Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Expectation of privacy was nice while it lastedFollow

#277 Jul 24 2016 at 9:55 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Jophiel wrote:
DWS is resigning from the DNC following the convention so scalps have been had and life can move forward.


Well, I guess Bernie's demands were technically fulfilled, if not in spirit.

____________________________
Just as Planned.
#278 Jul 25 2016 at 1:56 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Anyone post this yet? NSFW, because George Carlin.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#279 Jul 25 2016 at 3:01 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,159 posts
That's a low energy rickroll if ever I have seen one.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#280 Jul 25 2016 at 4:15 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
That's a low energy rickroll if ever I have seen one.
This one time I saw a Rick Roll.......ON YOUR MOM'S FACE!!!





























2006 just called me and they want their joke back.Smiley: frown
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#281 Jul 25 2016 at 7:39 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm not some crazy guy spouting conspiracy theories about the government,
Of course you're not.
Jophiel wrote:
When they say "nearly 20,000 emails" they really mean "15,000 email blasts from Politico, CNN, Reuters, AP, etc plus 4,000 news stories forwarded without comment" -- it's a dump of emails "to and from" the DNC which means there's a ton of spam and junk mail.
I was sitting in the hospital most of Sunday, which means listening to Fox News, and over the six hours of coverage of these emails they only mentioned like two of them the entire time. While DWS probably should and did lose her position, I doubt that there's really anything in those emails that amounts to much of anything that would actually affect an election. I mean, the two emails about Bernie's religion and whether his campaign was a mess or not were from just before California, when everything was already over for a couple of months.
angrymnk wrote:
I want both Rs and Ds to fail, disband, and fall into obscurity.
Most people ask for ludicrous amounts of money and/or power when asking for the impossible.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#282 Jul 25 2016 at 8:49 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Silver lining: We will have a new era of transparency in government as the administration gets hacked weekly.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#283 Jul 25 2016 at 10:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
For the record, I am all for it. I want both Rs and Ds to fail, disband, and fall into obscurity.

And be immediately replaced by essentially the same party under a different name like every other time in American history?


I see your point. Nothing ever changes. It is absolutely pointless to even hope for a future. It is best to to leave politicians to their own devices, let them inbreed until they create a politician version of white trash. Wait..
Realistically without changing some of the underlying framework to encourage minority party representation we're left with a 2 party system. The laws the way they're written can't really hold up more than 2 parties for long, and make it difficult to get a 3rd party into the mix to begin with.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#284 Jul 25 2016 at 4:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I was sitting in the hospital most of Sunday, which means listening to Fox News, and over the six hours of coverage of these emails they only mentioned like two of them the entire time. While DWS probably should and did lose her position, I doubt that there's really anything in those emails that amounts to much of anything that would actually affect an election. I mean, the two emails about Bernie's religion and whether his campaign was a mess or not were from just before California, when everything was already over for a couple of months.


Then why talk about ways to discredit him? Clearly, she thought there was some value in doing this at the time she had the conversation. Whether that was to affect the voters choice in the primary, or to affect his ability to cause trouble at the convention, or whatever, is somewhat irrelevant. And honestly, even the specific content of her plans, and whether they were enacted isn't the point either. The bigger issue is that it shows that she herself was clearly biased in terms of who she thought should win the nomination. It seems unlikely that she adopted that bias only late in the primary process and was perfectly unbiased and took no sides at any point prior to then.

Which, when viewed by a group of people who already think the system was rigged from day one, looks pretty terrible. Never underestimate the degree to which a small amount of facts can fan the flames of a much much larger amount of speculation. If she's willing to say these things in email, what was she saying privately behind closed doors where there was no record. Of course, you can never prove a negative, right? You can't prove that she didn't do or say anything where there was no record that didn't harm Sander's run from day one. And it's in that realm, fair or not, that the anger and suspicion will live.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#285 Jul 25 2016 at 5:10 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Then why talk about ways to discredit him?
Because he was openly requesting for her resignation. There was beef.

Gbaji wrote:
You can't prove that she didn't do or say anything where there was no record that didn't harm Sander's run from day one.
As I said, the belief of the system being rigged motivated his voters more than anything else.

#286 Jul 25 2016 at 5:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Then why talk about ways to discredit him?
Because he was openly requesting for her resignation. There was beef.


Now maybe DWS is a unique snowflake or something, but I would assume that the natural response when someone accuses you of something is to deny it, right? I mean, if I was the DNC chair, and I knew that I had been completely unbiased in my actions regarding the Clinton vs Sanders primary, and I'd been accused of bias, I'd be protesting this and all my emails would contain statements about how ridiculous his claims where and how unbiased I've been, etc, etc, etc. The last thing I'd do is laugh about it to my friends and say something like "we all knew he was never going to win anyway" and "ok, let's figure out some ways to destroy him", cause... you know... that would just be showing my bias.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
You can't prove that she didn't do or say anything where there was no record that didn't harm Sander's run from day one.
As I said, the belief of the system being rigged motivated his voters more than anything else.


Of course. And her emails just added to that. Doesn't matter if she never did or said anything other than that. It's enough to fan those flames.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#287 Jul 25 2016 at 7:29 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Now maybe DWS is a unique snowflake or something, but I would assume that the natural response when someone accuses you of something is to deny it, right? I mean, if I was the DNC chair, and I knew that I had been completely unbiased in my actions regarding the Clinton vs Sanders primary, and I'd been accused of bias, I'd be protesting this and all my emails would contain statements about how ridiculous his claims where and how unbiased I've been, etc, etc, etc. The last thing I'd do is laugh about it to my friends and say something like "we all knew he was never going to win anyway" and "ok, let's figure out some ways to destroy him", cause... you know... that would just be showing my bias.
You're not discrediting the fact that they didn't like each other. What do you expect her to say when he openly calls for her resignation? Right or wrong, there's a professional way of handling issues and his actions weren't professional.

Gbaji wrote:

Of course. And her emails just added to that. Doesn't matter if she never did or said anything other than that. It's enough to fan those flames.
Which doesn't harm his run.
#288 Jul 25 2016 at 8:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
You're not discrediting the fact that they didn't like each other. What do you expect her to say when he openly calls for her resignation? Right or wrong, there's a professional way of handling issues and his actions weren't professional.


He's not the one whose position requires a neutral stance towards any/all candidates in the primary race. She is. Hence the problem. The perception that the chair of the DNC may have been biased against one of the candidates running in the primary is actually kind of a big deal. Other members of the party need to believe that their decisions to run for office are going to be managed in an open and fair manner and not manipulated by the powers that be. The possibility that the DNC is picking winners for primary races in the party is a concern for all members, not just Sanders.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:

Of course. And her emails just added to that. Doesn't matter if she never did or said anything other than that. It's enough to fan those flames.
Which doesn't harm his run.


Whether it actually harmed or didn't harm his run is irrelevant. It does harm Clinton's credibility. It raises the specter that the DNC may have manipulated things behind the scenes to help make sure she won. Remember, you're dealing with voters who were already protesting the fact that Sander's didn't win the nomination, and who already suspected that a fix was in to make sure their chosen candidate didn't win. These are voters the Dems desperately need to pull back into the fold during the convention so that they'll support Clinton rather than just staying home (or, worse case scenario, actually voting Trump in protest against their treatment by the DNC). But instead of having a smooth process and transition and giving themselves the best shot at winning those voters over, they got this instead.

The number one objective of this convention was to smooth the ruffled feathers over with Sanders supporters. Everything else is nice, and important, and part of the usual convention process, but none came close to the importance of obtaining that goal. And this makes that much much more difficult. Conventions are about trying to unify the party. The RNC, despite a wobbly start, did manage to do that (arguably as well as they possibly could, given the circumstances). The DNC has to follow that up with a similar performance just to maintain status quo. I was assuming they would, given that the Dems are usually better at that sort of unity thing than the GOP. But to have this kind of blow up right before the first day? Tough. Doesn't mean they can't pull it out anyway, but their path just got a whole lot more difficult.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#289 Jul 25 2016 at 8:48 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:

The perception that the chair of the DNC may have been biased against one of the candidates running in the primary is actually kind of a big deal.
Not when the person in question has been openly attacking the said party for years and admitted to using the party for convenience.

Gabji wrote:
Whether it actually harmed or didn't harm his run is irrelevant.
Good, because it didn't. That's my point.



#290 Jul 25 2016 at 9:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:

The perception that the chair of the DNC may have been biased against one of the candidates running in the primary is actually kind of a big deal.
Not when the person in question has been openly attacking the said party for years and admitted to using the party for convenience.


Wrong. Her job is to remain an impartial facilitator of the primary process. I get that it can sometimes be difficult to balance the role as an elected member of the party *and* as the chair for the party committee, but that's exactly what that position requires.

If you want to see an example of the right way to handle this, look at Paul Ryan. He consistently stayed out of any conversations about stopping Trump, saying that it was for the delegates to decide this. He refused to take any part in rules changing, or parachuting of other candidates, despite massive speculation and even calls for him to do just that. Ryan even properly refrained from endorsing Trump until after the delegates had officially nominated him. In other words, he did everything possible to avoid even the perception that he may be biased in his treatment of any of the candidate, including Trump.

You can't possibly be arguing that Trump is less of an outsider to the GOP than Sanders is to the Dems. Yet, somehow, our guy managed to avoid letting whatever his own personal feelings are towards Trump get in the way of doing his job. Shocking, I know.

Quote:
Gabji wrote:
Whether it actually harmed or didn't harm his run is irrelevant.
Good, because it didn't. That's my point.


Except that we don't know that. There's no way to know that. It's the reason positions like that are supposed to remain impartial. So that there isn't even the perception that they outcome may have been rigged in some way. Because once you have that perception, it's very hard to get rid of it. And frankly, she didn't help herself with the content of those emails.

Which is why she resigned. Unfortunately, that's probably way too little and way too late for many Sanders supporters.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#291 Jul 26 2016 at 6:38 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Wrong. Her job is to remain an impartial facilitator of the primary process. I get that it can sometimes be difficult to balance the role as an elected member of the party *and* as the chair for the party committee, but that's exactly what that position requires.

If you want to see an example of the right way to handle this, look at Paul Ryan. He consistently stayed out of any conversations about stopping Trump, saying that it was for the delegates to decide this. He refused to take any part in rules changing, or parachuting of other candidates, despite massive speculation and even calls for him to do just that. Ryan even properly refrained from endorsing Trump until after the delegates had officially nominated him. In other words, he did everything possible to avoid even the perception that he may be biased in his treatment of any of the candidate, including Trump.

You can't possibly be arguing that Trump is less of an outsider to the GOP than Sanders is to the Dems. Yet, somehow, our guy managed to avoid letting whatever his own personal feelings are towards Trump get in the way of doing his job. Shocking, I know.
She was wrong. She should be fired. She was fired. That doesn't mean that what she did was a big deal given what she said/done and the impact it had on him actually winning. As with Ryan, that's nice spin, but when he opens his comments with (paraphrased)"I tried staying out of the election process", means that he crossed the line. He openly bucked the party and he told everyone to "vote their conscience" AFTER Trump was the only one left. So, thanks for bringing up Ryan.


Gbaji wrote:
Except that we don't know that.
That's irrelevant to you, so I'm sticking with the fact it had no harm, since that perception was what motivated his voters to vote. No need to argue about it if it's irrelevant.
#292 Jul 26 2016 at 7:24 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Of course, you can never prove a negative, right?
Never stops you from trying, though.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#293 Jul 26 2016 at 7:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Really, we have no idea what Ryan was saying/doing behind the scenes because Putin isn't dumping his emails to sway the election. If Ryan was working to stop Trump it would be neither a surprise nor a real reason to start saying "Shame, Shame!"

Anyway, the convention night went well. Great speech from Obama, Warren was sort of disappointing but that was just her as a speaker. No raucous insanity from the crowd -- a couple people lamely tried to start chants during the Warren speech and failed; I think they were actively "shushed" from the audience Smiley: laugh -- and Sanders' speech, while overlong by my tastes, laid out his reasoning for why endorsing/voting Clinton was the right choice and seemed well received. Sure that there'll always be a few cranky holdouts but the night went better than I'd feared after the weekend's events.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#294 Jul 26 2016 at 8:02 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Really, we have no idea what Ryan was saying/doing behind the scenes
Not nearly enough. Smiley: mad
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#295 Jul 26 2016 at 11:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Great speech from Obama
Shame she's not running, makes a good speech and is a bit more likeable that other Presidential wife that keeps hanging around.


Edited, Jul 26th 2016 10:18am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#296 Jul 26 2016 at 11:10 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Well, she can run in two or three cycles, and then Ivanka can run the following cycle and say it was her idea.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#297 Jul 26 2016 at 11:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Great speech from Obama
Shame she's not running, makes a good speech and is a bit more likeable that other Presidential wife that keeps hanging around.

Barbara Bush isn't that bad. Also, she's old -- indulge her.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#298 Jul 26 2016 at 11:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Great speech from Obama
Shame she's not running, makes a good speech and is a bit more likeable that other Presidential wife that keeps hanging around.

Barbara Bush isn't that bad. Also, she's old -- indulge her.
No good could possibly come from that. Old white ladies are fearsome beasts when encouraged.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#299 Jul 26 2016 at 12:34 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Wrong. Her job is to remain an impartial facilitator of the primary process. I get that it can sometimes be difficult to balance the role as an elected member of the party *and* as the chair for the party committee, but that's exactly what that position requires.

If you want to see an example of the right way to handle this, look at Paul Ryan. He consistently stayed out of any conversations about stopping Trump, saying that it was for the delegates to decide this. He refused to take any part in rules changing, or parachuting of other candidates, despite massive speculation and even calls for him to do just that. Ryan even properly refrained from endorsing Trump until after the delegates had officially nominated him. In other words, he did everything possible to avoid even the perception that he may be biased in his treatment of any of the candidate, including Trump.

You can't possibly be arguing that Trump is less of an outsider to the GOP than Sanders is to the Dems. Yet, somehow, our guy managed to avoid letting whatever his own personal feelings are towards Trump get in the way of doing his job. Shocking, I know.
She was wrong. She should be fired. She was fired. That doesn't mean that what she did was a big deal given what she said/done and the impact it had on him actually winning. As with Ryan, that's nice spin, but when he opens his comments with (paraphrased)"I tried staying out of the election process", means that he crossed the line. He openly bucked the party and he told everyone to "vote their conscience" AFTER Trump was the only one left. So, thanks for bringing up Ryan.


Gbaji wrote:
Except that we don't know that.
That's irrelevant to you, so I'm sticking with the fact it had no harm, since that perception was what motivated his voters to vote. No need to argue about it if it's irrelevant.


Uhh..you may want to re-read and rewrite what you said here, because either she was wrong and should be fired, or her actions were of no consequence and she should not be fired. Make a manly man decision.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#300 Jul 26 2016 at 12:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
She was wrong. She should be fired. She was fired.


And then immediately hired by Clinton to work for her campaign. Yeah. Cause that doesn't look bad at all. Smiley: lol

Quote:
That doesn't mean that what she did was a big deal given what she said/done and the impact it had on him actually winning.


It looks corrupt as hell though. Double plus corruption!

Quote:
As with Ryan, that's nice spin, but when he opens his comments with (paraphrased)"I tried staying out of the election process", means that he crossed the line. He openly bucked the party and he told everyone to "vote their conscience" AFTER Trump was the only one left. So, thanks for bringing up Ryan.


You get that the whole "prominent Republicans aren't endorsing Trump yet" bit was ginned up by the media, right? The same media that was ginning up the possibility of a rules change right up until day one of the Republican Convention. You kinda can't have it both ways here. Ryan was massively pressured, both by the media and the party, to openly oppose Trump (in several different capacities). He did not. I think that speaks volumes about his impartiality.

And to be honest, while I mentioned Ryan (because he was the one who was so prominently hassled about this), the better direct comparison would be Reince Priebus. Who did a fantastic job staying out of the fray. Again, in massive contrast to how the Dems handled things. And yeah, you're probably thinking "Priebius who". Which is kinda the point.

Quote:
That's irrelevant to you, so I'm sticking with the fact it had no harm, since that perception was what motivated his voters to vote. No need to argue about it if it's irrelevant.


Wait! You actually think that Sanders voters supported him because of the perception that the system was rigged against him? That's... crazy. People flocked to Sanders because they looked at the field of Dem candidates, didn't like Clinton, and amazingly discovered that the 72 year old socialist was the most animated and interesting alternative of the bunch (seriously, did you watch the first Dem debate? ZZzzzzz.....). Sanders support always was a bit F-you to Clinton. The growing perception that the system was rigged added to that groups dislike of Clinton, but the bigger motivation was to vote for someone new and fresh and not part of the existing established power structure.

How else do you explain so many people voting for an open socialist? I mean, I get that the whole "young kids want free stuff" narrative is great and all, but that doesn't explain the numbers he got. Not by a long shot. The fact is that there's a large dissatisfaction with the way our nation is governed, and a perception that said government is increasingly corrupt, inept, and serves more to benefit those working in it instead of serving the people. That's why we saw Sanders get the run he got. That's also why Trump managed to win in the GOP.

These are protest votes. Surely you can see that. But unlike the normal protest votes, which usually barely make a ripple, we're seeing very large portions of the voters flocking to alternative candidates and away from the established ones. So no, the perception of a rigged election wasn't the motivation for voting Sanders. The perception of a rigged government was. The growing evidence that the primary process was rigged as well just adds to the anger and resentment that already existed.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#301 Jul 26 2016 at 1:48 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
You get that the whole "prominent Republicans aren't endorsing Trump yet" bit was ginned up by the media, right?
You were going pretty heavy with the "no true conservative will ever endorse Trump" rhetoric too, sweety.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 266 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (266)