Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sluissa]

I'm just waiting for Clinton to announce that she has cancer  and is dropping out, five minutes before Sanders declares defeat, because this US election cycle is like a bad TV show and there's no way they'd miss a twist like that.

Nah, cancer would just steel her resolve, she'd start taking drugs to cope with the cancer and then believe herself the messiah(more than she probably already does) and that she'll lead us all "home". Also Bernie ironically turns out to be a robot or something.

[mainiac]

If she was president she could probably get medical marijuana legalized on white house grounds.

[smirk]

Oh hey, TV said Trump's stated he'll release tax forms just as soon as the IRS finishes a purported audit.

Nah, that's been his go-to line for months now. The IRS has stated many, many times now that being subject to an audit in no way prevents someone from releasing their tax forms, so Trump can do that any time he wants. Personally I'm waiting for a low-level IRS flunky to get sick of the whole thing and anonymously leak his forms anyway. Should be good fun.

[Frumple]

Oh aye, aye, he could release. Was just some spokescritter saying he wasn't going to until the claimed audit is over. Something about people being able to scrutinize it :V

As someone with very basic auditing training, by the way, if you're worried the freaking general public is going to catch something the IRS isn't, you have much bigger problems than people scrutinizing your tax forms XD

[mainiac]

The IRS isn't going to have a huge number of auditors on the case.  The general public would probably devote waaaaaay more time then the IRS would. 

[Andux]

This article is a good summary of the false claims of corruption (several of which cited as true in your first article) and the attempts by Bernie supporters to sneak in last minute rules changes and things.

I think that article kind of glosses over some of the issues; looking at the convention rules:

d. Delegates and alternates who have not pre-registered for the convention shall have until 10 a.m. on Saturday, May 14, 2016 to register.
e. Delegates and alternates who have preregistered for the convention shall have until 10 a.m. on Saturday, May 14, 2016 for in-person registration.

Why did the chair start voting more than 20 minutes before the registration deadline?

e. If the Convention Chair is unable to determine the outcome of a voice vote, a vote of standing division shall be taken.

Why was this not done for any of the contested votes? It's not like there was any need to hurry, with more than two months left before the national convention.

Nobody here was talking about a goddamn chair.
It's a broken record.  You make an accusation of corruption.  You move the goalposts.  And then you claim you were right about the original point of corruption despite having just talked about something completely different.

The chair thing was in response to Frumple; I didn't intend for it to be taken as part of an argument with you. When I wrote the post I was quoting there, the news media had been repeating claims about violence and chair-throwing at the state convention for several days (at least when they weren't talking about Trump); since then, they've pretty much dropped the story in favor of the EgyptAir thing, so I thought I should give an update.

Personally, I believe that almost all aspects of the shitshow in Nevada can be adequately explained by some combination of impatience, incompetence, inflexibility, stupidity, and an excessively compex caucus system. Plus whatever the fuck Barbara Boxer was trying to do there.

Nah, cancer would just steel her resolve, she'd start taking drugs to cope with the cancer and then believe herself the messiah(more than she probably already does) and that she'll lead us all "home". Also Bernie ironically turns out to be a robot or something.

Who gets to be Edward James Olmos in this scenario?

[mainiac]

When I wrote the post I was quoting there, the news media had been repeating claims about violence and chair-throwing at the state convention for several days

Otherwise known as moving the goalpost.  Someone calls you out on your bullshit and you respond by arguing against something else.  Then having argued successfully against a point no one here was making you claim that your bullshit is vindicated.

Showing that the media was wrong about something doesn't prove that the DNC is corrupt.  It proves that the media was wrong about something.  And I want to ask you something.  Will you make more baseless accusations in the future?  Will you move the goalposts afterwards and claim vindication?

Personally, I believe that almost all aspects of the shitshow in Nevada can be adequately explained by some combination of impatience, incompetence, inflexibility, stupidity, and an excessively compex caucus system. Plus whatever the fuck Barbara Boxer was trying to do there.

Oh man, then you should really talk to this guy.  His commentary on the situation was:

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, on the other hand, strikes me as corrupt, underhanded, and self-serving

[Orange Wizard]

But mainiac, don't you know that the Democrat party is CoRrUpT~~~???

[mainiac]

C͕͚͔̩͇̣͌̈́̅̍͝ǫ̶̖̗̲͚̍̑͡r̢̬͔̪̝̺̭͍͓̠ͦ̏͌́́̚ŗ̮̖̬͓̺͚̣̱ͪ̒ͤ̍ͮ̄̉ͫ̋͘ǘ̵̘̪͔̜̝ͤ̃̓̉ͦ̽͑p̛͈͉̰̈ͫ͛̓̆ͧ̿̆t̶̙͕̥͖͚͙͎͆ͫͩ̇̕͟

[Andux]

Fun fact: Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Nevada Democratic party are separate entities. It is, in fact, possible to have different opinions about the two of them.
Also, I believe there was something said, earlier, about not putting words in people's mouths?
So, please, respond to what I say, not to what you think I'm trying to imply--and bear in mind that not everything I link to is a perfect reflection of my opinion.

Now I have a question for you, regarding these comments:

And they have the fucking gall to do things like try and overturn the majority vote in Nevada and complain they are being discriminated against!  Fucking shameless.  They try and disenfranchise people and then claim they are the victims.

try to overturn democracy

the bullshit the Bernie Bros tried to pull in Nevada.

What, precisely, are you referring to here? If you have some evidence of wrongdoing, I'd like to see it.

[mainiac]

What am I trying to say?  I'm trying to say that there was a popular vote and everyone expected that the popular vote would determine the result.  But when the self proclaimed popular movement saw an opportunity they had no hesitation to overturn the popular vote to their advantage.  That aint democratic.  It may or may not be a bad thing.  It's certainly not a huge fucking deal.  But it sure as shit aint democratic.

Like you say they are following the rules.  But so are the people who slapped their bullshit down.  When the Bernie supporters try to overturn a democratic result to their advantage you defended them saying they were just following the rules.  But when the state DNC took action within the rules to stop their silly little bullshit you accuse their leadership of corruption.

Either everyone is just following the rules or no one is.

[Andux]

What am I trying to say?  I'm trying to say that there was a popular vote and everyone expected that the popular vote would determine the result.  But when the self proclaimed popular movement saw an opportunity they had no hesitation to overturn the popular vote to their advantage.  That aint democratic.  It may or may not be a bad thing.  It's certainly not a huge fucking deal.  But it sure as shit aint democratic.

Fair enough. Though I think the Bernie delegates there were just as surprised as anyone else at how things turned out.

Like you say they are following the rules.  But so are the people who slapped their bullshit down.  When the Bernie supporters try to overturn a democratic result to their advantage you defended them saying they were just following the rules.  But when the state DNC took action within the rules to stop their silly little bullshit you accuse their leadership of corruption.

I never said they (meaning the Nevada Democratic party) were corrupt--actually, I don't think I've made that claim about anybody besides Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and I don't think she had anything to do with what happened in Nevada; like any large organization, I expect that the party has (more than) their fair share of fools and bastards (though most of them seem to be for Trump now), but I assume that most of them at least mean well. I do think that they handled things quite badly at the state convention, though. A lot of people in that room were first-timers, and probably not that familiar with the process; in a situation like that, the best thing to do is slow down, do things by the book, and make sure everybody's on the same page. Instead, well... I couldn't tell you what was going through Roberta Lange's mind during the convention, but my guess is, when faced with a crowd of confused and upset people, she panicked and started rushing things, which made the crowd more upset, which made her panic more... and so, over the hills and through the woods to Clusterfucktown we go.

Nina Turner came out of that mess looking good, but I don't think anybody else did, on either side. Best thing to do now is try to make sure it doesn't happen again.

[mainiac]

I'm glad to hear it.  If we are on the same page vis-a-vis there isn't widespread corruption or bias in the democratic party I'm sure we have very little to argue about.  You dont like that one woman.  So everything outside the domain of that one woman's direct control we can agree is just a normal political party doing normal political things.  Clearly I was out of line before.  I thought that when you were contrasting the 2008 and 2016 situations, you were meaning to say that you thought there was unfair treatment in 2016.  I see now that you simply didn't realize that there were perfectly mundane reasons to see that the 2016 race is different from the 2008 one.

[Orange Wizard]

>implying american politics is normal

...

Anyway, more seriously, mainiac: Could I hear your rationale for supporting Hillary over other candidates? So far my impression is mostly that you don't like Bernie etc., so I'm kinda curious.

[mainiac]

I expect scorched earth opposition from the Republicans and I think Clinton is someone who wont crack under pressure.  She has felt the full front of their hatred many times before and has never so much as blinked.  It almost has me curious as to how they will react to her.  Their only strategy during the past two democratic presidencies has been to be as vicious and nasty as possible and they already know that they can't get under her skin.

She also has some nice policies but it's mostly the fighter thing.