|
Why do the clintons have to keep stealing from the till
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 12:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 17:12 |
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:Why do the clintons have to keep stealing from the till They steal from anything. BTW I still have not seen specific incidences of Russian propoganda that hoodwinked "bernouts" (lol). The sole example has been the release of DNC emails, which were 100% genuine and accurately confirmed everything that the "bernouts" (lol) were complaining about at the time. So, to recap: as near as I can tell the argument is that the Russians allowed "bernouts" (lol) to see that their complaints were justified, and this is why Hillary lost.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:BTW I still have not seen specific incidences of Russian propoganda that hoodwinked "bernouts" (lol). Let's go check Verrit, I'm sure they have some evidence somewhere. OH WAIT... 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 20:56
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:They steal from anything.  this nefarious russian propaganda hoodwinked 3 bernie supporters!
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:leftist candidates face structural barriers in primary elections. democrats face structural barriers in general elections. it is dishonest to assert structural barriers excuse leftist failures but not democratic failures It is true that Democratic candidates also face structural barriers, but I seriously doubt most leftists in these threads aren't also in favor of addressing things like voter suppression or gerrymandering. And, probably more importantly, the structural barriers faced by mainstream Democratic candidates are not nearly as large as those faced by leftist candidates (partly because they're offset by Democrats' demographic advantages). Despite the barriers they face, the Democratic Party is still given significant representation in the media and enjoys the awareness of the greater public. The radical left faces the far greater barrier of being what, until very recently, was a fringe part of the party. To make things simple, the key flaw in your logic is that you're arbitrarily acting like all barriers are equal. This doesn't make sense. Condiv posted:um, no Majorian posted:That's a terrible argument, JC, even for you. "General elections aren't democratic; therefore, the Democrats need to make primary elections undemocratic as well!" Nah, he's actually right about that. But the point he's trying to imply is wrong, because the net sum of the Democrats' barriers and advantages still gives them dramatically better chances than the radical left. SaTaMaS posted:LOL. The entire idea was absurd and demonstrably false from the beginning. The fact anyone still believes it just demonstrates how effective the Russian interference effort was and how susceptible Americans were to it. There's miscommunication going on here. Condiv is defining "rigged" as "was given some unfair advantage by the DNC," which was entirely true*, but most people tend to interpret "rigged" as something more blatant, like changing the votes in a way that lead to Sanders losing in a situation where he would have otherwise won. Also, even regarding the people who believe Sanders actually would have won the primaries and the DNC changed votes or whatever, those conspiracies were circulating independent of any Russian propaganda. I'm sure Russian propaganda attempted to magnify these messages, but it's dumb to call literally any message that was boosted by Russia, including those originating domesticall, "Russian propaganda." Using that logic, pretty much any major US political opinion could be called Russian propaganda, since they put their fingers in most pies (I'm probably misusing that idiom). *I'm referring to the stuff with Hillary loaning money to the DNC in exchange for privileges like getting to screen some hiring, etc, just to be clear. lol, a newsweek article by Kurt Eichenwald. This may be a little bit too complex, but have you considered the possibility that the Russians tried to magnify a preexisting message and that it had an impact on the election, but that there may have also been many other things that had an impact on the election as well? The election was so close that you can point to many, many things that plausibly could have cost Hillary the election. It is extremely disingenuous to point to one of those things (and coincidentally the one that we have limited control over actually preventing in the future) and claim it is The Reason she lost. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Feb 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 22:18
|
|
|
Condiv posted:literally the first sentence there satamas. she was doing this before the general, and had access to the money the whole time, as we learned from the released memos that gave hillary that kind of control over the DNC. The idea that the "primary was rigged" is Russian propaganda, however you've decided that you want to discuss something entirely unrelated, fund raising and spending for the general election. There is zero evidence in the article that she "was dipping into the joint fundraising well before she was nominated". There were absolutely mistakes made during the run up to the general election, such as poor use of funds from state parties, however that has nothing to do with the 2016 primary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 22:32
|
|
|
Ironically the dependence of the Democratic party on big money donors is a major impediment to the kind of get-out-the-vote policies that would help Democrats overcome some of their structural disadvantages as the party that supposedly seeks to represent and advance the interests of racialized persons, women, labour, and the poor. The party is more than happy to try and compel it's candidates to give more than half their money to basically useless television advertising (and naturally you'll be doing it through one of their approved vendors) but for some reason you rarely see the same degree of energy being put into mass voter registration drives. Even the big programs that ordinary voters are supposed to turn out at the polls to defend, like Obamcare, were intentionally designed to avoid the perception they were expanding the government. This had the effect of making them largely invisible to too many voters (or in some cases visible in the wrong way, via raising premiums and an unpopular mandate to buy private insurance). The fact is that for many people in the Democratic party's orbit the structural barriers the party faces are a source of immense power and personal profit. By refusing to entertain alternative fundraising models or policy agendas the consultants running the party ensure that their power and influence remains supreme, regardless of whether they are able to deliver on their promise that they can win elections.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 22:34
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:There's miscommunication going on here. Condiv is defining "rigged" as "was given some unfair advantage by the DNC," which was entirely true*, but most people tend to interpret "rigged" as something more blatant, like changing the votes in a way that lead to Sanders losing in a situation where he would have otherwise won.  What else do you think propaganda IS? There is no doubt that people in the DNC had their personal preferences for the nominee, and it's unreasonable to expect them not to. As far as I'm concerned the only question as far as "rigged" is whether the democratic process on July 25–28, 2016 was respected or interfered with by the DNC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 22:48
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:
I never said it wasn't propaganda? I said that the fact propaganda exists doesn't mean that it was the main factor influencing something (in this case Clinton's loss or the whole "primary was rigged" idea). Regarding your latter question, it depends whether you consider the DNC having a severe conflict of interest with regards to Clinton to be a problem. It's possible to simultaneously claim that the primary was "rigged" in this manner while also believing Clinton would have won even if it wasn't. The issue with the Clinton/DNC situation is primarily the fact that this conflict of interest existed in the first place. It's often difficult to prove the specific effects of a conflict of interest like this, which is why it's important to never tolerate them in the first place. Regardless of what the DNC did or didn't do to give Clinton an advantage, both it and Clinton entered into an arrangement that gave her considerable influence over their organization (prior to the end of the primary, mind). Even if you believe this had no impact on the result of the primary, it is still something that you should be concerned about. And contrary to something like the Russia situation, there's actually something we can do about it. There's very little we can do to stop Russia from spreading propaganda on the internet, but we can at least ensure our own domestic organizations behave ethically.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 22:59
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:There is no doubt that people in the DNC had their personal preferences for the nominee, and it's unreasonable to expect them not to. So now we've gone to "it's actually good that the DNC went against their stated purpose and used their institutional powers to push a preferred Dem candidate, you are all being unreasonable." Let's recap: we're all dumb "bernouts" (lol) who were duped by Russian propaganda. When pressed, we've been told that the "propaganda" was the leaking of the 100% genuine and accurate DNC emails, which revealed that the DNC was using their institutional power and influence - in direct violation of their charter - to push Hillary Rodham Clinton. We're now being informed that this was a perfectly reasonable thing to expect out of the DNC - despite the fact that their charter specifically forbids it. The next stop on this crazy train, btw, is that "Bernie is not a real Democrat so he should expect the support of the DNC" and if you press this point - if you ask which of Bernie's positions are antithetical to Democratic party values - you'll get silence. Well, we've completed a lap in Centrist Hellworld Of Losing Elections And Not Taking Responsibility For It. Please remain seated until the Dem's advantage over the GOP evaporates and we're all plunged into a catastrophic fascist drought-ridden unstable hellworld.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 23:07
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:The idea that the "primary was rigged" is Russian propaganda, however you've decided that you want to discuss something entirely unrelated, fund raising and spending for the general election. There is zero evidence in the article that she "was dipping into the joint fundraising well before she was nominated". There were absolutely mistakes made during the run up to the general election, such as poor use of funds from state parties, however that has nothing to do with the 2016 primary. the article is about her dipping into the joint committee and it's sourced.... feb 2016, well before the primary had ended. there is a former fec employee quoted on how the joint committee is being misused. at this point it's p obvious you're clasping your hands over your ears and screaming "russian propaganda" about any evidence presented to you. i got news for you satamas. the primary was rigged. the dnc, which was supposed to be neutral during the primary process acted continually in favor of hillary clinton, something you admit. this is literally the definition of a rigged contest. hope you understand now and can stop embarrassing yourself Condiv fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Feb 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 23:37
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:
the contest was not rigged, it was merely being managed by one candidate to favor that candidate over any others glad we cleared that up, i suppose
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 00:06
|
|
|
There isn’t any proof that tallies were changed or the election directly influenced in any specific way. Indirect? Sure, but that’s not as sexy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 00:09
|
|
|
Trying to limit the term "rigged" to changing vote tallies is stupidly reductive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 01:17
|
|
|
Please explain, using specific language, exactly what the Russians "rigged". You won't. Because beyond airing the DNC emails - to an audience that broke 90% for Clinton, better than Clinton voters did for Obama in 2008 without any 'Russian intervention' - you have presented nothing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 01:23
|
|
|
Things we know the Russians didn't do: Force Clinton to run a campaign based mostly around her awful, off-putting personality Manage to be completely incompetent at almost every aspect of campaigning and prize loyalty more than skill. Back the loving disastrous, hated TPP for most of her campaign Receive bribes in the form of six-figure speech dollars from Wall Street bloodsuckers that people in general, and Dems in particular, loving despise Run her poo poo on a private email server which allowed James Comey to remind Republicans that they hated her guts and to show up to beat her Clinton was the second most unpopular presidential candidate in history behind Trump before the Russians lifted a finger. So yeah maybe those DNC emails were the straw that broke the camel's back. Maybe. But the rest of that heavy baggage was put there by a monumental poo poo candidate, a grotesque parody of ambition, hubris, and greed who couldn't stop feeding at the corrupt money trough of DC even though she knew she was going back to the national stage for another shot at the title. The only moron who could lose to Donald Trump, frankly. edit: https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/791263939015376902?lang=en lol Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Feb 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 01:45
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:You won't. Because beyond airing the DNC emails - to an audience that broke 90% for Clinton, better than Clinton voters did for Obama in 2008 without any 'Russian intervention' - you have presented nothing. To be fair, that statistic only disproves the idea of Bernie Sanders primary voters being influenced by the e-mails and other Russian actions (to a degree that they were less "loyal" than you'd normally expect, anyway); there's also people who didn't vote and may have otherwise to consider. Though even then it's doubtful that Russian actions had a significant effect; while it's technically possible it cost Hillary the election, that's only due to how close the election was (and the fact that many other factors are at least equally responsible). All that being said, it's still hypocritical for him to ask for proof of the primary being effected by DNC malfeasance when there's no such direct proof of the general election being influenced by Russian actions. You can infer that all the Russian bots and propaganda had some effect, but the same is true for the gigantic conflict of interest that existed in the DNC with regards to Clinton. The idea that Clinton's influence over the DNC had zero effect is about as implausible as Russian actions having had zero effect. I think that a bunch of people are just deeply uncomfortable with the intra-Democratic conflict of the last couple years, and they find comfort in the idea that it's all just because of malicious Russian action and wouldn't have happened otherwise. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Feb 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 02:23
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:Trying to limit the term "rigged" to changing vote tallies is stupidly reductive. I mean, it really doesn’t apply here as it’s usually used. It’s more accurate to say that the primary is undemocratic and unfair, which is true outside of 2016. I don’t think that people would be so on edge about the “rigged” designation if it wasn’t the same poo poo Trump was peddling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 02:42
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, it really doesn’t apply here as it’s usually used. nah it seems people don't know the difference between vote rigging and rigging an election. rigged is an entirely appropriate word to describe what went down in the 2016 primary
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 02:44
|
|
|
Call it rigged, call it influenced, call it fraud, the truth is 2016 wasn’t the first election where this happened.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 02:48
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Nah, he's actually right about that. Wait a second, how is he right about saying that Democratic primaries should be unfair? Most of us can agree that they are unfair, but if you think he's right that they should be unfair...well, I can't really cosign to that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 03:45
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:So now we've gone to "it's actually good that the DNC went against their stated purpose and used their institutional powers to push a preferred Dem candidate, you are all being unreasonable." Wow, "using their institutional power and influence - in direct violation of their charter - to push Hillary Rodham Clinton" by expressing opinions among themselves at the very end of the primary race. So to sum up, the things the DNC is actually guilty of: 1. Thought crime against St. Bernie
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 04:45
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:Wow, "using their institutional power and influence - in direct violation of their charter - to push Hillary Rodham Clinton" by expressing opinions among themselves at the very end of the primary race. I'd say the big thing they're guilty of is utter incompetence. The fact that you think they're a good thing is pretty damning tbh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 04:57
|
|
|
Condiv posted:the article is about her dipping into the joint committee and it's sourced.... feb 2016, well before the primary had ended. there is a former fec employee quoted on how the joint committee is being misused. at this point it's p obvious you're clasping your hands over your ears and screaming "russian propaganda" about any evidence presented to you. i got news for you satamas. the primary was rigged. the dnc, which was supposed to be neutral during the primary process acted continually in favor of hillary clinton, something you admit. this is literally the definition of a rigged contest. hope you understand now and can stop embarrassing yourself I realize understanding words and context is one of your weaknesses but the so-called "Hillary Victory Fund" was actually the fund for the general election, so in the extremely unlikely event that Bernie had won the primary, it would have become the "Bernie Victory Fund", on top of the whopping $1,000 that Bernie had already raised for the general election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 05:01
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:I realize understanding words and context is one of your weaknesses but the so-called "Hillary Victory Fund" was actually the fund for the general election, so in the extremely unlikely event that Bernie had won the primary, it would have become the "Bernie Victory Fund", on top of the whopping $1,000 that Bernie had already raised for the general election. Lol, you are so loving dishonest. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...m=.0afd2890cad7 quote:Of the $6.4 million the Hillary Victory Fund spent on operating costs last year, two-thirds went to two Washington, D.C.-area vendors that also work for the Clinton campaign: Bully Pulpit Interactive, which received $1.9 million for online ads, and Chapman Cubine Adams +Hussey, which was paid $2.4 million for direct mail solicitations, Federal Election Commission records show. Ah, yes, that general election fund that spent 8 million dollars in 2015
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 06:47
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:I realize understanding words and context is one of your weaknesses but the so-called "Hillary Victory Fund" was actually the fund for the general election, so in the extremely unlikely event that Bernie had won the primary, it would have become the "Bernie Victory Fund", on top of the whopping $1,000 that Bernie had already raised for the general election. and as i and others have pointed out to you plenty, she was dipping into it during the primary. she was using it when she shouldn't have been able to, because like you said "the so-called "Hillary Victory Fund" was actually the fund for the general election". so, if you are able to actually read, you will realize we have evidence that she was spending from that fund meant for the general election and the dem party nominee to help her campaign win the primary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 10:21
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Call it rigged, call it influenced, call it fraud, the truth is 2016 wasn’t the first election where this happened. and the point of this is what? that we should accept rigged primaries? that it's ok the primary was rigged in favor of one specific candidate (who turned out to be wholly unable to actually campaign like she needed to)?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 10:23
|
|
|
Greetings fellow Democrats. I bring you a message from the future. As a prominent member of the Democratic party splinter faction. The "Hill Hangers" (forever loyal to the one true Democratic candidate of '16) It fell upon me to pioneer the use of our newly constructed but experimental time machine. Theoretically capable of travel not only through time but through parallel universes. I come to implore you to not let the corrupt DNC send their candidate Bernie Sanders as the Democratic candidate to the 2016 election. As was apparent from the start to anyone with eyes. Bernie was the least qualified candidate that the Democratic party has seen in over 50 years. Among his staggering list of crimes (Some of which only came to light during the election itself) are as follows Fighting on the Cuban side during at the Bay of pigs Complicity in the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr Ran a campaign financed by North Korea. Mainly through gold teeth collected from American prisoners of war. Having been in the direct employ of Fidel Castro from 1973 to 1995 tasked with spreading socialist ideas on the American east coast (With fatal consequences). His incompetence and complete unsuitability for the position was obvious to all at the time. But the corrupt DNC refused to accept it. Despite the fact that he lost the primary by several million votes the corrupt DNC (now heavily bribed by foreign socialist elements) still selected him as their candidate with the excuse of his "good natured and relatable character" Despite the fact that the Democratic voters voted to the contrary. The results were catastrophic. Despite all the early indications to the contrary. Donald Trump won the election and has in his role as president ushered in an era of conflict, instability and turmoil. The horrors of which cannot be described in mere words I implore you Democrats of 2015 to not let this future come to pass. You must make the DNC see the truth. Or even just get them to accept the results of their own primary election. The future of all of peoplekind hangs in the balance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 11:30
|
|
|
bernie would've won the primary if the dnc put their thumb on the scale for him in the same way they did hillary. not that they should've. the dnc should've remained neutral so the strongest candidate could win its unfortunate they allowed themselves to become a coronation vehicle for hillary and we now have trump as president. and it's doubly unfortunate that despite wanting to be president so bad, and scheming to that effect, hillary was too stupid to win Condiv fucked around with this message at 11:57 on Feb 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 11:54
|
|
|
Condiv posted:not that they should've. they should have
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 14:57
|
|
|
I remember seeing a context-free bar graph on CNN the day or so before Iowa that showed Hillary with hundreds of pledged delegates and Bernie with zero/near zero. It looked like the race had been decided even before the first caucus. Then Bernie lost Iowa by just two tenths of a point. Without that small headwind of discouragement, Bernie could have taken Iowa alongside NH, and there would have been 10 days of clenched DNC sphincters as the various news orgs would have to describe what a super delegate was and how even though Bernie won, there's no way he could win. There might have been a superdelegate snowball away from HRC like there was in 08 for Obama.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:03
|
|
|
Condiv posted:and the point of this is what? that we should accept rigged primaries? that it's ok the primary was rigged in favor of one specific candidate (who turned out to be wholly unable to actually campaign like she needed to)? I never mentioned the primary at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
duodenum posted:I remember seeing a context-free bar graph on CNN the day or so before Iowa that showed Hillary with hundreds of pledged delegates and Bernie with zero/near zero. It looked like the race had been decided even before the first caucus. Someone will correct me on this, but wasn't Iowa a format that was in favor of Bernie? I remember this being a thing, that the format of the primary/caucus was an indicator on over/under performance by Bernie/Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:52
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Someone will correct me on this, but wasn't Iowa a format that was in favor of Bernie? I remember this being a thing, that the format of the primary/caucus was an indicator on over/under performance by Bernie/Hillary. Bernie won most of the caucuses (the only domestic ones Clinton won were Iowa and Nevada and even then, barely) Most of the primaries (open and closed) went to Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I never mentioned the primary at all. Well, we were discussing whether the primary was rigged or not, so it’s natural to assume that you were discussing rigged elections in that context
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Well, we were discussing whether the primary was rigged or not, so it’s natural to assume that you were discussing rigged elections in that context Also a bunch of other people have been arguing about if Russia rigged the general election. And all my statements applied to both.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Also a bunch of other people have been arguing about if Russia rigged the general election. And all my statements applied to both. I mean, either way, this was a pretty drat consequential election to manipulate, and it blew up spectacularly in the Democrats' face. You realize that, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
If the Democrats had run anyone else, I doubt whatever Russian meddling happened would have made any difference. The Democrats just had to go and rig their own primary to put up the worst possible contender and make any meddling that may have happened a possible issue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 22:49
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I mean, either way, this was a pretty drat consequential election to manipulate, and it blew up spectacularly in the Democrats' face. You realize that, right? You can count the number of Democrats responsible for the Clinton campaign take over of the DNC on one hand. But yes, this turned out disasterously for DWS and friends.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 17:12 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You can count the number of Democrats responsible for the Clinton campaign take over of the DNC on one hand. But yes, this turned out disasterously for DWS and friends. I think that's mostly true, but that being the case, we should probably not let them anywhere near party leadership ever again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 00:44
|
|