|
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. |
A lot of political work also doesn't care about human rights issues. Countries want to develop and are very willing to turn a blind eye if it helps them.
I can understand people not liking the TPP but throwing it in the trash left a void someone else will gladly fill. Combine it with Paris abandonment and NAFTA threats and the US looks hella sketchy.
|
A Bowling Green man was arrested for assaulting U.S. Sen. Rand Paul at his residence Friday afternoon, causing minor injury, according to a Kentucky State Police news release issued Saturday afternoon.
KSP troopers responded to Paul's home in Warren County at about 3:21 p.m. Friday in reference to a report of an assault, according to the news release.
Troopers determined that Rene A. Boucher, 59, had "intentionally assaulted Paul causing a minor injury", the news release said.
Boucher was charged with one count of fourth degree assault with minor injury, and was lodged in the Warren County Regional Jail.
Paul spokeswoman Kelsey Cooper released a statement Saturday about the incident after being contacted for comment.
"Senator Paul was blindsided and the victim of an assault. The assailant was arrested and it is now a matter for the police. Senator Paul is fine," the statement read.
The Republican senator was first elected in 2010.
In June, Paul was among several congress members practicing in Washington, D.C. for the annual congressional baseball game when a gunman opened fire, wounding Rep. Steve Scalise.
As for the incident Friday, KSP stated in the release that no further details are available at this time.
According to the Warren County Regional Jail's website, Boucher remained in jail as of Saturday afternoon with a bond of $5,000.
www.glasgowdailytimes.com
|
On November 05 2017 05:55 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +A Bowling Green man was arrested for assaulting U.S. Sen. Rand Paul at his residence Friday afternoon, causing minor injury, according to a Kentucky State Police news release issued Saturday afternoon.
KSP troopers responded to Paul's home in Warren County at about 3:21 p.m. Friday in reference to a report of an assault, according to the news release.
Troopers determined that Rene A. Boucher, 59, had "intentionally assaulted Paul causing a minor injury", the news release said.
Boucher was charged with one count of fourth degree assault with minor injury, and was lodged in the Warren County Regional Jail.
Paul spokeswoman Kelsey Cooper released a statement Saturday about the incident after being contacted for comment.
"Senator Paul was blindsided and the victim of an assault. The assailant was arrested and it is now a matter for the police. Senator Paul is fine," the statement read.
The Republican senator was first elected in 2010.
In June, Paul was among several congress members practicing in Washington, D.C. for the annual congressional baseball game when a gunman opened fire, wounding Rep. Steve Scalise.
As for the incident Friday, KSP stated in the release that no further details are available at this time.
According to the Warren County Regional Jail's website, Boucher remained in jail as of Saturday afternoon with a bond of $5,000.
www.glasgowdailytimes.com Attacking politicians is never the answer, no matter how much you dislike them.
|
On November 05 2017 05:22 doomdonker wrote:
Yes, which is why I said human rights issues aside. I don't actually think China is benevolent, I thought that was clear in my post.
You need to live somewhere that isn't United States or Europe. When you see a coup every few years while living in Thailand or the Philippines, political human rights issues are less of an issue if you're not political, have always stayed out of trouble and just want to earn money to feed your family. To us in the West, they're basically imperialists in Africa but many Africans see it differently because of the sheer amount of investment they're putting into countries over there.
And to many people in such countries, democracy doesn't seem to work to be worthwhile when Chinese style capitalism can bring about government stability combined with good economic prospects fueled by huge Chinese investment bring about a stability they haven't seen.
I don't agree with China's method of governance and I believe their human rights issues are horrendous. But the current view of the United States is seriously negative right now and if you think that's a mad liberal conspiracy, then sure you can think that. But with the election of Trump, pulling out the Paris Accord, waging trade wars with everyone, being inconsistent towards China and Russia, the increase of white supremacist movement in the United States, Trump's inability to denounce it immediately and so forth, does the world have a good reason to feel good about the USA?
Please look at how the rest of the world's media is depicting the United States and Trump. Its rarely positive at this point. Even The Herald Sun, a Rupert Murdoch owned tabloid newspaper which constantly rails against political correctness and radical lefties, was dunking on Trump in a good amount of its news content due to his piss poor response to the white supremacist march in Charlottesville. One editorial straight up called him a racist. Considering this is the newspaper that still backs Tony Abbot over Malcolm Turnbull, that's how bad its gotten in Australia.
You can't separate them out if you want to talk the benevolence of one country versus another. If you ignore massive parts wrong with China, but take all of America's at face value, you've lost the opportunity to make international benevolence comparisons. The exclusion practically proves the rule. China oppresses its emigrated citizens by holding captive their family members and jailing and torturing them. That certainly is a problem with foreign relations of other governments with China. One Example.
You need to live somewhere that isn't United States or Europe? I don't see how more first-hand knowledge of third world banana republics improves your case. If anything, it heightens the need for political stability with representative government. As in, a United States that accepts the results of the election and moves on, instead of these bizarre white supremacy hysteria that shows one side of the political aisle only likes the system if they win and run it.
I'm fine with foreign media dumping on Trump. Our goal isn't to move the center of our politics to European norms or Asian norms. They can either accept that our politics and culture and national makeup is different, or they can't. We'd see a century of leftist rule if the goal was to appease the foreign press. The bottom line is the world likes the US being a patsy that guarantees their national security, but doesn't act in a manner that makes sense for them. In another generation, maybe they also click back to the reality of America--that would be a welcome change. You're making a mighty leap between negative views of America abroad and comparing China and America in terms of benevolence.
|
On November 05 2017 06:04 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2017 05:55 Nevuk wrote:A Bowling Green man was arrested for assaulting U.S. Sen. Rand Paul at his residence Friday afternoon, causing minor injury, according to a Kentucky State Police news release issued Saturday afternoon.
KSP troopers responded to Paul's home in Warren County at about 3:21 p.m. Friday in reference to a report of an assault, according to the news release.
Troopers determined that Rene A. Boucher, 59, had "intentionally assaulted Paul causing a minor injury", the news release said.
Boucher was charged with one count of fourth degree assault with minor injury, and was lodged in the Warren County Regional Jail.
Paul spokeswoman Kelsey Cooper released a statement Saturday about the incident after being contacted for comment.
"Senator Paul was blindsided and the victim of an assault. The assailant was arrested and it is now a matter for the police. Senator Paul is fine," the statement read.
The Republican senator was first elected in 2010.
In June, Paul was among several congress members practicing in Washington, D.C. for the annual congressional baseball game when a gunman opened fire, wounding Rep. Steve Scalise.
As for the incident Friday, KSP stated in the release that no further details are available at this time.
According to the Warren County Regional Jail's website, Boucher remained in jail as of Saturday afternoon with a bond of $5,000.
www.glasgowdailytimes.com Attacking politicians is never the answer, no matter how much you dislike them.
It's unclear what motivated the attack right now. Could have been a personal beef. Guy who attacked him made some sort of back pain vest with ice packs and marketed it on QVC, nothing else really known yet. If it were politically motivated I would've expected him to have said something that would be reported by now, but people are weird.
|
On November 05 2017 05:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:
China is obviously worse than the US by 'objective standards' of human rights abuse. But Trump is a more offensive character than Xi Jinping, and this matters. Trump makes former american allies cheer for american failure, because he is such a viscerally offensive character. It's not rational - but nor was the foundation for Trump winning, and this is how his desire for 'reciprocality' is actually going to play out, people end up more willing to work with China than with the US, because the concept of Trump winning and succeeding makes people feel worse than they do about actual human rights abuse. On the international stage, him being such a complete buffoon really, really hurts the standing of the US, and I don't think most Trump supporters fully understand the extent of this.
And it can rationally be explained in ways like, at least they're not gonna semi-randomly withdraw from international treaties every 4 years
Likewise, the rest of the world and most of the United States doesn't grasp what the US would be if political business-as-usual continued. Trump is a tragedy. Calling Trump a white supremacist as with his voters and half the country is Act 1 & 2. I really hope we can resolve the Republican interparty issues and Republican vs Democrat political rancor sooner rather than later. It doesn't please me to see a buffoon on the world stage, however much people leap to use it to justify Chinese international benevolence vs sinister American white supremacy.
If wish you could see that the foundation for Trump winning was an inherently rational process. oBlade detailed the rational reasons why. The Flight 93 election, which is really mandatory reading for understanding conservatism vs Trump/Trumpism, is a very rational thought process. You might not see it for a number of years. I want American success and longevity, but that doesn't work with a disconnected Washington elite, unrepresentative Republican party, or radically racialized political atmosphere. Trump's properly seen as the symptom to a problem that maybe a Norwegian like yourself wouldn't recognize. For all his chaos, he might even been step one to the solution.
|
On November 04 2017 11:37 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 11:21 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2017 11:15 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 04 2017 11:11 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2017 11:03 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 04 2017 10:56 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2017 10:18 GoTuNk! wrote:![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/8fbb11c7bda69afbac6c91a8e5190834.png) Crooked Hillary and Crazy Bernie, too good to not share Edit: Looking to find common points, any of our leftists regulars thinks sergant bowe berghdal should at the very least be imprisoned for manslaughter? Guy deserted and got 5 american soldiers killed searching for him, and then he was traded back in exchange for 5 captured terrorists. A judge let him free basically because he dislikes Trump, in his own words. It's not clear from this post that you're aware of what manslaughter is. As for trading him back, if the American public send American boys out to the mountains of Afghanistan they should do what they can to bring them home. This isn't some random member of the public that decided he wanted to join the Taliban or whatever, this is a guy who signed up to serve his country and got shipped out there. Whatever mental breakdown that led him to wander off base is directly traceable to the decision by the US government to send him to Afghanistan, and his decision to serve his country. We don't only have a duty to the veterans whose stories we make heroic movies about. They all volunteered, they all served. Yeah I got the word wrong, sorry not my native language. That said, your argument makes no sense, the guy was a soldier that ignored his duties and got his comrades killed as a direct result of this. He is at the very least a dessertor, if not a traitor (apparently he wanted to join the Taliban? wtf) Taking care of veterans back home is entirely different than giving soldiers free pass to abandon duty. Whatever mental breakdown that led him to wander off base is directly traceable to the decision by the US government to send him to Afghanistan, and his decision to serve his country. So he has no responsability to behave properly because he was sent to a conflict zone as part of his duty? really? He absolutely has a duty to follow orders etc, as do all soldiers. But treating him like his action was in any way a result of malice or conspiracy against the United States is crazy, the guy joined because he wanted to serve his country. War does strange shit to people. He's an American veteran and a casualty of the deployment he was sent on. Regardless of whether or not he followed orders. You don't get to pick and choose which casualties deserve the protection of the US state. You send them out there, you bring them back. It's that simple. If you want to court martial them once you've got them back on US soil then so be it, but don't leave them over there. If he'd blown his brains out you wouldn't be calling him a deserter, and certainly not a traitor. But wandering alone into the mountains, which is far less crazy than sticking a gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger, and suddenly you want to crucify him. Oh nono, I'm ok with trading him back. However, he should be held accountable for getting 5 american soldiers killed and 5 terrorists released. Actions don't have to be done out of malice to warrant criminal responsability and jail time, specially in a warzone and specially if you are in the army. What profit do you see in punishing a guy for an action that already resulted in him spending years as a prisoner of the Taliban? Who are you interested in doing this for? Him as a punishment? I doubt American military prisons are worse than what he has already endured. Him as a prevention, so he won't wander off base again? It's not likely that he'll wander from America back to Afghanistan. Other soldiers as a deterrent? The sane ones aren't wandering alone into Taliban held mountains, the insane ones aren't going "I'm fine with the risk of being tortured and killed by the Taliban, but I don't know if I could deal with the risk of prison". Honouring his comrades who died trying to free him by locking him in a box? It sucks that all this happened but he's a casualty of a war he didn't ask for. Rules need to be enforced to maintain discipline, but common sense also needs to be applied. It profits absolutely noone to punish this guy. He should be punished for being a desertor and borderline traitor to his nation who got fellow country man killed and might get more fellow country man killed trough the actions of the released terrorists. The notion that people should only be punished for breaking the law when there is a material benefit to it, is completely ridiculous and has no legal basis.
He was given a lenient sentence based upon the circumstances of his capture / torture.
This is how the law works for everyone. Bergdahl shouldn't be treated differently because of your politics.
|
On November 05 2017 06:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 11:37 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 04 2017 11:21 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2017 11:15 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 04 2017 11:11 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2017 11:03 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 04 2017 10:56 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2017 10:18 GoTuNk! wrote:Crooked Hillary and Crazy Bernie, too good to not share Edit: Looking to find common points, any of our leftists regulars thinks sergant bowe berghdal should at the very least be imprisoned for manslaughter? Guy deserted and got 5 american soldiers killed searching for him, and then he was traded back in exchange for 5 captured terrorists. A judge let him free basically because he dislikes Trump, in his own words. It's not clear from this post that you're aware of what manslaughter is. As for trading him back, if the American public send American boys out to the mountains of Afghanistan they should do what they can to bring them home. This isn't some random member of the public that decided he wanted to join the Taliban or whatever, this is a guy who signed up to serve his country and got shipped out there. Whatever mental breakdown that led him to wander off base is directly traceable to the decision by the US government to send him to Afghanistan, and his decision to serve his country. We don't only have a duty to the veterans whose stories we make heroic movies about. They all volunteered, they all served. Yeah I got the word wrong, sorry not my native language. That said, your argument makes no sense, the guy was a soldier that ignored his duties and got his comrades killed as a direct result of this. He is at the very least a dessertor, if not a traitor (apparently he wanted to join the Taliban? wtf) Taking care of veterans back home is entirely different than giving soldiers free pass to abandon duty. Whatever mental breakdown that led him to wander off base is directly traceable to the decision by the US government to send him to Afghanistan, and his decision to serve his country. So he has no responsability to behave properly because he was sent to a conflict zone as part of his duty? really? He absolutely has a duty to follow orders etc, as do all soldiers. But treating him like his action was in any way a result of malice or conspiracy against the United States is crazy, the guy joined because he wanted to serve his country. War does strange shit to people. He's an American veteran and a casualty of the deployment he was sent on. Regardless of whether or not he followed orders. You don't get to pick and choose which casualties deserve the protection of the US state. You send them out there, you bring them back. It's that simple. If you want to court martial them once you've got them back on US soil then so be it, but don't leave them over there. If he'd blown his brains out you wouldn't be calling him a deserter, and certainly not a traitor. But wandering alone into the mountains, which is far less crazy than sticking a gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger, and suddenly you want to crucify him. Oh nono, I'm ok with trading him back. However, he should be held accountable for getting 5 american soldiers killed and 5 terrorists released. Actions don't have to be done out of malice to warrant criminal responsability and jail time, specially in a warzone and specially if you are in the army. What profit do you see in punishing a guy for an action that already resulted in him spending years as a prisoner of the Taliban? Who are you interested in doing this for? Him as a punishment? I doubt American military prisons are worse than what he has already endured. Him as a prevention, so he won't wander off base again? It's not likely that he'll wander from America back to Afghanistan. Other soldiers as a deterrent? The sane ones aren't wandering alone into Taliban held mountains, the insane ones aren't going "I'm fine with the risk of being tortured and killed by the Taliban, but I don't know if I could deal with the risk of prison". Honouring his comrades who died trying to free him by locking him in a box? It sucks that all this happened but he's a casualty of a war he didn't ask for. Rules need to be enforced to maintain discipline, but common sense also needs to be applied. It profits absolutely noone to punish this guy. He should be punished for being a desertor and borderline traitor to his nation who got fellow country man killed and might get more fellow country man killed trough the actions of the released terrorists. The notion that people should only be punished for breaking the law when there is a material benefit to it, is completely ridiculous and has no legal basis. He was given a lenient sentence based upon the circumstances of his capture / torture. This is how the law works for everyone. Bergdahl shouldn't be treated differently because of your politics.
“I will consider the president’s comments as mitigation evidence as I arrive at an appropriate sentence,” the judge, Col. Jeffery R. Nance of the Army, said during a hearing at Fort Bragg.
NYT
Jonny, I think the judge was considering more than just the circumstances of his capture/torture in choosing a lenient sentence. I'm just looking at his own words. Wouldn't you agree?
|
|
|
that image is displaying quite too large on my screen.
at any rate; no loss, milo had nothing to add. just his usual nonsense.
|
I love how he throws the "NY times bestseller" pitch right into the rant, why is that modern right-wing figures Trump included always seem like the kind of people who try to sell you kitchen appliances on weird tv channels at 3 in the morning?
|
On November 05 2017 06:55 Nyxisto wrote:
I love how he throws the "NY times bestseller" pitch right into the rant, why is that modern right-wing figures Trump included always seem like the kind of people who try to sell you kitchen appliances on weird tv channels at 3 in the morning?
Something to do with a need to satisfy their ego.
|
On November 05 2017 06:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2017 06:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 04 2017 11:37 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 04 2017 11:21 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2017 11:15 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 04 2017 11:11 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2017 11:03 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 04 2017 10:56 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2017 10:18 GoTuNk! wrote:Crooked Hillary and Crazy Bernie, too good to not share Edit: Looking to find common points, any of our leftists regulars thinks sergant bowe berghdal should at the very least be imprisoned for manslaughter? Guy deserted and got 5 american soldiers killed searching for him, and then he was traded back in exchange for 5 captured terrorists. A judge let him free basically because he dislikes Trump, in his own words. It's not clear from this post that you're aware of what manslaughter is. As for trading him back, if the American public send American boys out to the mountains of Afghanistan they should do what they can to bring them home. This isn't some random member of the public that decided he wanted to join the Taliban or whatever, this is a guy who signed up to serve his country and got shipped out there. Whatever mental breakdown that led him to wander off base is directly traceable to the decision by the US government to send him to Afghanistan, and his decision to serve his country. We don't only have a duty to the veterans whose stories we make heroic movies about. They all volunteered, they all served. Yeah I got the word wrong, sorry not my native language. That said, your argument makes no sense, the guy was a soldier that ignored his duties and got his comrades killed as a direct result of this. He is at the very least a dessertor, if not a traitor (apparently he wanted to join the Taliban? wtf) Taking care of veterans back home is entirely different than giving soldiers free pass to abandon duty. Whatever mental breakdown that led him to wander off base is directly traceable to the decision by the US government to send him to Afghanistan, and his decision to serve his country. So he has no responsability to behave properly because he was sent to a conflict zone as part of his duty? really? He absolutely has a duty to follow orders etc, as do all soldiers. But treating him like his action was in any way a result of malice or conspiracy against the United States is crazy, the guy joined because he wanted to serve his country. War does strange shit to people. He's an American veteran and a casualty of the deployment he was sent on. Regardless of whether or not he followed orders. You don't get to pick and choose which casualties deserve the protection of the US state. You send them out there, you bring them back. It's that simple. If you want to court martial them once you've got them back on US soil then so be it, but don't leave them over there. If he'd blown his brains out you wouldn't be calling him a deserter, and certainly not a traitor. But wandering alone into the mountains, which is far less crazy than sticking a gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger, and suddenly you want to crucify him. Oh nono, I'm ok with trading him back. However, he should be held accountable for getting 5 american soldiers killed and 5 terrorists released. Actions don't have to be done out of malice to warrant criminal responsability and jail time, specially in a warzone and specially if you are in the army. What profit do you see in punishing a guy for an action that already resulted in him spending years as a prisoner of the Taliban? Who are you interested in doing this for? Him as a punishment? I doubt American military prisons are worse than what he has already endured. Him as a prevention, so he won't wander off base again? It's not likely that he'll wander from America back to Afghanistan. Other soldiers as a deterrent? The sane ones aren't wandering alone into Taliban held mountains, the insane ones aren't going "I'm fine with the risk of being tortured and killed by the Taliban, but I don't know if I could deal with the risk of prison". Honouring his comrades who died trying to free him by locking him in a box? It sucks that all this happened but he's a casualty of a war he didn't ask for. Rules need to be enforced to maintain discipline, but common sense also needs to be applied. It profits absolutely noone to punish this guy. He should be punished for being a desertor and borderline traitor to his nation who got fellow country man killed and might get more fellow country man killed trough the actions of the released terrorists. The notion that people should only be punished for breaking the law when there is a material benefit to it, is completely ridiculous and has no legal basis. He was given a lenient sentence based upon the circumstances of his capture / torture. This is how the law works for everyone. Bergdahl shouldn't be treated differently because of your politics. Show nested quote +“I will consider the president’s comments as mitigation evidence as I arrive at an appropriate sentence,” the judge, Col. Jeffery R. Nance of the Army, said during a hearing at Fort Bragg. NYTJonny, I think the judge was considering more than just the circumstances of his capture/torture in choosing a lenient sentence. I'm just looking at his own words. Wouldn't you agree?
No - those close to the case were calling for a leniency even before Drumpf's blusters. This is the likely outcome sans politicization.
An Army investigator initially recommended that there be no jail time for Sergeant Bergdahl, who was held and tortured by the Taliban for five years. But anger — on the part of politicians and members of the military — over the sergeant’s actions may have contributed to the fact that he now faces the possibility of a long sentence.
^ same story I'd heard years ago. The guy shouldn't be fried just so the POTUS doesn't look impotent (again).
|
United States43868 Posts
On November 05 2017 06:06 Danglars wrote:
As in, a United States that accepts the results of the election and moves on, instead of these bizarre white supremacy hysteria that shows one side of the political aisle only likes the system if they win and run it.
This is one of those false things that you only believe because of the extremely low quality of the media you consume and an apparent inability to think critically about it.
|
On November 05 2017 03:50 Wulfey_LA wrote:Question to DNC haters, do you think the DNC picks the Dem nominee? How do you think Presidential nominees are selected? Do you understand that there are 50+ elections/caucuses that select produce delegates based on voters/caucusers + superdelagtes (who always go with elected delegate majority winner)? Because Donna Brazile sure as hell doesn't understand the basic operations of primary elections. Like holy shit did her ghostwriter even check the wikipedia entry on how Democratic primary elections work? The info is out there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016In her latest book hype leak, Brazile claims she considered replacing HRC as the nominee after the primary election was won. If you want to talk RIGGED, nothing would be more RIGGED than the head of the DNC simply picking a different candidate after all the primary voters/caucusers had spoken. At this point everyone should realize that Brazile is peddling post-legal delusions to BernieOrBusters to sell more books. Show nested quote +In an explosive new memoir, Brazile details widespread dysfunction and dissension throughout the Democratic Party, including secret deliberations over using her powers as interim DNC chair to initiate the removal of Clinton and running mate Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.) from the ticket after Clinton’s Sept. 11, 2016, collapse in New York City.
Brazile writes that she considered a dozen combinations to replace the nominees and settled on Biden and Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.), the duo she felt most certain would win over enough working-class voters to defeat Republican Donald Trump. But then, she writes, “I thought of Hillary, and all the women in the country who were so proud of and excited about her. I could not do this to them.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/brazile-i-considered-replacing-clinton-with-biden-as-2016-democratic-nominee/2017/11/04/f0b75418-bf4c-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html?utm_term=.465bb3d6df7bEDIT: as a bonus, Brazile's new spinning significantly undermines the "DNC biased towards HRC" narrative. If the DNC was really so biased, why was there a faction within the DNC (that included the DNC chair!) holding secret meetings to replace HRC? Any assertions of bias towards HRC now have to overcome the existence of a cabal of anti-HRC plotters who have zero idea how the Democratic primary election system works. EDIT2: it gets worse. Brazile would repeatedly threaten to attempt to initiate a replacement of HRC whenever Brazile didn't like what HRC or her aides were doing. Whatever anti-Bernie bias you want to allege occurred at the DNC, none of it even comes close to bullshit like this. Threatening to replace the nominee with someone who didn't run because you got frustrated with an aide is an actual abuse of power. EDIT3: I should note that this is likely bullshit and Brazile is just lying about her actions. I can criticize her fantasies and that they are fantasies. Show nested quote +Whenever Brazile got frustrated with Clinton’s aides, she writes, she would remind them that the DNC charter empowered her to initiate the replacement of the nominee. If a nominee became disabled, she explains, the party chair would oversee a complicated process of filling the vacancy that would include a meeting of the full DNC.
After Clinton’s fainting spell, some Democratic insiders were abuzz with talk of replacing her — and Brazile says she was giving it considerable thought.
I feel like you must not have been paying attention?
We knew months ago that the DNC primary elections are for show (though results are typically honored). The DNC already made the argument in court that they can pick the nominee in a smoke filled room if they want to. They have made 0 effort to change that feature of the DNC and others here (you included) have suggested there's nothing wrong with that "it's what parties do".
Why are you just now getting mad about it?
|
On November 05 2017 08:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2017 03:50 Wulfey_LA wrote:Question to DNC haters, do you think the DNC picks the Dem nominee? How do you think Presidential nominees are selected? Do you understand that there are 50+ elections/caucuses that select produce delegates based on voters/caucusers + superdelagtes (who always go with elected delegate majority winner)? Because Donna Brazile sure as hell doesn't understand the basic operations of primary elections. Like holy shit did her ghostwriter even check the wikipedia entry on how Democratic primary elections work? The info is out there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016In her latest book hype leak, Brazile claims she considered replacing HRC as the nominee after the primary election was won. If you want to talk RIGGED, nothing would be more RIGGED than the head of the DNC simply picking a different candidate after all the primary voters/caucusers had spoken. At this point everyone should realize that Brazile is peddling post-legal delusions to BernieOrBusters to sell more books. In an explosive new memoir, Brazile details widespread dysfunction and dissension throughout the Democratic Party, including secret deliberations over using her powers as interim DNC chair to initiate the removal of Clinton and running mate Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.) from the ticket after Clinton’s Sept. 11, 2016, collapse in New York City.
Brazile writes that she considered a dozen combinations to replace the nominees and settled on Biden and Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.), the duo she felt most certain would win over enough working-class voters to defeat Republican Donald Trump. But then, she writes, “I thought of Hillary, and all the women in the country who were so proud of and excited about her. I could not do this to them.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/brazile-i-considered-replacing-clinton-with-biden-as-2016-democratic-nominee/2017/11/04/f0b75418-bf4c-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html?utm_term=.465bb3d6df7bEDIT: as a bonus, Brazile's new spinning significantly undermines the "DNC biased towards HRC" narrative. If the DNC was really so biased, why was there a faction within the DNC (that included the DNC chair!) holding secret meetings to replace HRC? Any assertions of bias towards HRC now have to overcome the existence of a cabal of anti-HRC plotters who have zero idea how the Democratic primary election system works. EDIT2: it gets worse. Brazile would repeatedly threaten to attempt to initiate a replacement of HRC whenever Brazile didn't like what HRC or her aides were doing. Whatever anti-Bernie bias you want to allege occurred at the DNC, none of it even comes close to bullshit like this. Threatening to replace the nominee with someone who didn't run because you got frustrated with an aide is an actual abuse of power. EDIT3: I should note that this is likely bullshit and Brazile is just lying about her actions. I can criticize her fantasies and that they are fantasies. Whenever Brazile got frustrated with Clinton’s aides, she writes, she would remind them that the DNC charter empowered her to initiate the replacement of the nominee. If a nominee became disabled, she explains, the party chair would oversee a complicated process of filling the vacancy that would include a meeting of the full DNC.
After Clinton’s fainting spell, some Democratic insiders were abuzz with talk of replacing her — and Brazile says she was giving it considerable thought. I feel like you must not have been paying attention? We knew months ago that the DNC primary elections are for show (though results are typically honored). The DNC already made the argument in court that they can pick the nominee in a smoke filled room if they want to. They have made 0 effort to change that feature of the DNC and others here (you included) have suggested there's nothing wrong with that "it's what parties do". Why are you just now getting mad about it?
No. The 50-57 primary elections were legitimate. You doubt their legitimacy because you don't like their results. What isn't legitimate is Donna's threatening of a power she didn't actually have to overturn a legitimate primary election result.
|
On November 05 2017 08:32 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2017 08:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 05 2017 03:50 Wulfey_LA wrote:Question to DNC haters, do you think the DNC picks the Dem nominee? How do you think Presidential nominees are selected? Do you understand that there are 50+ elections/caucuses that select produce delegates based on voters/caucusers + superdelagtes (who always go with elected delegate majority winner)? Because Donna Brazile sure as hell doesn't understand the basic operations of primary elections. Like holy shit did her ghostwriter even check the wikipedia entry on how Democratic primary elections work? The info is out there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016In her latest book hype leak, Brazile claims she considered replacing HRC as the nominee after the primary election was won. If you want to talk RIGGED, nothing would be more RIGGED than the head of the DNC simply picking a different candidate after all the primary voters/caucusers had spoken. At this point everyone should realize that Brazile is peddling post-legal delusions to BernieOrBusters to sell more books. In an explosive new memoir, Brazile details widespread dysfunction and dissension throughout the Democratic Party, including secret deliberations over using her powers as interim DNC chair to initiate the removal of Clinton and running mate Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.) from the ticket after Clinton’s Sept. 11, 2016, collapse in New York City.
Brazile writes that she considered a dozen combinations to replace the nominees and settled on Biden and Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.), the duo she felt most certain would win over enough working-class voters to defeat Republican Donald Trump. But then, she writes, “I thought of Hillary, and all the women in the country who were so proud of and excited about her. I could not do this to them.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/brazile-i-considered-replacing-clinton-with-biden-as-2016-democratic-nominee/2017/11/04/f0b75418-bf4c-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html?utm_term=.465bb3d6df7bEDIT: as a bonus, Brazile's new spinning significantly undermines the "DNC biased towards HRC" narrative. If the DNC was really so biased, why was there a faction within the DNC (that included the DNC chair!) holding secret meetings to replace HRC? Any assertions of bias towards HRC now have to overcome the existence of a cabal of anti-HRC plotters who have zero idea how the Democratic primary election system works. EDIT2: it gets worse. Brazile would repeatedly threaten to attempt to initiate a replacement of HRC whenever Brazile didn't like what HRC or her aides were doing. Whatever anti-Bernie bias you want to allege occurred at the DNC, none of it even comes close to bullshit like this. Threatening to replace the nominee with someone who didn't run because you got frustrated with an aide is an actual abuse of power. EDIT3: I should note that this is likely bullshit and Brazile is just lying about her actions. I can criticize her fantasies and that they are fantasies. Whenever Brazile got frustrated with Clinton’s aides, she writes, she would remind them that the DNC charter empowered her to initiate the replacement of the nominee. If a nominee became disabled, she explains, the party chair would oversee a complicated process of filling the vacancy that would include a meeting of the full DNC.
After Clinton’s fainting spell, some Democratic insiders were abuzz with talk of replacing her — and Brazile says she was giving it considerable thought. I feel like you must not have been paying attention? We knew months ago that the DNC primary elections are for show (though results are typically honored). The DNC already made the argument in court that they can pick the nominee in a smoke filled room if they want to. They have made 0 effort to change that feature of the DNC and others here (you included) have suggested there's nothing wrong with that "it's what parties do". Why are you just now getting mad about it? No. The 50-57 primary elections were legitimate. You doubt their legitimacy because you don't like their results. What isn't legitimate is Donna's threatening of a power she didn't actually have to overturn a legitimate primary election result.
You seem to be having a problem with comprehension. I wasn't making a point on whether the 50-57 primary elections were "legitimate". I was pointing out that the DNC argued in court a months ago that they could ignore them and pick whoever the hell they wanted to be the nominee and that feature hasn't changed. I was also noting that it didn't bother you then and you were arguing they should have that right.
|
On November 05 2017 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2017 08:32 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 05 2017 08:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 05 2017 03:50 Wulfey_LA wrote:Question to DNC haters, do you think the DNC picks the Dem nominee? How do you think Presidential nominees are selected? Do you understand that there are 50+ elections/caucuses that select produce delegates based on voters/caucusers + superdelagtes (who always go with elected delegate majority winner)? Because Donna Brazile sure as hell doesn't understand the basic operations of primary elections. Like holy shit did her ghostwriter even check the wikipedia entry on how Democratic primary elections work? The info is out there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016In her latest book hype leak, Brazile claims she considered replacing HRC as the nominee after the primary election was won. If you want to talk RIGGED, nothing would be more RIGGED than the head of the DNC simply picking a different candidate after all the primary voters/caucusers had spoken. At this point everyone should realize that Brazile is peddling post-legal delusions to BernieOrBusters to sell more books. In an explosive new memoir, Brazile details widespread dysfunction and dissension throughout the Democratic Party, including secret deliberations over using her powers as interim DNC chair to initiate the removal of Clinton and running mate Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.) from the ticket after Clinton’s Sept. 11, 2016, collapse in New York City.
Brazile writes that she considered a dozen combinations to replace the nominees and settled on Biden and Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.), the duo she felt most certain would win over enough working-class voters to defeat Republican Donald Trump. But then, she writes, “I thought of Hillary, and all the women in the country who were so proud of and excited about her. I could not do this to them.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/brazile-i-considered-replacing-clinton-with-biden-as-2016-democratic-nominee/2017/11/04/f0b75418-bf4c-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html?utm_term=.465bb3d6df7bEDIT: as a bonus, Brazile's new spinning significantly undermines the "DNC biased towards HRC" narrative. If the DNC was really so biased, why was there a faction within the DNC (that included the DNC chair!) holding secret meetings to replace HRC? Any assertions of bias towards HRC now have to overcome the existence of a cabal of anti-HRC plotters who have zero idea how the Democratic primary election system works. EDIT2: it gets worse. Brazile would repeatedly threaten to attempt to initiate a replacement of HRC whenever Brazile didn't like what HRC or her aides were doing. Whatever anti-Bernie bias you want to allege occurred at the DNC, none of it even comes close to bullshit like this. Threatening to replace the nominee with someone who didn't run because you got frustrated with an aide is an actual abuse of power. EDIT3: I should note that this is likely bullshit and Brazile is just lying about her actions. I can criticize her fantasies and that they are fantasies. Whenever Brazile got frustrated with Clinton’s aides, she writes, she would remind them that the DNC charter empowered her to initiate the replacement of the nominee. If a nominee became disabled, she explains, the party chair would oversee a complicated process of filling the vacancy that would include a meeting of the full DNC.
After Clinton’s fainting spell, some Democratic insiders were abuzz with talk of replacing her — and Brazile says she was giving it considerable thought. I feel like you must not have been paying attention? We knew months ago that the DNC primary elections are for show (though results are typically honored). The DNC already made the argument in court that they can pick the nominee in a smoke filled room if they want to. They have made 0 effort to change that feature of the DNC and others here (you included) have suggested there's nothing wrong with that "it's what parties do". Why are you just now getting mad about it? No. The 50-57 primary elections were legitimate. You doubt their legitimacy because you don't like their results. What isn't legitimate is Donna's threatening of a power she didn't actually have to overturn a legitimate primary election result. You seem to be having a problem with comprehension. I wasn't making a point on whether the 50-57 primary elections were "legitimate". I was pointing out that the DNC argued in court a months ago that they could ignore them and pick whoever the hell they wanted to be the nominee and that feature hasn't changed. I was also noting that it didn't bother you then and you were arguing they should have that right.
No, we were arguing about the Hilary Victory Fund agreement. Whether parties can simply pick candidates never came up. Yes, long time party members have more influence than insurgent outside non-party members. No, that doesn't affect the elections. Yes, the elections should be honored. Your whole narrative of CORRUPTION and RIGGED is bullshit and you can't tie any of it to facts that actually happened. Instead of making up things about previous debates, how about you cite something for once? Cite evidence.
** the agreement
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/TODAY/z_Creative/DNCMemo (002).pdf
|
On November 05 2017 08:42 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2017 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 05 2017 08:32 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 05 2017 08:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 05 2017 03:50 Wulfey_LA wrote:Question to DNC haters, do you think the DNC picks the Dem nominee? How do you think Presidential nominees are selected? Do you understand that there are 50+ elections/caucuses that select produce delegates based on voters/caucusers + superdelagtes (who always go with elected delegate majority winner)? Because Donna Brazile sure as hell doesn't understand the basic operations of primary elections. Like holy shit did her ghostwriter even check the wikipedia entry on how Democratic primary elections work? The info is out there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016In her latest book hype leak, Brazile claims she considered replacing HRC as the nominee after the primary election was won. If you want to talk RIGGED, nothing would be more RIGGED than the head of the DNC simply picking a different candidate after all the primary voters/caucusers had spoken. At this point everyone should realize that Brazile is peddling post-legal delusions to BernieOrBusters to sell more books. In an explosive new memoir, Brazile details widespread dysfunction and dissension throughout the Democratic Party, including secret deliberations over using her powers as interim DNC chair to initiate the removal of Clinton and running mate Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.) from the ticket after Clinton’s Sept. 11, 2016, collapse in New York City.
Brazile writes that she considered a dozen combinations to replace the nominees and settled on Biden and Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.), the duo she felt most certain would win over enough working-class voters to defeat Republican Donald Trump. But then, she writes, “I thought of Hillary, and all the women in the country who were so proud of and excited about her. I could not do this to them.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/brazile-i-considered-replacing-clinton-with-biden-as-2016-democratic-nominee/2017/11/04/f0b75418-bf4c-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html?utm_term=.465bb3d6df7bEDIT: as a bonus, Brazile's new spinning significantly undermines the "DNC biased towards HRC" narrative. If the DNC was really so biased, why was there a faction within the DNC (that included the DNC chair!) holding secret meetings to replace HRC? Any assertions of bias towards HRC now have to overcome the existence of a cabal of anti-HRC plotters who have zero idea how the Democratic primary election system works. EDIT2: it gets worse. Brazile would repeatedly threaten to attempt to initiate a replacement of HRC whenever Brazile didn't like what HRC or her aides were doing. Whatever anti-Bernie bias you want to allege occurred at the DNC, none of it even comes close to bullshit like this. Threatening to replace the nominee with someone who didn't run because you got frustrated with an aide is an actual abuse of power. EDIT3: I should note that this is likely bullshit and Brazile is just lying about her actions. I can criticize her fantasies and that they are fantasies. Whenever Brazile got frustrated with Clinton’s aides, she writes, she would remind them that the DNC charter empowered her to initiate the replacement of the nominee. If a nominee became disabled, she explains, the party chair would oversee a complicated process of filling the vacancy that would include a meeting of the full DNC.
After Clinton’s fainting spell, some Democratic insiders were abuzz with talk of replacing her — and Brazile says she was giving it considerable thought. I feel like you must not have been paying attention? We knew months ago that the DNC primary elections are for show (though results are typically honored). The DNC already made the argument in court that they can pick the nominee in a smoke filled room if they want to. They have made 0 effort to change that feature of the DNC and others here (you included) have suggested there's nothing wrong with that "it's what parties do". Why are you just now getting mad about it? No. The 50-57 primary elections were legitimate. You doubt their legitimacy because you don't like their results. What isn't legitimate is Donna's threatening of a power she didn't actually have to overturn a legitimate primary election result. You seem to be having a problem with comprehension. I wasn't making a point on whether the 50-57 primary elections were "legitimate". I was pointing out that the DNC argued in court a months ago that they could ignore them and pick whoever the hell they wanted to be the nominee and that feature hasn't changed. I was also noting that it didn't bother you then and you were arguing they should have that right. No, we were arguing about the Hilary Victory Fund agreement. Whether parties can simply pick candidates never came up. Yes, long time party members have more influence than insurgent outside non-party members. No, that doesn't affect the elections. Yes, the elections should be honored. Your whole narrative of CORRUPTION and RIGGED is bullshit and you can't tie any of it to facts that actually happened. Instead of making up things about previous debates, how about you cite something for once? Cite evidence. ** the agreement http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/TODAY/z_Creative/DNCMemo (002).pdf
lol
You brought up Donna's claims about replacing Hillary and got all ornery about it, but are now ignoring what Donna was saying is perfectly within the rules of the DNC and the DNC even argued it was their right to do it in court and you were fine with it then.
also
EDIT: @Danglars I saw you condemn that dumbass judge and I appreciate it, you'd really impress me if you brought something like that to our attention on your own occasionally.
|
The DNC done fucked up and just gotta cop to that shit. It's almost 2018. We don't got time to litigate this shit during the mid terms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DNz84MGUQAAA68S.jpg)
