TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

View Poll Results: How long will Trump be President?

Voters
142. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 Term (4 Years)

    26 18.31%
  • 2 Terms (8 Years)

    49 34.51%
  • 1st Term Impeachment/Assassination

    50 35.21%
  • 2nd Term Impeachment/Assassination

    4 2.82%
  • I don't know what's going on!

    13 9.15%
Page 39 of 540 FirstFirst ... 49141924293435363738394041424344495459646974798489139289539 ... LastLast
Results 951 to 975 of 13493

Thread: ✮✮✮ !Trump Dump! ✮✮✮

  1. #951
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Trump seemed like a pipe dream, too, but he got the nomination. As I understand it, Clinton ran up her elected delegate lead from southern Democrats who (A) really like Obama and see her as a continuation of his administration and (B) are skeptical about Sanders and his policies. The DNC, a literally partisan organization, being partisan, may have figured into a delegate here and there but wasn't instrumental.

  2. #952
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    He got pretty close, and there's no telling what might have happened if the DNC didn't do their damnedest to keep him from winning.
    Just like the email scandal, her nomination was secured by a network of collusion.

  3. #953
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    I wouldn't call it collusion exactly, but yeah, the DNC can and did choose to greatly favor one candidate over another. It's their legal right.

    It's amazing to me how many people are getting up in arms over facts that only serve to show how entirely ignorant they are concerning the processes of our government functions. The presidential primaries have never been an entirely democratic, by the people, for the people process.

  4. #954
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Where Hillary is concerned, the slightest hint of scandal gets fanned into things like "her nomination was secured by a network of collusion", which isn't remotely true.

  5. #955
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Of course there's always the possibility that we all actually are being lead by MSM propaganda, that we're just sheeple being lead to our own slaughter.

    Hillary 2016!

  6. #956
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    I wouldn't call it collusion exactly, but yeah, the DNC can and did choose to greatly favor one candidate over another. It's their legal right. It's amazing to me how many people are getting up in arms over facts that only serve to show how entirely ignorant they are concerning the processes of our government functions.
    It's amazing to me how many people accept corrupt practices within our government, and mistakenly perceive that people are ignorant if they choose to disapprove of such unethical practices.

    The presidential primaries have never been an entirely democratic, by the people, for the people process.
    Unlike the RNC, the DNC is unique in the fact that it has superdelegates...which fundamentally corrupts the democratic process. This corrupt design insures that special interest groups can maintain control over the will of the people via a network of collusion...Thus bringing in the nominee of their choice to do their bidding.

  7. #957
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Vae View Post
    It's amazing to me how many people accept corrupt practices within our government, and mistakenly perceive that people are ignorant if they choose to disapprove of such unethical practices.
    This so-called unethical practice is by design, and has been in place since Day One. Remember, a goodly portion of Yee Founding Fathers of Days Once Past though the process of choosing a new president should be handled entirely by congress. Many other Founding Fathers of Olde disagreed. The system we have now is a compromise between the two, where anyone can run for the office on any ticket in a held election, but congress (and thus, by extension, our two major parties) can themselves support any candidate of their choosing, and step in at any time to subvert the process entirely if they feel a particular candidate isn't fit for the role.

    The DNC did the former. They preferred Hillary, a 30 year vet of the party, over Sanders, an independent who decided that year to run for the presidency on a Democrat ticket. They didn't stop him from running, but didn't give him much of a helping hand, either. That's their right.

    A good portion of the GOP actually considered doing the latter for Trump. If they decided to nix him entirely, and run someone else on their ticket, it would've been their right.

    The presidential elections have never been purely democratic. Never. Like everything involving the US government, is has its own sets of checks and balances.

  8. #958
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Lockdown... if only
    Look at you, defending the least democratic aspects of our system.

    You've also got it wrong, confusing electors with members of Congress.

  9. #959
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    The electorate decides the presidency. Congress, or rather the parties, decide who ultimately runs on their ticket. More often than not, they go with the popular vote, though they always have the option to decide otherwise.

    And I'm not defending it, so much as explaining that what we're seeing here isn't anything new. This is how it's always been. We can argue its fairness or effectiveness til the cows come home. But to claim it's some new thing, to use it as proof of how corrupt our government has become, is pure ignorance.

  10. #960
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    The DNC did the former. They preferred Hillary, a 30 year vet of the party, over Sanders, an independent who decided that year to run for the presidency on a Democrat ticket.
    They preordained Hillary, for the sole reason that she is corrupt, and is willing to do the bidding of their network of preferred special interest groups...unlike Bernie, who could not guarantee such assurances.

    They didn't stop him from running, but didn't give him much of a helping hand, either.
    They made it impossible for Bernie to win by colluding with the superdelegates.

    A good portion of the GOP actually considered doing the latter for Trump. If they decided to nix him entirely, and run someone else on their ticket, it would've been their right.
    If the GOP and their preferred network of special interest groups had their way, Trump wouldn't be their nominee right now. All their support and money went to Bush and Rubio...you know, the corrupt politicians that are already in their pocket. The difference is, the GOP didn't have the corrupt structural capability to block Trump like the DNC did with Bernie...and they couldn't simply pick someone else as nominee once Trump achieved a majority of delegates, because the GOP would have imploded.

  11. #961
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Vae View Post
    They preordained Hillary, for the sole reason that she is corrupt, and is willing to do the bidding of their network of preferred special interest groups...unlike Bernie, who could not guarantee such assurances.
    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

    They made it impossible for Bernie to win by colluding with the superdelegates.
    No, he lost the popular vote. This supposed conflict of interests with the superdelegates overriding the will of the people never actually occurred.

  12. #962
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
    The fact that you are unaware of how the political system operates, just shows how naive you really are.

    No, he lost the popular vote. This supposed conflict of interests with the superdelegates overriding the will of the people never actually occurred.
    The combined result from the structurally corrupt superdelegate system and the DNC's collusion with mainstream media outlets, with the purpose to manipulate the popular vote in favor of Hillary versus Bernie, revealed Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairman of the DNC, to be an operative of the Clinton campaign. After she was exposed as a Clinton agent, she resigned as the head of the DNC...Of course, Hillary immediately "officially" hired her, as a reward for all her loyal work.

    Hillary was preordained by the DNC to be the nominee, because she made the right agreements with the special interest groups that control the DNC...The "nominating contest" that the DNC put on was just a charade, to give people the illusion that they had a choice as to who would be the Democrat nominee.

  13. #963
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Just like the RNC preordained Jeb Bush, you mean?

  14. #964
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Vae View Post
    The fact that you are unaware of how the political system operates, just shows how naive you really are.
    Guess I can't argue with that, considering all the withering arguments and damning proofs you've submitted throughout this conversation. OW! MY WORLDVIEW!

    The combined result from the structurally corrupt superdelegate system and the DNC's collusion with mainstream media outlets, with the purpose to manipulate the popular vote in favor of Hillary versus Bernie, revealed Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairman of the DNC, to be an operative of the Clinton campaign. After she was exposed as a Clinton agent, she resigned as the head of the DNC...Of course, Hillary immediately "officially" hired her, as a reward for all her loyal work.

    Hillary was preordained by the DNC to be the nominee, because she made the right agreements with the special interest groups that control the DNC...The "nominating contest" that the DNC put on was just a charade, to give people the illusion that they had a choice as to who would be the Democrat nominee.
    You've got a point. If I recall correctly, most of the OLOL MSM coverage concerned his unexpected, nigh meteoric rise in popularity, and how his donor funded campaign was putting up such a spectacular fight against so deeply entrenched an opponent. Obviously the insidious workings of a well managed smear campaign, presented to us through the machinations of a bought and paid for media. I think they might've even mentioned he was a Jew once or twice, the cads.

    The Superdelegates? The OLOL MSM did spend quite a bit of time harping on the fact that most of them still sided with Clinton throughout the primaries. This could have put a damper on his campaign somewhat, but....hey, they did nearly the exact same thing with Obama back in '08, when the superdelegates sided with Hillary up until...

    ...wait for it...

    ...Obama won the popular vote. Then they sided with him.

    But I could be wrong. I am pretty naÔve.

  15. #965
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    Just like the RNC preordained Jeb Bush, you mean?
    Yes, the RNC preordained Jeb Bush, yet was unsuccessful at achieving success, due to a number of reasons:

    1) There was a large field of 17 republican candidates to begin with, as opposed to very limited field of really only one other candidate (Bernie) to contend with. Because of this, the Bush campaign and the special interest groups that control the RNC didn't know who to target, and their enormous amount of resources were diluted and unwisely utilized.

    2) They underestimated the persuasive and strategic ability of Trump. He masterfully targeted Jeb early on, and took him out before he had any chance to gain momentum with the public. Normally, that kind of money and support from the controlling special interest groups had always been enough to defeat the other contenders...That was, until they encountered the remarkable persuasive ability of Trump, working in conjunction with a populist movement.

    3) Unlike the DNC, the RNC doesn't have a corrupt superdelegate system that gives them even more power to control the outcome of the nominating process.

  16. #966
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Jesus, Vae. How many times does it have to be explained to you that the superdelegates never even had the chance to corrupt the process?

    Sanders lost the popular vote. That is the beginning and the end of this story. There is no conspiracy. No collusion. Nothing.

  17. #967
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    Jesus, Vae. How many times does it have to be explained to you that the superdelegates never even had the chance to corrupt the process?
    The very existence of the superdelegates is structural corruption of the democratic process.

    Sanders lost the popular vote.
    He sure did...with the help of a Clinton campaign agent, known as Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

  18. #968
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Yeah, and how did Schultz swing the popular vote?

  19. #969
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Leave it Renz, at this point you're just jousting with cognitive dissonance. No amount of logic, evidence or sense is going to penetrate. This is "yeah but" tennis.

  20. #970
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    You're right. But I'm so stubborn, I JUST CAN'T LET IT GO!

  21. #971
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    If this election comes down to one voter and that ends up being Vae casting the deciding vote, imma be discountenanced. Very discountenanced. Y'all heard me right.

  22. #972
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Lockdown... if only
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    The electorate decides the presidency. Congress, or rather the parties, decide who ultimately runs on their ticket. More often than not, they go with the popular vote, though they always have the option to decide otherwise.

    And I'm not defending it, so much as explaining that what we're seeing here isn't anything new. This is how it's always been. We can argue its fairness or effectiveness til the cows come home. But to claim it's some new thing, to use it as proof of how corrupt our government has become, is pure ignorance.
    You say you're not defending it, but that's exactly what you're doing in post after post.

    Also, it's not like some guys can go into a back room, puff cigars, and declare a winner anymore. There's a whole patchwork of state laws and federal regulation governing the delegates, conventions and the nominating process. Most delegates are bound to their declared candidate for one or more rounds of voting, for example. The parties' nominating process isn't as democratic as it should be, but it's a lot more democratic than it was at the 1968 DNC when only a minority of states held primaries. There's no reason why it shouldn't be more democratic.

    Anyway, I realize that Sanders didn't win enough delegates through the primaries to win the nomination, so I'm not going to argue that it was stolen. My chief complaint with this nomination cycle is that nobody ran on the Democratic side. The only opposition Clinton faced was from an outsider who wasn't even a regular party member. Normally in an open year there's 8-10 candidates running.

    With the exception of the Dean years (2005-2009), the DNC has been a Clinton/DLC organization for most of the last two decades. The Clintons fought with the DNC during Dean's term and it helped get Obama nominated in 2008. Obama then turned on Dean and suddenly he became persona non grata after the general election. I'm still scratching my head about that one, since 2008 was the best election the Democrats have had in ages. Obama went from running against the DLC during the election to declaring himself a New Democrat after the election. He put Tim Kaine in charge who more or less ran all the progressives out, stacking it with Clinton people and other DLC types, and the party got its ass kicked in the 2010 mid-terms. Wasserman Schultz was Clinton's 2008 campaign co-chair and has been acting like it through her leadership of the DNC. Since she took over, the mission of the DNC has seemingly been to prevent anyone from challenging for the nomination.

  23. #973
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    My chief complaint with this nomination cycle is that nobody ran on the Democratic side. The only opposition Clinton faced was from an outsider who wasn't even a regular party member.
    Hey there was also that guy! What's his name. He ran, too.

  24. #974
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Lockdown... if only
    Oh yeah, Martin O'Malley. Lasted all the way to Iowa.

    The Democrats have a lot of weak Senate candidates this year too, but they'll probably get away with it since Trump's coat tails seem to be pulling down the Republicans in those races.

  25. #975
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    You've got a point. If I recall correctly, most of the OLOL MSM coverage concerned his unexpected, nigh meteoric rise in popularity, and how his donor funded campaign was putting up such a spectacular fight against so deeply entrenched an opponent. Obviously the insidious workings of a well managed smear campaign, presented to us through the machinations of a bought and paid for media. I think they might've even mentioned he was a Jew once or twice, the cads.
    Forgive me if we've already discussed this, but I thought the DNC leaks (over which Schultz was forced to step down) were pretty damning. They include, among other things:
    -The DNC instructing reporters to spend less time covering Sanders, and constructing talking points for at least CNN.
    -A DNC communications chief instructing his staff to put out 'unattributable' allegations that Sanders supporters were committing acts of violence.
    -DNC leaders discussing inserting an audience plant to question Sanders on his religion, to undercut his support in the South.
    -Schultz emailing an NBC anchor demanding he gag a Morning Joe host alleging DNC corruption.
    -The DNC aiding the Clinton campaign in using money from state Democratic parties to circumvent campaign fundraising limits.

    Clearly the party was seeking ways to damage Sanders in public and minimize media coverage of him, even if the result was far from a total media blackout.

    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    The Superdelegates? The OLOL MSM did spend quite a bit of time harping on the fact that most of them still sided with Clinton throughout the primaries. This could have put a damper on his campaign somewhat, but....hey, they did nearly the exact same thing with Obama back in '08, when the superdelegates sided with Hillary up until...

    ...wait for it...

    ...Obama won the popular vote. Then they sided with him.
    The fact that superdelegates will side with whoever wins the popular vote, barring extreme circumstances, is exactly why they were an issue. Most media sources reported on the primary race with the preliminary superdelegate votes counted in the tallies, creating the erroneous perception that Sanders was way farther behind Clinton than he was. I don't think it was ever a serious concern that superdelegates would side with Clinton to overrule the popular vote, but the superdelegate pledges were used to inflate support for Clinton and mislead voters into thinking that Clinton had a sure victory even when the race was fairly close.

    That's what people are mad about. Technically the system is a democratic one where whoever gets the most votes wins, and if it weren't for Wikileaks the DNC would claim that it was a fair election and that the Sanders camp is just a bunch of sore losers. But the leaks have provided solid evidence that in reality, the system is skewed by the party operating with some degree of media collusion. Now, you can say that that's obvious, it's how it's always been, and of course the DNC was biased from the beginning (maybe throw in some variation on 'their party, their rules'), but that's missing the point. The DNC repeatedly claimed that it was a neutral arbiter until the Wikileaks release forced them to admit fault, and the fact that they had to hide their bias in internal emails and fire scapegoats when it came to light shows that they certainly knew that their actions wouldn't be popular if revealed.

    Unsurprisingly people expect democracy, not covert oligarchy, in ostensibly democratic processes within their democratic republic. Maybe it's always been this way, but smoking gun evidence of deception tends to motivate people in a way unfounded conspiracy theories don't. It's certainly not the system working as understood by the average voter, and the fact that this is how it's always been doesn't exactly undercut their anger.
    Last edited by catbarf; 3rd Oct 2016 at 14:09. Reason: grammar

Page 39 of 540 FirstFirst ... 49141924293435363738394041424344495459646974798489139289539 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •