Jump to content

US politics - sometimes political jokes get elected


Rippounet

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, sologdin said:

sanders supporters should recall comrade guevara's injunction in the guerrilla warfare

Yeah breakdowns in the results for the first of 51 nominating contests of one party in a two-party political system is totally analogous to Guevera's calculus in what he fought, killed, and died for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

It's a catch-all term, which means it's inherently gonna be amorphous/nebulous. 

That's true.  The factors contributing to your perception of the DNC's "reputation" are entirely derived from from an intuitive urge to find conspiracy in institutional malfunctions that is nursed and reinforced by a joke of a candidate that's seen Christina Aguilera monsters since the last millennium.

 

Nope, it's derived from the fact that the DNC was revealed by Wikileaks emails to have been taken over by the Hillary campaign, to the extent that she was controlling the finances of the organisation. The reason people get laughed at for bringing this up as a severe breach of protocol is because MSNBC obediently reported on the Wikileaks reveals as "Russia hacks our election", without giving the slightest bit of attention to the DNC tomfoolery actually revealed by said leaks.

Speaking of which, one need only pay attention to the coverage MSNBC (which everyone knows is the media wing of the DNC, much as Fox News is to the Republicans) gives to anti-establishment candidates (not just Bernie), which makes it abundantly clear there's an insider vs outsider bias.

Dance around it all you want, but how much more dancing can you do when DNC debate rules get conveniently changed to allow Bloomberg participation following his generous donation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Darryk said:

MSNBC obediently reported on the Wikileaks reveals as "Russia hacks our election", without giving the slightest bit of attention to the DNC tomfoolery actually revealed by said leaks.

Speaking of which, one need only pay attention to the coverage MSNBC

LOL.  I like how MSNBC is the big enemy/cover-up expert in your ridiculous fantasy.  Do you actually watch MSNBC and understand how many of their hosts/contributors are somewhat-to-very sympathetic to Sanders' candidacy.

6 minutes ago, Darryk said:

Dance around it all you want, but how much more dancing can you do when DNC debate rules get conveniently changed to allow Bloomberg participation following his generous donation?

See here.

1 minute ago, sologdin said:

breakdowns in the results for the first of 51 nominating contests 

i think i was gently mocking upset sanders supporters?

Ah, my apologies.  I just spent ~ a half hour trying to fix the bluetooth on my wireless mouse because it just wouldn't work while I'm trying to make a powerpoint for tomorrow.  So, pretty ornery and lacking patience right now, again sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Darryk said:

 

Maybe it's unfair, but people are gonna do it because it's kind of hard to separate the DNC from the Democratic primary.

No, people are going to do it it they're uncritical and irrational and choose to. You have a choice in this. You do not have to blame the DNC for other people's actions. You are not required to do this. Stop making excuses for your own decisions. 

As to the candidate vs their actors, here's the thing - even if that candidate doesnt support that explicitly, they enable it. And I dont want to be associated with those people either directly or indirectly. I do not want to associate with the kinds of people who accuse others of making up their kids cancer, or think it's just the price of business if said kid happened to lose coverage in favor of the greater good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i hear ya, DMC.  am putting out fires at the moment, too.  likely some very subtle jokes are whizzing by me.

scot, it is a remarkable moment of restraint, however, to enjoin fellow incendiarii to participate in elections that they know to be rigged by power.

darryk, an interesting conundrum, a third-eye monarchist as a compromise candidate contra no-eye proto-fascist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

LOL.  I like how MSNBC is the big enemy/cover-up expert in your ridiculous fantasy.  Do you actually watch MSNBC and understand how many of their hosts/contributors are somewhat-to-very sympathetic to Sanders' candidacy.

Yeah very sympathetic.

An MSNBC analyst saying Bernie "makes her skin crawl" without getting any push back from the panelists.

Clinton constantly breaking with "party unity" to criticize a Democratic front runner, yet MSNBC makes sure the story is about how out of order Rashida was for being frustrated about it.

Not to mention their constant smearing of Tulsi Gabbard as a Kremlin stooge while never, to my knowledge, calling out Hillary for unfounded accusations.

I could find countless examples to show how much of a joke MSNBC are. There's even emails from Wikileaks showing Debbie Wasserman Schultz complaining to the MSNBC president about negative coverage of her.

You somehow managed to link this issue to Sanders despite it not really being in any way related. Seems like you're even more obsessed with him than the so-called Bernie bros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

No, people are going to do it it they're uncritical and irrational and choose to. You have a choice in this. You do not have to blame the DNC for other people's actions. You are not required to do this. Stop making excuses for your own decisions. 

As to the candidate vs their actors, here's the thing - even if that candidate doesnt support that explicitly, they enable it. And I dont want to be associated with those people either directly or indirectly. I do not want to associate with the kinds of people who accuse others of making up their kids cancer, or think it's just the price of business if said kid happened to lose coverage in favor of the greater good. 

Seems what you said in your first paragraph could just as easily be directed to people who blame candidates for the actions of their supporters.

I mean it's different with Trump supports as there's a clear relationship between his rhetoric and what his supporters do. But it's clear Sanders would be horrified by what some of his supporters say if there was any way of making him aware of it. It's hard enough for a candidate to control what their supporters say in public, damn near impossible to control what they say online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Darryk said:

I could find countless examples to show how much of a joke MSNBC are. There's even emails from Wikileaks showing Debbie Wasserman Schultz complaining to the MSNBC president about negative coverage of her.

Great, you have examples of pundits being mean to your candidate.  Congrats.  I especially like this example though.  So, DWS was complaining about MSNBC's coverage of her, when she was DNC chair, and that's somehow an example of their complicity with the DNC.  We're down the rabbit-hole folks.

Quote

You somehow managed to link this issue to Sanders despite it not really being in any way related. Seems like you're even more obsessed with him than the so-called Bernie bros

No, it's entirely directly related.  Before the DNC changed the debate rules, Sanders - and other campaigns - were complaining that he was using the DNC qualifications to shirk the debates.  I thought that was a legitimate criticism - it does appear as if Bloomberg has no interest in old-school or what I would call "legitimate" persuasion and just rather wants to carpet-bomb Super Tuesday states with his billions.  So then, the DNC says, ok, we'll relax the rules so Bloomberg has no excuse not to debate.  Should be a good thing right?  Nope, then it's the DNC is "subsidizing" billionaires.  It's the epitome of horseshit.  Trumpian levels.  Like when he creates a problem then takes credit for "fixing" it.  No matter what the DNC did in this situation, there's verifiable evidence that the Sanders campaign was going to bitch about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Darryk said:

Seems what you said in your first paragraph could just as easily be directed to people who blame candidates for the actions of their supporters.

I mean it's different with Trump supports as there's a clear relationship between his rhetoric and what his supporters do. But it's clear Sanders would be horrified by what some of his supporters say if there was any way of making him aware of it. It's hard enough for a candidate to control what their supporters say in public, damn near impossible to control what they say online.

How on earth can Sanders not be made aware  of these things? He cannot both have the most social media savvy group of people AND be completely unaware of some of what his supporters do. 

And it's not like it's just random asshats - we are talking about some of his surrogates doing this. 

But again ultimately it doesnt matter to me - either sanders is unable or unwilling to control his supporters, and the end result is the same. One shows incompetence, one shows malfeasance. Which would you prefer I associate with him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly? why is ignoring its own rules and allowing Bloomy to debate a legitimate action, while keeping the rule standing for Booker, Castro, etc.?  That is as very very very ugly look, DNC.

BILLIONS of dollars were spent in Iowa, not to mention everybody's time everyday, from the candidates trying to make themselves attractive to Iowans, to ours, who have to read, listen and watch the media blathering about Iowa and the caucuses for a fracking year ahead of it and after it. And on top of it, this is lowest participation of Iowans in the caucuses maybe ever -- significantly fewer than 200,000.

Eff Iowa and its caucus and its timing.

Also, the only way to have an honest and working election is low tech.  The more we fiddle with the process of voting the fewer people vote and the more the elections are contested or are invalid for all sorts of reasons.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Honestly? why is ignoring its own rules and allowing Bloomy to debate a legitimate action, while keeping the rule standing for Booker, Castro, etc.?  That is as very very very ugly look, DNC.

BILLIONS of dollars were spent in Iowa, not to mention everybody's time everyday, from the candidates trying to make themselves attractive to Iowans, to ours, who have to read, listen and watch the media blathering about Iowa and the caucuses for a fracking year ahead of it and after it. And on top of it, this is lowest participation of Iowans in the caucuses maybe ever -- significantly fewer than 200,000.

Eff Iowa and its caucus and its timing.

Also, the only way to have an honest and working election is low tech.  The more we fiddle with the process of voting the fewer people vote and the more the elections are contested or are invalid for all sorts of reasons.

 

Zorral,

I actually like the new SC voting machines.  You vote on a touch screen and a printed paper ballot is created.  That ballot is carried over to another machine that scans the printed ballot to tabulate the vote totals.  It allows a well preserved paper trail while at the same time allowing the convenience of touch screen balloting.  

I was trained on them last month.  I'll be a poll manager for the Democratic primary set for 2/29/2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Honestly? why is ignoring its own rules and allowing Bloomy to debate a legitimate action, while keeping the rule standing for Booker, Castro, etc.?  That is as very very very ugly look, DNC.

BILLIONS of dollars were spent in Iowa, not to mention everybody's time everyday, from the candidates trying to make themselves attractive to Iowans, to ours, who have to read, listen and watch the media blathering about Iowa and the caucuses for a fracking year ahead of it and after it. And on top of it, this is lowest participation of Iowans in the caucuses maybe ever -- significantly fewer than 200,000.

Fewer than 200,000 is the norm for iowa. The outlier was 2008. 2016 and 2020 appear to be about the same. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Honestly? why is ignoring its own rules and allowing Bloomy to debate a legitimate action, while keeping the rule standing for Booker, Castro, etc.?  That is as very very very ugly look, DNC.

Booker and Castro met the donor threshold, but failed to meet the polling threshold.  Bloomburg easily meets the polling threshold, since he's polling in 4th place, but refuses to accept donors as a matter of strategy. 

The rules were put in place to ensure that the debates feature the most relevant candidates, so we don't have 28 people over three nights.  I can totally understand that desire. 

But with Bloomburg polling as well as he is, the DNC is in a no win situation.  Other candidates like Warren have asked that he be included so that he can face scrutiny.  So either they continue to exclude Bloomburg even though he is obviously relevant or they change the rules and look like they're playing favorites.  It seems pretty obvious now that while the donor threshold may have made some sense for the first few debates, it should have been dropped months ago for a polling only standard, which is exactly what the DNC has now done.

Should they have made a similar exception for Booker and Castro?  I don't think so - it is really hard to justify making exceptions for guys who can't get out of the basement in the polls.  And this is coming from someone who really liked both Castro and Booker as candidates. 

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...