U.S. Elections: The Trumph of the Will

[Boris the Blade]

23 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

DWS was already out. This might up the timetable. 

Yup pretty much. She should have been gone much earlier IMO with how the debates were scheduled and how few there were. 

[Altherion]

18 hours ago, Kalbear said:

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

Nobody cares about their opinions. We have clear proof of the fact that they discussed means of attacking and discrediting Sanders. It doesn't matter whether any given plan that they discussed in the extremely limited sample of their conversations that we have access to was put into action or not -- simply the fact that they were doing this is sufficient to demonstrate that they were not neutral.

I suspect that this is extremely unlikely to change the mind of any Clinton supporter. However, I'm curious whether it will convince any Sanders supporters to stay home in November even though Sanders himself is backing Clinton. It's probably a bridge too far for them to vote for Trump, but if they simply see the entire system as the corrupt mess which it undoubtedly is, perhaps they will refuse to participate altogether.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

19 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Let me ask something: is it unfair of the RNC to support and coordinate with Mitt Romney to have him attack Trump publicly? 

Why do you keep referencing the RNC's willingness to undercut a candidate when it relates to the DNC possibly doing something similar? We should be striving to be better than the RNC, not justifying our behaviors because they've done it too.

17 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

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?

We will never know, but that doesn't really matter. The DNC shouldn't be favoring any candidates, and I'm sure if you were a Sanders supporter instead of a Clinton supporter you'd be feeling very different right now.

Now the DNC is in an undesirable position. If they fire DWS before Election Day then Trump will have a field day and if they don't, a lot of Sanders supporters might not support Clinton. Fucking great..........

[Kalbear]

DWS is out at the end of the convention. So really not an issue.

 

[peterbound]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

DWS is out at the end of the convention. So really not an issue.

 

It is an issue.  How this isn't infuriating to you on the hard left amazes me.  They went out of their way to rig the election to ensure the candidate they desired (and was established) won.  How does that not make your democratic hackles rise?  It's crazy to me how dismissive you guys are about this. 

 

Wild. Even if you're a Clinton supporter, this should piss you off.  This is your party not living up to the standards you have set for it.  

[Altherion]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Why do you keep referencing the RNC's willingness to undercut a candidate when it relates to the DNC possibly doing something similar? We should be striving to be better than the RNC, not justifying our behaviors because they've done it too.

Also, the RNC's actions were most definitely not well received by practically any voters so I think most people agree that such support was unfair. One of Trump's best (and most truthful) lines was that the system was rigged and it helped seal the deal for him. I think he's still using it.

[Kalbear]

While I don't think trump is working with putin, it seems more likely that putin will happily attempt to influence politics. 

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/02/how-vladimir-putin-is-waging-war-on-the-west-and-winning/

[Kalbear]

18 minutes ago, peterbound said:

It is an issue.  How this isn't infuriating to you on the hard left amazes me.  They went out of their way to rig the election to ensure the candidate they desired (and was established) won.  How does that not make your democratic hackles rise?  It's crazy to me how dismissive you guys are about this. 

They didn't rig the election though. They didn't go out of their way to ensure that Clinton won. This kind of panic rhetoric makes me a lot more angry than what happened. 

Again, what concrete actions did the DNC take?

Quote

 

Wild. Even if you're a Clinton supporter, this should piss you off.  This is your party not living up to the standards you have set for it.  

I don't see why it should. I'm far more angry about caucuses that I am biased party officials choosing not to do anything.

ETA: thought this article did a good job of summing up my position on it.

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/24/12266614/debbie-wasserman-shultz-resigns-dnc?utm_campaign=vox&utm_content=feedback-prompt&utm_medium=social&utm_source=feedback-prompt%3Afacebook

[Boris the Blade]

24 minutes ago, peterbound said:

It is an issue.  How this isn't infuriating to you on the hard left amazes me.  They went out of their way to rig the election to ensure the candidate they desired (and was established) won.  How does that not make your democratic hackles rise?  It's crazy to me how dismissive you guys are about this. 

 

Wild. Even if you're a Clinton supporter, this should piss you off.  This is your party not living up to the standards you have set for it.  

 I wouldn't call people sticking up for the DNC hard left at all. More neo liberal.

[peterbound]

31 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

They didn't rig the election though. They didn't go out of their way to ensure that Clinton won. This kind of panic rhetoric makes me a lot more angry than what happened. 

Again, what concrete actions did the DNC take?

I don't see why it should. I'm far more angry about caucuses that I am biased party officials choosing not to do anything.

ETA: thought this article did a good job of summing up my position on it.

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/24/12266614/debbie-wasserman-shultz-resigns-dnc?utm_campaign=vox&utm_content=feedback-prompt&utm_medium=social&utm_source=feedback-prompt%3Afacebook

Kal, 

If you can't see those emails as evidence of their bias, and if you don't think that bias would lead to action, you're more naive than I thought. 

 

Geezus man, just the religious stuff and them leveraging any perceived 'atheism' so he would lose a primary to clinton should be enough to get your goat. Have you read the same email chains I did?

[Altherion]

36 minutes ago, peterbound said:

It is an issue.  How this isn't infuriating to you on the hard left amazes me.  They went out of their way to rig the election to ensure the candidate they desired (and was established) won.  How does that not make your democratic hackles rise?  It's crazy to me how dismissive you guys are about this. 

 

Wild. Even if you're a Clinton supporter, this should piss you off.  This is your party not living up to the standards you have set for it.  

This is a similar phenomenon to the one observed in fans of sports teams. They don't really care about fairness (or, in this case, democracy) -- what matters most to them is that their team (in this case, party) wins. There are limits to this: if the violation is too flagrant and obvious, most people will turn on their team or party. However, as long as this is not the case, they will do their best to minimize the size of the offense and offer apologia such as "It is debatable whether there is anything wrong with that" or "It wouldn't have changed the outcome in any case."

[Kalbear]

26 minutes ago, Harakiri said:

 I wouldn't call people sticking up for the DNC hard left at all. More neo liberal.

Or people who care about facts instead of scoring points.

[Kalbear]

9 minutes ago, peterbound said:

Kal, 

If you can't see those emails as evidence of their bias, and if you don't think that bias would lead to action, you're more naive than I thought. 

Guess I'm more naive than you thought. My life is crushed. 

It absolutely is evidence of their personal bias. Which I've said repeatedly. Why can't you read my words?

What it is not is evidence of actual action. Which...still doesn't exist. And I am absolutely sure that people can have personal bias and not act inappropriately because that's the entire basis of the service industry.

9 minutes ago, peterbound said:

 

Geezus man, just the religious stuff and them leveraging any perceived 'atheism' so he would lose a primary to clinton should be enough to get your goat. Have you read the same email chains I did?

Apparently not. Are you now able to link things and share them? 

One person suggesting to use religion against their opponent isn't the DNC as a whole, it is a viable strategy and has been so for 250 years. I am not offended by it any more than I have been offended by any other political move. Why should it bother me to bring up a candidates religion? Is that some special thing that is immune to attack in politics? Are you that naive?

[Boris the Blade]

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Or people who care about facts instead of scoring points.

The facts are there, you are just ignoring them. You continue to think it's not an issue that they were bias just because they did not go through with certain actions, that's pathetically naive. 

 

[DireWolfSpirit]

34 minutes ago, Harakiri said:

 I wouldn't call people sticking up for the DNC hard left at all. More neo liberal.

And their candidate is described as a neo liberal disaster by more than a few lefties.

 

[Boris the Blade]

10 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

And their candidate is described as a neo liberal disaster by more than a few lefties.

 

Cornel West I respect, but his supporting Stein makes me lose quite a bit of it and also tune out what he has to say regarding Clinton. He just comes across as a bitter Sanders supporter, especially if he is going to support someone as terrible and unqualified as Stein and someone that is not a realistic option.

Stein has shown she is a piece of shit that isn't qualified to run a sink faucet let alone an entire government. She supports some really bad ideas and has some terrible views. She can go back to her woo medicine loving bullshit and be as irrelevant as she was before this election year came around. 

Clinton is a neo liberal though, but I wouldn't call her a disaster. 

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, Harakiri said:

The facts are there, you are just ignoring them. You continue to think it's not an issue that they were bias just because they did not go through with certain actions, that's pathetically naive. 

 

I am asking what the issue is that they had personal biases. What outcome did this affect?

Because as I see it, the evidence is there that DWS and the rest of the DNC hated Sanders and especially weaver, and did nothing wrong. Do you have evidence otherwise? Because all you're asserting is that the chair of the DNC cannot have any personal opinions about someone, and that seems incredibly stupid.

Ultimately what my naivety comes down to is being naive enough to think that people talking shit in emails is not the same thing as rigging an election. 

[Altherion]

19 minutes ago, Harakiri said:

Cornel West I respect, but his supporting Stein makes me lose quite a bit of it and also tune out what he has to say regarding Clinton. He just comes across as a bitter Sanders supporter, especially if he is going to support someone as terrible and unqualified as Stein and someone that is not a realistic option.

Stein has shown she is a piece of shit that isn't qualified to run a sink faucet let alone an entire government. She supports some really bad ideas and has some terrible views. She can go back to her woo medicine loving bullshit and be as irrelevant as she was before this election year came around.

Indeed, I have the same problem with both the Libertarians and the Greens. There are some parts to what they propose which are better than the policies of the mainstream parties... but then one looks at the rest of what they want and the reaction is inevitably along the lines of "This can't be serious."

Quote

Clinton is a neo liberal though, but I wouldn't call her a disaster.

Why not? Several of the things she was involved in setting the policy for (most notable Libya) ended in unmitigated disasters and it is difficult to imagine how things could have gone worse while keeping the scenario plausible.

[Altherion]

28 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I am asking what the issue is that they had personal biases. What outcome did this affect?

Because as I see it, the evidence is there that DWS and the rest of the DNC hated Sanders and especially weaver, and did nothing wrong. Do you have evidence otherwise? Because all you're asserting is that the chair of the DNC cannot have any personal opinions about someone, and that seems incredibly stupid.

Ultimately what my naivety comes down to is being naive enough to think that people talking shit in emails is not the same thing as rigging an election. 

Just because you keep repeating this does not make it more believable. The emails with the evidence have already been linked in this thread. They came up with plans to undermine Sanders at the debate. They constructed anti-Sanders story lines and sent them to somebody higher up (most likely in the Clinton campaign) to decide on whether they should be used. They circulated anti-Sanders propaganda "without attribution". It's not about personal opinions; the DNC officials in the emails actively violated their neutrality pledges.

[Boris the Blade]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I am asking what the issue is that they had personal biases. What outcome did this affect?

Because as I see it, the evidence is there that DWS and the rest of the DNC hated Sanders and especially weaver, and did nothing wrong. Do you have evidence otherwise? Because all you're asserting is that the chair of the DNC cannot have any personal opinions about someone, and that seems incredibly stupid.

Ultimately what my naivety comes down to is being naive enough to think that people talking shit in emails is not the same thing as rigging an election. 

Just out of curiosity. have you supported Clinton from the beginning? 

I already said the issue a day ago a few pages back. If you really can not see the issue of DNC staffers and higher ups in the DNC vocally expressing their dislike for one candidate so liberally, then IDK what to say. I would also guess you ignore how things can be impacted subconsciously. Clearly the work environment at the DNC allowed a staffer to feel comfortable enough to throw out a scummy idea like the one they threw out. Seriously, how is that not an issue? Oh, because there was no outcome? so you're okay with scumbags in charge of a political party talking shit about one candidate and naive enough to think they may not be harder on that candidate than the one they want? That doesn't have an impact on their campaign? 

If we look back at some of the things the DNC did do, or didnt do, they seemed a bit odd then, but now it comes across as just sketchy given what was in the leaked emails.

Lets talk about how quickly the DNC was to stop the Sanders campaign from having access to the potential  voter list. They were notified about potential issues with the system, yet they still stopped the Sanders campaign from having access to the list even though they were notified by that same campaign. 

Given how incompetent DWS and the DNC under her has been, I would never think they could rig a pinata to a tree let alone an election.