Print

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

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

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.

Okay, you didn't call me a "typical Clinton supporter," you said that I was a Clinton apologetic. Same difference, except maybe even more strawman-ish.

But you are doing the apologetics thing explicitly now, when I merely suspected you before of doing it implicitly.

So yeah, what I said was on the money: straw-manning my concerns as "You're saying Clinton was racist" was in fact an apologetics statement to absolve Dems of all mistakes through a silly straw-man. So it's not Dems fault for screwing up, it's everyone else's fault for not realizing how perfect and pure they were.

Sounds like a strawman to me...

I'm not saying that the Dems didn't make mistakes. I'm not saying that they're perfect and pure. I'm saying that in this specific issue, it doesn't seem like the alienation of minority voters was mostly a result of the Dems fucking up.

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.

You were calling me a Clinton apologetic. You started that, obviously.

Apparently you don't get how somebody can dislike Clinton and yet think that she isn't the Antichrist.

[Reelya]

Well when no matter what point is brought up, there's always a convenient scapegoat that isn't the Campaign itself, then that sounds an awful lot like apologetics.

But I said, you were "doing the apologetics thing explicitly now" because you were. When basically no matter what criticism or information is presented there's always a convenient (human) scapegoat that happens to be someone else other than the person in charge, then that sounds a whole lot like doing apologetics.

I didn't say you "are" anything or say that you as a person are defined by that.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Oh this is just too good.

Your party isn't awful enough to be the cause of all evil in the world, therefore you are religiously defending it. Is that right?

[Max™]

Uh, guys... gals... other-or-none-of-the-above... robots-waiting-to-take-over-who-will-have-my-absolute-loyalty-my-masters... you are all aware that the DNC is not an arm of the government and is under absolutely zero requirements to be fair or impartial right?

Getting mad at the DNC for not supporting Sanders is like getting mad at any random group of people who didn't specifically support Sanders, it puts up candidates, it's not the US Government itself.

Now, Gabbard, she is someone that was told to shut up and get in line over Sanders, and she is someone who has reason to feel raw about it, as an actual Democrat, which I guess is a reality I figured was more well known so I didn't point it out, but the fact that they didn't tell Bernie to fuck off back to the woods is amazing, because they would have been perfectly in their rights to tell Bernie to fuck off back to the woods if they wanted. We should thank them for giving him any sort of aid and indeed for helping him get his message out to a wider crowd.

[Reelya]

Oh this is just too good.

Your party isn't awful enough to be the cause of all evil in the world, therefore you are religiously defending it. Is that right?

What are you even talking about now. I have no idea what your point on any of this even is.

My original statement was that the Clinton campaign made errors. simple as that. it's not a controversial statement in the slightest. But apparently I stepped on a minefield by even suggesting it.

What am I supposed to think when people basically have steam coming out of their ears to deny the Clinton campaign goofed in the slightest? Other people have characterized me as calling clinton "A racist" among other things for pointing that out, and have gone through contortions to blame literally every other person on the planet except for those running the Clinton campaign. Basically if you want to go through convoluted hoops to avoid the idea that Clinton made any big mistakes, then that sounds a lot like the apologetics things.

EDIT: oh the "racist" thing was you:

Oh, certainly - voter suppression alone can't explain the drop in African American turnout. But that doesn't necessarily imply that Clinton was racist

Sorry but at this point i say, go fuck yourself. you were egging me up from the very first post with that straw-manny bullshit. I've had some dealings with you in this thread, and they've involved you putting words in my mouth from the very start. And not just paraphrasing as I did (you agreed with the paraphrased statements anyway), complete distortions of what I clearly meant. And you're now upset that i said "you sound like you're doing apologetics".
I mean fucking seriously, that's how I screwed you over? You started our exchange by saying I was calling Clinton a racist.

[wierd]

Frumple:

In the first, the requester is asking for dirt off the record about the cabinet members that will make up the convention and choose the nominee.  They (DNC) state that Sanders was given the heads up on the deadline to choose members of the delegation "as a courtesy", then they turned around and started looking for ways to disqualify his selections. That is why this list was requested off record. Thankfully it was denied.

The second was indeed due to an op-ed story covering the DNC favoritism of Clinton, specifically concerning her " victory fund", which was alledged to come from misappropriation of funds for other democrats running, such as for the house and senate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Victory_Fund

This was an action taken by the DNC on behalf of Clinton that they got called on. They then further did damage control to discredit the malfeasance, and make Clinton look good.

You wanted actions, there you go.

   

[Max™]

Again in case it was missed: the DNC has no more requirement to support a particular candidate than we, the BNDB (beautiful nerds and dweebs of bay12), have a requirement to support a particular candidate, and their choice to help or hurt someone is just as acceptable as ours is. The DNC is a private body.

Yes, it is composed of many prominent Democrats, but it is not actually under regulations to abide by rules besides those it sets, getting mad about it not acting like a government body dedicated to fair elections is only reasonable in a timeline where the nominees were selected by the government, this is not that timeline.

[martinuzz]

So starting tomorrow, Trump will be briefed daily on all national secrets and intelligence services missions. I do hope that the CIA has every inch of where Trump goes bugged just in case he turns out to be a Russian shill after all, so they can arrest him the minute he leaks secrets.

[wierd]

You mean these rules?
http://www.demrulz.org/wp-content/files/DNC_Charter__Bylaws_9.11.2009.pdf

Where it says this?

The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.

[Kot]

So starting tomorrow, Trump will be briefed daily on all national secrets and intelligence services missions. I do hope that the CIA has every inch of where Trump goes bugged just in case he turns out to be a Russian shill after all, so they can arrest him the minute he leaks secrets.

Tommorow we learn Roswell UFO was Mexican immigration craft, 9/11 was Clinton's fault and Kennedy was killed by ISIS.

[wierd]

And then the chairperson stepped down, didn't she?

Indeed she did. But only after being caught with her panties down, and the damage done.

The DNC does not have clean hands.

[wierd]

It was a talking point that the DNC did nothing wrong 2 pages back. It needed more nails in the coffin.

[Rolepgeek]

OI!

Calm your shit the fuck down, lest Toady lock the thread, Reelya.

And that goes for you, too, Dozebom! Both of you, take a break from posting until you can think clearly. We're all dorfs here. Don't get into fights about shit like this so soon after the election. Discuss, sure. Not this shit, though. You wanna do that, you go to fucking 4chan and deal with the anons.

[Reelya]

Yes, which we established months ago, so why are we arguing about it now?

This argument of who to blame is completely and utterly missing the goddamn point of this whole fucking thing that I wonder if there's even going to be a Democratic party left by 2020.

"Now when we are weakest is not the time to point fingers and work out what went wrong! Never question the program, the program is sound!"

It's probably more the time for that right now than ever, actually.

[wierd]

Accepting that there is indeed a problem is the first step toward fixing it.