EPTGood luck Bernie, you might just need it.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/dnc-superdelegates-110083
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2071
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4412 Posts
Good luck Bernie, you might just need it. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/dnc-superdelegates-110083 | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14113 Posts
Its like he doesn't want to eat his cake or even have it. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/01/politics/trump-ukraine-aid-emails-omb-justice-department/index.html Because withholding dozens of mail on topic that include the president ? (he doesn't use emails, they leave a papertrail, but the guys discussed his orders) A lawyer with the Office of Management and Budget wrote to the court that 24 emails between June and September 2019 -- including an internal discussion among DOD officials called "POTUS follow-up" on June 24 -- should stay confidential because the emails describe "communications by either the President, the Vice President, or the President's immediate advisors regarding Presidential decision-making about the scope, duration, and purpose of the hold on military assistance to Ukraine." You bet that if they were exculpatory, they would have seen the light of day. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
On February 02 2020 05:45 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Politico article titled "DNC members discuss rules change to stop Sanders at convention".No, it's not from 2016 it's from yesterday.With John Podesta given a role on the DNC committee is anyone surprised? Good luck Bernie, you might just need it. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/dnc-superdelegates-110083 Harder to deny the DNC is doing whatever it thinks it can get away with to stop Bernie this time around. Harder to deny that it is an absolutely terrible strategy too. | ||
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
There's no doubt the DNC would love for their "preferred" (read: Biden) candidate to win. But the headline absolutely doesn't really match what the article actually states in terms of severity. Gee, people on the right flank worried about Sanders winning and wanting to change the rules to ones that better suit their preferences? You really needed to tell me that they're sending text messages to each other that they prefer the old rules? Like 3/4 of the article are literally people saying that there's no real need to change the rules until 2024 at the very least because its goddamn fucking stupid to do so in 2020. I'm not discounting the chance of the DNC of pulling a fast one but a good number of people, even those opposed to current rules, recognise just how bad such a decision would be in 2020. Its fun to shit on the DNC for constantly trying to rig the process to vote in boring centralist individuals but that article is peak Politico. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
On February 02 2020 10:55 Womwomwom wrote: Did you people even read the article. There's no doubt the DNC would love for their "preferred" (read: Biden) candidate to win. But the headline absolutely doesn't really match what the article actually states in terms of severity. Gee, people on the right flank worried about Sanders winning and wanting to change the rules to ones that better suit their preferences? You really needed to tell me that they're sending text messages to each other that they prefer the old rules? Like 3/4 of the article are literally people saying that there's no real need to change the rules until 2024 at the very least because its goddamn fucking stupid to do so in 2020. I'm not discounting the chance of the DNC of pulling a fast one but a good number of people, even those opposed to current rules, recognise just how bad such a decision would be in 2020. Its fun to shit on the DNC for constantly trying to rig the process to vote in boring centralist individuals but that article is peak Politico. Are you disagreeing with something or was the "did you people even read the article" just bluster? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
| ||
|
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
On February 02 2020 11:30 GreenHorizons wrote: Are you disagreeing with something or was the "did you people even read the article" just bluster? I'm disagreeing with the implication that the DNC is making serious moves to block Bernie via changing the rules in 2020. The implication from the headline - Politico know what they're doing and the person who posted it knows what he's doing - absolutely doesn't match the contents. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
On February 02 2020 12:01 Womwomwom wrote: I'm disagreeing with the implication that the DNC is making serious moves to block Bernie via changing the rules in 2020. I think everyone including the article was saying that despite it being absurdly stupid, they are still talking about it. Which fits the pattern of changing the debate rules (which they rejected earlier) and the obvious "anyone but Bernie" faction that dominates Democratic leadership. How far they will go or what they think they can get away with is anyone's guess, but (at least my) point is that one has to be intentionally oblivious to pretend there isn't a deliberate effort (whether coordinated or not) by Democratic leaders, DNC members, and corporate media pundits to stop their best shot at beating Trump. EDIT: The implication from the headline - Politico know what they're doing and the person who posted it knows what he's doing - absolutely doesn't match the contents. The headline is: DNC members discuss rules change to stop Sanders at convention The talks reveal rising anxiety over the Vermont senator's momentum on the eve of voting. Seems pretty spot on to me? | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On February 02 2020 12:07 GreenHorizons wrote: I think everyone including the article was saying that despite it being absurdly stupid, they are still talking about it. Which fits the pattern of changing the debate rules (which they rejected earlier) and the obvious "anyone but Bernie" faction that dominates Democratic leadership. How far they will go or what they think they can get away with is anyone's guess, but (at least my) point is that one has to be intentionally oblivious to pretend there isn't a deliberate effort (whether coordinated or not) by Democratic leaders, DNC members, and corporate media pundits to stop their best shot at beating Trump. EDIT: The headline is: Seems pretty spot on to me? I think what Wom might be saying is that the article was designed to just get people pissed and upset... that it's more clickbait than a real possibility. The DNC knows that if they actually did that, they would be committing election suicide. The outrage would be of levels people that would throw the presidential election for them and many elections downstream, therefore it's more just politico drumming up bullshit and hype... like what cnn did with the warren sanders bullshit before the last debate. It's just mainstream media. Don't get me wrong... if an organization was dumb enough to do it, that organization would be the DNC, but I think the article even acknowledges that its not something even in consideration, just some random talk someone wrote an article about. On another note, I thought this video was such a great example of wealth distribution through the example of pie. If people just used descriptions like this, simple and easy to understand there wouldn't be confusion on the issue of how much we are all getting fucked by the rich. I love the part at the end where the average people are eating rich people pie... that shit must scare the crap out of the rich. https://twitter.com/robdelaney/status/1223577742618300417?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1223627543783198720&ref_url=https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/02/01/watch-news-anchor-shows-americans-real-size-wealth-gap-using-american-pie | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18285 Posts
On February 02 2020 11:30 GreenHorizons wrote: Are you disagreeing with something or was the "did you people even read the article" just bluster? I read the article. 95% of it is someone preoccupied with what will happen if Bernie and Biden reach the conven and there is no clear-cut winner and how that could impact the eventual winner's chance in the general. The other 30% is everyone involved emphasizing how incredibly dumb it would be to revert the rules midwya through. And yes, I am indeed 125% sure those percentages are correct. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4412 Posts
On February 02 2020 11:50 GreenHorizons wrote: The "gold standard" poll for Iowa due today has been binned, allegedly because of a nondescript issue raised by a single recipient https://twitter.com/CNNPR/status/1223789646989144065 Because it would have shown Sanders surging i'm guessing. Interesting stuff from CNN. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On February 02 2020 16:10 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Because it would have shown Sanders surging i'm guessing. Interesting stuff from CNN. Apparently the Interviewers had a screen with a list of candidates in a random order for each call but the font size was too big so one name was always cut off and so wasn't read out. They couldn't work out if this was a widespread thing or a one off so they binned the poll, I don't think we need to get into conspiracy theories about it being binned because it showed Bernie doing well. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22311 Posts
On February 02 2020 21:05 Zaros wrote: It would indeed be a legit reason, but you can't blame people for assuming its deliberate when CNN showed such open bias during the debate.Apparently the Interviewers had a screen with a list of candidates in a random order for each call but the font size was too big so one name was always cut off and so wasn't read out. They couldn't work out if this was a widespread thing or a one off so they binned the poll, I don't think we need to get into conspiracy theories about it being binned because it showed Bernie doing well. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12452 Posts
On February 02 2020 16:10 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Because it would have shown Sanders surging i'm guessing. Interesting stuff from CNN. You're so obviously trying to create dissent to help Trump that it makes me want to support Biden in case Sanders loses | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
You can literally watch the UK, and see how they’re being broken apart. The same thing is happening here. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
On February 03 2020 04:10 ShoCkeyy wrote: You have to support anyone but Trump, it’s obvious. Let trump win another term and there isn’t going to be a “United States” anymore. The dissent the GOP have created between the country is of magnitudes never seen before. We’re literally at a tipping point where our rights are getting withered everyday, soon enough US citizens can’t leave the country cause of X. You can literally watch the UK, and see how they’re being broken apart. The same thing is happening here. I think that is bunkum. I think you have to support Sanders in the primary if beating Trump is one's top priority and working to nominate anyone else is helping Trump. That said, Nettles is obvi trolling as Neb points out. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22311 Posts
On February 03 2020 04:10 ShoCkeyy wrote: I love 'worst dissent ever'. You had a civil war, this is nothing.You have to support anyone but Trump, it’s obvious. Let trump win another term and there isn’t going to be a “United States” anymore. The dissent the GOP have created between the country is of magnitudes never seen before. We’re literally at a tipping point where our rights are getting withered everyday, soon enough US citizens can’t leave the country cause of X. You can literally watch the UK, and see how they’re being broken apart. The same thing is happening here. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28792 Posts
On February 03 2020 04:13 GreenHorizons wrote: I think that is bunkum. I think you have to support Sanders in the primary if beating Trump is one's top priority and working to nominate anyone else is helping Trump. That said, Nettles is obvi trolling as Neb points out. There is no dissonance whatsoever between supporting sanders 100% in the primary and supporting biden 100% against trump in the general election. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
On February 03 2020 04:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: There is no dissonance whatsoever between supporting sanders 100% in the primary and supporting biden 100% against trump in the general election. I disagree. Biden hasn't even won a primary and he's constantly talking about working with the Republican party (that are acquitting Trump) and being buddies with segregationists. Biden winning the primary is the death knell of electoralism in the US from my perspective. | ||
| ||
