Hills "accepts responsibility" for loss

[GMDino]

"rigged" the primaries.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-04-2017, 11:24 AM)GMDino Wrote: "rigged" the primaries.

via Imgflip Meme Generator

[Dill]

(05-04-2017, 11:14 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Why is it that, when discussing the "Russian" hack of the DNC people seem to conveniently omit one pertinent detail?  The hacks wouldn't have hurt Hillary or the DNC if they didn't uncover untoward conduct.  You can't expose what doesn't exist.

The Dems had best get their shit together because if they keep living in denial as to why Hillary lost, as Hillary clearly continues to do, they'll lose again in 2018 and really be in bad shape.

Democrats have difficulty understanding why "DNC untoward conduct" is more of a threat to national security than Russian hacking followed now by the Commander in Chief's denial.

And actually you can "expose" what doesn't exist, as numerous fake news accounts during the election proved.

And still worse, as Comey shows, one can choose not to expose what does exist.

A specious national conversation over Hillary's supposed character flaws ought to give way at some point to a sober assessment of an actual threat which impinged upon our national election--and continues to impinge now upon US policy.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-04-2017, 11:36 AM)Dill Wrote: Democrats have difficulty understanding why "DNC untoward conduct" is more of a threat to national security than Russian hacking followed now by the Commander in Chief's denial.

Probably because they hold politicians in the United States to a higher standard than Putin's Thugocracy.

Quote:And actually you can "expose" what doesn't exist, as numerous fake news accounts during the election proved.

No, you can't.  A lie is a lie.  A fact is a fact.  That the DNC gamed the nomination is a fact.  Fake news sotries are just that, fake.  Do you think political smear campaigns based on half truths or outright lies is a new phenomena?

Quote:And still worse, as Comey shows, one can choose not to expose what does exist.

I think Comey explained his decision on this.  You can disagree, as you clearly do, but you can't claim the man didn't have a logical reason for acting as he did.  I read an excellent article, I thought on politico, on Comey and his decisions.  I'll try and find it.

Quote:A specious national conversation over Hillary's supposed character flaws ought to give way at some point to a sober assessment of an actual threat which impinged upon our national election--and continues to impinge now upon US policy.

Sure Dill, whatever you say.  I mean, there's no chance that Russia and their cyber attacks are being addressed by the CIA, FBI and other government agencies.  How does it "continue to impinge" on US policy?  Please cite an example or two for us.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I found the Comey article I referenced above. I highly suggest everyone reads it. Very well written.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/22/us/politics/james-comey-election.html

[*bfine32*]

(05-04-2017, 11:24 AM)GMDino Wrote: "rigged" the primaries.

Of course I said rigged  "to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means" the "nomination." But roll with whatever provides you with humor. Just don't be surprised when most understand you have missed the point of the matter.  

[Vas Deferens]

(05-04-2017, 11:24 AM)GMDino Wrote: "rigged" the primaries.

Are you seriously claiming DWS and clan didn't tilt the weights in Hillary's direction? That they didn't do Bernie and his supporters a severe injustice?

I really hope that is not the case.

[GMDino]

(05-04-2017, 12:45 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Are you seriously claiming DWS and clan didn't tilt the weights in Hillary's direction?  That they didn't do Bernie and his supporters a severe injustice?

I really hope that is not the case.

I believe the DNC had their favorite and the threw their weight behind them.

I also believe that people voted.  Just like they did for POTUS.

The Russians didn't "rig" the presidential election...they interfered.

The DNC didn't "rig" the primaries...they pushed the candidate they preferred.  And Sanders did quite well w/o their backing.  Probably better for his outsider candidacy. 


"rig" is the wrong word.

[Dill]

(05-04-2017, 11:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, you can't.  A lie is a lie.  A fact is a fact.  That the DNC gamed the nomination is a fact.  Fake news sotries are just that, fake.  Do you think political smear campaigns based on half truths or outright lies is a new phenomena?

Seems like the point of fake news is to represent a lie as a fact. Are you saying that because a lie is a lie and a fact is a fact, fake news cannot affect voters? 

(05-04-2017, 11:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure Dill, whatever you say.  I mean, there's no chance that Russia and their cyber attacks are being addressed by the CIA, FBI and other government agencies.  How does it "continue to impinge" on US policy?  Please cite an example or two for us.

There is a chance that the CIA, FBI and other government agencies are addressing the cyber attacks while the Commander-in-chief withholds support and undermines their credibility. Some might conclude "Hey, no problem then. Doesn't matter if the head of the executive branch is on board or not."  I don't.

I don't work in the FBI, so I don't have an "example." I am going by Comey's word. I hope that will be sufficient substitute.

Says Comey: "Russia Is Greatest Threat of any Nation on Earth to US Democratic Process"
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/03/fbis-comey-russia-is-greatest-threat-to-us-democratic-process.html

As in "still a threat."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/comey-russia-is-still-interfering-with-us-politics/article/2621993

[Dill]

(05-04-2017, 12:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I found the Comey article I referenced above.  I highly suggest everyone reads it.  Very well written.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/22/us/politics/james-comey-election.html

Very well written indeed. Thanks SSF.

The Clinton team was outraged. Even at the F.B.I., agents who supported their high-profile director were stunned. They knew the letter would call into question the F.B.I.’s political independence.

Mr. Trump immediately mentioned it on the campaign trail. “As you might have heard,” Mr. Trump told supporters in Maine, “earlier today, the F.B.I. … ” The crowd interrupted with a roar. Everyone had heard.

Polls almost immediately showed Mrs. Clinton’s support declining. Presidential races nearly always tighten in the final days, but some political scientists reported a measurable “Comey effect.”

“This changes everything,” Mr. Trump said.

In hindsight, of course, Mr. Trump maintains it changed nothing.

[Dill]

(05-04-2017, 12:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course I said rigged  "to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means" the "nomination." But roll with whatever provides you with humor. Just don't be surprised when most understand you have missed the point of the matter.  

If the RNC sought to manipulate or control the Republican party primary, that would not excuse the Democrats.

Nevertheless, I am just curious--did Republicans "rig" too?

[Belsnickel]

First, the emails were more about just revealing the bias of the establishment. There were a lot of things taken out of context and a lot of things that were revealed that were nothing out of the ordinary, but they were presented as bad. Had we seen any RNC emails, they would have looked the same.

Now, this isn't to say the DNC isn't at fault for pushing things the way they did. Let's be clear, though, the DNC is a private organization and so they have the ability to make their own rules. Also, if anyone didn't think the neo-liberal DNC establishment was going to throw their weight behind the neo-liberal establishment candidate rather than the independent that caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate and does not espouse the neo-liberal ideals of every administration for the past 40 years, well, they were fooling themselves.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-04-2017, 12:57 PM)Dill Wrote: Seems like the point of fake news is to represent a lie as a fact. Are you saying that because a lie is a lie and a fact is a fact, fake news cannot affect voters?

I'm sometimes stunned by your inability to address the points I actually make.  Fake stories, yellow journalism, innuendo presented as fact, all of these are as old as politics.  The point of stating this is that this is not a new phenomena unique to the 2016 presidential elections.  Yet, it seems to be frequently presented as such.  Now, does the internet allow for this practice at a wider scale and celerity than in the past?  Absolutely, but the practice is as old as the hills and engaged in by everyone. 

Quote:There is a chance that the CIA, FBI and other government agencies are addressing the cyber attacks while the Commander-in-chief withholds support and undermines their credibility. Some might conclude "Hey, no problem then. Doesn't matter if the head of the executive branch is on board or not."  I don't.

So you're saying Trump not publicly supporting them is hindering their efforts in this regard?  That seems like a tenuous assertion.

Quote:I don't work in the FBI, so I don't have an "example." I am going by Comey's word. I hope that will be sufficient substitute.

Says Comey: "Russia Is Greatest Threat of any Nation on Earth to US Democratic Process"
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/03/fbis-comey-russia-is-greatest-threat-to-us-democratic-process.html

As in "still a threat."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/comey-russia-is-still-interfering-with-us-politics/article/2621993

While I appreciate your attempt you didn't provide any examples and neither did Comey.  Russia is a threat to us, China is a threat to us, Iran is a threat to us and North Korea is a threat to us.  Why the laser focus on Russia?  Because the Dems blame them for the 2016 election.  Russia may be the most active in regards to hacking efforts at the moment, but they are hardly the only ones engaging in the practice.

(05-04-2017, 01:01 PM)Dill Wrote: Very well written indeed. Thanks SSF.

The Clinton team was outraged. Even at the F.B.I., agents who supported their high-profile director were stunned. They knew the letter would call into question the F.B.I.’s political independence.

Mr. Trump immediately mentioned it on the campaign trail. “As you might have heard,” Mr. Trump told supporters in Maine, “earlier today, the F.B.I. … ” The crowd interrupted with a roar. Everyone had heard.

Polls almost immediately showed Mrs. Clinton’s support declining. Presidential races nearly always tighten in the final days, but some political scientists reported a measurable “Comey effect.”

“This changes everything,” Mr. Trump said.

In hindsight, of course, Mr. Trump maintains it changed nothing.

Sorry, you don't get to make an assertion, have it be directly challenged by a long and very in depth article, and then make one quote, out of context and pretend you just made a point.  Rather, you get to, but you're going to get called out on it.

(05-04-2017, 01:05 PM)Dill Wrote: If the RNC sought to manipulate or control the Republican party primary, that would not excuse the Democrats.

Nevertheless, I am just curious--did Republicans "rig" too?

Seeing as Trump was the last choice of the RNC I'd have to say, no.  I'm sure it's happened in the past but it definitely didn't happen this past election.  I'm curious though, didn't "but he's doing it to" stop being an acceptable excuse in kindergarten?

[Belsnickel]

(05-04-2017, 02:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Seeing as Trump was the last choice of the RNC I'd have to say, no.  I'm sure it's happened in the past but it definitely didn't happen this past election.  I'm curious though, didn't "but he's doing it to" stop being an acceptable excuse in kindergarten?

Hi, you must be new here.

[*bfine32*]

(05-04-2017, 12:56 PM)GMDino Wrote: I believe the DNC had their favorite and the threw their weight behind them.

I also believe that people voted.  Just like they did for POTUS.

The Russians didn't "rig" the presidential election...they interfered.

The DNC didn't "rig" the primaries...they pushed the candidate they preferred.  And Sanders did quite well w/o their backing.  Probably better for his outsider candidacy. 


"rig" is the wrong word.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rig

Quote:Definition of rig  
rigged
;
rigging

1. transitive verb
2. 1 :  to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means
   

Perhaps you could provide me with the right word. Or at least one that would not have resulted in a knee slapping meme response from you.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-04-2017, 03:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Hi, you must be new here.

Sadly, no.


It just bothers me that there's such a significant group of posters who routinely engage in the acts they pretend to deplore.  I suppose we are no different to society in general in that regard.  The "he did it to" excuse really bothers me because we get it all the time, that or variations like, someone else is doing something worse than me.  I was disabused of that defense at a very young age by my parents, apparently not everyone had the same experience. 

[Belsnickel]

(05-04-2017, 03:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sadly, no.

It just bothers me that there's such a significant group of posters who routinely engage in the acts they pretend to deplore.  I suppose we are no different to society in general in that regard.  The "he did it to" excuse really bothers me because we get it all the time, that or variations like, someone else is doing something worse than me.  I was disabused of that defense at a very young age by my parents, apparently not everyone had the same experience. 

I get it, I honestly avoid posting as much because of it. And I couldn't say I am any better than others when it comes to bitching about a behavior and then engaging in it, but I make an effort to check myself when I do because I don't want to be like that and would rather just own up to the shitty behavior and move on.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-04-2017, 03:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I get it, I honestly avoid posting as much because of it. And I couldn't say I am any better than others when it comes to bitching about a behavior and then engaging in it, but I make an effort to check myself when I do because I don't want to be like that and would rather just own up to the shitty behavior and move on.

Well stated. It's why I never complain about "personal attacks".

[Vas Deferens]

(05-04-2017, 12:56 PM)GMDino Wrote: I believe the DNC had their favorite and the threw their weight behind them.

I also believe that people voted.  Just like they did for POTUS.

The Russians didn't "rig" the presidential election...they interfered.

The DNC didn't "rig" the primaries...they pushed the candidate they preferred.  And Sanders did quite well w/o their backing.  Probably better for his outsider candidacy. 


"rig" is the wrong word.

We must have a completely different idea of the underlying function which the DNC serves.  What is the point of a primary in the first place if the DNC is going to "throw their weight behind" (synonymous for 'rig' imo) the candidate which 'they' prefer?  The DNC should not be pushing one candidate over another.  They should be facilitating the will of the people.  

I also dont understand why you would want to defend these practices.  They don't serve your best interests.  The only way to fix the failed system to to attack it for what it is.  The DNC failed us all miserably.  Regardless if you believe HRC would have won were it a fair playing field, we need to ensure this shit doesn't happen again.

[Belsnickel]

(05-04-2017, 03:49 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: We must have a completely different idea of the underlying function which the DNC serves.  What is the point of a primary in the first place if the DNC is going to "throw their weight behind" (synonymous for 'rig' imo) the candidate which 'they' prefer?  The DNC should not be pushing one candidate over another.  They should be facilitating the will of the people.  

I also dont understand why you would want to defend these practices.  They don't serve your best interests.  The only way to fix the failed system to to attack it for what it is.  The DNC failed us all miserably.  Regardless if you believe HRC would have won were it a fair playing field, we need to ensure this shit doesn't happen again.

What you want is not what we have as far as political parties are concerned. Party membership is limited to the people that work for the party and those elected officials under their banner. The political insiders. The people aren't members of the party. The party isn't there to serve the people and it isn't there to push policy. Political parties in this country are set up to fundraise and win elections. Candidates don't have to hold to the party platform, the hierarchical structure within the party itself doesn't mean shit to the elected officials.

The DNC and the RNC are both private organizations that don't owe shit to the people. I don't like this fact, many people don't like this fact (and many don't realize it), but that is the fact. They could, in all seriousness, change their rules to make it where the committee itself selects their candidate and there isn't boo anyone could say about it.