Jump to content

U.S. Elections: The Trumph of the Will


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

I'm just saying a reason why they should conduct themselves in a better manor.

I don't think criminal activity should be where the line is drawn.

The rules they set for themselves are almost clearly broken IMO.

I've already said this looks like business as usual politics for both parties so I'm not trying to make one side look worse than the other.

I don't really want to vote for any of these people as of right now. There's no way I can vote for build a wall though.

I think that's totally fair. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

For fact checking, sure. For comments, you'd send the article - at least that's what I've seen for political stuff. 

No, you wouldn't. You might send a section for comment. But sending the whole thing? That shit is just not done by independent journalists. Like, I don't even send whole articles to my own organization before I pub them, and the stakes are much lower...

And if sending whole articles for comment is how Politico runs its org, then I am comfortable in writing those cowardly motherfuckers off as not a legit journalistic enterprise at this point. And that's my professional opinion as a long-time journalist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Well, that was faster than I thought: it's on the front page of CNN now. That article also has this (the emphasis is mine):

So there certainly was an expectation of neutrality and they clearly broke that pledge.

Well, that's the thing - the response that you quoted is saying that they don't think they did. So...I'm not sure that flies. 

I mean, one of the emails that people are singling out as 'bad' is a thread on how to counter Sanders saying that the DNC is rigged. What are they supposed to do in that situation? Say 'yes we are'? when they don't think they are? It doesn't make sense one way or another. 

Quote

No, you wouldn't. You might send a section for comment. But sending the whole thing? That shit is just not done by independent journalists. Like, I don't even send whole articles to my own organization before I pub them, and the stakes are much lower...

That's not been my experience, but I'll defer to yours. Thanks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

That's not been my experience, but I'll defer to yours. Thanks. 

:) 

In general, you and I are totally fighting the same fight. Just wanted to be clear about how one would view things as a journalist. (there are many branches of journalism that are rather compromised, and certain kinds of political journalism are just as bad as car journalism....do not get me started of fucking car journalists!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

:) 

In general, you and I are totally fighting the same fight. Just wanted to be clear about how one would view things as a journalist. (there are many branches of journalism that are rather compromised, and certain kinds of political journalism are just as bad as car journalism....do not get me started of fucking car journalists!)

Oh yeah, no offense taken. I'm saying that you have significantly more experience than I do in this. While I've seen a few times that people will send whole articles, it's certainly reasonable to say that is an exception rather than a rule. 

I thought this was a good point from the CNN article linked above:

Quote

Asked about the exchanges, Rawlings-Blake said, "Expressing an opinion about a candidate doesn't mean that you're in collusion, doesn't mean that you are actively working against them. And I don't think that that's what it shows."

DWS saying that Weaver is a liar does not mean that the DNC is colluding. Point of fact, having 20k emails leaked which so far don't actually have them emailing back and forth with Clinton officials in order to discuss strategy directly seems to be more of an indicator that real, honest collusion didn't happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

Well, that's the thing - the response that you quoted is saying that they don't think they did. So...I'm not sure that flies. 

I mean, one of the emails that people are singling out as 'bad' is a thread on how to counter Sanders saying that the DNC is rigged. What are they supposed to do in that situation? Say 'yes we are'? when they don't think they are? It doesn't make sense one way or another.

The response in my quote says that Rawlings-Blake personally did not break that pledge. She also says:

"I know that the chair will hold those employees accountable if they're found to have acted outside of that neutrality and even-handedness."

which implies that she is not vouchsafing for all of the other officers. In fact, it is completely obvious from some of these emails (e.g. the religion one) that the DNC officers were not neutral. I expect some scapegoating in the days to come. It would be absolutely hilarious if they went throught the scapegoating and then Wikileaks released more emails (e.g. from the chairwoman herself) which showed that the anti-Sanders initiatives came from the top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The response in my quote says that Rawlings-Blake personally did not break that pledge. She also says:

"I know that the chair will hold those employees accountable if they're found to have acted outside of that neutrality and even-handedness."

which implies that she is not vouchsafing for all of the other officers. In fact, it is completely obvious from some of these emails (e.g. the religion one) that the DNC officers were not neutral. I expect some scapegoating in the days to come. It would be absolutely hilarious if they went throught the scapegoating and then Wikileaks released more emails (e.g. from the chairwoman herself) which showed that the anti-Sanders initiatives came from the top.

Again, having an opinion against one candidate or the other does not mean the same thing as violating neutrality or colluding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

Why not?

Because (I believe) you shouldn't ask people if they prefer A or B (i.e., the primary election) while simultaneously working behind the scenes to try to tilt the scales. This question is bizarro land, dude. The whole point of a primary election is to tally the results of the vote of your party. If you already decided you want A, fine, pick A. But don't try to maneuver people into picking it for you while pretending you're a neutral party. It's dishonest.

2 hours ago, Shryke said:

What evidence is there they forced anything?

This is such an inane question I don't know how to answer it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

Again, having an opinion against one candidate or the other does not mean the same thing as violating neutrality or colluding. 

Except the DNC made questionable decisions that showed a clear bias. There was no neutrality. Stop being an apologist. The DNC is run by a scum human being in DWS, so it's no real shocker here. This email only proves what everyone thought months back, that they were clearly biased even though they tried to deny it. 

Like others have said, why even bother holding elections for the party if this is the type of shit that goes on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Harakiri said:

Except the DNC made questionable decisions that showed a clear bias. There was no neutrality. Stop being an apologist. 

No, I won't. Because this is looking more and more like another bullshit witch hunt. 

Again, expressing opinions is not collusion. Not liking someone is not collusion. Being asked to vet an article about actions that your group has taken is not collusion. 

Quote

Because (I believe) you shouldn't ask people if they prefer A or B (i.e., the primary election) while simultaneously working behind the scenes to try to tilt the scales. This question is bizarro land, dude. The whole point of a primary election is to tally the results of the vote of your party. If you already decided you want A, fine, pick A. But don't try to maneuver people into picking it for you while pretending you're a neutral party. It's dishonest.

Okay - I think you can do both.

I think that it is reasonable to suggest that the party asks the people what they want and simultaneously wants to support one over the other because they have a preference. The whole point of a primary election in the Democratic party is to tally the results of the vote - but that is not and has never been the only deciding factor in choosing the candidate. Again, we have superdelegates in the party for a reason. 

The notion that you can either only listen to the will of the people and not have any party rhetoric or you can only have the party pick is also bizarro land, given that it is not at all how the Democratic party primary system has worked for 40 years. 

Again, I ask - how do you feel about the RNC asking Romney to talk and denounce Trump? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

No, I won't. Because this is looking more and more like another bullshit witch hunt. 

Again, expressing opinions is not collusion. Not liking someone is not collusion. Being asked to vet an article about actions that your group has taken is not collusion. 

 

So every news source that sees this as what is are just going on a witch hunt? you're fucking delusional. No collusion? I guess you overlooked how they were trying to get someone to ask him about god to try and out him as a possible atheist since it wouldn't sit well with some voters?

You're either naive, willfully ignorant, or possibly both.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Harakiri said:

So every news source that sees this as what is are just going on a witch hunt? you're fucking delusional. No collusion? I guess you overlooked how they were trying to get someone to ask him about god to try and out him as a possible atheist since it wouldn't sit well with some voters?

You're either naive, willfully ignorant, or possibly both.  

Every agency has reported that things look kinda sketchy and there's no actual evidence of collusion. 

I didn't overlook anything. Note that while someone did mention that in an email about Sanders' religion, two things happened that are kind of important: they didn't ask him about that and the guy has since apologized. But this is sort of the important thing to note - no action was taken. 

Here's the burden of proof: show me evidence of them actually planning something that they ended up doing. Because without that, it's just me talking shit about other people. And again, people talking shit about other people is not the same thing as not being neutral as an organization or evidence of collusion. 

Leave the personal attacks out of it, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

Every agency has reported that things look kinda sketchy and there's no actual evidence of collusion. 

I didn't overlook anything. Note that while someone did mention that in an email about Sanders' religion, two things happened that are kind of important: they didn't ask him about that and the guy has since apologized. But this is sort of the important thing to note - no action was taken. 

Here's the burden of proof: show me evidence of them actually planning something that they ended up doing. Because without that, it's just me talking shit about other people. And again, people talking shit about other people is not the same thing as not being neutral as an organization or evidence of collusion. 

Leave the personal attacks out of it, please.

The fact they even thought about doing it is proof enough of them not being neutral. How blind are you? They didn't have to do something to show they were not neutral, their scheming of possible scenarios is proof enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Harakiri said:

The fact they even thought about doing it is proof enough of them not being neutral. How blind are you? They didn't have to do something to show they were not neutral, their scheming of possible scenarios is proof enough.

Again, leave the personal attacks out of it.

Ultimately whether or not their attitudes are not neutral (and I'm absolutely certain they're not) their actions are what matters. We knew from the getgo that DWS hated Jeff Weaver's scummy fucking ass. But them thinking about things is not proof of them doing things, any more than me thinking about punching Trump in the face is proof that I am conspiring or actually punching Trump. 

The important thing is whether or not their actions were neutral. You wishing that they are also neutral in temperament is an interesting but entirely flawed concept when discussing how humans interact. 

So you're admitting that you have zero proof that they actually tipped the scales in any way, right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

I'm not saying that I agree with it, but I'm simply asking - why is it not okay for the DNC to favor someone? 

I think it's clear and has been clear that the DNC favored Clinton - both now and in 2008. I think it's also clear that said favoritism isn't the same thing as rigging the election or even producing strong outcomes. I think that the Democratic party has a vested interest in favoring those who favor the party and have made connections with the party. 

Yeah, I don't get how anyone running in the Democratic primary who is not a Democrat complaining that the DNC isn't sufficiently fair to him.

And even if the DNC put a thumb on the scales, did it change the outcome? Would Sanders have racked up another 300 delegates? Has this made a difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Harakiri said:

The fact they even thought about doing it is proof enough of them not being neutral. How blind are you? They didn't have to do something to show they were not neutral, their scheming of possible scenarios is proof enough.

If they didn't actually do any of it, then it's a bit of a tempest in a teacup.

25 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

No, I won't. Because this is looking more and more like another bullshit witch hunt. 

Again, expressing opinions is not collusion. Not liking someone is not collusion. Being asked to vet an article about actions that your group has taken is not collusion. 

Okay - I think you can do both.

I think that it is reasonable to suggest that the party asks the people what they want and simultaneously wants to support one over the other because they have a preference. The whole point of a primary election in the Democratic party is to tally the results of the vote - but that is not and has never been the only deciding factor in choosing the candidate. Again, we have superdelegates in the party for a reason. 

The notion that you can either only listen to the will of the people and not have any party rhetoric or you can only have the party pick is also bizarro land, given that it is not at all how the Democratic party primary system has worked for 40 years. 

Again, I ask - how do you feel about the RNC asking Romney to talk and denounce Trump? 

I don't recall being asked that question before. I didn't pay enough attention to the Romney situation, so this is the first I'm hearing that the RNC asked him to do it, if that's what you're saying. It's not appropriate, although I have no problem with Romney shit-talking Trump of his own accord. And of course I don't like him and am much less bothered by it since he's in bed with all kinds of horrifying people.

Re: superdelegates, I think the entire system is wildly inappropriate, and so do most people who aren't superdelegates themselves. The DNC knows it, too -- the only way they can stave off an all-out mutiny from their members is to hastily assure people that superdelegates have never changed an outcome and promise that they won't now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Inigima said:

If they didn't actually do any of it, then it's a bit of a tempest in a teacup.

Exactly. A guy saying 'hey, what about attacking Sanders about religion' and then them not doing anything is more proof that they remained neutral, even though they fucking hated Sanders. DWS getting angry about Sanders not denouncing the violence enough and then not doing anything is again, more proof that they actually remained neutral despite being really pissed off about things. 

Just now, Inigima said:

I don't recall being asked that question before. I didn't pay enough attention to the Romney situation, so this is the first I'm hearing that the RNC asked him to do it, if that's what you're saying. It's not appropriate, although I have no problem with Romney shit-talking Trump of his own accord. And of course I don't like him and am much less bothered by it since he's in bed with all kinds of horrifying people.

Romney most certainly did not shit talk of his own accord; their party announced his talking days before, he had a well-prepared speech in front of media and had superfresh and fresh talking points prepared immediately. That isn't something that happens without support, and the RNC had been talking about how to get Romney into it for weeks prior. 

Just now, Inigima said:

Re: superdelegates, I think the entire system is wildly inappropriate, and so do most people who aren't superdelegates themselves. The DNC knows it, too -- the only way they can stave off an all-out mutiny from their members is to hastily assure people that superdelegates have never changed an outcome and promise that they won't now.

Superdelegates are an interesting thing. The main thing that we've seen them talked about is as an antidote to Trumpism, but there was another part. An African-American Democrat leader mentioned how getting rid of superdelegates is a complete no-go from day one, and the main reasons were that they ensure that the AA and minority voices are heard in the party and cannot be drown out by a white majority. They want to have disproportionate power because they are absolutely afraid that the party will not listen to them without it. Article is here, I think. Another point is how the CBC views independents voting in the elections - namely, it dilutes their importance. 

So I think 'most people who aren't superdelegates' is not entirely accurate. The DNC would have a mutiny if they killed superdelegates. Because the CBC looks at what happened with Republicans and

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, this is all pretty minor stuff.  Frankly, I expected much more.  Not only has wikileaks been advertising this as some sort of smoking gun, but what they have released is just how I understand politics, business and media to work.  

Many of us recognized that the DNC was acting unfairly towards the other candidates.  So far these emails both support that and also reveal that our accusations may have been overblown.  I don't really know the bylaws of the DNC (or the RNC, for that matter) so I don't know where it officially claims to be impartial during the primary process, but I never actually thought the DNC was supposed to be neutral.  I mean, they exist to promote and coordinate the Democratic platform, which naturally means they are going to have a bias for certain candidates that fit with their platform and strategy. 

I don't have much opinion on the Politico email.  Several journalist friends of mine have simply remarked that it's not entirely unusual and would depend on a number of factors.  They don't seem particularly concerned about the ethics of it.  I also saw some buzz on Twitter of people freaking out that the DNC vetted Deray McKesson as a surrogate for an event (obviously that didn't work out for whatever reason), but this all seems to be coming from the racist wing of the internet.  

Basically, this is all amounting to nothing but fodder for the GOP to twist.  I bet the RNC has quadrupled up their server security because it's a given that what would be revealed is definitely worse.  There was obvious collusion going on there.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, lancerman said:

No you're using tenous logic comparing your house to bank vs the DNC to the Security of State. To a foreign country Clinton at the time was a more valuable target. Not even close. 

Unless your house is widely known to store as much money as Fort Knox, and virtually every would be bank robber knew it,  it's a terrible comparison.

Not to mention we know from the FBI that her emails were hacked and Julian Assange said he was sitting on her emails. So there's that. 

So I don't know where you are getting the idea that it is unlikely. She was the head of foreign policy to the biggest militarized country in the world and she had crap security for her emails. And far lesser people have been hacked, and far more secure entities have been hacked. 

And yet you have zero evidence that she's actually been hacked except for the tenuous non-logic I've already pointed out.

You've got nothing. This is baseless bullshit and you know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...