Jump to content
Rippounet

US politics - sometimes political jokes get elected

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

And that willingness to kill is why I have never liked Che Guevara.

You’re seriously reducing the number of people you can admire with that standard.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 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.

Looks like Maith just ninja'd me, but to reiterate, the DNC did not change the polling threshold (even increased it), they just axed the donor thresholds.  Most candidates had an easy time hitting the donor threshold.  The fact Booker, Castro, et al. didn't hit the very minimal polling thresholds they needed to is the fault of the Democratic party electorate, or I suppose the pollsters that try to measure the preferences of the Democratic party electorate, not the DNC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yup.

Boooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KingintheNorth4 said:

I can't shake the feeling. This whole thing feels shady as hell to me.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seem to be a lot of people in this thread who have never heard Hanlon’s Razor

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just ridiculous that results haven't been released yet.  Having a ton of problems with an app is one thing, but this process was done without an app in just a few hours many, many times in the past.  Even if the state DNC needed to take the extraordinary measure of having the caucus leader of every single location physically drive to DNC state headquarters and drop off the results, they still should have been able to do that by noon. 

I assume they're working in an excess of caution, but they seem to really be underestimating the damage they're doing with every additional hour of waiting.  This isn't just people being impatient, there is rumormongering (no doubt with an assist from the Russians) that the DNC is corrupt, that the vote is rigged, etc.  The longer this goes on, the more and more fuel there is on this fire. 

Edited by Maithanet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Maltaran said:

There seem to be a lot of people in this thread who have never heard Hanlon’s Razor

Oh, they've heard it, they're just in the same birther set of people who are always willing to attribute actual designed malice to accidents when they're against the people they care about. 

What makes me especially mad is that when actual malice does come about - like Russia's campaign to mess with the election - it also gets dismissed as ranting, despite having a whole lot of backing from a very large amount of sources and tons of actual data. It's one more way that the truth doesn't matter and everyone can have a view, and therefore no one knows what is going on. And it is a direct road to authoritarian rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maithanet said:

It's just ridiculous that results haven't been released yet.  Having a ton of problem with an app is one thing, but this process was done without an app in just a few hours many, many times in the past.  Even if the state DNC needed to take the extraordinary measure of having the caucus leader of every single location physically drive to DNC state headquarters and drop off the results, they still should have been able to do that by noon. 

I assume they're working in an excess of caution, but they seem to really be underestimating the damage they're doing with every additional hour of waiting.  This isn't just people being impatient, there is rumormongering (no doubt with an assist from the Russians) that the DNC is corrupt, that the vote is rigged, etc.  The longer this goes on, the more and more fuel there is on this fire. 

Part of it is that they changed reporting requirements, and that's totally new. They didn't have to report the total number of votes in the same way they do now, nor did they have to report the first/second choice split, and they're having to do both. That's one of the things that the app was supposed to help with, but now they have nothing.

Those reporting requirements, BTW, were changed largely in part due to Sanders wanting more transparency (good!) and were mostly because of the DNC overhauls the Sanders team requested. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

doesn't this explanation confirm rather than overcome the objection that the rules were changed for the rich white guy but not for candidates who do not meet the rich, white, and guy standards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DMC said:

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.

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.

Not just "my" candidate but anti-establishment candidates in general.

I guess pointing out that the DNC, as an abundance of evidence shows, is corrupt and favors insiders, is some kind of "truth that must not be spoken" and anyone who dares speak it gets quickly hushed up and relegated to "har har, you're just a whiny Bernie Bro" status, even when it's not even Bernie Sanders being discussed. 

Regarding Bloomberg, the issue is that Bloomberg is the only candidate who made a donation to the DNC and, lo and behold, he ends up being the only candidate for whom the debate rules are magically changed to accommodate him. That's really all that matters in this particular instance. How the Sanders or Warren or whatever campaign may have interpreted it (Sanders campaign was not the only one who took issue with it by the way, Andrew Yang said the rules change was tailor-made to get Bloomberg on the debate stage, and Tulsi accused Bloomberg of buying the DNC) is completely unrelated to this particular example of DNC corruption. 

That said, of course outsider candidates are going to be suspicious of anything the DNC, does because DNC has given them countless reasons to be so, as much as you're gonna stick your head in the sand and yell that the DNC is completely pure and transparent and it's only nasty Bernie Bros who say otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Darryk said:

Not just "my" candidate but anti-establishment candidates in general.

I guess pointing out that the DNC, as an abundance of evidence shows, is corrupt and favors insiders, is some kind of "truth that must not be spoken" and anyone who dares speak it gets quickly hushed up and relegated to "har har, you're just a whiny Bernie Bro" status, even when it's not even Bernie Sanders being discussed. 

When it's Sanders surrogates who are doing the whining, it reflects on Sanders. When Sanders wants Bloomberg to debate and thinks that it's horrible he's not, and then says that it's horrible that he can debate - well, that's on Sanders, not on Bloomberg or the DNC. 

As to pointing out corruption -  great! Cool beans. So far you've used it to back up why something that is unrelated should be related, and used it to deflect criticism. 

1 minute ago, Darryk said:

That said, of course outsider candidates are going to be suspicious of anything the DNC, does because DNC has given them countless reasons to be so, as much as you're gonna stick your head in the sand and yell that the DNC is completely pure and transparent and it's only nasty Bernie Bros who say otherwise.

One can say that the DNC is not doing wrong here AND also not say that the DNC has always been great. Only a sith deals in absolutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the turnout is down entirely due to Gen-X, held steady with boomers, up with millenials and way up gen-z.

Way to go Gen X!  Still holding on to that "meh!" attitude after all it's done for you!

Edited by SpaceChampion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SpaceChampion said:

Looks like the turnout is down entirely due to Gen-X, held steady with boomers, up with millenials and way up gen-z.



Way to go Gen X!  Still holding on to that "meh!" attitude after all it's done for you!

Wait,  Gen X is 45-64? GOD DAMNIT. I don't feel like I should be grouped with people born in 1955. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Wait,  Gen X is 45-64? GOD DAMNIT. I don't feel like I should be grouped with people born in 1955. 

I don't either. The oldest Gen Xers will be 55 this year if you can believe that. But lumping in 45 year olds with senior citizens? 

Our "whatever" attitude has kept us relatively sane. We just sit back and watch the boomers and the millenials go at it and pop the popcorn. 

Edited by Ice Queen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

When it's Sanders surrogates who are doing the whining, it reflects on Sanders. When Sanders wants Bloomberg to debate and thinks that it's horrible he's not, and then says that it's horrible that he can debate - well, that's on Sanders, not on Bloomberg or the DNC. 

As to pointing out corruption -  great! Cool beans. So far you've used it to back up why something that is unrelated should be related, and used it to deflect criticism. 

One can say that the DNC is not doing wrong here AND also not say that the DNC has always been great. Only a sith deals in absolutes.

The Sanders and Warren campaigns changed their tune because they were acting on incomplete information; they didn't actually know whether Bloomberg wanted to compete in the debates or not, but they assumed that the DNC was going to give Bloomberg what he wants.

So when the DNC suddenly changes their rules to accommodate Bloomberg in the debates, plus it's revealed Bloomberg made a sizable donation to them, the original assumption that Bloomberg was dodging the debates doesn't seem so likely anymore, and Sanders / Warren camps start to wonder if Bloomberg is buying his way into the debates after all.

It's perfectly natural to change your perception of what's happening based on new developments. It's not so much "we're gonna bitch about the DNC no matter what it does" as "we don't know for sure whether Bloomberg actually wants to be in the debate or not but, based on what we know about the DNC, whatever Bloomberg wants, they're going to make it happen eventually". So they see this as Bloomberg finally showing his cards.

Personally I think the idea that Bloomberg was trying to avoid the debates in order to avoid scrutiny was crazy, of course he was going to try buy his way into the debates eventually, he needs the publicity that goes with it if he's going to run a serious campaign.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, karaddin said:

Regardless of whether it's actually on the level, having your app made by a company literally called "Shadow Inc", which is run by the wife of one of the campaign staff for a candidate, and having the same candidate also making payments to Shadow Inc looks shady as fuck. And the appearance of corruption is a major issue even when there isn't actual corruption behind it.

Tech bros really need to stop naming their companies for the lulz.

Though for some people the existence of actual corruption does not seem to cause them any real problems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Darryk said:

It's perfectly natural to change your perception of what's happening based on new developments. It's not so much "we're gonna bitch about the DNC no matter what it does"

citation needed

Just now, Darryk said:

Personally I think the idea that Bloomberg was trying to avoid the debates in order to avoid scrutiny was crazy, of course he was going to try buy his way into the debates eventually, he needs the publicity that goes with it if he's going to run a serious campaign.

He's already polling higher than Warren, Yang, and Buttigieg. I don't think he needs that publicity at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×