|
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 January 14 2018 22:51 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2018 22:46 zlefin wrote:On January 14 2018 22:29 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 14 2018 22:23 zlefin wrote:On January 14 2018 22:18 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 14 2018 22:15 zlefin wrote:On January 14 2018 21:17 Jacenoob wrote:[B] Yes, Bill Clinton and Monica you might say but it's not as fucked up as Bush in the Middle East and Trump being Trump. Clearly nothing comes close to the insanity of the Iraq war. But I won't call it a scandal, that term seems too mild. Also a good number of Democrats were pro war too, especially higher-ups like Clinton. When it comes to scandals the Democrats recently had a lot too aside from Lewinsky. The Clinton Email Server thing, the Weiner saga or Weinstein being a massive supporter. Screwing Bernie out of the race wasn't honorable either. You could count Benghazi and Uranium One too but I won't get into any discussion on those. if you don't want to get into a discussion of them; don't bring them up. citing bad/false cases just makes your overall claim weaker. best to only mention the strongest cases. bernie wasn't screwed out of the race either. I thought it had been established that Bernie was screwed out of the race. Either that, or contingencies were in place to ensure that he would be if needed, I'm not sure on the exact sequence of how it went down. it had not been so established; the evidence establishes he was given a real, solid chance at winning. also that the dem establishment/party apparatus didn't like him, which could hvae biased some decisions, but didn't strongly affect the outcome or have major rulings that seriously hurt his chances. there weren't contingencies to screw him out of the race if he started winning either. Well Brazile's account has never been refuted and strongly suggests some extremely unethical behaviour from Clinton and also suggests that she was completely in control of the Dems long before the end of the primary. This doesn't say anything about what the outcome would have been had she not been in charge, but it does pretty much show that the primary was always going to go in her favour not because she was a better, more popular candidate but because she had rigged the whole process. Whether you want to translate that as meaning Bernie was screwed is more down to personal interpretation, but it certainly wasn't as 'democratic' as they would want you to believe. brazile's account (which came out when she iirc had a book for sale AND lon gafter she had been disgraced) had considerable flaws in it; and iirc a more thorough look at the evidence showed that the deals made were fine, and the smae deal by the DNC was offered to sanders as to clinton; and sanders did not accept it. your claims are misworded nonsense; claiming it's "rigged" would mean the outcome is controlled, as opposed to people being free to vote as they wish, and the votes land where they do. claiming it was "undemocratic" would require you to prove that the actual "will of the people" was overturned or would have been. if people get to vote as they want, and the winner wins; that sounds pretty democratic to me. (regardless of the merits/flaws of democracy itself, which is a whole other story). Well I can't discuss the flaws in Brazile's story until you let me know what you think they are. Until then I'm going to continue to say that it has been thus far unrefuted. As for the rest of your post, you might want to step outside of your black and white thinking box for a minute. Sure, much of a vote rests on the general public. The ability to get the general public on side depends on a huge amount of other factors (either you are deliberately neglecting to mention this to further your massively oversimplified argument, or you genuinely think democracy works just by giving the public a choice and letting them decide as they want). The outcome of the vote was controlled, to an extent. Every factor that could possibly be controlled by the DNC would have gone in favour of Hilary because she was the empress.
You weren' tasking for a full detailed account; you were asking question on a matter which was discussed in depth and carefully long ago, and on which my memory of the details is fuzzy, but my memory of the conclusions is fine. if I claim the theory of evolution is well-proven and you complain thta I don' thave all the citations to prove it and thus creationism is right; I would laugh in your face. sayin git's unrefuted because the refutation isn't a handy citation (but is otu there), is thus likewise gruonds to disregard you.
there's a very big difference between the words "rigged" and "influenced". you're not making a very key distinction. you're also ignoring the very good reasons for members of the DNC to not like Sanders.
it's clear that you've already made up your mind about the situation and don' care about what it actually was; you've made up your mind and think you're right, and you're going to stick to that. you're not looking to see if your memory of the situation was wrong/inaccurate, nor are you uncertain of the situation and seeking info on it. as such it's not worth my time talking to you, since you're not interested in information on the topic.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/359645-warren-walks-back-claim-democratic-primary-was-rigged
I'm not going to relitigate matters with someone who's already decided on the outcome.
you're arguing in bad faith, hence, no targuing at all, good bye.
|
United Kingdom10026 Posts
Go zlefin.
Went from an assertion to a refusal to discuss further in 3 posts.
Gotta be a new record, even for you!
|
On January 14 2018 23:02 Jockmcplop wrote:
Go zlefin.
Went from an assertion to a refusal to discuss further in 3 posts.
Gotta be a new record, even for you!
you acted in bad faith, then complain when others refuse to talk to you. then you accuse the other of wrongdoing; nice, really shows your character.
|
Trump tweeting about fox and friends before his round of golf. Thank god the ballistic missile alert was during golf rather than fox and friends.
|
On January 14 2018 23:02 Jockmcplop wrote:
Go zlefin.
Went from an assertion to a refusal to discuss further in 3 posts.
Gotta be a new record, even for you!
In fairness to him, you linked an article and he linked an article about the exact same person refuting what you linked first. Pretty shaky grounds to argue from, no?
|
United Kingdom10026 Posts
On January 14 2018 23:27 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2018 23:02 Jockmcplop wrote:
Go zlefin.
Went from an assertion to a refusal to discuss further in 3 posts.
Gotta be a new record, even for you! In fairness to him, you linked an article and he linked an article about the exact same person refuting what you linked first. Pretty shaky grounds to argue from, no?
That was an edit from him that happened later 
Arguing with zlefin is always a bizarre experience though I think I might refrain from it in the future.
|
For what it's worth, there is absolutely still room to question the DNC's handling of the '16 election with regards to Sanders, it's nowhere near being some kind of settled matter.
|
edit: bah whatever not worth
|
On January 14 2018 23:27 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2018 23:02 Jockmcplop wrote:
Go zlefin.
Went from an assertion to a refusal to discuss further in 3 posts.
Gotta be a new record, even for you! In fairness to him, you linked an article and he linked an article about the exact same person refuting what you linked first. Pretty shaky grounds to argue from, no?
what it comes down to for me is:
is someone askin because they don't remember that well or don't know and want more info? worth tlaking to, as I can provide information they'd find useful.
is someone not really asking and firmly believe that their memory of what happened is correct? not worth talking to, as they won't believe me.
does someone want to argumentatively relitigate 2016 election matters? I'm not interested. the matters were already extensively litigated, and conclusions were reached based on that. relitigating things years old tends to be very uninteresting, especially with people who have strongly held beliefs about what the conclusion should be. relitigation in depth just reaches the same conclusions as before, but takes a lot of work to do again. I'm willing to provide summaries of the results for people who wnat them; but more than that is just too much.
my basic test for engagement (which I often fail to follow): one of: I learn something; they learn something; I have fun.
farv -> yes, that's true; but that wasn't the question asked or the statements involved in this dispute.
it should also be noted that in political areas it's common for people to dispute things forever regardless of being proven wrong (they do not accept that they were proven wrong of course), so that some people still dispute a matter doesn't mean much for truth, it's just an outcome of how people are.
|
Has zlefin ever been proven wrong?
|
On January 15 2018 00:10 oBlade wrote:
Has zlefin ever been proven wrong?
probably; iirc yes, I don't remember the details though, and it's pretty rare.
it generally doesn't happen because most of my statements are vague/vacuous when looked at closely, or at least highly hedged. on average I'm far more cautious with conclusions than most people.
|
On January 14 2018 20:17 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2018 16:27 Archeon wrote:On January 14 2018 07:36 Adreme wrote:
Why does it seem like Trumps response to any criticism devolves into the childish "No you" response.
When Hilary said he would said he would become Putins puppet "I'm not the puppet you are the puppet."
When the accusations that Russia waa interfering to help him "they were really trying to help Hilary"
Now when the author paints him as mentally unstable his response is again "No, You" which I thought people stopped doing in elementary school Because Donald Trump is mentally stuck in kindergarden or puberty and everyone around him is so used to people trying to look reasonable that they don't know how to deal with it. People immigrating illegally? Build a wall. Don't like that deal? Cancel it. Country supports terrorism? Ban them from coming in. Describe the problem in a void as simply as possible and imagine the simplest solution possible and you have a very good shot at predicting Donald Trump's behavior. "My nuclear missile button is bigger than yours" gotta be my favorite 12-year-old insult turned dark ever. On January 14 2018 07:37 Longshank wrote:
I just watched Obama at Letterman on Netflix and all that I'm left with is this feeling of 'Good Lord, how is it possible for the US to go from this man to Donald Trump'. Now I don't have a say in the matter, americans are free to fuck their nation up in any way they see fit. But as an european, I can't help feeling uneasy over the notion that it could happen here as well. While it was good to see both Obama and Letterman again, the whole thing just made me worried for my own future. To be fair as an European, our media doesn't cover that Obama illegally bypassed congress multiple times. From what I've seen in interviews I agree to Obama's worldview much more than to Trumps, but ignoring division of power because it's impractical for fulfilling the agenda isn't something I can see in a good light under any circumstances. Even the left-winged NYT gave him shit for that. I was wondering a similar thing about worldview. Is it fair to say that when you compare recent democrats to recent republicans, democrats come closer to views of Europeans? Not just left wing vs right wing but also I feel like democrats are less scandalous. E.g. Nixon, Bush and Trump are scandalous in my opinion. Yes, Bill Clinton and Monica you might say but it's not as fucked up as Bush in the Middle East and Trump being Trump.
How about Clinto in Yugoslavia then, or Clinton in the Congo?
|
|
|
Not getting sucked into another round of "vague, vacuous, hedged" nonsense, but zlefin is wrong about "the DNC deal" being okay.
She basically bought DNC decision making so that major decisions and hires had to be approved by Hillary's campaign.
No it wasn't the same deal Sanders got, and no it wasn't just for the general, it started in 2015 long before voters had made a decision.
Memo
There's some "this is totally not what it looks like" throw away language in there for people silly enough to buy it.
Raised $80,000 (more than anyone else) from the business community, but failed to register his campaign and in so broke the law (small fine).
Sounds like being an idiot is going to set him back a lot more than being white. But it's taking an adjustment period for people to get accustomed to this new system that doesn't always value white mediocrity over all else.
For those who don't understand what I mean by white mediocrity allow me to briefly explain.
You know how the NBA used to be 100% white? This may surprise some of you, but that wasn't because all the best players were white. In fact they just took mediocre white players and put them on teams instead of much better players of color.
This isn't a unique pattern to the NBA. That same pattern was/is seen across practically every industry, especially where the cost to profits aren't nearly as identifiable as with paying bad basketball players tons of money.
Politics is probably one of the most popular (as in highly observed) fields where you still see a bunch of mediocre white men expecting the system to fit them in like it has before.
|
|
|
On January 15 2018 00:10 oBlade wrote:
Has zlefin ever been proven wrong?
Yes, plenty of times. Most of the times he throws a hissy fit and try and get you banned in the website feedback thread (which he has started because he has lost his reporting privileges for too many poor reports).
|
On January 15 2018 00:10 oBlade wrote:
Has zlefin ever been proven wrong?
He’s Diogenes of New England. He looks for an honest poster with whom to hold a long discussion, but none exist.
|
On January 14 2018 20:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2018 16:27 Archeon wrote:On January 14 2018 07:36 Adreme wrote:
Why does it seem like Trumps response to any criticism devolves into the childish "No you" response.
When Hilary said he would said he would become Putins puppet "I'm not the puppet you are the puppet."
When the accusations that Russia waa interfering to help him "they were really trying to help Hilary"
Now when the author paints him as mentally unstable his response is again "No, You" which I thought people stopped doing in elementary school Because Donald Trump is mentally stuck in kindergarden or puberty and everyone around him is so used to people trying to look reasonable that they don't know how to deal with it. People immigrating illegally? Build a wall. Don't like that deal? Cancel it. Country supports terrorism? Ban them from coming in. Describe the problem in a void as simply as possible and imagine the simplest solution possible and you have a very good shot at predicting Donald Trump's behavior. "My nuclear missile button is bigger than yours" gotta be my favorite 12-year-old insult turned dark ever. On January 14 2018 07:37 Longshank wrote:
I just watched Obama at Letterman on Netflix and all that I'm left with is this feeling of 'Good Lord, how is it possible for the US to go from this man to Donald Trump'. Now I don't have a say in the matter, americans are free to fuck their nation up in any way they see fit. But as an european, I can't help feeling uneasy over the notion that it could happen here as well. While it was good to see both Obama and Letterman again, the whole thing just made me worried for my own future. To be fair as an European, our media doesn't cover that Obama illegally bypassed congress multiple times. From what I've seen in interviews I agree to Obama's worldview much more than to Trumps, but ignoring division of power because it's impractical for fulfilling the agenda isn't something I can see in a good light under any circumstances. Even the left-winged NYT gave him shit for that. Obama wouldn't have bypassed congress if congress (aka Republicans) had bothered to do their job at any point. Instead they became the party of doing nothing and sat around on their arse and complaining that someone else was doing their job for them.
Doesn't matter, if the people vote that you don't have power as a president, it's not your job to claim power that legally isn't yours. Checks and balance are there for a reason, even if from our viewpoint he's doing the right thing.
The "my parliament stops me from doing what's necessary so i'm gonna bypass the parliament" mentality is one that fundamentally opposes democracy and supports dictatorship.
Also conservatives are people that try to change things only when they get forced to, it's in the name. Preserve the old system as much as possible.
On January 14 2018 20:17 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2018 16:27 Archeon wrote:On January 14 2018 07:36 Adreme wrote:
Why does it seem like Trumps response to any criticism devolves into the childish "No you" response.
When Hilary said he would said he would become Putins puppet "I'm not the puppet you are the puppet."
When the accusations that Russia waa interfering to help him "they were really trying to help Hilary"
Now when the author paints him as mentally unstable his response is again "No, You" which I thought people stopped doing in elementary school Because Donald Trump is mentally stuck in kindergarden or puberty and everyone around him is so used to people trying to look reasonable that they don't know how to deal with it. People immigrating illegally? Build a wall. Don't like that deal? Cancel it. Country supports terrorism? Ban them from coming in. Describe the problem in a void as simply as possible and imagine the simplest solution possible and you have a very good shot at predicting Donald Trump's behavior. "My nuclear missile button is bigger than yours" gotta be my favorite 12-year-old insult turned dark ever. On January 14 2018 07:37 Longshank wrote:
I just watched Obama at Letterman on Netflix and all that I'm left with is this feeling of 'Good Lord, how is it possible for the US to go from this man to Donald Trump'. Now I don't have a say in the matter, americans are free to fuck their nation up in any way they see fit. But as an european, I can't help feeling uneasy over the notion that it could happen here as well. While it was good to see both Obama and Letterman again, the whole thing just made me worried for my own future. To be fair as an European, our media doesn't cover that Obama illegally bypassed congress multiple times. From what I've seen in interviews I agree to Obama's worldview much more than to Trumps, but ignoring division of power because it's impractical for fulfilling the agenda isn't something I can see in a good light under any circumstances. Even the left-winged NYT gave him shit for that. I was wondering a similar thing about worldview. Is it fair to say that when you compare recent democrats to recent republicans, democrats come closer to views of Europeans? Not just left wing vs right wing but also I feel like democrats are less scandalous. E.g. Nixon, Bush and Trump are scandalous in my opinion. Yes, Bill Clinton and Monica you might say but it's not as fucked up as Bush in the Middle East and Trump being Trump.
I can only speak from a German standpoint, but yes, our populace leans a bit more to the left than the USA's, so their left party seems closer to our standard.
To boost, most of the German media copies articles from CNN and WPost because those are the American sources they read, which gives a skewed perspective. I don't agree with anything Obama did in terms of outer politics, from the Snowden affair to drone war in the Arab countries, to Libya Syria Yemen, it's all a giant mess. But our newspapers half-assed on the Snowden affair and ignored the American involvement in all of the rest. Hell if I only read newspapers I doubt that I'd know about the war in Yemen at all. Hillary was made out to be a decent candidate in European newspapers, but after looking at original speeches, duels etc. I realized that she was the only politically important figure that I've ever seen that was so bad that she could loose to Trump without the voters being insane.
TLDR: Most German media covers the nice sides of Democrats and the bad sides of Republicans, so everyone in Europe is shaking his head about Republicans being a major party.
|
@archeon what is your preferred method of dealing with a congress/parliament that does not do its job? also your description of an "X" mentality isn't really quite accurate to the case, so not apropos imho.
|
@zlefin
Look for a compromise or do nothing. If the people voted the council red then they are clearly unhappy with the way blue governed so far. A politician is supposed to be a representative and if the people withdrew their trust, he is not representing anymore. "Knowing better" and pushing through is a childish elitist standpoint and a dangerous way of thinking.
And I'm talking about a politician who wanted to push many inner reforms that I deem very necessary, so I'm in no way impartial. Obamacare and clemency of nonviolent drug abuse are definitely things I support. I still like the guy way more than Trump or Bush.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/wijvzrf.png)
