US Election: poll dancing in Nevada and South Carolina

[alguien]

1 hour ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Yes, you did.

I said, in part, "At the very least everyone ought to find Clinton's decision to set up a private e-mail server an unacceptable practice that we should not allow future government officials to repeat."And you responded, in part, "She made the decision that she was well within her rights to make and cooperated fully with the inquiries."

My comment you quoted below had nothing to do with morality or expediency of keeping a private server. So... no I didn't. Frankly I'm not certain where I stand on that issue. 

Quote

That is the point I made, and your response to it. Everything I've said since then has been on that issue and each article I linked is entirely on point with respect to it.

Right. Conveniently ignoring the much larger, and much more relevant issue I've been pointing out. But that's a pattern I've noticed. 

Quote

You appear to want me to apologize for the mere fact that conservative groups are connected to this issue, when all I've done is express the view that her records keeping practices raise questions about transparency and should not be accepted in the future (I even expressed sympathy toward her on the related issue of classified material!).

I just want you to acknowledge that the inquiry on her is politically motivated and has very little to do with transparency. Which you are suspiciously unable to do. 

Quote

I don't care what vendettas conservative groups have or however unfair they're being to Clinton. That is beside the point I made.

Vendettas? You think people donate 6 million dollars a year to fuel a vendetta. That's cute.  

Quote

If what they want is for me to care about transparent records keeping practices they can declare success. And I'd be happy to agree with anyone on that.

And you really think that's what they care about--transparent records, sweet summer child? Oh, to be that idealistic once again. 

Quote

And, by the way, the idea that all questions about Clinton's integrity are illegitimate right-wing smears is exactly what they want you to think.

Well, I definitely linked you to the conservative groups funding the witchhunt. If you need your hand held beyond that point, I don't know what else I can say. 

Nowhere did I say anyone who questions HRC's integrity on anything at all is being manipulated by the GOP. I did specifically mention that questioning her integrity because of a drummed up email server issue is exactly what Judicial Watch, and by extension the GOP wants.

[Shryke]

52 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Trump's 30-40% support now is meaningless if he wins the primary.  If he wins the Republican primary, he'll get the backing of the vast majority of Republicans.  If turnout number continues to remain poor for Democrats in the upcoming primaries, I don't think that they will just suddenly come out for the general.  Instead, that will be an early indication that voters just aren't that excited about the Democratic candidates, which will be a big problem in the general.

Or it's an indication Democrats mostly don't give a shit about the primary. Which is less about the candidates not being exciting and more about the race not being exciting. It turns out that as much as we may see people arguing about it and Sanders' people talking about energizing voters to come out, no one cares that much this time compared to Clinton vs Obama. And/or primary voters already think Clinton is gonna win it and so it's not worth the bother. (as much as we like to think this shit matters, in many ways it doesn't cause most voters aren't paying much attention yet and so narratives like Clinton inevitability can still be strong among the less engaged)

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, Triskan said:

Can anyone explain why the rest of the GOP candidates have done so little to go after Trump?

I'm not by any means a political genius, but I'd imagine they don't want to offend all of his followers when the consensus seems to be he can't win in the end. Those 30-40% could be valuable in the general.

[Bonesy]

It's an issue that the GOP is ravenously prosecuting, but it is not "drummed up."

[Shryke]

4 minutes ago, Triskan said:

Can anyone explain why the rest of the GOP candidates have done so little to go after Trump?

What are they gonna go after him about?

His base doesn't care that he's crass, racist or insulting. That's why they like him. They have gone after him about this shit and it just doesn't work.

The other issue is, of course, he's saying what alot of the GOP base wants to hear. He's given up on the dogwhistle and is just straight up saying this shit clearly. How do you go after a guy for being anti-immigrant when that's what your whole party thinks and you've spent the last many decades agreeing with them in thinly disguised language?

[alguien]

26 minutes ago, Bonesy said:

The notion that criticism of Clinton is a right wing attack either in disguise or due to gullibility continues to fascinate me.

This supposes that reaching any conclusions or sharing any concerns that aligns with the right is morally suspect or vacuous.

Which is simplistic and insulting.

Hey LoB, I was limiting my criticism to a specific instance of email servers, funded by a transparently conservative watchdog group with a political agenda. I would extend that to Benghazi as well. 

But I actually think critiquing her foreign policy record or her decision to vote yes on Iraq is perfectly fair game (ETA: and numerous other issues). She's not as Left as Sanders, for sure. 

Quote

It's an issue that the GOP is ravenously prosecuting, but it is not "drummed up."

If this was in reference to my comment, so far, it seems to be. There is no criminal investigation, so I don't even think prosecuting is the right word. I guess I've just seen too many transparent attacks from this group to believe in the purity of ETA: their motives. 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

6 minutes ago, alguien said:

My comment you quoted below had nothing to do with morality or expediency of keeping a private server. So... no I didn't. Frankly I'm not certain where I stand on that issue. 

Right. Conveniently ignoring the much larger, and much more relevant issue I've been pointing out. But that's a pattern I've noticed. 

I just want you to acknowledge that the inquiry on her is politically motivated and has very little to do with transparency. Which you are suspiciously unable to do. 

Vendettas? You think people donate 6 million dollars a year to fuel a vendetta. That's cute.  

And you really think that's what they care about transparent records, sweet summer child? Oh, to be that idealistic once again. 

Well, I definitely linked you to the conservative groups funding the witchhunt. If you need your hand held beyond that point, I don't know what else I can say. 

Nowhere did I say anyone who questions HRC's integrity on anything at all is being manipulated by the GOP. I did specifically mention that questioning her integrity because of a drummed up email server issue is exactly what Judicial Watch, and by extension the GOP wants.

Right, I'm suspicious because I'm addressing the point I made and you chose to respond to. You want this conversation to be all about an entirely different topic and I'm conveniently ignoring that by insisting on defending the point I actually fucking made.

I've made my point. It's not getting through to you and you're just ratcheting up the obnoxious condescension now. I'll leave it there.

[Shryke]

6 minutes ago, Bonesy said:

It's an issue that the GOP is ravenously prosecuting, but it is not "drummed up."

It's totally drummed up in that the phrase drummed up means to make something an issue by loudly attracting everyone's attention to it. Like many things before this, the whole issue is only the size it is because the GOP have spent alot of time and money trying to make it one.

That doesn't mean there might not be something there or that it wasn't perhaps worth investigating but the whole thing is 100% drummed up as a smear on what was at the time the obviously presumptive Democratic nominee and it exists to the size and extent and prominence it does because of that.

Think how big the issue of, like, GWB's admin loosing all those emails was. The comparison should make the drummed up nature of this obvious.

[Altherion]

8 minutes ago, Triskan said:

Can anyone explain why the rest of the GOP candidates have done so little to go after Trump?

What can they say about him that the media is not already saying for free? That he's racist and sexist? This is already out there in various forms: very strongly emphasized in the more liberal outlets, but present to an extent even in mainstream and conservative ones . That his proposed policies make no sense? That's obvious at first glance and nearly all media has pointed it out. They have tried attacking him in various ways, but nothing sticks and he's pretty good at retaliating

[Bonesy]

Wasn't singling you out, Al. It's been a common occurrence everywhere.

That last comment was to you, but my concerns are more specific to details of the situation that are very concerning as to procedure that often get lost in the larger nebulous conversation.

[alguien]

2 hours ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Right, I'm suspicious because I'm addressing the point I made and you chose to respond to. You want this conversation to be all about an entirely different topic and I'm conveniently ignoring that by insisting on defending the point I actually fucking made.

Exactly. You're repeatedly addressing a point you made (we need more transparency!) instead of responding substantially to the point I made (this isn't about transparency). While I've acknowledged your argument, you've not done the same back. You're not taking part in a discussion; you're sitting in an echo chamber. When I said there's not much point in continuing a conversation if you couldn't acknowledge the context of the situation, I meant it. Since you are somehow literally unable to cognitively or physically do so, we may as well drop it. 

Quote

I've made my point. It's not getting through to you and you're just ratcheting up the obnoxious condescension now. I'll leave it there.

This is, almost word for word, what I was going to write next. And now we're both in an echo chamber.

[alguien]

5 minutes ago, Bonesy said:

Wasn't singling you out, Al. It's been a common occurrence everywhere.

That last comment was to you, but my concerns are more specific to details of the situation that are very concerning as to procedure that often get lost in the larger nebulous conversation.

Fair enough, Bonesy. I don't think any candidate should be above critique, and I realize in my heat of the moment hyperbole, it probably came off that way. Apologies. 

[lokisnow]

Trump's 30-40% support now is meaningless if he wins the primary.  If he wins the Republican primary, he'll get the backing of the vast majority of Republicans.  If turnout number continues to remain poor for Democrats in the upcoming primaries, I don't think that they will just suddenly come out for the general.  Instead, that will be an early indication that voters just aren't that excited about the Democratic candidates, which will be a big problem in the general.

Or it's an indication Democrats mostly don't give a shit about the primary. Which is less about the candidates not being exciting and more about the race not being exciting. It turns out that as much as we may see people arguing about it and Sanders' people talking about energizing voters to come out, no one cares that much this time compared to Clinton vs Obama. And/or primary voters already think Clinton is gonna win it and so it's not worth the bother. (as much as we like to think this shit matters, in many ways it doesn't cause most voters aren't paying much attention yet and so narratives like Clinton inevitability can still be strong among the less engaged)

Enthusiasm and turnout in the primary predicts enthusiasm and turnout in the general election.

Not sure about the claim that turnout is down though, didn't Nevada surpass 2008 in turnout for democrats?

[The Marquis de Leech]

1 hour ago, lokisnow said:

Enthusiasm and turnout in the primary predicts enthusiasm and turnout in the general election.

Evidence?