Print

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

[Shadowlord]

I've never learned Forth, personally.

[Frumple]

Don't ask me how autocorrect did that. I don't know and don't want to.

[wierd]

frumple:

actions like this one??
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/9787

or maybe this one?
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4091

i didnt see the dnc drafting press releases for bernie over the silly BLM chanters at his rallies, or any of the other stuff that happened to the man.

[Criptfeind]

So, clearly there was a lot of 'off the record' and 'no fingerprints' there which is always suspect but I feel like a need a bit more context. Cuz it looks like they asked for something and then were denied but told that they could help if they got permission from the people that had the ability to give them permission?

[Neonivek]

Could you imagine if this was all a ploy by Republicans to immediately impeach Trump just to get Pence into office, since he'd never be electable otherwise?

That is... deplorable on so many levels.

Even Republican voters who LOVE Trump say that they hate Pence.

[sluissa]

Could you imagine if this was all a ploy by Republicans to immediately impeach Trump just to get Pence into office, since he'd never be electable otherwise?

That is... deplorable on so many levels.

Even Republican voters who LOVE Trump say that they hate Pence.

Not entirely true. A lot of people who don't know anything about his past and only really saw him for that one debate like him. In some cases more than Trump.

[Kot]

The glorious memetic ex-president of Poland, Lech Wałęsa, just threw a bunch of photos with Trump on his Facebook. He is also claiming that back in 2010 it was he who gave him an idea for the whole circus, because apparently, "if a worker in Communist Poland could overthrow the system and become a president, why couldn't a millionare in Capitalist America overthrow the system and become a president?"

[Frumple]

frumple:

actions like this one??
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/9787

So here's a question. Can you actually identify what happened in that email chain? Put it in concrete terms?

or maybe this one?
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4091

Or here, really.

i didnt see the dnc drafting press releases for bernie over the silly BLM chanters at his rallies, or any of the other stuff that happened to the man.

Well, I guess I can help with the second. No, you saw the DNC drafting a press release responding to criticism of the DNC, for the DNC, as near as I could tell. Criticism pushed by sanders, in an oppo piece that was aimed at clinton but landed firmly on the DNC. Which is, uh. I'm not going to say it's the least damning thing I've ever seen an organization member do, but I'm going to need a little help to get angry at it.

Closest thing to shady I'm seeing is that they were running it by the other party being accused (falsely, heh) of money laundering by sanders' campaign, and looking into it a bit more it looks like what had happened more than anything was just a pair of friends or (former) work acquaintances running things by each other, when they were part of both groups being targeted by the thing being discussed. Which hey, yeah, considering the situation was probably on the inappropriate side but it ain't exactly a smoking gun of notable malfeasance.

E: Actually, after it percolated for a bit more, I think if there had been communication between sanders group and the DNC on that particular piece, I'd find that significantly more suspicious. Bouncing an idea off of someone you've worked with that's also part of the other group that's being implicated for wrong doing is one thing. Going up to the guys that funded a hit piece on your organization and going, "Hey, saw that attack in politico, wanna' work over what we're going to spin things to refute it?" is something else.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

I feel like I'm being forced into a stereotypical Clinton-supporter position. It's kind of ironic to claim that you're being strawmanned, Reelya...

Well there's media perception of Dems + minorities, that's one issue.

And there's the fact they lose real actual support from minorities, that' sort of separate to the media perception issue.

You can't just blame the media if your core constituents aren't turning up to vote. They did in fact fail to do what campaigns are supposed to do in that case.

...why can't we? If there is no clear reason for "core constituents leaving" except "the media," then that's probably it. Did the Dems do not-perfectly? Sure. Are they at fault? no.

As for the "two separate facts" part: what the hell? The real actual loss of support is a direct result of bad PR, and that is a direct result of the fucking media.

How did I straw man you. You said statement, I disagreed with those statements.

For the sake of better understanding this agreement, exactly what did I say?

My inference of the meaning of your statements has also been fair (you haven't disavowed any of my inferences: you double-down on them, which proves I fairly inferred what you meant). If you think it makes you sound like a typical Clinton supporter, that's on you, not on me. I'm just reacting to what you say.

As I just said, I fucking hate the DNC for stealing the election from Sanders. Clinton shouldn't have been the candidate, and I greatly dislike her for that. And don't make me laugh - if you think that I'm a typical Clinton-supporter, I'd suggest reconsidering your concept of "supporter." I support her relatively compared to Trump, but compared to Sanders? Get out.

Besides, what inferences exactly?

When PR is literally your entire job, and you're spending $100 of millions of dollars on it, if things go less than swimmingly, it is in fact the fault of your campaign strategy.

Reelya, do you understand the concept of "biased media," or even the concept of "factors outside one's control"? Better campaigning results in better PR. Worse PR does not imply a worse campaign job. The skill of campaigning affects your success, but it isn't the sole determinant, as I figured you knew.

[Rolan7]

But yeah whatever keep piling it on

I was kidding, weird
I addressed what you posted, so you posted a bunch more with no context or comment...

This tactic is the biggest single reason Hillary lost.  A cheap, lazy torrent of BS creating FUD.  Including from *Democrats* who fell in love with an Independent.

[Neonivek]

This just in!

According to fake news it turns out Trump is a Werewolf and is using his presidency to convert all of America into a Werewolf based economy.

[Shadowlord]

A cow 🐮 would not turn America into a cow 🐮 based economy.

[miauw62]

no, but a werewolf would

[Rolan7]

This just in!

According to fake news it turns out Trump is a Werewolf and is using his presidency to convert all of America into a Werewolf based economy.

Oh no!  Do you know what this means??
Remember, Queen Elizabeth was also a werewolf...
Suddenly all the mentions of "coronation" make sense D:

[Reelya]

As I just said, I fucking hate the DNC for stealing the election from Sanders. Clinton shouldn't have been the candidate, and I greatly dislike her for that. And don't make me laugh - if you think that I'm a typical Clinton-supporter, I'd suggest reconsidering your concept of "supporter." I support her relatively compared to Trump, but compared to Sanders? Get out.

I'm not the one straw-manning you, you seem to be strawmanning yourself. Or, you're double-strawmanning me. When did I ever say you were a "typical Clinton supporter"? I never did, that was a concept you brought up. How can you put "supporter" in scare quotes when I never referred to you as a supporter in the first place? I don't have a definition of supporter at all because those are your words.

I originally said that the Clinton campaign made major strategic errors, you denied that they did. When I questioned that, you said the conversation made you sound like a typical Clinton supporter. It was never something I said. You were the one who jumped in on my original statement with gusto, and kept doubling-down on your position when I pointed out its implications, so I can't be really said to have started anything here.

For example I wrote:

You can't just blame the media if your core constituents aren't turning up to vote. They did in fact fail to do what campaigns are supposed to do in that case.

To which you replied basically "Yes you can!"

So how am I labeling you a "typical Clinton supporter" in this exchange?