Jump to content
Simon

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

Recommended Posts

He's a 70 year old guy who's seriously out of shape. Sometimes at rallies he looks flush and winded. I'm pretty sure Rosie O'Donnell could kick his butt.

Oh, I don't think he could win. But he's protected by the Secret Service as a candidate. If Rosie started to put a beat down on him, in self defense, what would happen?

 

Obviously he's all talk, but I do sometimes wonder how crazy he will go on one of these polemics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or one did happen and they don't want to bring it up. Or maybe their lizard overlords are just rubbish with press releases. Or maybe their server is in A51 and can't access it now. Can we return to non conspiracy theory time?

 

Soar.

 

Oh no, darling.  This is the big daddy of the birther movement that we are talking about here.  He does not get a pass on conspiracy theories.  You know the old saying; if you live by the conspiracy theory, you die by the conspiracy theory.  ;)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are the sorts of emails that need to be found to make your case.  There are 20 thousand emails; if there is a smoking gun it is probably in there somewhere ... and if there isn't a gun then there probably wasn't a shooting.  Really, does it make sense that the DNC could pressure/bribe all the media bodies you say they did and have none of them turn around make a story out of it?  "Hey, Debbie Wasserman Schultz just offered me a bunch of stuff if I would ignore Sanders and focus on Clinton!  I'm totally not going to make front page article about the meeting we just had!"  Does that sound like the world you live it?

I partially agree - obviously there was a build-up of bad blood between the DNC and Sanders over time.  There does not to my knowledge appear to be any evidence of outright bribes.  But there are hundreds of emails disparaging Bernie and/or figuring out how to put Clinton in a positive light.  Again, I listed one example.  Collusion in my book.

 

The DNC did issue a formal apology:

 

"On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email. These comments do not reflect the values of the DNC or our steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nomination process. The DNC does not — and will not — tolerate disrespectful language exhibited towards our candidates. Individual staffers have also rightfully apologized for their comments, and the DNC is taking appropriate action to ensure it never happens again."  http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/25/12279134/dnc-apology-leaks-bernie-sanders

 

But of course this is complete spin trying to make it sound like a few isolated incidents and not a systemic problem.  When the chair herself was the primary instigator!  Breathtaking duplicity and audacity, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I partially agree - obviously there was a build-up of bad blood between the DNC and Sanders over time.  There does not to my knowledge appear to be any evidence of outright bribes.  But there are hundreds of emails disparaging Bernie and/or figuring out how to put Clinton in a positive light.  Again, I listed one example.  Collusion in my book.

 

Collusion is secret cooperation.  What was secret about it?  How is that anyone would not know that the Democrat party brass did not like the outsider who came in to take over?  Why would anyone expect them to be neutral about it?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For one thing, they themselves said they would be.  Over the past 18 months, whenever the subject of DNC bias came up, Schultz would publicly and repeatedly say "no, our job is to be neutral throughout the primaries."  Now we see a portion of her emails, including one in the midst of the primary season stating "He [sanders] isn't going to be President."  If collusion is not quite the correct term, then we can go with rank hypocrisy, sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, as a former Sanders supporter, it was clear to me by mid-March that he wasn't going to be the nominee. He was already too far back to have a realistic chance to catch up. I think his upset victory in Michigan spawned a lot of magical/wishful thinking among his diehards. So it depends upon when DWS was saying this. If she was saying it before the first primaries or after NH but before Super Tuesday, I agree, that's more problematic. But saying it after mid-March is akin to observing probable realities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said RPGNet went over this and the conclusions were the DNC did nothing since Sanders won all the events they sponsored and lost all the wide open voting. If there was anything to this, the reverse would be expected. Sanders would have lost all their events and won the wide open voting.

 

The only thing they could see that could point to favoritism were the debates which were scheduled against big sports events

CES 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She won by a wide enough margin that the DNC thing didn't materially affect the bottom line outcome. The DNC isn't responsible for Sen. Sanders' failure to connect better with minority voters, for example. So it's a nomination, not a coronation.

The lockstep of minority voters for the Democrats offends me. Sanders would have done more good for them, imo. The DNC undercutting of Sanders goes back to the beginning of the campaign. You might remember, when he couldn't get a bit of respect from the media and the Democrats were basically mocking him... all to ensure Hillary got the support...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...I'm sorry, did rpgnet transform into a wellspring of thoughtful and intelligent political discourse while I was away? It's a strange authority to appeal to.

 

Yeah, it'd be like somebody using us. :shock:    (ok we have to be better than rpg.net but still)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First post-Dem Convention poll. RABA Research, a new outfit, has Clinton 46, Trump 31, Johnson 7, Stein 2. Their poll post-Republican convention had Trump 39, Clinton 34. That's a 20(!) point swing. Again, it's only one poll, but it does suggest the Dems got a bigger bounce out of their convention than the Reps got out of theirs. And Trump has shot himself in the foot wrt the Khan family, so it's likely to get worse for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lockstep of minority voters for the Democrats offends me. Sanders would have done more good for them, imo. The DNC undercutting of Sanders goes back to the beginning of the campaign. You might remember, when he couldn't get a bit of respect from the media and the Democrats were basically mocking him... all to ensure Hillary got the support...

Mostly they didn't know him that well, and knew the Clintons very well. Sanders had some missteps in his minority outreach early, and he should have worked aggressively on it from the start of the campaign, rather than belatedly. Clinton had built up a relationship and good will going back decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...I'm sorry, did rpgnet transform into a wellspring of thoughtful and intelligent political discourse while I was away? It's a strange authority to appeal to.

I'm just saying that they have argued all of these points already as far as I can see and the conclusion seems fair. Only I don't know these people so I don't have a stake in whatever personal stuff they got going on.

CES 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spoilered for long-winded political rant.

 

 

 

"If you don't vote for Trump (or Hillary), it's the same as voting for Hillary (or Trump)."

 

"If you're a woman and you don't vote for Hillary Clinton, you're a traitor!"

 

"Don't waste your vote by voting for a third-party candidate!"

 

"Can you imagine being white enough to vote for a third-party candidate?"

I've seen all these sentiments--in most cases, in these exact words--spewed across Facebook and the Internet at large over the past couple of weeks. What do they all have in common?

 

They're all forms of VOTE SHAMING. They're all thinly disguised bullying, saying, in essence, "If you don't vote for {insert candidate name here}, you're stupid, disloyal, uneducated, unpatriotic, and/or racist.

 

It's lies and crap. All of it.

 

Don't be bullied. Vote for the candidate you feel would best lead the nation. It doesn't matter whether your family or your Facebook friends or even the public opinion polls agree with you. They're not you. Your vote is yours, and yours alone. Vote your conscience.

 

Better yet, study the candidates in your LOCAL elections--state senator and representative, mayor, city council, school board, and the like. Then vote your conscience in these elections. These results will almost certainly have a bigger impact on your daily life anyway. Same with local ballot initiatives. Study them; weigh out the pros and cons. Then vote your conscience.

 

Support the candidates you want to see elected. Be passionate in support of what you believe. But don't be a jackass about it. Don't bully other people with your politics.

 

And by all means, don't let other people bully you either.

 

STOP VOTE SHAMING!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...