All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I'm sorry, where was your evidence that these had an impact? You made claims about things that happened, with no compelling documentation of their impact or importance.

It's your assertion to prove, not mine to debunk. So prove the impact it had.

I don't need evidence that they had any impact. If you think they had zero, then that's pretty naive. But like I said before it shows one of two things that you are trying to frame this. Either you are showing intellectual lacking by claiming that an election can be slanted without the outcome being effected or you know that and are being misleading and are silly enough to think people don't see through it. I'm not really interested in finding out which. You can not claim with any intellectual honesty that the DNC wasn't slanting the election against Sanders. The outcome doesn't matter, the process was tainted. Maybe the Astros would have still won the world series, it doesn't matter because everyone who played them has a grievance. Bernie Sanders and his supporters have a legitimate griveance against the DNC on 2016. To deny that is to deny reality.

If you want to continue to play games to feel better about it, have at it, but it's uninteresting. Especially when I already called you out on it.

I proved my assertion. I said the election was slanted. It was. You said it had no impact. It's your turn to prove that assertion. Quantify it. Otherwise you are wasting your time.

Or you can go back to name calling and gaslighting. It doesn't really matter to me.

[Theleviathan]

I don't need evidence that they had any impact.

That's cute. I can see why every post you make is met with hostility by those who have posted here longer than me. Lesson learned!

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

That's cute. I can see why every post you make is met with hostility by those who have posted here longer than me. Lesson learned!

And I see why there's fights everywhere you go. I'm not the one name calling. I'm also not the one trying to change the goal posts. I said the election was slanted, you asked for evidence, I gave you multiple instances.

Also I'm above talking about how certain posters feel about you. If that's what you need to do to feel like you won, it's a reflection of you.

[The Overlord]

Canada has faster elections, but from my understanding, the voters have less say since the parties choose the candidates for office, and there isn't really an opportunity to vote for the head of state (the vote is for a party's candidate for parliament who later votes to select the prime minister, usually the current leader of the party.)

https://www.vox.com/2016/10/27/13425...s-last-so-long

So there are major tradeoffs.

I can see the argument that voting for parties and not candidates eliminates the bullshit, and that parties have incentives to nominate people who have chances of winning elections, which may incentivize them to moderate (this didn't exactly help Labour in Britain; is it true that Rob Ford's brother has a non-trivial chance of being the next Prime Minister?)

Doug Ford is currently Premier of Ontario, Canada's largest province, which is akin to being governor of a major US state, so he certainly has a shot, depends on who the Federal Tories intend to run next time.

And really in Canada, a vote for the party is the vote for the head of the government (the Queen is still head of state in Canada, embodied by the Governor-General, who does unimportant ceremonial stuff and has no real power), people will often vote for the party that is led by their chosen candidate for Prime Minister, knowing that is how you support the candidate for PM.

Plus the Prime Minister has to go into the House of Commons and answer questions from the opposition when the house in session, Trump doesn't have to do that, does he?

Heck, even Canada's finical scandals are kids stuff compared to the US.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lee-tu...b_7596256.html

I am pretty sure Trump wastes more than that by lunch on a slow Tuesday.

[Theleviathan]

And I see why there's fights everywhere you go. I'm not the one name calling. I'm also not the one trying to change the goal posts. I said the election was slanted, you asked for evidence, I gave you multiple instances.

Also I'm above talking about how certain posters feel about you. If that's what you need to do to feel like you won, it's a reflection of you.

You should go back and reread what I asked for. Ah hell, I'm a nice guy:

How did the DNC not "let the process play out"? Specifically, how did any actions they took (like Clinton's campaign agreements with DNC funds) alter the outcome of the race?

Looks to me like you chose not to answer my question then.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Don't argue this without saying /why/ he was shut out.



This was bad, certainly.


The schedule was made LONG before either Hillary or Bernie announced.


This is more complicated than you're alluding to.

To the first point, there was an error that caused a data breach that gave a staffer access to it. It was never proven that they actually retained, held onto or used it. Fair point, but it was fairly unprecedented and was essentially massively crippling to Bernie over an error caused by the DNC that was never proven for improper use.

To the third point, they changed the debate scheduling when Bernie started gaining ground on Clinton. So it was obvious they wanted it to have more visibility when it helped Clinton.

Fourth point, yeah it's more complicated, yet you still had the head of the DNC at the time saying it was definitley unfair to Bernie's campaign which is the overall point.

That they all were actions and events that were designed to benefit Clinton and/or hurt Bernie is the issue. Clinton definitley gained an advantage out of all of them

[Tendrin]

To the first point, there was an error that caused a data breach that gave a staffer access to it. It was never proven that they actually retained, held onto or used it. Fair point, but it was fairly unprecedented and was essentially massively crippling to Bernie over an error caused by the DNC that was never proven for improper use.

Blameless Bernie again, I see.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

You should go back and reread what I asked for. Ah hell, I'm a nice guy:

How did the DNC not "let the process play out"? Specifically, how did any actions they took (like Clinton's campaign agreements with DNC funds) alter the outcome of the race?

Looks to me like you chose not to answer my question then.

Because it's a common debate tactic to change the point one person is making by trying rework the the assertion they made. It's a known a tactic and it's designed to be misleading and tripped people up. I never said once that it definitley changed the outcome. In fact, I said it was likely Clinton would win regardless. I said it was slanted. It was.

I don't need to answer an assertion that I never made because it's easier for you to argue against. I said it was slanted. You had a head of the DNC saying the same thing. You had another head resigning because of the leaks showing it being slanted. That's the assertion I made, and that's all the proof I really needed to back it up. Nobody can ever prove the outcome of something when you change the variables without actually going through the process again.

Your question was two fold, the first of which I advocated for, the second of which I didn't. I answer the first because it proved my point. I didn't answer the second because it's an unknown outcome and not relevant to my argument. You are harping on this because you thought it was clever and made things easier for you.

In fact you said multiple times that nothing I said effected the outcome. That was an assertive statement. The onus is on you to back up your assertion. Are you going to do it? Or is this still showmanship?

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Blameless Bernie again, I see.

Do you have evidence that they took custodian ship of the data, that Bernie personally ever saw the data, that they used the data, or recorded the data? Because nobody in the DNC seems to have that evidence and they eventually gave Bernie access again.

Could it have been improperly used? Sure. I'll grant you that. Was it? No we don't know. So we can either believe him or not.

Edit: Also if there was a breach, the proper move was to shut it down for both of them, confirm it was fixed, and give both access. Just like they do in football if a headset has issues. They kept Bernie's team out for an extended period of time and it was a disadvantage and the error was caused by the DNC

[Theleviathan]

Because it's a common debate tactic to change the point one person is making by trying rework the the assertion they made. It's a known a tactic and it's designed to be misleading and tripped people up. I never said once that it definitley changed the outcome. In fact, I said it was likely Clinton would win regardless. I said it was slanted. It was.

I don't need to answer an assertion that I never made because it's easier for you to argue against. I said it was slanted. You had a head of the DNC saying the same thing. You had another head resigning because of the leaks showing it being slanted. That's the assertion I made, and that's all the proof I really needed to back it up. Nobody can ever prove the outcome of something when you change the variables without actually going through the process again.

Your question was two fold, the first of which I advocated for, the second of which I didn't. I answer the first because it proved my point. I didn't answer the second because it's an unknown outcome and not relevant to my argument. You are harping on this because you thought it was clever and made things easier for you.

In fact you said multiple times that nothing I said effected the outcome. That was an assertive statement. The onus is on you to back up your assertion. Are you going to do it? Or is this still showmanship?

You have one of two options. You brought up the slant because it was meaningful. If so, you should have so reason and evidence for doing so. Or you brought up the slant knowing it had no impact or meaning that you can demonstrate, rendering it little more than a gripe.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt that it was a meaningful claim. It seems now that was a mistake. It was merely a gripe you didn't want push back on. You're welcome to have gripes, but to be clear, you are willfully and openly admitting you have no basis that your gripe had any meaningful impact. This isn't showmanship, this is just me putting you in the corner I had you in at the beginning: you have a baseless complaint about 2016 beyond your perceptions or you have meat to your gripe. You chose perception based gripe, as I asserted it was at the beginning.

[Tendrin]

Do you have evidence that they took custodian ship of the data, that Bernie personally ever saw the data, that they used the data, or recorded the data? Because nobody in the DNC seems to have that evidence and they eventually gave Bernie access again.

Could it have been improperly used? Sure. I'll grant you that. Was it? No we don't know. So we can either believe him or not.

Edit: Also if there was a breach, the proper move was to shut it down for both of them, confirm it was fixed, and give both access. Just like they do in football if a headset has issues. They kept Bernie's team out for an extended period of time and it was a disadvantage and the error was caused by the DNC

Yes, of course. Blameless Bernie again, I see. I can see why you're so invested in continuing to scream about 2016 in 2020.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Yes, of course. Blameless Bernie again, I see. I can see why you're so invested in continuing to scream about 2016 in 2020.

I didn't say he was blameless. I said it was disputed whether his side did anything improper with the data that was accessible because of a breach by the DNC. It remains a disputed issue. I leave the door open for improper conduct if evidence presents itself. I see no need to take a stance without information just to prove a point on the matter. I also see no need to play the trump game of using names like "Blameless Bernie" to make a point and then project motives for other people.

Maybe we wouldn't be talking about 2016 if his 2016 opponent wasn't smearing him in the news and could bring herself to support him the way he traveled all across the country to support her. Idk maybe that's just unreasonable.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

You have one of two options. You brought up the slant because it was meaningful. If so, you should have so reason and evidence for doing so. Or you brought up the slant knowing it had no impact or meaning that you can demonstrate, rendering it little more than a gripe.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt that it was a meaningful claim. It seems now that was a mistake. It was merely a gripe you didn't want push back on. You're welcome to have gripes, but to be clear, you are willfully and openly admitting you have no basis that your gripe had any meaningful impact. This isn't showmanship, this is just me putting you in the corner I had you in at the beginning: you have a baseless complaint about 2016 beyond your perceptions or you have meat to your gripe. You chose perception based gripe, as I asserted it was at the beginning.

I brought up a slant because it was slanted and hurts the integrity of the process and is a legitimate point of dissatisfaction with how he was treating.

You are first and only person to bring up whether it had an impact on the outcome. You are also the only person who made a claim on it's relevancy on the outcome.

Truthfully we both know you only did it because you were incapable of arguing that the primary wasn't slanted so you wanted to change the argument. But practically I was giving you the benefit of the doubt an inviting you to prove your assertion as is expected in proper debate.

Now you are just using the same things I said you were doing and pulling an "I'm rubber and your glue". At least it's not name calling.

You also have a baseless claim that I have any obligation to argue for a point you asserted into the conversation for your own motives that we already called out.

Again it reflects on you, so feel free to keep doing it. But the fact that it's completely obvious what you are doing and you keep thinking it's working is pretty un perceptive.

[numberthirty]

I didn't say he was blameless. I said it was disputed whether his side did anything improper with the data that was accessible because of a breach by the DNC. It remains a disputed issue. I leave the door open for improper conduct if evidence presents itself. I see no need to take a stance without information just to prove a point on the matter. I also see no need to play the trump game of using names like "Blameless Bernie" to make a point and then project motives for other people.

Maybe we wouldn't be talking about 2016 if his 2016 opponent wasn't smearing him in the news and could bring herself to support him the way he traveled all across the country to support her. Idk maybe that's just unreasonable.

Even that alone, I could probably live with. It's not like I've ever actually expected better.

That drama production coming after that interview with Howard Stern?

It's a little too much like that quote folks in this thread like about when someone shows you who they are.

[Tendrin]

LANSING, Mich. – A state senator filed a sexual harassment allegation Tuesday against a state senator facing investigation over remarks to a female reporter.
State Sen. Mallory McMorrow, D-Royal Oak, said state Sen. Peter Lucido, R-Shelby Township, made her feel uncomfortable and degraded during orientation for new senators at the Senate office building in Lansing shortly after the election in November 2018.
As first reported by Crain's Detroit Business, McMorrow said she approached Lucido to introduce herself, when he shook her hand while using his other hand to hold her lower back, grazing her "upper rear" with his fingers.
Lucido asked where she was from and whom she ran against, and McMorrow said she was from Royal Oak and defeated Republican Sen. Marty Knollenberg.
"At that moment, still holding his hand on my low back, he looked me up and down, raised his eyebrows and said, 'I can see why,' " McMorrow said in a statement released Tuesday.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/charge-fi...190615880.html