Print

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

[mainiac]

But hey, maybe bernie and/or the folks that were supporting him don't give a single shit about the group. Maybe they're actively there to sabotage it at this point. That's their prerogative. It doesn't mean folks that do give the least of shits can't be pissed at 'em when they start doing just that, regardless of intent.

Yes, people have the right to not have any respect for the democrats.  They just shouldn't have any expectations if they make that choice.  Free speech isn't protection from consequences.

[Frumple]

This isn't a business project, it's an allegedly free political party's convention. Anybody who got delegates has the right to speak their mind. There is no "fall in line bro or else" here, and "professionalism" is just a catch-all for "do as I say, not as I do".

But silly me, you're right, it really is a business project. And that is why on election day, I will vote against Clinton with glee. I'll vote against my pre-approved leadership every fucking election until the message starts to stick.

... dude, the business project was an example. The sentiment applies to group cooperation in any situation. In the gaming world, this would be a member of a raid group exploding on the team lead(s) as the dungeon boss walks up and half the folks they're working in competition with and a whole chunk of potential recruits are watching. You could keep going for every bloody cooperative effort that exists. There's a time and a place to address grievances, to hash out problems in a way that benefits the group and what it's trying to do. This was an example of one of those times and places that it wasn't.

They do have a right to speak their mind. Folks also have the right to point out, rightly, that by doing so in this manner they're sabotaging both their own agenda and the agenda of the people they claimed beforehand to be working with, and that they're kinda' jackasses for doing so.

[sluissa]

But hey, maybe bernie and/or the folks that were supporting him don't give a single shit about the group. Maybe they're actively there to sabotage it at this point. That's their prerogative. It doesn't mean folks that do give the least of shits can't be pissed at 'em when they start doing just that, regardless of intent.

Yes, people have the right to not have any respect for the democrats.  They just shouldn't have any expectations if they make that choice.  Free speech isn't protection from consequences.

mainiac making threats against the berniebros.

This isn't a business project, it's an allegedly free political party's convention. Anybody who got delegates has the right to speak their mind. There is no "fall in line bro or else" here, and "professionalism" is just a catch-all for "do as I say, not as I do".

But silly me, you're right, it really is a business project. And that is why on election day, I will vote against Clinton with glee. I'll vote against my pre-approved leadership every fucking election until the message starts to stick.

... dude, the business project was an example. The sentiment applies to group cooperation in any situation. In the gaming world, this would be a member of a raid group exploding on the team lead(s) as the dungeon boss walks up and half the folks they're working in competition with and a whole chunk of potential recruits are watching. You could keep going for every bloody cooperative effort that exists. There's a time and a place to address grievances, to hash out problems in a way that benefits the group and what it's trying to do. This was an example of one of those times and places that it wasn't.

They do have a right to speak their mind. Folks also have the right to point out, rightly, that by doing so in this manner they're sabotaging both their own agenda and the agenda of the people they claimed beforehand to be working with, and that they're kinda' jackasses for doing so.

I can't imagine anyone not wanting to be angry and protest when they keep getting ignored. So many voice votes just ignored. Why even bother with the process if you're just going to ignore what it means?

[mainiac]

mainiac making threats against the berniebros.

I suppose it is in fact a threat to say people will judge you by your actions.  But it's also encouragement too, so there's that.

I can't imagine anyone not wanting to be angry and protest when they keep getting ignored. So many voice votes just ignored. Why even bother with the process if you're just going to ignore what it means?

Bernie got to dictate language on the party platform.  Unprecedented; losers have never been allowed to do that.  Bernie got to get his speakers at the convention.  Unprecedented; the convention is supposed to be about endorsing the winner not the loser.  Bernie got to demand a major policy initiative, that POS college plan (which came at the cost of ditching Clinton's much better college plan).  Unprecedented; losers dont create conditions on their endorsement.

Not only has he not been ignored he has been given more attention then any loser ever.  Including Clinton in 2008 who actually lost by a hair, unlike Bernie, but fell in line and endorsed Obama without a laundry list of demands.

[Wolfhunter107]

But hey, maybe bernie and/or the folks that were supporting him don't give a single shit about the group. Maybe they're actively there to sabotage it at this point. That's their prerogative. It doesn't mean folks that do give the least of shits can't be pissed at 'em when they start doing just that, regardless of intent.

Yes, people have the right to not have any respect for the democrats.  They just shouldn't have any expectations if they make that choice.  Free speech isn't protection from consequences.

mainiac making threats against the berniebros.

So I see that criticism is now considered a threat.

This isn't a business project, it's an allegedly free political party's convention. Anybody who got delegates has the right to speak their mind. There is no "fall in line bro or else" here, and "professionalism" is just a catch-all for "do as I say, not as I do".

But silly me, you're right, it really is a business project. And that is why on election day, I will vote against Clinton with glee. I'll vote against my pre-approved leadership every fucking election until the message starts to stick.

... dude, the business project was an example. The sentiment applies to group cooperation in any situation. In the gaming world, this would be a member of a raid group exploding on the team lead(s) as the dungeon boss walks up and half the folks they're working in competition with and a whole chunk of potential recruits are watching. You could keep going for every bloody cooperative effort that exists. There's a time and a place to address grievances, to hash out problems in a way that benefits the group and what it's trying to do. This was an example of one of those times and places that it wasn't.

They do have a right to speak their mind. Folks also have the right to point out, rightly, that by doing so in this manner they're sabotaging both their own agenda and the agenda of the people they claimed beforehand to be working with, and that they're kinda' jackasses for doing so.

I can't imagine anyone not wanting to be angry and protest when they keep getting ignored. So many voice votes justify ignored. Why even bother with the process if you're just going to ignore what it means?

Yeah, no. It's incredibly obvious that the Sanders people lost the voice votes. In any case the voice votes had nothing to do with it. This is happening because the Sanders delegates, and many of their fellows, are acting like spoiled children.  This is literally a 1,893 person temper tantrum.

[smjjames]

Major thunderstorm moving over Philly, omen? NAH.

[Frumple]

I can't imagine anyone not wanting to be angry and protest when they keep getting ignored. So many voice votes just ignored. Why even bother with the process if you're just going to ignore what it means?

If that's the issue, the folks that fed up with things should get off their ass and make their own party, instead of trying to suck on the teat of an existent one and screw up its general working at the same time. They knew what the hell they were getting into going into this, and when that's a problem you don't do it. Or get the party support and fix the tally method beforehand, or whatever would let them cooperate with a clean conscience. The methods for change exist. Maybe if these folks spent half the time they do tantruming trying to build bridges and convince other folks that using those methods is a good idea, they wouldn't have this problem.

I would personally have zero bloody issue if this had happened a few months ago, or if these folks had just gone independent before the primary started or whatever the hell would make them feel better, since the means and methods of the bloody party they willingly signed into isn't cutting it for them. But when they start doing shit like's being talked about, it starts pissing me off from an almost purely technical standpoint. It's an example of either incompetence, bad faith, or outright maliciousness, and none of the above make me even remotely happy. This is not how you work with a group you've voluntarily joined. This is not how a competent adult pushes for intraorganizational shift. This is how a jackass grandstands at the expense of everyone they previously claimed to be supporting. If they want to protest, they should stop trying to reap the benefits of the organization first, damnit. You don't with good faith claim to be supporting an organization and then undercut what it's trying to do.

I'm all for change and protest and all that shit, but goddamnit when you sign up to support something you bloody support it, and do what you need to do to push for change when it's not betraying your previous commitment, or you get out.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

How about no? Nobody has the right to only get limp-wristed criticism that ends with "but all that doesn't matter", or in this instance I suppose what is desired is no criticism at all.

There is no binding inertia that says "you must continue to support something that goes against everything you believe in because you once supported a facet of it". That's madness, and it's also exactly the kind of thing a person like HRC would love to take a juicy bite out of, since it permits her to do whatever she wants because she's "the liberal" for the next four years.

[Wolfhunter107]

How about no? Nobody has the right to only get limp-wristed criticism that ends with "but all that doesn't matter", or in this instance I suppose what is desired is no criticism at all.

There is no binding inertia that says "you must continue to support something that goes against everything you believe in because you once supported a facet of it". That's madness, and it's also exactly the kind of thing a person like HRC would love to take a juicy bite out of, since it permits her to do whatever she wants because she's "the liberal" for the next four years.

You aren't giving criticism. You're actively trying to tear down the entire thing because they didn't hand Sanders the nomination on a silver platter.

[Frumple]

Of course there's no binding inertia of that sort. You're not shackled to the bloody group. If it's that much of a problem you leave. If the party no longer represents you and has betrayed everything you care about, and its existent means of addressing this isn't sufficient for you, why the hell are you still claiming to be part of it? Seriously, I've been constantly repeating statements these last few posts that are contrary to the sentiment that people are in some kind of unbreakable bond with this shit.

And criticism is fine. Bloody cutting criticism is fine. Criticism when expressing it fucks the group you claimed to support bothers the hell out of me. Maybe the person in question doesn't give two shits about that sort of thing, and again, that's their prerogative. I just hope to hell I never have to work with them on anything important or even remotely controversial, because this is behavior that ruins attempts at cooperation. And yeah, when they start doing that I'm going to be fairly comfortable saying they're expressing pretty shit behavior.

[RedKing]

If I didn't have to live here, I'd be popping so much goddamned popcorn right about now.


Between mainiac getting the vapors over some yelling (in the words of Donald Rumsfeld -- "Democracy is messy"), and MSH becoming the new Abbie Hoffman of the Ameripol thread, this is just delicious.


OTOH, Jeff Merkley just had a pretty decent unity speech.

EDIT: If you're worried about "optics", perhaps you should be more worried about the DNC having an illegal immigrant speaking onstage for several minutes in Spanish. Good for securing the Hispanic vote, easy fucking target for Trump.

EDIT #2: Okay, a procession of illegal immigrants. I get the reasoning, not sure it's a good strategy.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You aren't giving criticism. You're actively trying to tear down the entire thing because they didn't hand Sanders the nomination on a silver platter.

I can accept that Sanders didn't get the nomination. I knew that was the likelihood from day one (and so did the DNC ahaha). What is infuriating is the presumptuous attitude of "shut up and praise Hillary" that has been plaguing all of this since the start.

Sanders got delegates, and a good deal of them. That it is not enough to win the nom does not matter, the delegates have the right to present at the convention however they want. The irony is that if Clinton and her people for even a moment were not so destructively absorbed in appearance and media days, if at any point at all they recognized the legitimacy of the chunk that supported Sanders, then this wouldn't even be an issue.

But no. At the end of the day, it's numerical machinery, and the endless butthurt when people don't do what they "should".

Sanders supporters and Clinton opposers aren't just going to vanish. If this really comes down to "buckle down and win the election for us", then it is this reaction that proves the problem for the Clinton campaign, not the fact that those people exist. The responsibility is on the nominee, not the delegates or the general public.

Of course there's no binding inertia of that sort. You're not shackled to the bloody group. If it's that much of a problem you leave. If the party no longer represents you and has betrayed everything you care about, and its existent means of addressing this isn't sufficient for you, why the hell are you still claiming to be part of it? Seriously, I've been constantly repeating statements these last few posts that are contrary to the sentiment that people are in some kind of unbreakable bond with this shit.

And criticism is fine. Bloody cutting criticism is fine. Criticism when expressing it fucks the group you claimed to support bothers the hell out of me. Maybe the person in question doesn't give two shits about that sort of thing, and again, that's their prerogative. I just hope to hell I never have to work with them on anything important or even remotely controversial, because this is behavior that ruins attempts at cooperation. And yeah, when they start doing that I'm going to be fairly comfortable saying they're expressing pretty shit behavior.

As I said, the convention is for the delegates to speak at. While I know that dirty conventions are a matter of course, that does not mean you should support having a dirty convention.

MSH becoming the new Abbie Hoffman of the Ameripol thread

ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWER

[birdy51]

Unfortunately, the idea of "make your own party" is rarely effective. On a state and local level, you can get traction. On a national level, forget about it, especially with a country as large and diverse as the U.S.

((Which, in hindsight, it's a small miracle that the U.S is still holding itself together.))

[mainiac]

What is infuriating is the presumptuous attitude of "shut up and praise Hillary" that has been plaguing all of this since the start.

Clinton showed this respect to Obama.

[smjjames]

If I didn't have to live here, I'd be popping so much goddamned popcorn right about now.


Between mainiac getting the vapors over some yelling (in the words of Donald Rumsfeld -- "Democracy is messy"), and MSH becoming the new Abbie Hoffman of the Ameripol thread, this is just delicious.


OTOH, Jeff Merkley just had a pretty decent unity speech.

EDIT: If you're worried about "optics", perhaps you should be more worried about the DNC having an illegal immigrant speaking onstage for several minutes in Spanish. Good for securing the Hispanic vote, easy fucking target for Trump.

EDIT #2: Okay, a procession of illegal immigrants. I get the reasoning, not sure it's a good strategy.

Well, the democrats ARE pandering to their own base, though it cuts both ways with the RNC being an easy target for Clinton.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/elizabeth-warren-donald-trump-convention-226170 'Warren to accuse Trump of starting a Race War'

Whoo, bold! She's a heck of an attack dog-ess. Warren for whatever cabinet position she wants. lol.