|
Ogmius815 posted:Oh. Then you saw how the Clinton campaign's power over DNC activities is explicitly limited to its general-election related communications. So we're on the same page. Good. it was not, and i'm aware of the section you're referring to. learn to read ogmius, cause construe doesn't mean limit at all.
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 10:58 |
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Personally I'm willing to give machine learning a shot at running the DNC since I don't really see how it could be worse, but then I remember it would have a Twitter account and Microsoft Tay. literally could not be worse than the list of recent chairs: Perez, Donna, Debbie, Kaine, and Dean, successes all!
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Oh. Then you saw how the Clinton campaign's power over DNC activities is explicitly limited to its general-election related communications. So we're on the same page. Good. What do you gain from defending the Clinton campaign at this point? Like, seriously?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:What do you gain from defending the Clinton campaign at this point? Not having to reckon with being wrong
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it was not, and i'm aware of the section you're referring to. learn to read ogmius, cause construe doesn't mean limit at all. No but "all activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General election and not the democratic primary" is pretty clear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
Guys it was just money and a complete institutional takeover. Just because they were totally financially dependent on a party who had every reason to use that dependence to their own advantage doesnt mean anything untoward happened, and if you cant prove something blatantly untowards happened multuple times, or that the outcome wouldnt have happened anyway its just not a big deal you know! Russia and Hillary both did nothing wrong, or at the very least whats done is done and it doesnt matter so lets just move on and not talk about it and certilainly not do anything to worry ourselves about preventing it from happening again
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Not having to reckon with being wrong It's starting to feel like gaslighting almost.  "The DNC wasn't doing anything wrong!" "Wow, a ton of news is coming out about problems within the DNC! Looks like they did a shitload wrong!" "Well, technically, they actually followed all the rules they themselves set up! Turns out they're actually super awesome!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:No but "all activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General election and not the democratic primary" is pretty clear. Let's not be disingenuous here, we are both aware that line isn't specific enough to hold up in any sort of legal reading whatsoever. Good rule of thumb is that you can assume anything up-to-interpretation to be worth as much as the paper it's written on in a courtroom.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:literally could not be worse than the list of recent chairs: Perez, Donna, Debbie, Kaine, and Dean, successes all! Dean was a success though. He also is a huge rear end in a top hat, who is a false ally to the left.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Let's not be disingenuous here, we are both aware that line isn't specific enough to hold up in any sort of legal reading whatsoever. Good rule of thumb is that you can assume anything up-to-interpretation to be worth as much as the paper it's written on in a courtroom. Okay. But now you need more evidence. You need to point out the specific DNC communications and activities that rigged the election. It isn't enough to say "well the agreement could theoretically have been used in a way that violated the spirit of its very clear language".
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:No but "all activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General election and not the democratic primary" is pretty clear. No, the exact clause was "nothing in this agreement can be construed as influencing the primary" Not that you couldn’t, just that you’re not supposed to think it can
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:No, the exact clause was "nothing in this agreement can be construed as influencing the primary" Pedantry here, "construed" in this case isn't just interpreting it in the manner of thinking about the document, it also refers to implementation. "Nothing in <x> shall be construed in a manner which would violate <y>" is legal boilerplate which means y supercedes x wherever they conflict.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:No, the exact clause was "nothing in this agreement can be construed as influencing the primary" Maybe read the very next sentence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Okay. But now you need more evidence. You need to point out the specific DNC communications and activities that rigged the election. It isn't enough to say "well the agreement could theoretically have been used in a way that violated the spirit of its very clear language". This is just like the DNC and Hillary during the campaign both insisting that taking money from people, even huge amounts of money, doesnt matter at all and therea no way it could be bad unless you can PROVE its bad inside a system designed explicitly to make the badness subtle and hard to prove. At least you have some support on the supreme court i guess
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Pedantry here, "construed" in this case isn't just interpreting it in the manner of thinking about the document, it also refers to implementation. "Nothing in <x> shall be construed in a manner which would violate <y>" is legal boilerplate which means y supercedes x wherever they conflict. Okay but what’s the enforcement mechanism then, hoping the DNC takes HFA to court?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:No but "all activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General election and not the democratic primary" is pretty clear. no, that's actually pretty vague ogmius. it very much allows clinton to gently caress around with the primary as preparation for the general. her actions just have to be justifiable as "not focused on the primary". for instance, hiring communications directors that are friendly to her before the primary and finance officers that are friendly to her during the primary. those officers are not bound by the memo, and they were not impartial during the primary (as prior evidence had already established). sorry you lack reading comprehension ogmius.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:This is just like the DNC and Hillary during the campaign both insisting that taking money from people, even huge amounts of money, doesnt matter at all and therea no way it could be bad unless you can PROVE its bad inside a system designed explicitly to make the badness subtle and hard to prove. So you don't know of any such activities. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Gotta say, Ogmius, the argument that corruption is only bad if it does bad things and rigging is only bad if "matters" and changes the outcome and presumably doping in sports is just fine so long as only the team we all know would have won anyways is the only one to do it... its certainly a strange worldview to see none of these things as intrinsically terrible but at least you are consistent about your views and lining up with mainstream conservative thought on the issue
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Okay but what’s the enforcement mechanism then, hoping the DNC takes HFA to court? Whatever the enforcement mechanism set forth in the neutrality policy is, I would assume. That is, the ability to do nefarious things in violation of the neutrality policy always existed, subject to whatever (probably toothless) enforcement mechanism that policy uses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Condiv posted:no, that's actually pretty vague ogmius. it very much allows clinton to gently caress around with the primary as preparation for the general. her actions just have to be justifiable as "not focused on the primary". for instance, hiring communications directors that are friendly to her before the primary and finance officers that are friendly to her during the primary. those officers are not bound by the memo, and they were not impartial during the primary (as prior evidence had already established). sorry you lack reading comprehension ogmius. The officers still have a general, pre-existing obligation to be impartial, and the agreement explicitly acknowledges that and says that it does not override that obligation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Pedantry here, "construed" in this case isn't just interpreting it in the manner of thinking about the document, it also refers to implementation. "Nothing in <x> shall be construed in a manner which would violate <y>" is legal boilerplate which means y supercedes x wherever they conflict. this would be compelling if the dnc hadn't argued in court that their own bylaws were not binding upon their actions. it's kinda hard for y to supercede x when y has no effect at all in the first place
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:This officers still have a general, pre-existing obligation to be impartial, and the agreement explicitly acknowledges mad says that it does not override that obligation. they did not, as per the dems' arguments in court that they were not required to obey their own bylaws. sorry og
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
All this talk of communications and staffing and whether that was enough to defeat Bernie misses the much more obvious point. The memo was signed between HFA and the DNC in August of 2015. Besides veto power on all primary related communications and all hiring decisions by the DNC, it also required the DNC to encourage all state parties to join the Hillary Victory Fund. Whether those things were enough to defeat Bernie is irrelevant, it still had a huge impact on the primary. Why? That memo was signed in August of 2015. Joe Biden only decided not to run for president in October of 2015. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/21/politics/joe-biden-not-running-2016-election/index.html quote:Implicit in Biden's remarks was a realization that Clinton's position and organizational muscle in early voting states are just too strong for him to mount a credible challenge at such a late stage -- just three-and-a-half months before first votes are cast. Biden would certainly have been aware of Clinton's influence over the DNC and the fact that the DNC was already pushing state parties to join the Hillary Victory Fund. So Keith Ellison was absolutely right to say that it is impossible to know how things would have turned out without that memo (a statement that got him booed by the Pod Save America crowd).
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Gotta say, Ogmius, the argument that corruption is only bad if it does bad things and rigging is only bad if "matters" and changes the outcome and presumably doping in sports is just fine so long as only the team we all know would have won anyways is the only one to do it... its certainly a strange worldview to see none of these things as intrinsically terrible but at least you are consistent about your views and lining up with mainstream conservative thought on the issue No I'd didn't say that at all. The parts of the agreement that give HRC access they didn't give to Bernie aren't fair and the DNC shouldn't make any agreement like that again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
twodot posted:Is this serious? Like the whole point of activism is that you want a thing that the establishment won't give you. If the establishment just wanted to give you want you wanted, you would be part of the establishment. Prominent Democratic politicians were literal KKK members quite recently, the notion that the Democratic establishment is remotely reliable on black issues seems completely absurd to me. This is history rewriting horseshit. Do better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
"Did you know the Republicans are the party of Lincoln?" 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
The only people who tow that line today are Sean Hannity and alt right stooges. And Twodot when he is fishing for a dunk, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Maybe we should start looking around retirement communities for our savior since apparently Bernie and Corbyn are the only people for Labor people Wil coalesce around. We need to find the maple jam grandma.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:This is history rewriting horseshit. Do better. Here's Robert Byrd, Democratic US Senator from 1959-2010, the Senator with longest career in US history. He served as whip, minority leader, and majority leader. He was chair of the appropriations committee in 2008, so it's not like the Democrats where just waiting for 51 years for racist grandpa to retire. He has a long history of being an outspoken racist in the Senate, and a long history of enjoying support from his fellow Democratic Senators. Robert Byrd in 1944 on how black people are worse than Nazis posted:I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds. Robert Byrd in Two Thousand and loving One while sitting as a Democratic US Senator posted:I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us ... I just think we talk so much about it that we help to create somewhat of an illusion. I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, 'Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.' We practice that. There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time, if you want to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much. Robert Byrd in 2005 posted:I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened. twodot fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Nov 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Okay. But now you need more evidence. You need to point out the specific DNC communications and activities that rigged the election. It isn't enough to say "well the agreement could theoretically have been used in a way that violated the spirit of its very clear language". I'd point to the fact that HFA had control over the hiring process, expenditures, and organizing for the DNC, which in turn meant they had control over the hiring, expenditures, and organizing for the Bernie Victory Fund. Rendering it entirely useless. We in turn know that these came into effect because, as per Donna Brazille, when she tried to reduce the costs of running the DNC, she found that she was unable to remove the three layers of consultants without Hillary's consent (which would not happen). We are also aware that literally every DNC advertisement during the primaries was specfically focused on Hillary. Someone else can post the banner collage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:literally could not be worse than the list of recent chairs: Perez, Donna, Debbie, Kaine, and Dean, successes all! dean was pretty successful though albeit admittedly on the back of running conservative democrats in conservative districts  I'm not convinced that Perez is going to go down in history as a failure either, it's sort of early for that, although recent revelations have adequately convinced me that he should be doing more now / soon* to restructure the DNC because apparently it was rather more of a catastrofuck than I thought * -  check out this centrist scum nah, I just don't know enough about the inner workings of DNC to estimate if there were parts that were quasi-functional and therefore have some expertise worth keeping at least long enough to train up newer entrants
Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Nov 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:I'd point to the fact that HFA had control over the hiring process, expenditures, and organizing for the DNC, which in turn meant they had control over the hiring, expenditures, and organizing for the Bernie Victory Fund. Rendering it entirely useless. We also know that Biden decided not to run 2 months after the agreement was signed, in large part because he felt he was too far behind Clinton in organizing and fundraising.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Oh I agree, I just think it's an important question to ask. I'm not sure if I buy the "black people are more socially conservative than white people" canard, not as a group anyway. My suspicion is that it represents the same generational divide we saw in the primary, where predominantly older black people above the age of 30 are ambivalent towards leftism while those in younger demos are more receptive. Understanding why and how to appeal to those groups is a core issue going forward for American leftists who plan to run for office above the local level, because older black people disproportionately vote in primaries in most places. Yeah, my feeling is that even if a majority of Democrats aren't currently wanting to move to the left, it's undeniable that younger Democrats do, and people don't tend to change their political views much as they grow older. So even if it's not politically necessary to move to the left yet, it will be in the future (and, at the very least, I haven't really seen anything indicating moving to the left would cause any harm, especially since a bunch of people would just reframe their understanding of what "the left" is to account for everything to the left of what the Democratic Party is currently supporting).
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:No I'd didn't say that at all. The parts of the agreement that give HRC access they didn't give to Bernie aren't fair and the DNC shouldn't make any agreement like that again. The problem is that you just dont get it. Seemingly because you are desperate not to want you so you dont bother to try. You constantly act like every mocking of your arguments is an admission of defeat, but your arguments are just irrelevant. They literally dont matter except to you, and they only matter to you because your imagination in regards to other ways things could have gone is exceptionally limited. Its not an admission that you are right to dismiss them - its a recognition that you are unwilling to engage with the reality of what people are saying, preferring instead to live in your Republican style bubble where irrelevancies become the core of your worldview because only a focus on irrelevancies will allow you to keep it intact. We dont have to demonstrate or prove poo poo. None of what you are asking for matters except to those like you desperate to ignore the stuff that does. All the evidence we need to prove our points has already been presented and you havent even denied most of it, and we dont NEED to prove your arguments, because we recognize the ol' "things only happen if you can prove it in a certain very particular way" is a pointless argument we recognize well from decades of conservatives using it to explain why voter disenfranchisement and political appointments and poll taxes and blatant lies and personal bribes and all sorts of stuff doesnt actually matter, and we know its pointless to engage with people making that argument because they dont actually CARE if it matters, they will always just move on to the next quibble that has nothing to do with the actual problem. This admission that the access bits were unfair us the most hilariously out of touch thing you have said before and literally only makes sense if you are adopting the above mindset but trying to appear "reasonable" by making a harmless concession, but since you dont understand what people think the problem is you can only concede to things that make you look even more ignorant and/or ethically bakrupt, and its absolutely hilarious!
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Understand this.... ogmius. I do not seek your approval!! What I wish to alter are the tender, young minds of the lurkers reading this thread. And alter them I have, with my powerful arguments and agile rhetorical feints
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I'm not convinced that Perez is going to go down in history as a failure either, it's sort of early for that, although recent revelations have adequately convinced me that he should be doing more now / soon to restructure the DNC because apparently it was rather more of a catastrofuck than I thought That's sort of the crux of the problem, though. The problems we're discovering with the DNC, while not entirely detached from the issue of rival ideology within the party, are rooted in the destruction of its capacity to even operate on a barebones level through what I think is too generously described as 'legal' corruption. Obama and Biden pushed hard for Perez to have control over viewership of the party's finances, and the astonishing amount of toxicity aimed at Ellison's potential election makes a horrid amount of sense if viewed under the light of the consultant empire that flourished under Obama and DWS. I genuinely believe the tone and direction of this conversation right now would be much harder to replicate in a scenario where this issue had come to light several months earlier, because a discussion about the party's most critical ails should have happened before several fairly important elections and definitely before even more critical ones coming right up. Those people working off the political favors of the Obama and Clinton machines haven't actually gone away and there's no telling what the perpetuation of that grift is going to lead to in the near or far future aside from 'bad poo poo'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:Understand this.... ogmius. I do not seek your approval!! What I wish to alter are the tender, young minds of the lurkers reading this thread. And alter them I have, with my powerful arguments and agile rhetorical feints what no who would be dumb enough to do this, this thread has no tender young minds
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Is Sunday not a good day to be doing phone banking? I'm working through a virtual phone bank and I'm not getting any answers. Maybe I should just set aside some time for early tomorrow evening?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:what no who would be dumb enough to do this, this thread has no tender young minds because witnessing my dialectics transformed their minds into hardened, radicalized steel
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 10:58 |
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:literally could not be worse than the list of recent chairs: Perez, Donna, Debbie, Kaine, and Dean, successes all! Wasn’t Howard Dean broadly successful as chair? (I mean he’s still a sellout but that’s not the important metric for DNC chair)
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 18:05
|
|
