![]() |
Hills "accepts responsibility" for loss - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive) +---- Thread: Hills "accepts responsibility" for loss (/Thread-Hills-accepts-responsibility-for-loss) |
RE: Hills "accepts responsibility" for loss - GMDino - 05-04-2017 (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. Matt explained it better than I can so I'll repeat myself: People still voted. If more people wanted Sanders over Clinton he would have won. Whatever the DNC did to push Clinton was on them. Their bore the fruit of their endeavours by pointing a flawed candidate up for POTUS and lost. It's not defending anything. It's me saying they didn't "rig" anything anymore than the POTUS election was "rigged" to give Clinto more votes or Trump the EC. If some want to call that rigged than that just would give more credence to the russians "rigging" the general election. I don't think either were "rigged". I think both had outside influences that may have swayed some voters. RE: Hills "accepts responsibility" for loss - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 05-04-2017 (05-04-2017, 03:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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. What you're really saying here is that the DNC is pissed that the thin veneer of democracy in their process was exposed as false, as you explain above; i.e. what the DNC is really mad about is that the curtain got pulled back. I would point out to those who have tried, and you are obviously not among them, that the RNC put forth a candidate that was literally their last choice and many of their rank and file fought against his nomination tooth and nail. So you could, very logically and realistically, state that Trump's nomination was a far better example of true democracy than Hillary's. RE: Hills "accepts responsibility" for loss - bfine32 - 05-04-2017 (05-04-2017, 03:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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. Question 1: Why did they fire (aka she resigned) Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Question 2; Do you feel they rigged the DNC Nomination? RE: Hills "accepts responsibility" for loss - Belsnickel - 05-04-2017 (05-04-2017, 04:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What you're really saying here is that the DNC is pissed that the thin veneer of democracy in their process was exposed as false, as you explain above; i.e. what the DNC is really mad about is that the curtain got pulled back. I would point out to those who have tried, and you are obviously not among them, that the RNC put forth a candidate that was literally their last choice and many of their rank and file fought against his nomination tooth and nail. Absolutely. I said before the election occurred that I felt that the RNC would likely make a move to involve the super-delegate process to avoid this happening again. However, at this point I am not so sure since it resulted in an EC win. (05-04-2017, 04:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Question 1: Why did they fire (aka she resigned) Debbie Wasserman Schultz? The rule for these political insiders is that you want to screw over the people without them knowing you are screwing them over. When you make it too egregious or get caught in the act you become a liability in the process. That is what occurred with DWS. The establishment had zero problems with her actions, I am convinced of that 100%. They had a problem that her actions became publicly known. (05-04-2017, 04:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Question 2; Do you feel they rigged the DNC Nomination? Yes. RE: Hills "accepts responsibility" for loss - Vas Deferens - 05-04-2017 I hear what you're saying Matt. But, claiming it wasn't rigged in HRC's favor, when it clearly was, is an even bigger indictment against the DNC itself. DWS was publicly saying 'we don't favor one candidate over another'. hmmmm. I'd like to see DWS tarred and feathered. She's an absolute disgrace. And this is coming from a life long democrat who spent hundreds of hours working on obama's campaign and has since moved to financial contributions to candidates I believe in. The media's complete lack of attention to the class action lawsuit against the DNC is quite telling. Nothing is going to change, and I'll probably be brought further and further into the independent fold. Quote:Debbie Wasserman Schultz And The DNC Favored Hillary Clinton Over Bernie Sanders. Where’s The Outrage? RE: Hills "accepts responsibility" for loss - Belsnickel - 05-04-2017 (05-04-2017, 05:15 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I hear what you're saying Matt. But, claiming it wasn't rigged in HRC's favor, when it clearly was, is an even bigger indictment against the DNC itself. DWS was publicly saying 'we don't favor one candidate over another'. hmmmm. I don't say it wasn't rigged, because it was. I'm just saying that it doesn't really matter because that is the way our party system works in this country. Want it to change? We need a party system that is more like what is found in some of our other western, developed nations. But that also involves having more parties in the system. And that means a lot more changes than people are willing to swallow. RE: Hills "accepts responsibility" for loss - Dill - 05-04-2017 (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? That's why I began the post saying RNC skullduggery doesn't excuse DNC. Because my post wasn't about "excusing." RE: Hills "accepts responsibility" for loss - Dill - 05-04-2017 (05-04-2017, 02:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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. That's "calling out"? You say something is called out--and it just is? Well, ok. But I do it differently. RE: Hills "accepts responsibility" for loss - Dill - 05-04-2017 (05-04-2017, 02:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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. I don't think Comey's point was that Russia was the only country engaging in cyber warfare. But so far as I know, China did not hack the DNC, Iran did not plant fake news stories about Hillary, and North Korean diplomats and businessmen were not cozy with Trump's people during the election while Trump was praising Kim Sung-un as a strong leader. But Russia did attack our election process on several fronts and to great effect, and while Trump's people were cozying up to Russian diplomats and businessmen. Hence the "laser focus" on Russia right now--not, as Trump says, because the Dems lost the election. And no, I don't have any examples of post-election cyber warfare from Russia. I think it rather likely Comey does. That is why he calls them the No 1 and continuing threat. But he won't give them to you. RE: Hills "accepts responsibility" for loss - Dill - 05-04-2017 (05-04-2017, 02:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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. My point was that fake news can affect politics, even if "a lie is a lie." I said nothing about new or old. Perhaps you inserted an impression that I did in there. Unless I have claimed that fake news is new, I don't see why I should respond to an argument that it is not new. Thus I am unable to address your point about a point I didn't make. RE: Hills "accepts responsibility" for loss - bfine32 - 05-04-2017 (05-04-2017, 05:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 1) The rule for these political insiders is that you want to screw over the people without them knowing you are screwing them over. When you make it too egregious or get caught in the act you become a liability in the process. That is what occurred with DWS. The establishment had zero problems with her actions, I am convinced of that 100%. They had a problem that her actions became publicly known. 1) Then reason I asked the question was it seemed you were asserting that the DNC doesn't have to answer to anyone. It seems that they answered to the public by dismissing a chairman once she was exposed as not playing fair 2) 99% of the population understands this. RE: Hills "accepts responsibility" for loss - Belsnickel - 05-04-2017 (05-04-2017, 06:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1) Then reason I asked the question was it seemed you were asserting that the DNC doesn't have to answer to anyone. It seems that they answered to the public by dismissing a chairman once she was exposed as not playing fair There is always some form of accountability. For private organizations, whether it be a business selling widgets or a political party, the accountability is market based. If you sell crappy widgets, the market is going to react. The widgets for a political party are the candidates they put forth. Oftentimes, when a business is caught with doing something bad there is a sacrificial lamb at the executive level, even though everyone at the executive level is usually just as dirty. You sacrifice the lamb to the customers/shareholders/constituents and it serves to calm the waters. That's what this was. They didn't have to, but it was the smart decision. RE: Hills "accepts responsibility" for loss - Dill - 05-04-2017 (05-04-2017, 02:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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. I guess I could spell this out. 1. The intel services must often present conclusions without explaining how the conclusions were reached and who their sources were. Their effectiveness, therefore, depends in great part upon their credibility. Trump isn't just "not publicly supporting them." Trump has publicly accused the CIA of Nazi style tactics and publicly refused to accept the conclusions of the intel services collectively--hence, as I said, undermining their credibility for a portion of the electorate and, sadly, of Congress. 2. Trump is also actively resisting the investigation, e.g., by refusing to turn over requested documents to the House Oversight Committee. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-russia-investigation-michael-flynn-documents-white-house-a7701921.html 3. The US intel community reports directly to the Director of National Security, who reports directly to Trump. This places him at the top of the intel chain (though some oversight of some agencies is shared by Congress). The intel services and the exec work better when they are on the same page working toward unified goals. The current division between the CiC and the intel services would be considered an unbelievable coup by the Russian intel services, exactly what they would like to see (and probably more than they had hoped for)--as opposed to a CiC and Intel services and Congress all united to address a security threat. This would be disconcerting to US allies as well, given the potential to mismatch intel and policy. An additional concern: If the Commander in chief does not agree that Russian hacking occurred, He will be unlikely to call for and lead any retaliation--a national security problem. In effect, the president's contestation of current intel introduces a degree of paralysis into government, making it difficult for first the executive, then the executive and congress, to work together to manage potential threats. d So there is far more at stake than simply "hindering efforts." |