|
Chomskyan posted:Uh, her answer was an incoherent mess that sloppily transitioned to red-baiting over Russia. Pointing out the Kremlin's sloppy attempts to influence US electoral politics isn't red-baiting because modern Russia is not a communist regime you hack.
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 03:17 |
|
|
Chomskyan posted:This is what you're going to try to cling on to? Defending Russia's interference with the electoral process of a sovereign nation is poo poo, and if you do it, you're poo poo. If you make spooky noises with your mouth while talking about Russia, bring up the Cold War, or mention commies, then you're red-baiting. Merely bringing Russia up or correctly pointing out actions it has taken in violation of international law doesn't count.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Regardless of Clinton's Actual political leanings she will still be under pressure from progressive groups to move leftwards and I won't be happy until she does. This is the argument I've been making to my Bernout friends and relatives. The thing is, if you refuse to vote for her now that she's made all these promises, you have deliberately refused to make yourself a part of her coalition. Then, if your darkest dreams come true and she pivots to devouring college students to fuel her blood-soaked rampages across the Middle East, nobody cares that you won't vote for her to be re-elected, you didn't bother to do it in the first place! Whereas no politician is comfortable jeopardizing a part of their winning coalition. Be part of that, and even if she's the most calculating vampire ever to murder a political rival, placating you is now in her self-interest.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:his endorsement of HRC on the heels of the clearly rigged primaries Hi, it's not that I disagree with the overall thrust of your point, but this is loving stupid and so are you if you believe it. The primaries were not rigged, results came out roughly in line with polling, not as many people voted for Bernie, end of story.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Julias posted:Even though I doubt that Bernie would have won, you're lying to yourself if you don't believe it wasn't rigged. New York was the prime example, where it was biased in Hillary's favor from the get go (You had to he a registered Democrat back in October to vote in that Primary, when most people still didn't know who Bernie was, so the majority of those who could vote were traditional democratic party loyalists), and even then, less than two weeks before the election, the cut back voting hours in districts that were further Bernie leaning, which meant a lot of daily workers who couldn't afford to take the time off for work (the type of people more likely to vote for him) couldn't vote. The date often cited as the registration deadline in New York isn't entirely accurate; there was an early date for switching registrations (intended to prevent sabotage) and a later one for new registrations. Either way, this doesn't constitute rigging; party nominations are voted upon by party membership. A candidate gaining most of his support from non-party-members is not a rigged primary. quote:Lower turnouts favored Hillary Clinton, and we saw similar tactics elsewhere. I believe it was in Arizona where the polling was cut in over half, leading to waits of over two hours to vote, which definitely hurt Bernie.  quote:In Massachusetts Bill Clinton violated voting laws and went into one of the voting places during their primary, and held up voters for over two hours, helping her with her slim margin victory in that state. The voting margins were not so slim that some gladhanding swung the balance of loving Massachusetts, give me a break. If this is what you're reduced to, from claiming some grand conspiracy to rig an entire party primary, that's pretty pathetic. quote:Not to mention the way news media reported delegates and created a bandwagon effect that made people say they would vote for her. Friend, if you lose because of a bandwagon effects, you already lost. quote:And thus is without talking about exit polling irregularities., which I admitting don't know enough about to speak on. Not posting when you don't know what you're talking about is a good idea. Try researching all of this nonsense in actual detail before taking a position you've already admitted is mostly based on gut feelings.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:dismissing and hand-waving evidence showing a clear pattern of rigging Sorry, no clear pattern of rigging has been demonstrated. The person I quoted alleged as actors: 1) New York State 2) The Republican government of Arizona 3) Bill Clinton 4) and The Media All with no actual evidence of collusion or malfeasance, just hurt feelings and a vague sense of being ill done by. Sorry, try again next time. Marlows posted:Look, Bernie's more than alright. He did better than most thought he would against Clinton. But he was never going to win because of his limited coalition of support. Sorry. Also, this. It's demographics, always has been, always will be.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:The state of New York doesn't control Democrat party primary elections. The party does. The state of New York sets registration deadlines, which is what is being alleged here. Remember, primary elections are administered by the state, not by the party. You know what's controlled directly by the party, able to be rigged freely without fear or favor or oversight? That's right. Caucuses. quote:The Republican government of Arizona doesn't control Democrat party primary elections. The party does. See above. The Democratic Party does not set or alter polling places in Arizona. Arizona does. quote:Did or did not Bill Clinton show up at a polling place? Is this the goalpost now? Yes, Bill Clinton showed up at a polling places, this was not in line with election law and he got slapped on the hand for doing so, but you're gonna have to provide some evidence there was any measurable impact on the election, or that it was a deliberate attempt to gently caress over voters in a Hillary-favorable district rather than a guy overenthusiastically charging into a place and getting closer to the polls than allowed. quote:The Media bias for Hilary is demonstrable and you're hand-waving it away reflexively because you're alright with the result.  ok fine my dudequote:These 4 things he listed aren't the only 4 things to be considered, and your attempt to shoot them down was pretty fuckin' weak. There's plenty of evidence to support this theory, and it's your god drat problem, no mine, if you want to ignore it all because lolbernie. Actually, willfully believing false things because they make you feel better about the fact that you lost is your problem, not mine.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 03:17 |
|
|
Chilichimp posted:cool, can we end this derail? Happy to; as far as I'm concerned, this controversy is and should be long dead. But on the other hand, so is this thread, given that its subject is over, so...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 20:05
|
|