|
Majorian posted:I think that's mostly true, but that being the case, we should probably not let them anywhere near party leadership ever again. Certainly true. And I’m honestly a believer that everyone in this thread (except JC) will be ruthless to supporters of DWS or even worse Hillary 2020.
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 01:09 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:There isn’t any proof that tallies were changed or the election directly influenced in any specific way. This is the Republican defense for destroying the VRA and rolling out voter suppression across the country, is it a defense Democrats should be using?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 02:53
|
|
|
Condiv posted: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 Yes if only they had given Bernie some of the millions of dollars that he raised for them in the same way that Hillary did. Wait, except he raised $0 for them? Welp there goes that argument, try again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 03:32
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:Yes if only they had given Bernie some of the millions of dollars that he raised for them in the same way that Hillary did. Wait, except he raised $0 for them? Welp there goes that argument, try again. in what world would it make sense for bernie to contribute money to the general election fund while hillary is looting it during the primary satamas? why are you this stupid? do you really expect bernie to help fund his opponent's primary campaign?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 03:56
|
|
|
Condiv posted:in what world would it make sense for bernie to contribute money to the general election fund while hillary is looting it during the primary satamas? why are you this stupid? do you really expect bernie to help fund his opponent's primary campaign? I assumed that's what you meant by "if the dnc put their thumb on the scale for him in the same way they did hillary", so maybe you should clarify what exactly you meant. Also she didn't "loot" it, she was reimbursed for campaign activities by them from money she raised for them. I suppose Bernie could have requested reimbursement as well, but since he didn't help the Democratic Party in any way, that wouldn't make much sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 04:07
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:I assumed that's what you meant by "if the dnc put their thumb on the scale for him in the same way they did hillary" Did the Sanders campaign get veto authority on party communications director?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 04:11
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Did the Sanders campaign get veto authority on party communications director? Did the Clinton campaign actually exercise any such control?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 04:28
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:Did the Clinton campaign actually exercise any such control? Yes, Luis Miranda was named comms director with Hillary campaign's pre-approval. Sander's campaign of course, got no such pre-approval. Now of course you're going to say "that's not a big deal" but at least we'll have moved the goal posts from "it never happened." And then I can link to all the times Miranda used his power to try and hobble the Sanders campaign.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 04:36
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:Did the Clinton campaign actually exercise any such control? Are you suggesting that there's no conflict of interest between my job and a candidate when one candidate can fire me from my job?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 04:36
|
|
|
The DNC itself admits this poo poo happened. There's absolutely no point in sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending the poo poo that went down was A-OK when Perez, Ellison, and the entire loving unity committee is talking about how this was horrible and changes must be made to prevent it from happening again. Even the dedicated party hacks see the writing on the wall on here, why pick the wrong side on purpose?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 04:41
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:I assumed that's what you meant by "if the dnc put their thumb on the scale for him in the same way they did hillary", so maybe you should clarify what exactly you meant. Also she didn't "loot" it, she was reimbursed for campaign activities by them from money she raised for them. I suppose Bernie could have requested reimbursement as well, but since he didn't help the Democratic Party in any way, that wouldn't make much sense. loving  yes, she loving looted it satamas. the coffers were bare when state parties came looking for the money they were promised. and she was not allowed to be reimbursed for campaign activities out of a fund meant for the nominee during the course of the primary. that's looting money that doesn't belong to her. SaTaMaS posted:Did the Clinton campaign actually exercise any such control? wow you're dumb
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 04:45
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yes, Luis Miranda was named comms director with Hillary campaign's pre-approval. No, Miranda was on a list of names from Hillary, but he was certainly not her first choice. I'm not sure why they would give any random candidate staff control when Clinton was the one doing most of the fund raising at that point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 04:49
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:No, Miranda was on a list of names from Hillary, but he was certainly not her first choice. I'm not sure why they would give any random candidate staff control when Clinton was the one doing most of the fund raising at that point. they were supposed to be a neutral party. they are not supposed to give any candidate staff control, or they have to give all candidates staff control. candidates aren't supposed to be able to buy the DNC (though that's what hillary did)
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 04:51
|
|
|
This is like some Chief Justice John Roberts level of "who knows why human beings do anything, maybe it's just a coincidence that I do what the person with the power to fire me wants me to do"
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 04:58
|
|
|
Condiv posted:loving Oh man she spent money she raised, truly we are better off with Trump in the White House.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 05:06
|
|
|
Actually we are worse off because the stink of corruption and favoritism in the primaries clung to her into the general and it was a razor-thin loss. It would have been better to win (or lose) fair and square and go into the general without a huge cloud hanging over the party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 05:36
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:Oh man she spent money she raised, truly we are better off with Trump in the White House. LOL, this is really slimy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 05:37
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:Oh man she spent money she raised, truly we are better off with Trump in the White House. she spent money she raised for the dem nominee during the primary. it wasn't her money at that point satamas. stop being an idiot
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 10:06
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:truly we are better off with Trump in the White House. this but unironically
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
self unaware posted:this but unironically You earn that redtext every post.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
the only difference between hillary and trump is that we get to try to nominate a good person 4 years earlier
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
Whoever is in power during the next recession - which is probably going to be a full blown horrific depression and massively turbo-gently caress the USA in a bunch of very visible, life-changing ways - has a decent chance of being thrown out of power for 30 years. This is literally the only thing that keeps me going, that the economic and political misery of today will avert catastrophe in the future, and that HRC being in office during the meltdown (and her undoubtedly stupid response to it) might have destroyed the credibility of the Democratic party for a generation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 17:56
|
|
|
In light of today’s bombshell, let me quote myself from last page:Trabisnikof posted:Call it rigged, call it influenced, call it fraud, the truth is 2016 wasn’t the first election where this happened.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:In light of today’s bombshell, let me quote myself from last page: Well of course not,the Democratic primary obviously came before.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Well of course not,the Democratic primary obviously came before. Page 17 of the indictment: quote:By 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators used their fictitious online personas to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. They engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 23:46
|
|
|
And therefore, all Sanders supporters - indeed, all leftists - are Russians.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 00:18
|
|
|
hillary lost because of this image. how dare you!
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 00:21
|
|
|
Every time this gets posted hillary loses a shoe
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 02:26
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:They steal from anything. The Russians are very good at playing factions against themselves, and correctly intuited that the Democrats are the sorts of intellectual and emotional purists who will absolutely splinter and fall apart when presented with the naked reality of the current state of politics. The release of the e-mails themselves, and even which emails were released vs which weren't was curated and edited, and packaged perfectly to upset Bernouts and idealists the most. To say it was just releasing emails is disingenuous, when there's so much proof that someone was deftly manipulating the flow of information in such a way as to manage and stoke internal angers amongst Democrats. We got played, son.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 22:55
|
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:The Russians are very good at playing factions against themselves, and correctly intuited that the Democrats are the sorts of intellectual and emotional purists who will absolutely splinter and fall apart when presented with the naked reality of the current state of politics. The release of the e-mails themselves, and even which emails were released vs which weren't was curated and edited, and packaged perfectly to upset Bernouts and idealists the most. It's almost as if...the Democrats shouldn't nominate candidates who are already hated by a significant chunk of the Democratic voting coalition, as well as the entirety of the Republican coalition. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 22:57
|
|
|
I liked Hilary, so you on your own there. I have seen far worse crooks, my indignance at a minor crook in the system is notsomuch. I'd rather have had it than the BIG crook we have now. The DNC engaged in ruthless politics and it didn't work out, but a large part of why it didn't was because it an enemy cut them off at the pass and exposed them before it could come to fruition, not because people are good and we're working the kinks out of the system to make it better. So all this indignance that the Bernouts did nothing doesn't sit right, because Bernie voters were absolutely used as props to drive Hilary out or confuse the issue, and they took the bait. That it's such righteously flavored bait doesn't necessarily make it better. I'm just saying, take the words from people whose self-interests lie in decimating Hilary with a grain of salt.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
In what world is someone with the history of inflicting misery upon millions of others only a "minor" crook.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:I liked Hilary, so you on your own there. I mean, I acknowledge that you don't agree, but I'm hardly on my own on that front. quote:I have seen far worse crooks, my indignance at a minor crook in the system is notsomuch. You're not wrong there; Hillary was a garden-variety Democratic politician on most levels. No more or less corrupt than most of the rest of them. There's little question that she would have been a less disastrous president than Trump. But, fairly or unfairly, she was already spoiled goods by the time she decided to run, thanks to a decades-long Republican smear campaign (e: as well as a very checkered past politically, and a thoroughly, blatantly racist primary campaign against Obama in 2008). Nominating anyone who had that amount of baggage was a perversely stupid move on the part of the Democrats, and it certainly made it easy for the Russians to put their finger on the scale. It probably made the difference in this close of an election, but you and other Clinton supporters really need to start acknowledging that responsibility for the loss breaks down to something like 99% Democratic strategic fuckups, 1% Russian meddling/disaffected Bernies. Oh Snapple! posted:In what world is someone with the history of inflicting misery upon millions of others only a "minor" crook. To be fair, she's no more responsible for most of that misery than a great many other Democrats. That shouldn't let her off the hook, it's just important to realize how unremarkable she is in that respect. Majorian fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Feb 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I mean, I acknowledge that you don't agree, but I'm hardly on my own on that front. True enough, but I also think a lot of the 'she's so UNLIKEABLE' poo poo is also revisionist - yeah sure we say that now, but she also had political power and influence for a long-rear end time despite her likeability, so that's not the only thing that torepedo-ed her. However, you are right that her unlikeability finally came to roost, with political enemies lining up to take her down. Majorian posted:You're not wrong there; Hillary was a garden-variety Democratic politician on most levels. No more or less corrupt than most of the rest of them. There's little question that she would have been a less disastrous president than Trump. But, fairly or unfairly, she was already spoiled goods by the time she decided to run, thanks to a decades-long Republican smear campaign (e: as well as a very checkered past politically, and a thoroughly, blatantly racist primary campaign against Obama in 2008). Nominating anyone who had that amount of baggage was a perversely stupid move on the part of the Democrats, and it certainly made it easy for the Russians to put their finger on the scale. It probably made the difference in this close of an election, but you and other Clinton supporters really need to start acknowledging that responsibility for the loss breaks down to something like 99% Democratic strategic fuckups, 1% Russian meddling/disaffected Bernies. Well, this right here is the issue. I actually voted for Bernie in the primary so I'm not just a Clinton supporter or a Bernie supporter, I'm both. I would have voted for whoever ended up nominated, though I would have preferred Bernie. You are already splitting it into two sides as if I'm your enemy, instead of considering that I'm saying even good intentions can be used by people of ill intent, and this is a case where it happened. To try to split it out on a diagram to portion the blame and responsibility into percentages is overly defensive. Just accept you also played a part in this dumb play as much as the rest of us. It's always more honorable to admit what you did wrong and figure out how to do better in the future, than to insist you did no wrong because it causes existential anxiety otherwise. I was immediately suspect of the DNC releases, and you should have too. My first thoughts when the e-mails came out were wondering who has a vested interest in releasing these in such a way in this timing, and if we should be allowing this release to dictate so much of our narrative. Majorian posted:To be fair, she's no more responsible for most of that misery than a great many other Democrats. That shouldn't let her off the hook, it's just important to realize how unremarkable she is in that respect. This. StrangersInTheNight fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Feb 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 23:48
|
|
|
lol the aftermath of this admin is gonna absolve both sides of any lasting crit so hard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
Look, I'm just saying, the conversation effectively got turned away from Trump and towards Hilary, and challenged her to constantly defend herself while also establishing an image as sincere and not a crook, while an ACTUAL CROOK got away with the Presidency. We should consider seriously and with deep concern why we walked over to a guy with blinders labeled EMAILS, and let him put it so easily around our eyes. We got driven along a path. There's responsibility to be had there. EDIT: Also, this is not to say I condone corruption within the system, I do think a lot should be done to overhaul stuff. But I also think the destruction of the Democratic party as an entity to challenge the conservative establishment was intentional, and that was achieved largely by destroying or shaming its leaders. Just a reminder that just 9 years ago, the Democrats were the party of Obama. But this destruction of the left has been going on for a while, and this is part of it - creating internal tensions and stoking purity scares. How far we have fallen, indeed. StrangersInTheNight fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Feb 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
We'd been buying into dumb poo poo about Clinton for decades and worshiping any dipshit white guy with money forever. None of that started in 2016 and all of the Russia poo poo just looks like participation in what we'd already done to ourselves--Republicans priming their base for an explicitly racist businessman and horserace media giving him tons of free air out of amusement and complacency.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 00:10
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's almost as if...the Democrats shouldn't nominate candidates who are already hated by a significant chunk of the Democratic voting coalition, as well as the entirety of the Republican coalition. the entire Republican coalition is trained to hate anyone from the Democratic side these days, so excluding that, the only person left was like Biden, but he stepped away because his son died.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 01:09 |
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:Well, this right here is the issue. I actually voted for Bernie in the primary so I'm not just a Clinton supporter or a Bernie supporter, I'm both. I would have voted for whoever ended up nominated, though I would have preferred Bernie. You are already splitting it into two sides as if I'm your enemy, instead of considering that I'm saying even good intentions can be used by people of ill intent, and this is a case where it happened. To try to split it out on a diagram to portion the blame and responsibility into percentages is overly defensive. Just accept you also played a part in this dumb play as much as the rest of us. What part, do you think, I played in this? I didn't spread any conspiracy theories against Clinton - in fact, I openly argued against them and worked to debunk them. I gave money to her campaign, I got out and voted, I registered people in my county to vote, etc. The vast majority of Sanders voters turned out for Clinton. So acting as if all or even a significant amount of Bernie supporters played a major role in Clinton's defeat is extremely gross. Most of us did everything we were asked to do, and more. So no, I don't accept your framing, and I reserve the right to criticize her shitshow of a campaign, and its DNC enablers, whenever the gently caress I want.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 00:14
|
|