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

View Poll Results: How long will Trump be President?

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

    26 18.06%
  • 2 Terms (8 Years)

    51 35.42%
  • 1st Term Impeachment/Assassination

    50 34.72%
  • 2nd Term Impeachment/Assassination

    4 2.78%
  • I don't know what's going on!

    13 9.03%
Page 40 of 558 FirstFirst ... 510152025303536373839404142434445505560657075808590140290540 ... LastLast
Results 976 to 1,000 of 13944

Thread: ✮✮✮ !Trump Dump! ✮✮✮

  1. #976
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    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.
    There were quite a few things that came to light in those emails that were fielded in strategy, but never put into play. It made the DNC look ugly and petty, and won't do their reputations any favors, but it's not as bad as it could've been, since it was merely discussed.

    The media blackout never happened. Sanders was a daily topic during his bid. Though I don't believe CNN or MSNBC ever ran a negative story on Clinton, which was one thing the DNC demanded, at risk of losing dibs on interviews.

    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 one problem. Though the largest issue in the minds of most is that they're allowed to "vote their conscience", counter to the popular vote if need be. It's this, alongside the fact that there are no rules or regulations in place concerning how candidates can court them, that makes them so contentious. Their favors can be bought, either through gifts, or good old fashioned one on one campaigning. While they've yet to go hinky on everyone, the fact they could very easily makes their presence a perpetual weak spot in the DNCs electoral process.

    I can understand why they're so controversial, and why they're such a huge draw so many conspiracy theories. I'll argue against the idea that Clinton bought the nomination from them, but I won't deny that the DNC would be better off without them, because their existence makes it easy to assume such.

  2. #977
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    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.
    Very astute, heywood.

    This leaked email reveals that Hillary (HRC) was preordained as the nominee from the very beginning of the primaries...




    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    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.

    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.
    Indeed, catbarf.

    DecisionData.org did an analysis of the 2016 Presidential media coverage...Here is what they discovered...

    2016 Presidential Media Blackouts: Not Just Conspiracy



    Holy crap. When I first had this idea I thought I might kill some conspiracy theories about the media. What we found is strong evidence of media bias.

    Our analysis shows Bernie Sanders is being ignored by the mainstream media to a shocking degree. If covered at the average rate we’d have seen about 61,500 more stories including Sanders in the last 6 months: 91,094 mentions instead of 29,525.
    Clinton receives a high amount of coverage, despite no dramatic changes in polls and lower search interest. ~ DescisionData.org
    This, of course, translated into more votes for Hillary and less for Bernie.

    ...and, Bernie supporters did not like that one bit...

    Last edited by Vae; 3rd Oct 2016 at 16:34.

  3. #978
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: 1, Rotation: 0
    Yes, damn that dastardly DNC for dragging Clinton's name through the media with month after month of bullshit Congressional hearings on Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Emails Emails Emails!

    I'm sure she was thankful for all the "mentions" she got in the media out of all this, though.

    As a metric for anything substantive, that graph is pure bullshit.

  4. #979
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Vertigo, DragonSand, Xeen
    Quote Originally Posted by hopper View Post
    I'm sure she was thankful for all the "mentions" she got in the media out of all this, though.
    I dont think these are the kinds of "mentions" that benefit her. Like in the 80's when Madonna could say, "Any press is good press", yeah... I dont really think that applies here! Tons of people in this country now believe she is corrupt to the core because of all this "attention".

  5. #980
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    ...which I believe was the point of it all.

  6. #981
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: 1, Rotation: 0
    Psst... that's the joke!

    Edit: Reeeeeenz!

  7. #982
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Vertigo, DragonSand, Xeen
    Oh, just a throwaway "joke"...

    Yes, of course!

    Hahahahaaa

  8. #983
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by hopper View Post
    Edit: Reeeeeenz!
    heheeeeeeeeeeee

  9. #984
    Another "I told you so" for the people who think I'm crazy.

    You'd think after I've been this consistently right that some of you all would start to wonder.

    http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrich...and-in-syrien/

  10. #985
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    No, he lost the popular vote. This supposed conflict of interests with the superdelegates overriding the will of the people never actually occurred.

    And you think there's absolutely no party agenda or influence in play that the Superdelegates went almost 100% Hillary?

    Besides which I think you should take a look at the patterns of the popular voting as well as what's in the those DNC emails. There's a reason that a lot of Bernie supporters suddenly found themselves de-registered when they went to vote.

  11. #986
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    Look at you, defending the least democratic aspects of our system.

    You've also got it wrong, confusing electors with members of Congress.
    Sorry. Both of you all are massively wrong.

    The founders did not intend for a popular Democracy. They also did NOT intend for the president to be appointed by a federal oligarchy.

    It was intended by the STATES who had control over the electoral process. Huge difference between that and the way either ideological camp interprets things today.

    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

    You don't seem to have a clear grasp of the exact way the process was written. Can you explain to me how a party's internal practices relate to the "US Government's checks and balances"?

    They don't. The original US electoral process was designed without parties in mind, and by people who were married to the ideology that parties were evil.

  12. #987
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    Another "I told you so" for the people who think I'm crazy.

    You'd think after I've been this consistently right that some of you all would start to wonder.

    http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrich...and-in-syrien/
    The fact that it's a German newspaper article suggests that you've pretty much just scoured the internet for any article which supports your views. A process otherwise termed confirmation bias.
    This may be linked to why people take you as seriously as a hamster in tap-shoes.

  13. #988
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2003
    Location: Darmstadt, Germany
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    The fact that it's a German newspaper article
    It's not even a real newspaper...

    Quote Originally Posted by https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Maier_(Journalist)#Deutsche_Wirtschafts_Nachrichten
    The TV magazine Electrical reporter noted DWN in April 2014 in a private contribution as an example of a new type of online media front, whose main products according to Moderator Mario Sixtus are "unfortunately often high volume, excitement and questionable facts". In the article referred to journalism researcher Stephan Weichert provocation as the basic concept of DWN, which would spread in this way, especially directed against the European Union's political stance. Markus Beckedahl characterized DWN on netzpolitik.org as "Kopp-Verlag for something with economics" and "media hysteria as a business model", as well as Matern Boeselager who wrote to Vice: "DWN is not a news portal, but a blog for conspiracy theorists".

  14. #989
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    "Kopp-Verlag for something with economics"

    To make it perhaps a bit clearer, Kopp Verlag is a publisher who mainly deals in right wing populism, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and fear.

  15. #990
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Tony brings a knife to a gun fight, then stabs himself. While his opponents watch in bewildered awe as he continues to stab himself, he repeatedly shrieks, "Who's doing the most damage here? I AM! See?! I'm winning! I'm winning!"

  16. #991
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2003
    Location: The Plateaux Of Mirror
    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.
    I dunno why anyone is surprised that the DNC chose to support a Democrat running for the nomination over someone who changed their party affiliation in order to run, then changed it back as soon as primary season was over. Or why it was considered scandalous in any way.

  17. #992
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2003
    Location: Darmstadt, Germany
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    "Kopp-Verlag for something with economics"

    To make it perhaps a bit clearer, Kopp Verlag is a publisher who mainly deals in right wing populism, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and fear.
    Yeah, Google Translate still isn't as good at translating as me, but it's also not as lazy.

  18. #993
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Moyer View Post
    I dunno why anyone is surprised that the DNC chose to support a Democrat running for the nomination over someone who changed their party affiliation in order to run, then changed it back as soon as primary season was over. Or why it was considered scandalous in any way.
    Did Sanders switch back to being an independent? I thought he nested himself in with the Democrats after he lost the nomination.

  19. #994
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Why would he do that? He's never been a Dem. He wasn't really a Dem during the nomination--in name only to get on a major party ticket. He doesn't need to be a Dem for Vermont and if anything it hurts him. It was painfully obvious he doesn't care about the party nor the party about him. So why should he possibly want to stay a Dem?

    Edit. That said he's not stupid. He's still writing under the Dem banner & siding with Hillary because he doesn't want to see Trump win, and he's responsible for his supporters who play a key role. I just imagine he'll go back to Independence after the election. If he does stay in the Dem camp it wouldn't be the craziest thing though. People evolve.

  20. #995
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    So why should he possibly want to stay a Dem?
    That's true...Ever since Sanders got completely scammed out of ever being the Democrat nominee, it would be foolish and demeaning for him to remain loyal to the corrupt DNC and the Democrat party, after the election.

  21. #996
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    Why would he do that? He's never been a Dem. He wasn't really a Dem during the nomination--in name only to get on a major party ticket. He doesn't need to be a Dem for Vermont and if anything it hurts him. It was painfully obvious he doesn't care about the party nor the party about him. So why should he possibly want to stay a Dem?
    Because his sudden, surprising surge in popularity has caught everyone's attention, and given him more political sway than he's ever had. If he plays his cards right, and builds upon the momentum he built during the primaries, he could embed himself within the Democrat party, and do far more than he ever could as an independent.

  22. #997
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    That will never happen, because of the fact that it would be beneath his dignity to do so, after being betrayed by the DNC...as you will see, in time.

  23. #998
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    It's all about politics, Vae. It's not so much what's been done in the past, as much as what can be used in the future. If you survive the rapids, then it's all water under the bridge.

    Sanders is a good guy, maybe the closest thing we have to a noble statesman here in the US. But he's not a saint. He's a politician. He's well aware of how it's all played.

  24. #999
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    For most politicians, you would be correct...but one must understand that Bernie has a long legacy to protect, and he is nearing the end of his political career. As you know, he and his supporters are staunchly against the special interest groups that maintain the oligarchy, which is why he received such enthusiasm and record-setting small donation support, throughout his campaign.

    When you get old, money and power become less important...and dignity and legacy become paramount. Because of this, he will not choose to align himself with a corrupt establishment in his final days.

  25. #1000
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    If we lived under an oligarchy, our government would be considerably more functional than it is now.

Page 40 of 558 FirstFirst ... 510152025303536373839404142434445505560657075808590140290540 ... 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
  •