|
thechosenone posted:Not really. People aren't mad at you for the failures of the democratic party. Heck, if anyone gets put against the wall, you'll be able to fit in with the mob real easy. On the contrary, if I believed that lies and ignorance ought not to be opposed, I would be less than a zombie, a soulless abomination, a dead thing and not an alive thing.
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 20:51 |
|
|
Also why are people engaging Effectronica when they're pretending that there's no difference between an organization's bylaws mandating transparency during its official meetings and your boss getting to know how you voted in a national election?BI NOW GAY LATER posted:The meeting was open to the public? Like I don't think you seem to have a very good grasp of what an "open meeting" is from this post. Yes, that's quite literally what the rules that have been quoted multiple times by now unambiguously say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:Not really. People aren't mad at you for the failures of the democratic party. Heck, if anyone gets put against the wall, you'll be able to fit in with the mob real easy. B5's gimmick only makes sense when you realize he is some sort of midlevel professional lobbyist, not the type of person who will fit in well with a mob fortunately.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:B5's gimmick only makes sense when you realize he is some sort of midlevel professional lobbyist, not the type of person who will fit in well with a mob fortunately. You can just call me a Jew or a fag, none of your buddies will object.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Yes, that's quite literally what the rules that have been quoted multiple times by now unambiguously say. They say they have to be open. Open meeting simply means that anyone may attend. This isn't hard dude.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Not really, no. The ballots weren't secret, but they weren't by voice or show of hand. Brainiac Five posted:On the contrary, if I believed that lies and ignorance ought not to be opposed, I would be less than a zombie, a soulless abomination, a dead thing and not an alive thing. It seems that you have yet to demonstrate reasons for why you think one assertion is a lie, and another is not though?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Not really, no. The ballots weren't secret, but they weren't by voice or show of hand. So they should let the public know who took part. They're not. Look its obvious you're just lying because you don't want the party leadership to be purged of people who don't want to raise your taxes. Its unfortunate that we have so many greedy creatures in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
The Ender posted:I dunno; half a dozen? I guess it depends on where the property line is drawn. Who is this "you" you keep speaking of. It's not me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:You can just call me a Jew or a fag, none of your buddies will object. I suspect that you are neither of those things, at least until you tell me you are. Though I would be unlikely to believe you are a pack of cigarettes. To elaborate on your previous post, I'm not sure if your really that sure of your own assertions, since you don't seem certain why you think what you think brainiac. I once again posit your arguments smell weak. Mainly due to their absence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:So they should let the public know who took part. They're not. Look its obvious you're just lying because you don't want the party leadership to be purged of people who don't want to raise your taxes. Its unfortunate that we have so many greedy creatures in this thread.  You're a moron and I don't know why I continue to engage you in good faith. They did publish who voted. The voting members are a known thing. And, what about my taxes? Like jesus christ dude.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I believe that letting you fuckers say poo poo like "political guild" without objecting is tantamount to suicide. You, like a lot of the (D) leadership, are being exclusionary, but you don't like the word political guild? Why am I even engaging with someone who fantasizes about being put in camps by a geriatric?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:They say they have to be open. Open meeting simply means that anyone may attend. This isn't hard dude. Yes, and part of mandating trasparency to the public as well as open ballots means that the public ought to be able to follow who voted for what. Otherwise the requirements are pretty drat meaningless. Like, you're half a step away from defending smoke-filled rooms here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:
I don't know why he lashed out about taxes, but while we know who voted, we don't know whether they voted for or against. It doesn't matter who did if we cannot differentiate. It is a significant loss of context.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:It seems that you have yet to demonstrate reasons for why you think one assertion is a lie, and another is not though? "Political guild" is a lie because it is deliberate deception to sway people towards interpreting everything done by the Democratic Party as part of a vast conspiracy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Yes, and part of mandating trasparency to the public as well as open ballots means that the public ought to be able to follow who voted for what. Otherwise the requirements are pretty drat meaningless. I am not defending anything, I am trying to explain how poo poo actually works. The requirement is just "open meetings, no secret ballot." The party chair isn't an elected official and has never really been treated as much a democratic election. If you would like that changed, then great! But it historically hasn't been and nothing was "rigged" against Ellison or conducted improperly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:"Political guild" is a lie because it is deliberate deception to sway people towards interpreting everything done by the Democratic Party as part of a vast conspiracy. I have not said the word guild on this forum until just now though? There isn't a vast conspiracy, just some social liberals who kinda want to have their cake and eat it too, and they are taking you and me on a ride.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Condiv posted:https://s3.amazonaws.com/uploads.democrats.org/Downloads/DNC_Charter__Bylaws_9.17.15.pdf Ruh-roh, there it is. The DNC changing party rules to reduce transparency is a bad sign, even if you don't think the Democrats need to reform it's a good way to alienate progressives. Maybe the thinking is progressives weren't going to turnout in 2018 anyway. The parallels with the UK Labour party are getting really uncomfortable. In 2016 the Labour establishment even changed a bunch of NEC votes to secret ballots in an ultimately futile attempt to keep Corbyn out of the leadership race. I suppose it's expected existing power structures will try to resist challenges to their power, but it's a shocking to see in the leadership of massively defeated political parties. You'd think in that case there'd be universal acceptance that reform is necessary but nope.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Really the only way forward from here is to assume that EVERY voting member of the DNC rejected Ellison and act accordingly. Slam everybody with emails and phonecalls. Work to purge everybody. We will recognize our own by their actions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I am not defending anything, I am trying to explain how poo poo actually works. The requirement is just "open meetings, no secret ballot." We know who votes to appoint a supreme court justice though?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:I don't know why he lashed out about taxes, but while we know who voted, we don't know whether they voted for or against. It doesn't matter who did if we cannot differentiate. It is a significant loss of context. That's a completely different request, and one that is not required by bylaws. Nocturtle posted:Ruh-roh, there it is. The DNC changing party rules to reduce transparency is a bad sign, even if you don't think the Democrats need to reform it's a good way to alienate progressives. Maybe the thinking is progressives weren't going to turnout in 2018 anyway. They didn't change party rules to reduce transparency. To my knowledge, the vote has never been show of hands. It was not a secret ballot. They were signed ballots.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
You don't know what the term "secret ballot" actually means. It does not mean any ballot that is not available for public inspection. A ballot which identifies the voter is not a secret ballot, regardless of the public's ability to examine said ballot. You don't know what the term "open to the public" means. It does not mean a meeting where the public has unfettered access to everything at any time without exception. It means a meeting that the public can observe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Ruh-roh, there it is. The DNC changing party rules to reduce transparency is a bad sign, even if you don't think the Democrats need to reform it's a good way to alienate progressives. Maybe the thinking is progressives weren't going to turnout in 2018 anyway. Brainiac Five posted:"Political guild" is a lie because it is deliberate deception to sway people towards interpreting everything done by the Democratic Party as part of a vast conspiracy. Guild doesn't imply secret conspiracy you moron. It implies that it is an elitist group that only insiders get to participate in. It implies that the DNC acts of its own accord and on the accord of its member lobbyists. This isn't loving rocket science or some Bildebeger scheme, it's simple power politics. Frijolero fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I am not defending anything, I am trying to explain how poo poo actually works. The requirement is just "open meetings, no secret ballot." You're literally defending an rear end-backwards interpretation of transparency rules that would render then virtually toothless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:We know who votes to appoint a supreme court justice though? SCOTUS is a government official nominated and then approved by congress. DNC Chair is an unelected, non-governmental position that half the time has been appointed by the sitting president.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:That's a completely different request, and one that is not required by bylaws. But what is the advantage of knowing who was there? I would like to know because it seems like it is little use to me, and some knowledge on its usefulness would help me to understand it as useful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:That's a completely different request, and one that is not required by bylaws. Geez I can't keep up with this thread and found only contradictory information online. Thank you for clarifying. I did learn that in 2005 the vote for Dean was a public voice vote (after everyone else dropped out).
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:I have not said the word guild on this forum until just now though? There isn't a vast conspiracy, just some social liberals who kinda want to have their cake and eat it too, and they are taking you and me on a ride. You're not important, bucko, and using "social liberal" makes it clear that you are definitely an enemy of mine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:I suspect that you are neither of those things, at least until you tell me you are. Though I would be unlikely to believe you are a pack of cigarettes. If it wasn't for the fact that Effectronica has contributed near a thousand dollars to Lowtax's kids college fund through paying off bans paying for new avatars, and paying for people they doesn't like to have new avatars and custom titles I would think they were a troll. But no troll is that stupid to waste that much money. BI NOW GAY LATER posted:
Oh well I keep looking and cannot find the list. But I am happy to see that this vote hasn't silenced the voices of the downtrodden. There are going to be alot of purges in state level parties. I see a bright future the best part of it is that its a future without centrists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:SCOTUS is a government official nominated and then approved by congress. DNC Chair is an unelected, non-governmental position that half the time has been appointed by the sitting president. Please read my previous post that I just made too, but yeah I at least know who put them there when the president does it, And supreme court nominees are not voted on by the public either, so what is the problem with these appointments being anonymous?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
The Bernouts are mad as hell and they're not going to let little things like what words actually mean stop them from feeding their insane persecution complex.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:You're not important, bucko, and using "social liberal" makes it clear that you are definitely an enemy of mine. I agree, I am not important. I would also ask if then you would say your fiscally conservative? Because I identify as socially liberal, and socialist or what not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:You're literally defending an rear end-backwards interpretation of transparency rules that would render then virtually toothless. I am explaining how it works. If you don't like it, lobby for change. I am trying to make you understand that it wasn't "rigged" against Ellison, it's simply the way inwhich it's always been done. thechosenone posted:But what is the advantage of knowing who was there? I would like to know because it seems like it is little use to me, and some knowledge on its usefulness would help me to understand it as useful. What do you mean?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The Bernouts are mad as hell and they're not going to let little things like what words actually mean stop them from feeding their insane persecution complex. Brainiac Five posted:If you want to shut me up, you'll have to kill me, babe. I enjoy the right to freedom of speech and will use it until you Bernouts make it illegal to criticize Bernie, at which point I will be murdered by your secret police. Looking forward to it. Persecution complex you say?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
[quote="JeffersonClay" post="469866512"] The Bernouts are mad as hell and they're not going to let little things like what words actually mean stop them from feeding their insane persecution complex. Asking for transparency is not unreasonable you cancer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The Bernouts are mad as hell and they're not going to let little things like what words actually mean stop them from feeding their insane persecution complex. What? I don't know, I just can't tell why it is important that people who represent the leadership of the party I affiliate with do not let me know where they stand on issues important to me. And I would also like to know what is so useful about knowing who voted? Since it seems difficult to use without knowing who voted for what?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:I agree, I am not important. I would also ask if then you would say your fiscally conservative? Because I identify as socially liberal, and socialist or what not. No, I identify as someone with a brain, in opposition to anyone too stupid to get the Bernout party line right and who squeaks about how the social liberals are keeping the common people down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I am explaining how it works. If you don't like it, lobby for change. I am trying to make you understand that it wasn't "rigged" against Ellison, it's simply the way inwhich it's always been done. I thought you were saying the bylaws or whatever of the DNC said that meetings had to be open in some manner? What does that mean, whatever they said, and why is it useful when it doesn't include who voted for what? I would like to know that it is useful since it would help me to think they weren't just paying lip service or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:Please read my previous post that I just made too, but yeah I at least know who put them there when the president does it, And supreme court nominees are not voted on by the public either, so what is the problem with these appointments being anonymous? I don't think it's an unreasonable demand, I am simply saying that it's not a requirement of the bylaw. thechosenone posted:I thought you were saying the bylaws or whatever of the DNC said that meetings had to be open in some manner? What does that mean, whatever they said, and why is it useful when it doesn't include who voted for what? I would like to know that it is useful since it would help me to think they weren't just paying lip service or something. To be honest? It's never really be a thing -- hell this is the first time it's actually came down to a contested election in the modern structure of the party. Dean won a voice vote but was the only candidate running in 2005; Terry Mcauliffe cut a deal in 2001 and we didn't vote; Ron Brown ran unopposed. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:No, I identify as someone with a brain, in opposition to anyone too stupid to get the Bernout party line right and who squeaks about how the social liberals are keeping the common people down. Okay, then since I am socially liberal, why am I your enemy?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 20:51 |
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Asking for transparency is not unreasonable you cancer. Agreed. It would only be unreasonable to read the bylaws, not understand them, then insist that they were broken.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:02
|
|