|
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 04 2017 02:27 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 02:03 Mohdoo wrote:On November 04 2017 01:50 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 04 2017 01:45 ChristianS wrote:Josh Marshall put up a blog about the Donna Brazile allegations against Hillary. If anyone's interested in reading a defense of Hillary from someone more authoritative than Wulfey, here it is. Looks to me like he hits a similar point to Wulfey: what actions is the DNC supposed to have actually taken to rig the primary? Put aside bias, influence over DNC decisions, etc.: what did they actually do to influence the out ome? I haven't followed this particular issue for a while, but that's the part I'd like to see to be convinced that the primary was actually "rigged." Brazile and Sanders saying it was is worth something, sure, but there are political reasons a statement like that would be popular. That doesn't mean they're lying, but it is a reason not to just take them at their word. You want someone more authoritative? Here we go: This is an argument of definition, not of fact. The definitions of rigged that you have put forward are not sufficient for me. Same with Brazile. I am not interested in what the DNC defines as rigging. I am interested in the decisions made by the DNC and how they relate to what I view as "fair" and "neutral". In my eyes, (1) if someone has done a bunch of fundraising etc etc as Clinton has, it increases, not decreases the importance of making sure both her and Bernie were treated 100% the same. Whether Bernie has openly declared disdain for the party or not, once the DNC accepted his involvement in the primary, Bernie and Clinton (2) needed to be treated identically in accordance with my definition of proper democracy. You can disagree and hold another definition of proper democracy. I am not going to say you can't disagree with me regarding the role of seniority, fundraising, party influence and whatnot. I am saying that the way the DNC conducted itself in the primary, as described by Brazile and others, is considered a violation of democracy by my set of ethics. With the core value of democracy being the equality of every person's vote, it is extra important that each of those votes are influenced as minimally as possible by the party/states running each primary. This extends not only into messaging, but even small organizational things. No amount of difference in treatment is acceptable by the (3) governing body in an election. (1) What? Why? Parties are actual things. You may not like parties, but contributing to and joining them is important. Obama took over the Democratic party in a profound way and commanded the votes of the Democrats to get ACA, Stimulus, Dodd-Frank, judges, etc. passed. Trump also took over the Republican party, but look at all the R defections and no votes. We should clap when leaders show up and lead the parties and condemn weak leaders who can't get their own party behind them. This is a big reason why I hated Bernie from the beginning. He was never a team player and never even tried to get non-RT Democrats behind him. (2) I think this whole argument stems from a warped sense of fairness amongst the Bernie defenders. Somehow Bernie's total lack of contribution to the Democrats and refusal to join the party should entitle him to equal affections from the party to someone who actually put in decades of work to support the party. No, socialist Bernie should not get freebies. I propose a different notion of fairness. People who put in work to gather the backing of others in politics should be rewarded with the backing of others. Bernie isn't entitled to anything beyond an equal shot at the elections/caucuses (which he got, see Brazile). (3) The DNC isn't a governing body. They run zero elections. If you think your sense of fairness has been violated by some actions, I repeat my challenge: show your work. The best you have is the debate scheduling. EDIT: -Velr- Wow someone here actually gets it. Politics is a tough game and you have to play to win. Outsiders have to overcome entrenched allies of the status quo. It can be done (see: Obama, Trump), but it is hard.
1. I don't care that parties are things. That's not a good argument. You keep missing my point. I am saying this mechanism/structure/system that exists is, in my eyes, unethical as a democratic device. You keep making appeals to tradition. I don't care what the norm is. I am saying the norm is shitty and it is not ethical. Being elected the leader of a party is very different from participating in the election to see who the leader of the party is. Obama's stuff is fine because he was president. Clinton was a big player, not the elected leader of the party.
2. You can call my sense of fair warped, but don't expect to change my mind that way. You don't think he should have an equal shot. I do. When the event taking place is an election, where people in various states are casting votes to decides who represents the party in an election, I think all the good people did for the party is irrelevant. I believe a primary election should be 100% equal no matter what.
3. It is fine if you don't consider a primary an election. I understand the rules behind it. I understand the fact that Clinton could have won zero states, been given the nomination at the convention and it would have been 100% legal. Legality and ethics are linked at times, but my argument is purely of ethics, not legality. Remember, it was once legal to own slaves. Legality is not something I am concerned with when making arguments of ethics. I am saying the existing structure does not pass my test of ethics and I hope it changes.
Your approaching all of my arguments as if I am trying to describe the current situation. I am not. I am describing the ways that I think the structure should exist in order for me to consider it ethical.
Edit: 1 more thing. At the core "that's the way it is" is an incredibly defeatist attitude to hold. You should strive to always reach for something better, not just accept current ethical slumps. Nothing should ever be considered "good enough".
|
On November 04 2017 02:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2017 02:44 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2017 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2017 02:23 zlefin wrote:
mohdoo -> because I don't trust Brazile; and want more than her words to actually back up her claims.
it's very easy to paint a bad picture with half-truths.
I'd asked yesterday what there was beyond brazile's word; and was told there wasn't anything.
gh -> your claims about the dnc's status are worth nothing.
and your edited anti-trump note means you've still got nothing but your own bias to prove your case, as usual. And when it gets confirmed this agreement happened (as anyone with eyes could tell you was happening and many state Dems complained of long ago) you'll still say my claims are worthless even though I'm right. I just find your position amusing. @Wulfey We get it, you think of the Democrats like a private club, fine. Just don't be surprised when millions of people tell you to shove your country club (D) up your ass. What Democrats don't understand is their base (outside of the 8% of Democrats that hate Bernie) don't like being tricked into thinking their votes couldn't be overridden by some assholes in a smokey room (doesn't matter that it didn't happen, it matters they argued it's their right). Because some tools would come and say "well you didn't know politics isn't beanbag and of course we're a political party don't you know what we do" Democrats are like some asshole arguing about how he's right that the woman he's talking to is objectively fat. It doesn't matter if you're right, you look like an asshole. A broken clock is right twice a day. Proclaiming a bunch of stuff and being proven partially right on one long after doesn't make you a seer. Its easy to make a bunch of bullshit statements to paint a narrative, see what Trump is constantly doing. So no, we won't believe you without evidence to back up your statements. There's plenty of evidence, it's just not evidence without potential alternative explanations. What you guys want is enough evidence to convict (a white woman) in criminal (not civil) court. There is evidence now, and I commented on that before. There was no evidence before and that's why people dismissed you.
Clearly it wasn't, since you see a lot of the people who were dismissive then still being dismissive now.
It's also worth noting the simultaneous attack of "I don't really see anything bad, just GH's bullshit as usual" and "of course there were bad things, why are you shocked, grow up". It's funny how those two groups never interact with one another and are both just talking to their left, seemingly perfectly fine with each other's coexistence.
|
-Mohdoo
Okay, in the realm of should we may agree more than we disagree. The primary system should be 5 one-person one-vote elections spaced over 5 weeks with each election consisting of 5-12 (territories + DC) elections in states/territories. Each election would be a regionally clustered election. EG: CA+NV+AZ+OR+WA, then northeast, then midwest, then southeast, then greatplains. Caucuses are abolished, all elections are run on state one-person one-vote system.
|
On November 03 2017 22:25 Twinkle Toes wrote:Trump supporters, why oh why are you supporting him???
He is the only recent force strong enough to cause an ideological shift in the Republican party, specifically one where they return to having an intellectual foundation and not just saying whatever to get flyover states to turn out. That means we get a Republican party that actually believes in things again, instead of just trying to be a worse version of the Democrats, which is not good for the voter and not a viable way to politics anyway except that at the level of individuals in power it's the option with the least risk to ensure their careers. The establishment system that started around the 80s and fused the parties together at the hip through war in the 2000s, that's broken. Before Trump (and maybe even Sanders taking a shot for the nomination) you only had some noisy token outliers on most issues, on either side. Like Rand Paul, who is my favorite, but he goes on MSNBC for a long interview and presents a dissenting case and votes no for whatever it is on the floor but meanwhile nobody else cares and business continues as usual.
The better Trump does, the more it forces the Democratic party also to get a hold of itself and present ideas and politics besides identity and being not-Trump and appeal to people again. So in the end I get two parties both revamping themselves to win the votes of people who are now actually engaged as opposed to apathetically going through the charade of rubber-stamping the ruling class.
Biggest thing is probably the economy is doing well, stock market is strong, people are investing, people are going to work, unemployment is down, people seeking benefits is down. And all big league. Cutting regulation, and in government also, and gutting bureaucracy and shrinking government spending. Returning education to the states, and it's hard for government to fix universities but changing Title IX guidance is great.
Immigration is becoming more sane. I don't like jurisdictions subverting federal law, or the executive branch doing the same. So going after sanctuary cities and requiring action on DACA and rearranging priorities with legal immigration. Actually, the judiciary in general, keeping the Supreme Court level and keeping the judiciary from swinging too progressive.
He will maybe be the first president since Eisenhower to have a serious focus on North Korea, and hopefully the first since the last 3 administrations, whose neglect is most directly responsible for our predicament now. To a mostly unrelated evil, Islamism has had setbacks.
And of course because we all want to see success with tax and healthcare reform and infrastructure (since the Bush/Obama investments into the economy 8 years ago after the crisis yielded so little whether tangible or not). Setting some of that in motion with the healthcare associations executive order is promising.
|
On November 04 2017 03:28 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 22:25 Twinkle Toes wrote:Trump supporters, why oh why are you supporting him??? He is the only recent force strong enough to cause an ideological shift in the Republican party, specifically one where they return to having an intellectual foundation and not just saying whatever to get flyover states to turn out. That means we get a Republican party that actually believes in things again, instead of just trying to be a worse version of the Democrats, which is not good for the voter and not a viable way to politics anyway except that at the level of individuals in power it's the option with the least risk to ensure their careers. The establishment system that started around the 80s and fused the parties together at the hip through war in the 2000s, that's broken. Before Trump (and maybe even Sanders taking a shot for the nomination) you only had some noisy token outliers on most issues, on either side. Like Rand Paul, who is my favorite, but he goes on MSNBC for a long interview and presents a dissenting case and votes no for whatever it is on the floor but meanwhile nobody else cares and business continues as usual. The better Trump does, the more it forces the Democratic party also to get a hold of itself and present ideas and politics besides identity and being not-Trump and appeal to people again. So in the end I get two parties both revamping themselves to win the votes of people who are now actually engaged as opposed to apathetically going through the charade of rubber-stamping the ruling class. Biggest thing is probably the economy is doing well, stock market is strong, people are investing, people are going to work, unemployment is down, people seeking benefits is down. And all big league. Cutting regulation, and in government also, and gutting bureaucracy and shrinking government spending. Returning education to the states, and it's hard for government to fix universities but changing Title IX guidance is great. Immigration is becoming more sane. I don't like jurisdictions subverting federal law, or the executive branch doing the same. So going after sanctuary cities and requiring action on DACA and rearranging priorities with legal immigration. Actually, the judiciary in general, keeping the Supreme Court level and keeping the judiciary from swinging too progressive. He will maybe be the first president since Eisenhower to have a serious focus on North Korea, and hopefully the first since the last 3 administrations, whose neglect is most directly responsible for our predicament now. To a mostly unrelated evil, Islamism has had setbacks. And of course because we all want to see success with tax and healthcare reform and infrastructure (since the Bush/Obama investments into the economy 8 years ago after the crisis yielded so little whether tangible or not). Setting some of that in motion with the healthcare associations executive order is promising.
What? You start of saying how you're happy that the economy is doing better and that the stock market is up and all this and then you go Obama investments into the economy and work on it yielded so little? WHAT????
|
it's a consistent pattern really: trump support is based on a delusional understanding of reality, with massive heaps of bias.
others have given him and them tthe actual facts and citations.
|
On November 04 2017 03:06 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 02:55 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2017 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2017 02:44 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2017 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2017 02:23 zlefin wrote:
mohdoo -> because I don't trust Brazile; and want more than her words to actually back up her claims.
it's very easy to paint a bad picture with half-truths.
I'd asked yesterday what there was beyond brazile's word; and was told there wasn't anything.
gh -> your claims about the dnc's status are worth nothing.
and your edited anti-trump note means you've still got nothing but your own bias to prove your case, as usual. And when it gets confirmed this agreement happened (as anyone with eyes could tell you was happening and many state Dems complained of long ago) you'll still say my claims are worthless even though I'm right. I just find your position amusing. @Wulfey We get it, you think of the Democrats like a private club, fine. Just don't be surprised when millions of people tell you to shove your country club (D) up your ass. What Democrats don't understand is their base (outside of the 8% of Democrats that hate Bernie) don't like being tricked into thinking their votes couldn't be overridden by some assholes in a smokey room (doesn't matter that it didn't happen, it matters they argued it's their right). Because some tools would come and say "well you didn't know politics isn't beanbag and of course we're a political party don't you know what we do" Democrats are like some asshole arguing about how he's right that the woman he's talking to is objectively fat. It doesn't matter if you're right, you look like an asshole. A broken clock is right twice a day. Proclaiming a bunch of stuff and being proven partially right on one long after doesn't make you a seer. Its easy to make a bunch of bullshit statements to paint a narrative, see what Trump is constantly doing. So no, we won't believe you without evidence to back up your statements. There's plenty of evidence, it's just not evidence without potential alternative explanations. What you guys want is enough evidence to convict (a white woman) in criminal (not civil) court. There is evidence now, and I commented on that before. There was no evidence before and that's why people dismissed you. Clearly it wasn't, since you see a lot of the people who were dismissive then still being dismissive now. It's also worth noting the simultaneous attack of "I don't really see anything bad, just GH's bullshit as usual" and "of course there were bad things, why are you shocked, grow up". It's funny how those two groups never interact with one another and are both just talking to their left, seemingly perfectly fine with each other's coexistence.
I've almost gotten used to having to make these two+ different arguments simultaneously on a few topics. It's just weird when I'm reading these spats on twitter and I notice the two groups liking each others posts. That's a mindfuckr right there.
|
On November 04 2017 03:06 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 02:55 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2017 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2017 02:44 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2017 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2017 02:23 zlefin wrote:
mohdoo -> because I don't trust Brazile; and want more than her words to actually back up her claims.
it's very easy to paint a bad picture with half-truths.
I'd asked yesterday what there was beyond brazile's word; and was told there wasn't anything.
gh -> your claims about the dnc's status are worth nothing.
and your edited anti-trump note means you've still got nothing but your own bias to prove your case, as usual. And when it gets confirmed this agreement happened (as anyone with eyes could tell you was happening and many state Dems complained of long ago) you'll still say my claims are worthless even though I'm right. I just find your position amusing. @Wulfey We get it, you think of the Democrats like a private club, fine. Just don't be surprised when millions of people tell you to shove your country club (D) up your ass. What Democrats don't understand is their base (outside of the 8% of Democrats that hate Bernie) don't like being tricked into thinking their votes couldn't be overridden by some assholes in a smokey room (doesn't matter that it didn't happen, it matters they argued it's their right). Because some tools would come and say "well you didn't know politics isn't beanbag and of course we're a political party don't you know what we do" Democrats are like some asshole arguing about how he's right that the woman he's talking to is objectively fat. It doesn't matter if you're right, you look like an asshole. A broken clock is right twice a day. Proclaiming a bunch of stuff and being proven partially right on one long after doesn't make you a seer. Its easy to make a bunch of bullshit statements to paint a narrative, see what Trump is constantly doing. So no, we won't believe you without evidence to back up your statements. There's plenty of evidence, it's just not evidence without potential alternative explanations. What you guys want is enough evidence to convict (a white woman) in criminal (not civil) court. There is evidence now, and I commented on that before. There was no evidence before and that's why people dismissed you. Clearly it wasn't, since you see a lot of the people who were dismissive then still being dismissive now. It's also worth noting the simultaneous attack of "I don't really see anything bad, just GH's bullshit as usual" and "of course there were bad things, why are you shocked, grow up". It's funny how those two groups never interact with one another and are both just talking to their left, seemingly perfectly fine with each other's coexistence.
As one of the "of course there were bad things" people, I can speak in that regard.
There was plenty of evidence that DNC members were biased towards Hillary, and this should not be surprising nor unexpected. She was a party insider who had done a lot of work for the organization, and Bernie was an outsider had done very little.
There was no previous evidence of actual rigging of the election or violation of election rules. Now, if Hillary used the DNC to bypass election funding limits, that's actual evidence of something. I'm guessing that's what this news is saying.
|
On November 04 2017 03:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 03:06 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2017 02:55 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2017 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2017 02:44 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2017 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2017 02:23 zlefin wrote:
mohdoo -> because I don't trust Brazile; and want more than her words to actually back up her claims.
it's very easy to paint a bad picture with half-truths.
I'd asked yesterday what there was beyond brazile's word; and was told there wasn't anything.
gh -> your claims about the dnc's status are worth nothing.
and your edited anti-trump note means you've still got nothing but your own bias to prove your case, as usual. And when it gets confirmed this agreement happened (as anyone with eyes could tell you was happening and many state Dems complained of long ago) you'll still say my claims are worthless even though I'm right. I just find your position amusing. @Wulfey We get it, you think of the Democrats like a private club, fine. Just don't be surprised when millions of people tell you to shove your country club (D) up your ass. What Democrats don't understand is their base (outside of the 8% of Democrats that hate Bernie) don't like being tricked into thinking their votes couldn't be overridden by some assholes in a smokey room (doesn't matter that it didn't happen, it matters they argued it's their right). Because some tools would come and say "well you didn't know politics isn't beanbag and of course we're a political party don't you know what we do" Democrats are like some asshole arguing about how he's right that the woman he's talking to is objectively fat. It doesn't matter if you're right, you look like an asshole. A broken clock is right twice a day. Proclaiming a bunch of stuff and being proven partially right on one long after doesn't make you a seer. Its easy to make a bunch of bullshit statements to paint a narrative, see what Trump is constantly doing. So no, we won't believe you without evidence to back up your statements. There's plenty of evidence, it's just not evidence without potential alternative explanations. What you guys want is enough evidence to convict (a white woman) in criminal (not civil) court. There is evidence now, and I commented on that before. There was no evidence before and that's why people dismissed you. Clearly it wasn't, since you see a lot of the people who were dismissive then still being dismissive now. It's also worth noting the simultaneous attack of "I don't really see anything bad, just GH's bullshit as usual" and "of course there were bad things, why are you shocked, grow up". It's funny how those two groups never interact with one another and are both just talking to their left, seemingly perfectly fine with each other's coexistence. As one of the "of course there were bad things" people, I can speak in that regard. There was plenty of evidence that DNC members were biased towards Hillary, and this should not be surprising nor unexpected. She was a party insider who had done a lot of work for the organization, and Bernie was an outsider had done very little. There was no previous evidence of actual rigging of the election or violation of election rules. Now, if Hillary used the DNC to bypass election funding limits, that's actual evidence of something. I'm guessing that's what this news is saying.
How do you square the lying about the relationship between the DNC and Hillary's campaign through the whole primary?
|
On November 04 2017 03:37 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 03:28 oBlade wrote:On November 03 2017 22:25 Twinkle Toes wrote:Trump supporters, why oh why are you supporting him??? He is the only recent force strong enough to cause an ideological shift in the Republican party, specifically one where they return to having an intellectual foundation and not just saying whatever to get flyover states to turn out. That means we get a Republican party that actually believes in things again, instead of just trying to be a worse version of the Democrats, which is not good for the voter and not a viable way to politics anyway except that at the level of individuals in power it's the option with the least risk to ensure their careers. The establishment system that started around the 80s and fused the parties together at the hip through war in the 2000s, that's broken. Before Trump (and maybe even Sanders taking a shot for the nomination) you only had some noisy token outliers on most issues, on either side. Like Rand Paul, who is my favorite, but he goes on MSNBC for a long interview and presents a dissenting case and votes no for whatever it is on the floor but meanwhile nobody else cares and business continues as usual. The better Trump does, the more it forces the Democratic party also to get a hold of itself and present ideas and politics besides identity and being not-Trump and appeal to people again. So in the end I get two parties both revamping themselves to win the votes of people who are now actually engaged as opposed to apathetically going through the charade of rubber-stamping the ruling class. Biggest thing is probably the economy is doing well, stock market is strong, people are investing, people are going to work, unemployment is down, people seeking benefits is down. And all big league. Cutting regulation, and in government also, and gutting bureaucracy and shrinking government spending. Returning education to the states, and it's hard for government to fix universities but changing Title IX guidance is great. Immigration is becoming more sane. I don't like jurisdictions subverting federal law, or the executive branch doing the same. So going after sanctuary cities and requiring action on DACA and rearranging priorities with legal immigration. Actually, the judiciary in general, keeping the Supreme Court level and keeping the judiciary from swinging too progressive. He will maybe be the first president since Eisenhower to have a serious focus on North Korea, and hopefully the first since the last 3 administrations, whose neglect is most directly responsible for our predicament now. To a mostly unrelated evil, Islamism has had setbacks. And of course because we all want to see success with tax and healthcare reform and infrastructure (since the Bush/Obama investments into the economy 8 years ago after the crisis yielded so little whether tangible or not). Setting some of that in motion with the healthcare associations executive order is promising. What? You start of saying how you're happy that the economy is doing better and that the stock market is up and all this and then you go Obama investments into the economy and work on it yielded so little? WHAT????
1) The question was why do you support Trump. Obama, who I supported, wasn't an option for president in 2016 or ever again because of the 22nd Amendment so it wouldn't matter if he gave every household a Porsche, he wasn't on the menu. You're attacking a non-issue.
2) I very subtly signaled not caring for partisan hackery like this when I said Bush/Obama. Do you have a browser plugin that wordfilters all instances of the word Bush? Each administration put nearly a trillion dollars into the economy, Bush bailing out the financial system and Obama with something about "shovel-ready jobs" that never materialized, in his case bumbling the execution.
3) Re: Stock markets:
None of the above over $1 trillion in spending (Just imagine what you should be able to do with such money) was designed to kick in after the election of someone both Bush and Obama hate years later in the form of stock market value. Probably a better complaint for you to level would be you can't trace something Trump did to cause it either but nonetheless, here we are, gift horse and all.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On November 04 2017 04:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 03:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 04 2017 03:06 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2017 02:55 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2017 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2017 02:44 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2017 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2017 02:23 zlefin wrote:
mohdoo -> because I don't trust Brazile; and want more than her words to actually back up her claims.
it's very easy to paint a bad picture with half-truths.
I'd asked yesterday what there was beyond brazile's word; and was told there wasn't anything.
gh -> your claims about the dnc's status are worth nothing.
and your edited anti-trump note means you've still got nothing but your own bias to prove your case, as usual. And when it gets confirmed this agreement happened (as anyone with eyes could tell you was happening and many state Dems complained of long ago) you'll still say my claims are worthless even though I'm right. I just find your position amusing. @Wulfey We get it, you think of the Democrats like a private club, fine. Just don't be surprised when millions of people tell you to shove your country club (D) up your ass. What Democrats don't understand is their base (outside of the 8% of Democrats that hate Bernie) don't like being tricked into thinking their votes couldn't be overridden by some assholes in a smokey room (doesn't matter that it didn't happen, it matters they argued it's their right). Because some tools would come and say "well you didn't know politics isn't beanbag and of course we're a political party don't you know what we do" Democrats are like some asshole arguing about how he's right that the woman he's talking to is objectively fat. It doesn't matter if you're right, you look like an asshole. A broken clock is right twice a day. Proclaiming a bunch of stuff and being proven partially right on one long after doesn't make you a seer. Its easy to make a bunch of bullshit statements to paint a narrative, see what Trump is constantly doing. So no, we won't believe you without evidence to back up your statements. There's plenty of evidence, it's just not evidence without potential alternative explanations. What you guys want is enough evidence to convict (a white woman) in criminal (not civil) court. There is evidence now, and I commented on that before. There was no evidence before and that's why people dismissed you. Clearly it wasn't, since you see a lot of the people who were dismissive then still being dismissive now. It's also worth noting the simultaneous attack of "I don't really see anything bad, just GH's bullshit as usual" and "of course there were bad things, why are you shocked, grow up". It's funny how those two groups never interact with one another and are both just talking to their left, seemingly perfectly fine with each other's coexistence. As one of the "of course there were bad things" people, I can speak in that regard. There was plenty of evidence that DNC members were biased towards Hillary, and this should not be surprising nor unexpected. She was a party insider who had done a lot of work for the organization, and Bernie was an outsider had done very little. There was no previous evidence of actual rigging of the election or violation of election rules. Now, if Hillary used the DNC to bypass election funding limits, that's actual evidence of something. I'm guessing that's what this news is saying. How do you square the lying about the relationship between the DNC and Hillary's campaign through the whole primary?
I feel like the defenders of this new information just completely miss the point. They all rush to Hillary's defense but completely miss the point that this is about the DNC. Like out of all the people who participated I blame Hillary and her campaign the least, of course she's willing to make these types of deals for a leg up and she was perfectly incentivized to do so.
It seems really wrong to gloss over the DNC blowing all its money on useless shit then forcing itself to sign up with the highest bidder at the expense of potentially choosing the best candidate (regardless of if the best candidate was Hillary or not).
Then again maybe these people just want to wait until next time and it's a Donald Trump character who comes along offering to bail out the DNC's empty coffers.
|
On November 04 2017 04:21 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 04:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2017 03:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 04 2017 03:06 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2017 02:55 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2017 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2017 02:44 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2017 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2017 02:23 zlefin wrote:
mohdoo -> because I don't trust Brazile; and want more than her words to actually back up her claims.
it's very easy to paint a bad picture with half-truths.
I'd asked yesterday what there was beyond brazile's word; and was told there wasn't anything.
gh -> your claims about the dnc's status are worth nothing.
and your edited anti-trump note means you've still got nothing but your own bias to prove your case, as usual. And when it gets confirmed this agreement happened (as anyone with eyes could tell you was happening and many state Dems complained of long ago) you'll still say my claims are worthless even though I'm right. I just find your position amusing. @Wulfey We get it, you think of the Democrats like a private club, fine. Just don't be surprised when millions of people tell you to shove your country club (D) up your ass. What Democrats don't understand is their base (outside of the 8% of Democrats that hate Bernie) don't like being tricked into thinking their votes couldn't be overridden by some assholes in a smokey room (doesn't matter that it didn't happen, it matters they argued it's their right). Because some tools would come and say "well you didn't know politics isn't beanbag and of course we're a political party don't you know what we do" Democrats are like some asshole arguing about how he's right that the woman he's talking to is objectively fat. It doesn't matter if you're right, you look like an asshole. A broken clock is right twice a day. Proclaiming a bunch of stuff and being proven partially right on one long after doesn't make you a seer. Its easy to make a bunch of bullshit statements to paint a narrative, see what Trump is constantly doing. So no, we won't believe you without evidence to back up your statements. There's plenty of evidence, it's just not evidence without potential alternative explanations. What you guys want is enough evidence to convict (a white woman) in criminal (not civil) court. There is evidence now, and I commented on that before. There was no evidence before and that's why people dismissed you. Clearly it wasn't, since you see a lot of the people who were dismissive then still being dismissive now. It's also worth noting the simultaneous attack of "I don't really see anything bad, just GH's bullshit as usual" and "of course there were bad things, why are you shocked, grow up". It's funny how those two groups never interact with one another and are both just talking to their left, seemingly perfectly fine with each other's coexistence. As one of the "of course there were bad things" people, I can speak in that regard. There was plenty of evidence that DNC members were biased towards Hillary, and this should not be surprising nor unexpected. She was a party insider who had done a lot of work for the organization, and Bernie was an outsider had done very little. There was no previous evidence of actual rigging of the election or violation of election rules. Now, if Hillary used the DNC to bypass election funding limits, that's actual evidence of something. I'm guessing that's what this news is saying. How do you square the lying about the relationship between the DNC and Hillary's campaign through the whole primary? I feel like the defenders of this new information just completely miss the point. They all rush to Hillary's defense but completely miss the point that this is about the DNC. Like out of all the people who participated I blame Hillary and her campaign the least, of course she's willing to make these types of deals for a leg up and she was perfectly incentivized to do so. It seems really wrong to gloss over the DNC blowing all its money on useless shit then forcing itself to sign up with the highest bidder at the expense of potentially choosing the best candidate (regardless of if the best candidate was Hillary or not). Then again maybe these people just want to wait until next time and it's a Donald Trump character who comes along offering to bail out the DNC's empty coffers.
There is definitely a segment (less prevalent here) that is essentially arguing the DNC is and should be up for sale in 2018 and 2020 in order to defend Hillary.
But here I've certainly noticed a leap to make sure I'm wrong rather than understand what the problems are.
|
https://gimletmedia.com/episode/109-facebook-spying/
Folks should listen to the most recent reply all on Facebook’s data collection. Highlights:
Facebook has 52 thousand data points to collect on anyone person.
One group of people they have is “people who pretend to text during awkward discussions.” It is unclear how they know that.
|
On November 04 2017 04:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 03:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 04 2017 03:06 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2017 02:55 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2017 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2017 02:44 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2017 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2017 02:23 zlefin wrote:
mohdoo -> because I don't trust Brazile; and want more than her words to actually back up her claims.
it's very easy to paint a bad picture with half-truths.
I'd asked yesterday what there was beyond brazile's word; and was told there wasn't anything.
gh -> your claims about the dnc's status are worth nothing.
and your edited anti-trump note means you've still got nothing but your own bias to prove your case, as usual. And when it gets confirmed this agreement happened (as anyone with eyes could tell you was happening and many state Dems complained of long ago) you'll still say my claims are worthless even though I'm right. I just find your position amusing. @Wulfey We get it, you think of the Democrats like a private club, fine. Just don't be surprised when millions of people tell you to shove your country club (D) up your ass. What Democrats don't understand is their base (outside of the 8% of Democrats that hate Bernie) don't like being tricked into thinking their votes couldn't be overridden by some assholes in a smokey room (doesn't matter that it didn't happen, it matters they argued it's their right). Because some tools would come and say "well you didn't know politics isn't beanbag and of course we're a political party don't you know what we do" Democrats are like some asshole arguing about how he's right that the woman he's talking to is objectively fat. It doesn't matter if you're right, you look like an asshole. A broken clock is right twice a day. Proclaiming a bunch of stuff and being proven partially right on one long after doesn't make you a seer. Its easy to make a bunch of bullshit statements to paint a narrative, see what Trump is constantly doing. So no, we won't believe you without evidence to back up your statements. There's plenty of evidence, it's just not evidence without potential alternative explanations. What you guys want is enough evidence to convict (a white woman) in criminal (not civil) court. There is evidence now, and I commented on that before. There was no evidence before and that's why people dismissed you. Clearly it wasn't, since you see a lot of the people who were dismissive then still being dismissive now. It's also worth noting the simultaneous attack of "I don't really see anything bad, just GH's bullshit as usual" and "of course there were bad things, why are you shocked, grow up". It's funny how those two groups never interact with one another and are both just talking to their left, seemingly perfectly fine with each other's coexistence. As one of the "of course there were bad things" people, I can speak in that regard. There was plenty of evidence that DNC members were biased towards Hillary, and this should not be surprising nor unexpected. She was a party insider who had done a lot of work for the organization, and Bernie was an outsider had done very little. There was no previous evidence of actual rigging of the election or violation of election rules. Now, if Hillary used the DNC to bypass election funding limits, that's actual evidence of something. I'm guessing that's what this news is saying. How do you square the lying about the relationship between the DNC and Hillary's campaign through the whole primary?
Well, this is where someone is going to have explain to me what the divide is supposed to be. Because I'm very much used to the party leadership race being part of the party.
On November 04 2017 04:33 Plansix wrote:https://gimletmedia.com/episode/109-facebook-spying/Folks should listen to the most recent reply all on Facebook’s data collection. Highlights: Facebook has 52 thousand data points to collect on anyone person. One group of people they have is “people who pretend to text during awkward discussions.” It is unclear how they know that.
Yup, this is why you should never put your life onto social media.
And that group of people is probably known because people post that they do it, and it's a common enough occurrence that it's noteworthy.
|
David brooks does the best unintentional satire
|
On November 04 2017 04:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 04:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2017 03:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 04 2017 03:06 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2017 02:55 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2017 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2017 02:44 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2017 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2017 02:23 zlefin wrote:
mohdoo -> because I don't trust Brazile; and want more than her words to actually back up her claims.
it's very easy to paint a bad picture with half-truths.
I'd asked yesterday what there was beyond brazile's word; and was told there wasn't anything.
gh -> your claims about the dnc's status are worth nothing.
and your edited anti-trump note means you've still got nothing but your own bias to prove your case, as usual. And when it gets confirmed this agreement happened (as anyone with eyes could tell you was happening and many state Dems complained of long ago) you'll still say my claims are worthless even though I'm right. I just find your position amusing. @Wulfey We get it, you think of the Democrats like a private club, fine. Just don't be surprised when millions of people tell you to shove your country club (D) up your ass. What Democrats don't understand is their base (outside of the 8% of Democrats that hate Bernie) don't like being tricked into thinking their votes couldn't be overridden by some assholes in a smokey room (doesn't matter that it didn't happen, it matters they argued it's their right). Because some tools would come and say "well you didn't know politics isn't beanbag and of course we're a political party don't you know what we do" Democrats are like some asshole arguing about how he's right that the woman he's talking to is objectively fat. It doesn't matter if you're right, you look like an asshole. A broken clock is right twice a day. Proclaiming a bunch of stuff and being proven partially right on one long after doesn't make you a seer. Its easy to make a bunch of bullshit statements to paint a narrative, see what Trump is constantly doing. So no, we won't believe you without evidence to back up your statements. There's plenty of evidence, it's just not evidence without potential alternative explanations. What you guys want is enough evidence to convict (a white woman) in criminal (not civil) court. There is evidence now, and I commented on that before. There was no evidence before and that's why people dismissed you. Clearly it wasn't, since you see a lot of the people who were dismissive then still being dismissive now. It's also worth noting the simultaneous attack of "I don't really see anything bad, just GH's bullshit as usual" and "of course there were bad things, why are you shocked, grow up". It's funny how those two groups never interact with one another and are both just talking to their left, seemingly perfectly fine with each other's coexistence. As one of the "of course there were bad things" people, I can speak in that regard. There was plenty of evidence that DNC members were biased towards Hillary, and this should not be surprising nor unexpected. She was a party insider who had done a lot of work for the organization, and Bernie was an outsider had done very little. There was no previous evidence of actual rigging of the election or violation of election rules. Now, if Hillary used the DNC to bypass election funding limits, that's actual evidence of something. I'm guessing that's what this news is saying. How do you square the lying about the relationship between the DNC and Hillary's campaign through the whole primary? Well, this is where someone is going to have explain to me what the divide is supposed to be. Because I'm very much used to the party leadership race being part of the party. Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 04:33 Plansix wrote:https://gimletmedia.com/episode/109-facebook-spying/Folks should listen to the most recent reply all on Facebook’s data collection. Highlights: Facebook has 52 thousand data points to collect on anyone person. One group of people they have is “people who pretend to text during awkward discussions.” It is unclear how they know that. Yup, this is why you should never put your life onto social media. And that group of people is probably known because people post that they do it, and it's a common enough occurrence that it's noteworthy.
Yes, but Facebook tracks you even if you don’t put your information on social media. They have a profiles on people that don’t even have accounts because they pay data collection services and websites that use their Pixel software.
There are days that I feel his editor has completely given up. There is this charm to how clueless he is.
|
On November 04 2017 04:33 Plansix wrote:https://gimletmedia.com/episode/109-facebook-spying/Folks should listen to the most recent reply all on Facebook’s data collection. Highlights: Facebook has 52 thousand data points to collect on anyone person. One group of people they have is “people who pretend to text during awkward discussions.” It is unclear how they know that.
Thats obvious. They are tracking your conversations I'm sure that's a secondary "feature" of their messenger app.
|
On November 04 2017 05:32 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 04:33 Plansix wrote:https://gimletmedia.com/episode/109-facebook-spying/Folks should listen to the most recent reply all on Facebook’s data collection. Highlights: Facebook has 52 thousand data points to collect on anyone person. One group of people they have is “people who pretend to text during awkward discussions.” It is unclear how they know that. Thats obvious. They are tracking your conversations I'm sure that's a secondary "feature" of their messenger app.
Though it seems crazy that location software could do all of this, I still subscribe that Facebook isn’t using the mic on the phone. The reason behind this is that it is so risky and I feel would be easy to detect. But again, facebook is deeply stupid on so many fronts, maybe they are.
|
A reminder that our President is old man yelling at a Television.
|
United States43275 Posts
On November 04 2017 00:59 xDaunt wrote:
The thing that always strikes me about the Warren/Pocohontas thing is how it so perfectly illustrates the insane degree to which the American Left values diversity for diversity's sake.
Intelligence without experience is meaningless because experience is the foundation we build upon with our intelligence. A limited field of experience results in a limited view, regardless of intelligence. The Founding Fathers were a bunch of real smart white landowning men, and yet when it came to a bunch of simple fucking questions like "should we enslave black folks?" or "should women have the vote?" they got it woefully wrong. It wasn't that they lacked intelligence, it's that there weren't a bunch of black Founding Fathers in the room with them.
It's the same reason you get intelligent people from an upper middle class upbringing talking shit about welfare, the fact that they're smart doesn't change the problem of lack of experience. It's why Trump says that he'll explain to the people living in depressed Appalachian areas that they need to sell their homes and go where the work is.
Smart people have the ability to believe some really, really stupid things when they're working from a limited base of experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
