising. Those articles are BS. **I got this number by summing the expenditures to state parties on the open secrets page.
On November 03 2017 10:12 Plansix wrote: Parties can pick their candidates and I don't care how they do it. But they best not lie about the process if they claim its open and done through primary voting.
Edit: Ben Sharpio is the Nickleback of conservatives. I would rather pull my own teeth out than listen to him.
Edit 2: how does Obama bankrupt the DNC when he is so busy running the entire fucking executive branch?!?! That isn't how this shit works.
What conservatives do you enjoy listening to? For that analogy to really hold it should be a pretty extensive list. :p
On November 03 2017 09:49 Plansix wrote: I do like how people have become to committed to winning argument with GH they won't take one of Clintons biggest supporters word for it. You can just admit you got played. Its happens to the best of us.
(1) DNC staffers biased against Bernie (2) Elizabeth warren's word is good enough for me! Citable facts showing process manipulation are not necessary. (3) Rigged!
Not going to try to make the argument with some citations? Just going with Warren? Nothing?
I'm sorry, am I supposed to find you documents showing election fraud? Because that isn't the topic. We are talking about the DNC denying Bernie sanders resources during the primary. The DNC is not supposed to do that.
Now we are getting somewhere. What resources did DNC deny BS during the primary? Remember that Donna Brazile said that the entirety of the corruption came from the joint fundraising agreement / Hillary Victory Fund. If you want to show the critical rigging operations you should start there.
On November 03 2017 10:12 Plansix wrote: Parties can pick their candidates and I don't care how they do it. But they best not lie about the process if they claim its open and done through primary voting.
Edit: Ben Sharpio is the Nickleback of conservatives. I would rather pull my own teeth out than listen to him.
Edit 2: how does Obama bankrupt the DNC when he is so busy running the entire fucking executive branch?!?! That isn't how this shit works.
Good luck with these guys man, even you weren't this bad during the primary. I know I give you a hard time a lot, but I appreciate your ability to reassess things in this context.
On November 03 2017 10:12 Plansix wrote: Parties can pick their candidates and I don't care how they do it. But they best not lie about the process if they claim its open and done through primary voting.
Edit: Ben Sharpio is the Nickleback of conservatives. I would rather pull my own teeth out than listen to him.
Edit 2: how does Obama bankrupt the DNC when he is so busy running the entire fucking executive branch?!?! That isn't how this shit works.
What conservatives do you enjoy listening to? For that analogy to really hold it should be a pretty extensive list. :p
David Brooks is fine from time to time. He understand how government works, unlike Ben here. I don't want to die when listening to Ted Cruz debate, which is something. Sass isn't bad. But most political entertainment conservatives are hot garbage.
EPT
