The 2016 US Election (Part II)

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Locked
Omega18
Jedi Knight
Posts: 738
Joined: 2004-06-19 11:30pm

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Omega18 »

The Romulan Republic wrote:Called by who, and based on what?

Last I heard, it was literally about a .1% difference.

Anyway, while a loss in Kentucky would be disappointing, it was also predictable. That its this close is somewhat surprising.
It was called in particular based on the fact virtually all the remaining votes are in Jefferson County which Hillary is winning 58% to 40%. (Basically Louisville and allot of minorities, with the county also representing allot of Democratic votes in the state.)

The fact of the matter is plenty of media were predicting a likely Sanders win in Kentucky. In terms of scenarios where Sanders actually wins the nomination which don't involve very dramatic new negative news related to Hillary breaking or her running into a sudden severe health issue, it also seems to pretty well shut the door on a path of that sort to a win. (When Fivethirtyeight gave predictions much earlier in the election season on likely state outcomes given demographics, Kentucky came down in the category of a Sanders win.)
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Flagg »

The Romulan Republic wrote:I already stated my reasons. If you choose to ignore them, that is not my responsibility. He is furthering a blatantly dishonest and biased argument against Sanders and his supporters. You are providing fuck all to refute that criticism (where as I have posted a source to back my argument up, in the form of Sanders' own words on the subject)- your argument consists entirely of personal insults and accusations. If this is going in circles, that's on you.

In addition to that, he clearly favours Clinton in his posts, and described himself in one of his posts on the previous page as a party hack (his words).

But if you don't like the word "shill", I can use "dishonest partisan mudslinger" instead. Or any number of more colourful insults.

As for the rest, if you feel I've broken a rule, you are, as always, free to put your money where your mouth is and report me. Otherwise, stop posturing and pretending like you're a big man and fuck off.
Prove it. Stop being such a fucking arrogant, ignorant, and all around idiotic pain in the ass thread shitter and prove what you are claiming. Prove that he is a "dishonest partisan mudslinger". Because you've been doing nothing but beating a dead horse like it's your dick, throwing out strawmen and red herrings, and acting like Bernie Sanders is the second coming of Christ. So prove it. Prove it or shut up.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Omega18
Jedi Knight
Posts: 738
Joined: 2004-06-19 11:30pm

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Omega18 »

Hillary now has an about .4% lead with 99% of the votes in for Kentucky and the remaining 1% virtually all being in Jefferson or another reasonably Hillary favorable county.
User avatar
Terralthra
Requiescat in Pace
Posts: 4741
Joined: 2007-10-05 09:55pm
Location: San Francisco, California, United States

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Terralthra »

maraxus2 wrote:
Terralthra wrote:It's not "overturning the results", it's the next step in the process, and the results can change at each stage. Don't blame one candidate or the other for a broken system. It's a three-step process. Might as well call Cruz's efforts to get delegates friendly to his cause appointed in Colorado as pledged-Trump delegates "immoral". RIght now there are multiple stories, each of which blames one side or the other. Rather than believe one or the other entirely, I'm inclined to believe that most of the most outrageous things each side claims are probably outliers, while still thinking the whole process is abegefuckt.

If you hold, as you do, that caucuses are stupid and don't represent the will of the voters effectively, then you can't actually believe that the results of the first stage of the caucus are sacrosanct. That's self-contradictory.
Cruz's efforts to pull the same kind of bullshit in Colorado were immoral. Even worse, they were extremely bad politics. Voters hate this kind of cloak-and-dagger bullshit. That's probably why he lost by such a huge margin in Indiana.

You can be opposed to the caucus system and still think that this reeks of hypocritcal horseshit. Sanders has been going around calling the "Democratic Establishment" a bunch of unethical corrupt autocrats for months now. He's been portraying himself as the white knight who will save the Will of the People (despite getting, you know, fewer votes). He's been bemoaning "politics as usual." And yet, and yet, his campaign tries to pull this kind of nonsense, and he refuses to disavow it.

You can't have it both ways. You can't play hard-ball politics (which I'm all for, btw) at the same time time that you're pissing and moaning about how hard-ball politics isn't fair. That's your self-contradiction, not mine.
You say "your" as if that has ever been a position of mine. I support Sen. Sanders because he stands for a number of things I support - single-payer health care, tuition-free higher education, higher tax rates on corporations and upper income brackets, raising the estate and capital gains taxes, working to end police corruption, ending interventionist wars, and so on. His stance on establishment or non-establishment politics does not matter that much to me, except insofar as corporate and non-traceable money in politics is evil, and Sec. Clinton at least gives lip service to that idea as well, even if her campaign doesn't seem to follow suit. Political parties themselves are a net negative, but there's no stopping people from tribalism, so I don't exactly foresee a solution to that. If political parties are going to exist, they're also going to be manipulated to serve the purpose of the manipulator. Such is politics.
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by The Romulan Republic »

maraxus2 wrote:
The Romulan Republic wrote:Excuse me?

Leaving aside the argument that Sanders' people did nothing improper by trying to effect the results, because others are handling that, do you mean to suggest that this somehow excuses everything the Clinton campaign did, or false allegations of political violence against the Sanders campaign? Or that these things are somehow equivalent?

I don't care what Bernie did. The Nevada Democratic Party crossed a fucking line, and that would be true even if they had video of Sanders boasting about committing fraud (which they obviously don't).
Sorry, idiocy of your caliber cannot be excused.

Sanders' delegates made an active attempt to overturn an election result - an election that he did not win and was not going to win - by verbally abusing Clinton supporters. His supporters are now making death threats against a duly-elected Democratic Party Chair. Bernie went from being righteously angry about Trump's supporters causing and inciting violence two months ago, to being mealy-mouthed and *BUT BOTH SIDES* today. That's not what you call character.

Hide behind your concern-trolling all you want, but now we know exactly what you are. You're a Sanders hack. This is not a bad thing; I'm a hack. I self-identify as a hack. Hell, I'm a professional hack. But I don't pretend to be otherwise. You're trying to pull this bullshit while being pretending to be a disinterested observer. It's not going to work.
I have never once denied that I am a Sanders supporter, or pretended to be neutral in this election. That is another lie, from someone who is clearly a habitual (and from what you just said, professional) liar.

I do, however, try to be honest in my opinions. I am entirely capable of exaggerating something, or being biased or simply mistaken, weather because I jump to conclusions or because their was information of which I was not aware, but I generally don't lie.

Maybe that's true of you as well, but when you're actually representing Sanders' own words rejecting violence as evidence of him being responsible for it... well, its hard to see how that can be simple misunderstanding, unless their are other comments or actions by Sanders of which I am unaware (in which case, please cite them).

You called my position idiocy because, apparently, I had the audacity to say that whatever Sanders' campaign did, it does not excuse what the other side did, and that trying to "overturn" the result is not equivalent to everything the Clinton side did (to be fair, I'll retract the use of the words "Clinton campaign" because I don't wish to accuse the campaign of authorizing it without proof) and making false allegations of causing political violence. You then went into a spiel about some Sanders supporters trying to "overturn" an election result, and some Sanders supporters engaging in verbal abuse and threats, as if that is a defence for engaging in libel against the campaign as a whole.

So tell me: why do you feel that some of Sanders' supporters actions justify falsely accusing the Sanders campaign (not individual supporters, the campaign) of engaging in political violence, among other dubious Clintonite actions?

Also, when Sanders' side has been targeted as well, there is nothing wrong with him pointing that out. You seem to think that he should take personal responsibility for everything any of his supporters does and just keep silent about anything directed at his people, as if they're fair game for violence. Just as you seem to think that accusing Sanders' supporters of trying to "overturn" the result as a rebuttal to the charge that the Nevada Democratic Party engaged in libel, as if its okay to defame a man, and an entire political movement, because some of their supporters alledgedly did an unrelated thing that you don't like.

Finally, while some supporters of Sanders may have crossed the line, not all of us have engaged in such behaviour. Most of us have not. So do not paint us as all guilty unless you want the same done to you every time a Clinton supporter does something bad. Like, say, assault a Sanders supporter:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wen ... d4d6f369f0

Oh, by the way, Flagg, he just admitted to my charge that he is a professional partisan hack (one clearly acting on Clinton's behalf). So I expect a full apology for the false accusation of slander. Well, I don't expect it, because that would require a modicum of shame or decency from you, but its what you would do if you were an honest man.
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Flagg wrote:
The Romulan Republic wrote:I already stated my reasons. If you choose to ignore them, that is not my responsibility. He is furthering a blatantly dishonest and biased argument against Sanders and his supporters. You are providing fuck all to refute that criticism (where as I have posted a source to back my argument up, in the form of Sanders' own words on the subject)- your argument consists entirely of personal insults and accusations. If this is going in circles, that's on you.

In addition to that, he clearly favours Clinton in his posts, and described himself in one of his posts on the previous page as a party hack (his words).

But if you don't like the word "shill", I can use "dishonest partisan mudslinger" instead. Or any number of more colourful insults.

As for the rest, if you feel I've broken a rule, you are, as always, free to put your money where your mouth is and report me. Otherwise, stop posturing and pretending like you're a big man and fuck off.
Prove it. Stop being such a fucking arrogant, ignorant, and all around idiotic pain in the ass thread shitter and prove what you are claiming. Prove that he is a "dishonest partisan mudslinger". Because you've been doing nothing but beating a dead horse like it's your dick, throwing out strawmen and red herrings, and acting like Bernie Sanders is the second coming of Christ. So prove it. Prove it or shut up.
I posted my reasoning and evidence. You have done nothing of substance to refute it, just called me a liar, slandered me, insulted me, and kept demanding that I "prove it" while ignoring my actual fucking arguments. And having the nerve to accuse me of going in circles.

Give me something of substance to argue with, and maybe I'll bother.

Also, I object to the implication that I am unwilling to criticize Sanders. I have done so repeatedly on this forum. Would you like me to provide quotes?

I don't think he's a god or a saint. That would do him a disservice by holding him to a higher standard than an ordinary fallible human being can ever match. I simply think he's the best option in the race, and that he has been subjected to unjustified attacks.
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Oregon called for Bernie, apparently.

Heard a bit of Bernie speaking from California earlier. I've seldom heard him so fiery and defiant, though his barbs were directed more at Drumpf than the Democrats. Good on him, though I think he needs to take a stronger, clearer stand against "Bernie or Bust" type thinking and other extremist idiocy. I don't think he supports it, but its arguably the biggest threat to what he believes in right now.
User avatar
Mr Bean
Lord of Irony
Posts: 22442
Joined: 2002-07-04 08:36am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Mr Bean »

So lets get back to the other half of the race... why is Nate Silver so inaccurate this year?
He posted a I fucked up blog today but reading it it's clear he's still not learned his lesson he's still acting like a pundit and not like a statistician for reasons I can only assume are deeply personal.

"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe
Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Flagg »

The Romulan Republic wrote:
maraxus2 wrote:
The Romulan Republic wrote:Excuse me?

Leaving aside the argument that Sanders' people did nothing improper by trying to effect the results, because others are handling that, do you mean to suggest that this somehow excuses everything the Clinton campaign did, or false allegations of political violence against the Sanders campaign? Or that these things are somehow equivalent?

I don't care what Bernie did. The Nevada Democratic Party crossed a fucking line, and that would be true even if they had video of Sanders boasting about committing fraud (which they obviously don't).
Sorry, idiocy of your caliber cannot be excused.

Sanders' delegates made an active attempt to overturn an election result - an election that he did not win and was not going to win - by verbally abusing Clinton supporters. His supporters are now making death threats against a duly-elected Democratic Party Chair. Bernie went from being righteously angry about Trump's supporters causing and inciting violence two months ago, to being mealy-mouthed and *BUT BOTH SIDES* today. That's not what you call character.

Hide behind your concern-trolling all you want, but now we know exactly what you are. You're a Sanders hack. This is not a bad thing; I'm a hack. I self-identify as a hack. Hell, I'm a professional hack. But I don't pretend to be otherwise. You're trying to pull this bullshit while being pretending to be a disinterested observer. It's not going to work.
I have never once denied that I am a Sanders supporter, or pretended to be neutral in this election. That is another lie, from someone who is clearly a habitual (and from what you just said, professional) liar.

I do, however, try to be honest in my opinions. I am entirely capable of exaggerating something, or being biased or simply mistaken, weather because I jump to conclusions or because their was information of which I was not aware, but I generally don't lie.

Maybe that's true of you as well, but when you're actually representing Sanders' own words rejecting violence as evidence of him being responsible for it... well, its hard to see how that can be simple misunderstanding, unless their are other comments or actions by Sanders of which I am unaware (in which case, please cite them).

You called my position idiocy because, apparently, I had the audacity to say that whatever Sanders' campaign did, it does not excuse what the other side did, and that trying to "overturn" the result is not equivalent to everything the Clinton side did (to be fair, I'll retract the use of the words "Clinton campaign" because I don't wish to accuse the campaign of authorizing it without proof) and making false allegations of causing political violence. You then went into a spiel about some Sanders supporters trying to "overturn" an election result, and some Sanders supporters engaging in verbal abuse and threats, as if that is a defence for engaging in libel against the campaign as a whole.

So tell me: why do you feel that some of Sanders' supporters actions justify falsely accusing the Sanders campaign (not individual supporters, the campaign) of engaging in political violence, among other dubious Clintonite actions?

Also, when Sanders' side has been targeted as well, there is nothing wrong with him pointing that out. You seem to think that he should take personal responsibility for everything any of his supporters does and just keep silent about anything directed at his people, as if they're fair game for violence. Just as you seem to think that accusing Sanders' supporters of trying to "overturn" the result as a rebuttal to the charge that the Nevada Democratic Party engaged in libel, as if its okay to defame a man, and an entire political movement, because some of their supporters alledgedly did an unrelated thing that you don't like.

Finally, while some supporters of Sanders may have crossed the line, not all of us have engaged in such behaviour. Most of us have not. So do not paint us as all guilty unless you want the same done to you every time a Clinton supporter does something bad. Like, say, assault a Sanders supporter:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wen ... d4d6f369f0

Oh, by the way, Flagg, he just admitted to my charge that he is a professional partisan hack (one clearly acting on Clinton's behalf). So I expect a full apology for the false accusation of slander. Well, I don't expect it, because that would require a modicum of shame or decency from you, but its what you would do if you were an honest man.
Since when does "party hack" = "Clinton Shill" stupid?
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by The Romulan Republic »

A professional party hack (self-admitted) who constantly posts pro-Sanders/anti-Clinton stuff (I mean, does this guy post on any other topic on this board?)? Seems a fair label to me. But if its the word "shill" you're nitpicking, I can certainly use a substitute.

Anyway, an interesting (if hopefully somewhat exaggerated article from the Washington post):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html
Robert Kagan is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a contributing columnist for The Post.

The Republican Party’s attempt to treat Donald Trump as a normal political candidate would be laughable were it not so perilous to the republic. If only he would mouth the party’s “conservative” principles, all would be well.

But of course the entire Trump phenomenon has nothing to do with policy or ideology. It has nothing to do with the Republican Party, either, except in its historic role as incubator of this singular threat to our democracy. Trump has transcended the party that produced him. His growing army of supporters no longer cares about the party. Because it did not immediately and fully embrace Trump, because a dwindling number of its political and intellectual leaders still resist him, the party is regarded with suspicion and even hostility by his followers. Their allegiance is to him and him alone.

And the source of allegiance? We’re supposed to believe that Trump’s support stems from economic stagnation or dislocation. Maybe some of it does. But what Trump offers his followers are not economic remedies — his proposals change daily. What he offers is an attitude, an aura of crude strength and machismo, a boasting disrespect for the niceties of the democratic culture that he claims, and his followers believe, has produced national weakness and incompetence. His incoherent and contradictory utterances have one thing in common: They provoke and play on feelings of resentment and disdain, intermingled with bits of fear, hatred and anger. His public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of “others” — Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees — whom he depicts either as threats or as objects of derision. His program, such as it is, consists chiefly of promises to get tough with foreigners and people of nonwhite complexion. He will deport them, bar them, get them to knuckle under, make them pay up or make them shut up.

That this tough-guy, get-mad-and-get-even approach has gained him an increasingly large and enthusiastic following has probably surprised Trump as much as it has everyone else. Trump himself is simply and quite literally an egomaniac. But the phenomenon he has created and now leads has become something larger than him, and something far more dangerous.


Republican politicians marvel at how he has “tapped into” a hitherto unknown swath of the voting public. But what he has tapped into is what the founders most feared when they established the democratic republic: the popular passions unleashed, the “mobocracy.” Conservatives have been warning for decades about government suffocating liberty. But here is the other threat to liberty that Alexis de Tocqueville and the ancient philosophers warned about: that the people in a democracy, excited, angry and unconstrained, might run roughshod over even the institutions created to preserve their freedoms. As Alexander Hamilton watched the French Revolution unfold, he feared in America what he saw play out in France — that the unleashing of popular passions would lead not to greater democracy but to the arrival of a tyrant, riding to power on the shoulders of the people.

This phenomenon has arisen in other democratic and quasi-democratic countries over the past century, and it has generally been called “fascism.” Fascist movements, too, had no coherent ideology, no clear set of prescriptions for what ailed society. “National socialism” was a bundle of contradictions, united chiefly by what, and who, it opposed; fascism in Italy was anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-Marxist, anti-capitalist and anti-clerical. Successful fascism was not about policies but about the strongman, the leader (Il Duce, Der Fuhrer), in whom could be entrusted the fate of the nation. Whatever the problem, he could fix it. Whatever the threat, internal or external, he could vanquish it, and it was unnecessary for him to explain how. Today, there is Putinism, which also has nothing to do with belief or policy but is about the tough man who singlehandedly defends his people against all threats, foreign and domestic.

Opinions newsletter
Thought-provoking opinions and commentary, in your inbox daily.
Sign up
To understand how such movements take over a democracy, one only has to watch the Republican Party today. These movements play on all the fears, vanities, ambitions and insecurities that make up the human psyche. In democracies, at least for politicians, the only thing that matters is what the voters say they want — vox populi vox dei. A mass political movement is thus a powerful and, to those who would oppose it, frightening weapon. When controlled and directed by a single leader, it can be aimed at whomever the leader chooses. If someone criticizes or opposes the leader, it doesn’t matter how popular or admired that person has been. He might be a famous war hero, but if the leader derides and ridicules his heroism, the followers laugh and jeer. He might be the highest-ranking elected guardian of the party’s most cherished principles. But if he hesitates to support the leader, he faces political death.

In such an environment, every political figure confronts a stark choice: Get right with the leader and his mass following or get run over. The human race in such circumstances breaks down into predictable categories — and democratic politicians are the most predictable. There are those whose ambition leads them to jump on the bandwagon. They praise the leader’s incoherent speeches as the beginning of wisdom, hoping he will reward them with a plum post in the new order. There are those who merely hope to survive. Their consciences won’t let them curry favor so shamelessly, so they mumble their pledges of support, like the victims in Stalin’s show trials, perhaps not realizing that the leader and his followers will get them in the end anyway.

A great number will simply kid themselves, refusing to admit that something very different from the usual politics is afoot. Let the storm pass, they insist, and then we can pick up the pieces, rebuild and get back to normal. Meanwhile, don’t alienate the leader’s mass following. After all, they are voters and will need to brought back into the fold. As for Trump himself, let’s shape him, advise him, steer him in the right direction and, not incidentally, save our political skins.


What these people do not or will not see is that, once in power, Trump will owe them and their party nothing. He will have ridden to power despite the party, catapulted into the White House by a mass following devoted only to him. By then that following will have grown dramatically. Today, less than 5 percent of eligible voters have voted for Trump. But if he wins the election, his legions will comprise a majority of the nation. Imagine the power he would wield then. In addition to all that comes from being the leader of a mass following, he would also have the immense powers of the American presidency at his command: the Justice Department, the FBI, the intelligence services, the military. Who would dare to oppose him then? Certainly not a Republican Party that laid down before him even when he was comparatively weak. And is a man like Trump, with infinitely greater power in his hands, likely to become more humble, more judicious, more generous, less vengeful than he is today, than he has been his whole life? Does vast power un-corrupt?

This is how fascism comes to America, not with jackboots and salutes (although there have been salutes, and a whiff of violence) but with a television huckster, a phony billionaire, a textbook egomaniac “tapping into” popular resentments and insecurities, and with an entire national political party — out of ambition or blind party loyalty, or simply out of fear — falling into line behind him.
Now, Drumpf may not be the next Hitler, but he, and the movement he has inspired, are a threat-potentially an existential one if they continue to gain in strength unchecked. That is why a crushing electoral victory for the Democrats is of such vital importance. I'm glad to see more people pointing this out, and castigating the Republican Party for enabling this mess as it so thoroughly deserves.
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Thanas »

The Romulan Republic wrote:I posted my reasoning and evidence. You have done nothing of substance to refute it, just called me a liar, slandered me, insulted me, and kept demanding that I "prove it" while ignoring my actual fucking arguments. And having the nerve to accuse me of going in circles.
Your reasoning is shit.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
User avatar
FireNexus
Cookie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 2002-07-04 05:10am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by FireNexus »

Allegations of Fraud and Misconduct by Nevada Democratic Party are Unfounded

A conspiracy theory from the Sanders camp turning out to be utter horseshit? You don't say!

Of course, they'll just counter that it's "obvious" and refuse calls for evidence. Then they'll ask me to prove a negative regarding a straw man version of my argument.
I had a Bill Maher quote here. But fuck him for his white privelegy "joke".

All the rest? Too long.
User avatar
Terralthra
Requiescat in Pace
Posts: 4741
Joined: 2007-10-05 09:55pm
Location: San Francisco, California, United States

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Terralthra »

The reported behavior of some Sanders supporters at the NV convention is disgraceful, and Sanders' statement condemned them, but only in passing. I expect stronger condemnation of his more radical supporters from him. Even if you feel unheard (a voice vote? seriously?), there's no excuse for threats of violence.
User avatar
Napoleon the Clown
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2007-05-05 02:54pm
Location: Minneso'a

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Napoleon the Clown »

When has Clinton condemned any of her supporters? Has she condemned Party Unity My Ass? ("Official" name "People United Means Action")

Has she condemned Tom Watson comparing Sanders supporters to Nazis?

Has she condemned the 50% of her supporters in 2008 who swore they would not support Obama?

Has she condemned her supporters that started the Birther nonsense back in 2008?

Has she apologized for participating in de Blasio's "CP Time" joke? Or did she stop talking about it after she got done throwing him under the bus?

Sanders has been expected to apologize for and condemn every misdeed by any of his supporters. Should I claim it's anti-Semitism that drives this double-standard? Should I claim that it's rooted in sexism? Or maybe I should settle with rank hypocrisy based in nothing more than a cult of personality surrounding a former Goldwater Girl who shed those positions when she became involved with Bill Clinton. I think it's nothing more than simple hypocrisy.
Sig images are for people who aren't fucking lazy.
User avatar
Gaidin
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2646
Joined: 2004-06-19 12:27am
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Gaidin »

I don't expect him to apologize for misbehaving supporters. This was the Nevada State Convention with specifically his delegates acting like they were pants on head retarded. I expect him to feel publicly humiliated because they were his people and not just merely his supporters and he should condemn their behavior and apologize as hilariously specifically as he can. This is analogous to a businesses employees misbehaving this badly and deserving to be fired with and apology from the owner as they were representing the business.
User avatar
Napoleon the Clown
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2007-05-05 02:54pm
Location: Minneso'a

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Napoleon the Clown »

They are not on his payroll. They are people who want to support him. They're like a customer that's misbehaving more than an employee.

And again, Hill-dawg never apologized for taking part on a racist-ass skit. She's insincere about her "super-predators" and "bring them to heel" non-apology. She never said shit about her own damn husband, who is campaigning for her, claiming Bernie supporters want to murder people on Wall Street. The hypocrisy is strong.
Sig images are for people who aren't fucking lazy.
User avatar
Terralthra
Requiescat in Pace
Posts: 4741
Joined: 2007-10-05 09:55pm
Location: San Francisco, California, United States

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Terralthra »

I don't give a shit about Sen. Clinton's non-apologies and lack of accountability for her previous statements, because I already knew that she'd say anything if she thought it would get her elected. That's why I don't want to vote for her. I hold a candidate who I actually support to higher standards than actions commensurate with candidates I dislike. That's not "hypocrisy."
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Interesting. So you're saying that you're basically holding Sanders to a higher standard because you already take it for granted the Hillary Clinton's a dishonest scumbag? :D

Anyway...

Former Republican Senator Bob Bennet reportedly asked to make a death bed apology to Muslims for Donald Trump:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-el ... ed-n576566
In the final days of his life, former Utah Republican Senator Bob Bennett turned to his son and asked him, "Are there any Muslims in this hospital?"

The question caught his son, Jim Bennett, off-guard. It felt like a non-sequitur, and he thought it may have had something to do with his father's recent stroke.

But Jim said his father, even after the stroke, was "sharp as a tack."

"So I was standing there with him in the hospital and out of nowhere he asked me, 'Are there any Muslims in this hospital?'" Jim Bennett told NBC News Wednesday evening.

Image: Bob Bennett
FILE: In this May 8, 2010 picture, U.S. Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, speaks at the 2010 Utah GOP Convention in Salt Lake City, Utah. Steve C Wilson / AP
"I said, 'Yes, dad, I'm sure there are.'" Jim said of the conversation, which was first reported by the Daily Beast. "And he was very emotional and said, 'I want to go up to every single one of them and apologize, I want to go up to every single one of them and tell them how grateful I am that they are in this country and apologize on behalf of the Republican Party for Donald Trump.'"

Jim Bennett said that when he later spoke to his mother, Joyce Bennett, about the conversation, she told him that expressing a sense of inclusion for ostracized populations, especially Muslims, had become "something that he was doing quite a lot of in the last months of his life."

Joyce told her son that his father had approached people wearing hijabs in an airport to "let them know that he was grateful they were in the country and the country was better for them being here."

Bennett, a three-term Republican Senator who lost in Utah's 2010 Republican primary to two tea-party opponents, had become increasingly concerned with Trump's rhetoric in recent months, even after he had initially written off the billionaire businessman when he first jumped into the race.

"I think he got increasingly troubled as he saw the Republican Party becoming the party of Trump," Jim told NBC News. "I think Trump's rise was really the motivation for him to recognize the importance of expressing his desire for inclusion. He just felt it was his responsibly to push back."

Jim said that his father became interested in Islam after 9/11, citing a desire to be informed about the religion while making policy decisions in the wake of terrorist attacks.

"He spent a lot of time studying Islam and wanting to be informed enough to that he wouldn't be making decisions on the floor of the Senate ignorantly," Jim said.

Bennett also took issue with Trump's comments related to immigration, considering the former Senator's support for comprehensive immigration reform was a contributing factor in his 2010 defeat.

"He felt like immigration required a comprehensive solution," Jim said of his father, "And that didn't go over well with Utah delegates who just thought that building a big wall, in a Donald Trump fashion, was the only way to go."

Jim Bennett told the story about his father's comments about Muslims at both memorial services for his father, telling NBC News he "was so grateful to be able to see that demonstration of integrity when there were so many other things that could have been front of mind for him during that time."

"I was just very proud of him," Jim said. "It just demonstrated the integrity of my father wasn't just a public front, that even in personal moments of his last days, this was something that was of deep concern to him, and that he was thinking of other people before he was thinking of himself."
User avatar
Gaidin
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2646
Joined: 2004-06-19 12:27am
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Gaidin »

Napoleon the Clown wrote:They are not on his payroll. They are people who want to support him. They're like a customer that's misbehaving more than an employee.

And again, Hill-dawg never apologized for taking part on a racist-ass skit. She's insincere about her "super-predators" and "bring them to heel" non-apology. She never said shit about her own damn husband, who is campaigning for her, claiming Bernie supporters want to murder people on Wall Street. The hypocrisy is strong.
Really? Any other program that selected specific representatives would be expected to rain hell down on them for that behavior. Bernie?

"Well, yeah, the employee spat in your food, but we also have evidence that the customer was a dick, so while employees shouldn't spit in food, maybe customers shouldn't be dicks", well how do you think that would go?

Have fun with your hypocrisy. And I will keep nailing you with this as long it is Bernie's delegates. Not his supporters.
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Is their any evidence that actual Sanders delegates were violent?

People keep saying their was violence at the Nevada convention, but apparently none of the videos have shown much in the way of violence. People shouting insults, yes. Violence no. No reports of arrests (security cleared people out because they'd gone over time, not because of a riot), no injuries... if you have evidence, show it. Don't just repeat the narrative mindlessly.

Their were, apparently, threatening phone calls made to some Democratic official afterward. Which is, obviously, despicable. However, I have not heard about any of those calls being traced back to actual Sanders delegates. If you have evidence of that... again, show it.

Edit: Also, Sanders has called it out, somewhat. Could he say more? Sure. Should he? Maybe. But considering how exaggerated and outright false some of the attacks on him and his supporters are, he may not want to appear to be validating a false narrative by taking responsibility before a full investigation is concluded.
Last edited by The Romulan Republic on 2016-05-19 08:11pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gaidin
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2646
Joined: 2004-06-19 12:27am
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Gaidin »

The Romulan Republic wrote:Is their any evidence that actual Sanders delegates were violent?

People keep saying their was violence at the Nevada convention, but apparently none of the videos have shown much in the way of violence. People shouting insults, yes. Violence no. No reports of arrests (security cleared people out because they'd gone over time, not because of a riot), no injuries... if you have evidence, show it. Don't just repeat the narrative mindlessly.

Their were, apparently, threatening phone calls made to some Democratic official afterward. Which is, obviously, despicable. However, I have not heard about any of those calls being traced back to actual Sanders delegates. If you have evidence of that... again, show it.
If throwing chairs isn't violent I'm finished with you.
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Where did I say anything of the sort? Nowhere. But I guess I'm a Sanders supporter and therefore must condone violence.

What I question is that the incident you describe actually happened as you describe.

It took me maybe a minute of searching on line to find this:

https://heavy.com/news/2016/05/bernie-s ... gn-office/

I'll just quote part of the article that relate specifically to the allegation of violence at the convention.
2. There Were No Documented Reports of Violence, Despite a Complaint Filed by the Nevada State Democratic Party

Bradley Schrager, general counsel for the Nevada State Democratic Party, wrote a complaint for the Nevada Democratic Party that claimed that there was “actual violence” in the convention. He added that there was “encouragement of, and complicity in, a very dangerous atmosphere that ended in chaos and physical threats to fellow Democrats.” You can read the complaint at this link.

Much of what is in this letter is at odds with what Sanders’ delegates reported at the Convention. In the CNN clip above, Van Jones reported that there were no arrests or reported violence from Sanders’ supporters, although there was one reported arrest of a Clinton supporter in an incident unrelated to the Convention itself.

Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks, addressed this complaint on his YouTube show, in the video posted below. He pointed out that there were no acts of violence caught on video. Uygur said his staff looked extensively through videos from the convention and found no violence, despite livestreams available for the entire day.



In his complaint, Schrager wrote that Sanders employed delegates as “shock troops” who rushed the dais with screams and profanity. Attendees did, indeed, protest loudly. But videos don’t show any indication of actual violence, which the complaint claimed had happened.


Bernie Sanders’ Carson, California Rally: The Photos You Need to See
Thousands celebrated Bernie's Oregon win at his Carson, California rally. See photos from #BernieorBust supporters who know the campaign's still going strong.

Click here to read more
3. According to a Nevada Delegate, the Only ‘Chair Throwing’ Incident Was One Person Who Tried, But Was Stopped by a Group of Sanders Supporters
sanders
Sanders supporters stopped one intended act of violence at the Nevada Convention. (Getty)

Justin Grigg, a delegate who was at the convention, posted to Reddit about his experience. He later confirmed with Heavy what happened.

“Let me make something perfectly clear,” Grigg wrote. “WE. WERE. NOT. VIOLENT… There were no chairs thrown, and as far as I know, there was no kind of fight that occurred.”

He wrote that there were two photos circulating of security bending over people on the floor, but there had also been a couple medical emergencies where security was needed to help. He wrote:

We went out of our way to remain peaceful. One guy did rush the stage with a chair with the intent to throw it after Lange ended the convention prematurely, but the rest of us stopped him, because we knew that we had to remain peaceful… The notion that Bernie supporters were violent at the convention or at the protest is a complete lie.”

Another delegate shared on Reddit that many people claimed a Clinton supporter was assaulted and fell to the floor after Barbara Boxer’s speech. He wrote that he was there, five feet away, and the woman had actually fainted from heat and stress. She was not assaulted.
So... one guy apparently tried to throw a chair, and was reportedly immediately stopped by other Sanders supporters. This somehow became mass chair throwing by a violent mob of Sanders supporters.

I've presented my evidence. If you wish to contest my conclusions, and claim that violence did in fact occur (beyond one alleged attempted chair throwing that was immediately restrained), put up some actual God damn evidence rather than simply echoing the Nevada Democratic Party line.

Their has been a concerted effort to paint Sanders and his supporters as violent extremists, and people are just taking it at face value. I don't care what side you're on, what you think of Sanders or his supporters, or what you think of me personally. This should appall everyone.
User avatar
Napoleon the Clown
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2007-05-05 02:54pm
Location: Minneso'a

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Napoleon the Clown »

Gaidin wrote:
Napoleon the Clown wrote:They are not on his payroll. They are people who want to support him. They're like a customer that's misbehaving more than an employee.

And again, Hill-dawg never apologized for taking part on a racist-ass skit. She's insincere about her "super-predators" and "bring them to heel" non-apology. She never said shit about her own damn husband, who is campaigning for her, claiming Bernie supporters want to murder people on Wall Street. The hypocrisy is strong.
Really? Any other program that selected specific representatives would be expected to rain hell down on them for that behavior. Bernie?

"Well, yeah, the employee spat in your food, but we also have evidence that the customer was a dick, so while employees shouldn't spit in food, maybe customers shouldn't be dicks", well how do you think that would go?

Have fun with your hypocrisy. And I will keep nailing you with this as long it is Bernie's delegates. Not his supporters.
I demand proof that Bernie delegates engaged in violence. I demand proof that Bernie delegates made threats. I demand proof that said delegates were selected by the Bernie Sanders campaign. If you are unable to prove the last of these, your claim that they are the equivalent of employees is invalid. It indicates they are private individuals who choose to associate with his campaign by giving their personal support and are thus closer to customers of a business than its employees.
Sig images are for people who aren't fucking lazy.
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by The Romulan Republic »

I also want to point out how fucking stupid this "violent Sanders supporters" narrative being pushed everywhere is if you want to have unity against Drumpf. I will vote for Clinton regardless out of a sense of duty to stop the Republican extremists, but a lot of people won't.

You do not try to paint people as a violent mob if you want unity with them. No, this is "Fuck Sanders supporters, we don't need you!" Then no doubt blame us for being divisive if the fascist wins.

The only people this narrative is helping is Drumpf and his campaign.

Edit: And maybe the Greens/Libertarians, if enough Bernie people jump ship. Not that either of them are likely to ever be truly significant, except as vote-splitters.
Last edited by The Romulan Republic on 2016-05-19 08:41pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gaidin
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2646
Joined: 2004-06-19 12:27am
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Gaidin »

Napoleon the Clown wrote: I demand proof that Bernie delegates engaged in violence. I demand proof that Bernie delegates made threats. I demand proof that said delegates were selected by the Bernie Sanders campaign. If you are unable to prove the last of these, your claim that they are the equivalent of employees is invalid. It indicates they are private individuals who choose to associate with his campaign by giving their personal support and are thus closer to customers of a business than its employees.
I don't need violence to say 'unethical behavior'. They leaked her address and phone number to the internet and she and her family have been drenched with targeted threats since. Try fucking harder asshat.
Locked