Jump to content

Donald Trump 2019


Francisco 2.0

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

But Hillary and the DNC rigged the primaries and that's why everyone voted for Trump

Quote

In June 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz for violating the DNC Charter by rigging the Democratic presidential primaries for Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders. Even former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid admitted in July 2016, “I knew—everybody knew—that this was not a fair deal.” He added that Debbie Wasserman Schultz should have resigned much sooner than she did. The lawsuit was filed to push the DNC to admit their wrongdoing and provide Bernie Sanders supporters, who supported him financially with millions of dollars in campaign contributions, with restitution for being cheated.

On August 25, 2017, Federal Judge William Zloch, dismissed the lawsuit after several months of litigation during which DNC attorneys argued that the DNC would be well within their rights to select their own candidate. “In evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true—that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor Clinton and sought to propel her ahead of her Democratic opponent,” the court order dismissing the lawsuit stated. This assumption of a plaintiff’s allegation is the general legal standard in the motion to dismiss stage of any lawsuit. The allegations contained in the complaint must be taken as true unless they are merely conclusory allegations or are invalid on their face.

...

The Court continued, “For their part, the DNC and Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter’s promise of ‘impartiality and evenhandedness’ as a mere political promise—political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal courts.

...

gettyimages-151238664.jpg?quality=80&w=7

https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/

 

Incumbents are a bit different, wouldn't you say?  DWS showed the way to the future.  The R's weren't suing the DNC over Hillary's financing of the DNC and subsequent takeover(see book by Donna B., former interim DNC chair, CNN fired, Fox hired).  Who was suing the DNC, see link?

Edited by zork
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

LMAO.  Sure, zork.  Whatever you say.  Whatever lets you sleep at night.

Even if not, see the bolded part of the quote.  DNC showed what the political parties are in matter of factness.  Not about fairness, about political expediency.  (paraphrase)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, zork said:

Even if not, see the bolded part of the quote.  DNC showed what the political parties are in matter of factness.  Not about fairness, about political expediency.  (paraphrase)

 

So, are you ok with parties rigging primaries or not? If it was wrong when the DNC did it, its still wrong now. Can't have it both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2016: OMG THE DEMOCRATS ARE DOING SOMETHING THAT MAKES THEM UNELECTABLE AND THEREFORE THEY WILL NOT GET MY VOTE

2020: *Republicans do the same thing* Well, the Democrats did the same thing in 2016, therefore by some weird logic that makes no sense, this thing that used to be a deal-breaker for me is no longer a deal-beaker for me, BUT NOW HERE'S THIS NEW THING THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE DOING THAT MAKES THEM UNELECTABLE AND THEREFORE THEY WILL NOT GET MY VOTE

2024: *Republicans do the same thing* Well, the Democrats did the same thing in 2020....

Edited by Chuckie Finster
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

So, are you ok with parties rigging primaries or not? If it was wrong when the DNC did it, its still wrong now. Can't have it both ways.

Since the court made the decision the question is moot.  Don't have to like it.  I don't.  But what are we to do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the President of the United States crudely doctored an official US document and then presented it as fact for all to see. Then when asked about it, lied claiming he knew nothing about it.

Is this where we are? Seriously?

45% for Americans going to endorse this behavior at the ballot box.  We have got problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

You seem to be criticizing the DNC for doing it, but not the GOP for doing it. Hmm, seems there is a word for that kind of thing.

I was very critical as it was occurring, the former Baltimore mayor running at the time was who I parrot'd at the time.  Then I pointed out Brazille's book that chronicled the Clinton DNC takeover, after she was discredited for a time following her CNN leaks pointed out in Wiki-leaks.  Then Trump won, and the lawsuit I linked above was discussed on Shaggy.  

Well,  the DNC won the lawsuit.  New law or more truth about how the national parties actually operate was brought back out into the open after the long ago back room deals were supposedly(as far as most people, I believe, knew) in the past.  

I have zero say in it other than to post on a BBS occasionally.  If it is hypocritical to point something out, find out that it is legal from a decently public lawsuit on the very topic then shrug my shoulders when the other party does it as well to a certain degree?  OK I guess.  I do believe an incumbent is more likely to have it happen in the future than say, limiting a race to 3 people again like DNC 2016.  That seems obvious to me.(see current DNC system that seems to be more fair even if the low percentage people still are complaining)

Akin to moving the bitching out to the 4-5th place teams in the BCS instead of the 2-3rd places, or if it goes to 8 teams then the bitching will be about the 7th and 8th places while the first 6 are pretty certain to belong.

Marianne Williamson and Tulsi are bitching some, but they are so low on the percentages that the 6 clear front runners still rightfully are in it without question.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

"lamestream media" has got the trump supporters furiously masturbating.

my latest target, shall we say, has been the BBC reporter I found this morning.  above average looks, loves the markets, holy frijole:

Spoiler

45911686_266329114231988_882285816269525

64918184_146467539761723_816670664136797

47428281_1470160576450245_2956695978748021435373_1907119052948022_49040342889634

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:

 


Is there any precedent for this? Sounds very autocratic.

 

Yes.

Arizona (D) did not hold one in 2012 or 1996.  Kansas (D) also did not have one in 1996. South Carolina (D) skipped 1996 and 2012 and (R) skipped 1984 and 2004.  Iowa (R) also suspended its caucus in 1992. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:

 


Is there any precedent for this? Sounds very autocratic.

 

Precedent for what?  Our history is replete with variability in the way parties select their candidates, including primaries, no primaries, meetings in bars, whatever.  None of this is spelled out in the Constitution.  I don't think the Constitution even mentions political parties (although I'd have to check).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so i was reading this article about boris johnson and brexit, but found this particular passage hit very close to home.

https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/09/06/week-in-review-clinging-to-reality-under-a-post-truth-govern

Quote

This stuff has a corrosive effect on the brain. When you step back from it you realise how profoundly and unalterably weird it all is. But when you're involved in it day-after-day you start to go native. You give up on the idea that he would ever tell the truth and simply evaluate whatever today's comments are in terms of possibilities for future strategy.

Does this mean he's planning an election? Does it mean he'll expel MPs from the party? Does that mean he'll  trigger a vote of no-confidence in himself? We lose the wood for the trees. We become so cynical ourselves that we don't even realise what we're losing.

Politics descends into a game of strategy with no values and few means for people to hold power to account, because they have no idea what the government wants or how it seeks to achieve it. People keep on referring to this as some sort of chess game. In fact it's more like Cluedo.

The game could go several ways. At the moment, Johnson is losing. But later things might improve for him. And yet whichever way it goes, conducting government like this means we all lose something. We lose the basic notion of any objective truth in the manner government is conducted.

That is a process which always helps the powerful. If there is no empirical basis to assess government behaviour, it cannot be held to account. There is no action to evaluate, or goal to compare it to.

It also corroborates the widespread view of all politicians as liars. This corrosion is profoundly dangerous. Politicians might not be particularly lovable, but they're better than the alternative. Trust levels were already incredibly low. After a few years of this - of the most obvious lying and scheming imaginable with no particular principle behind it beyond self-advancement - they will be non-existent.

The Johnson government is like HR Geiger's Alien. Even when you shoot and wound it, the poison in its blood melts the hull of the ship. That's where we are now. The basic operating function of his manner of government is corroding the structures of our political system. The longer this continues, the worse the damage will get.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:

 


Is there any precedent for this? Sounds very autocratic.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Yes.

Arizona (D) did not hold one in 2012 or 1996.  Kansas (D) also did not have one in 1996. South Carolina (D) skipped 1996 and 2012 and (R) skipped 1984 and 2004.  Iowa (R) also suspended its caucus in 1992. 

 

6 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Yeah, the GOP did it to Buchanan versus Bush I.   In Iowa and South Dakota and maybe others. 

 

Sheeeeeeit:

Quote

...

The convention had essentially become obsolete by the 1972 Democratic Convention in Miami. Following the party reforms of the early 1970s, state primary elections could provide enough delegates to choose the nominee. Senator George McGovern—who had helped write the Democratic Party’s new nominating rules — garnered a majority of Democratic delegates by the time the convention began. (McGovern was then crushed by Nixon in a landslide.) So we may never again have a repeat of 1924, when the Democrats took 17 days and 103 ballots in the longest convention ever to nominate John W. Davis –who was and remains an obscure congressman from West Virginia.

But once upon a time, conventions mattered. They chose the candidates, often with plenty of intrigue and horse-trading in the notorious “smoke-filled rooms” of yesteryear. And for that reason, some memorable conventions have changed the course of history. Here, in chronological order, are the Ten Most Consequential Conventions, also highlighting a few significant convention “Firsts.”

...

moar here:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-top-10-political-conventions-that-mattered-the-most-15502885/

https://theintercept.com/2019/06/30/superdelegates-2020-democratic-nominee/

less about presidency, more about general politicking:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/02/why-backroom-deals-arent-so-bad/71639/

 

 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Go to the 4:25 mark of this video and press play. It’s a surprise. 

You can stop at the 5:00 mark and yes, that’s his wife with the purse.

This is wild stuff. Glad Mark didn't pull out the 2 pounds of condoms Paul made his wife carry for those random interracial gangbangs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

You seem to be criticizing the DNC for doing it, but not the GOP for doing it. Hmm, seems there is a word for that kind of thing.

What you have to understand is that people like zork are very stupid and will think what they're told to think by authorities they trust.  They're told that Hillary rigged the DNC and that it was bad, so they think it was bad. They're told that the GOP cancelling primaries is acceptable, so they think it is acceptable. That's all there is to it. Everything else is simply how they rationalize it internally.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i love it when he "quotes" someone without attribution. or maybe he's not quoting someone. maybe he's just using "scare quotes." who knows? does he even know?

so wait, let's stop and discuss how tariffs actually oh fuck it

If billions are pouring in from tariffs, why not use those extra billions for the wall instead of taking it away from military spending?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

What you have to understand is that people like zork are very stupid and will think what they're told to think by authorities they trust.  They're told that Hillary rigged the DNC and that it was bad, so they think it was bad. They're told that the GOP cancelling primaries is acceptable, so they think it is acceptable. That's all there is to it. Everything else is simply how they rationalize it internally.

did you read the lawsuit results from the dnc thing in 2016?  the party controls the nominating process.  laypeople in the hinterlands can pound sand and like it or not.  I don't like it but understand since the incumbent is likely to run or be a yuge divisive presence if shunned.  it was evident in the primaries running up , especially early, in 2016 when there was an attempt to get R candidates to pledge not to run third party if they didn't win the R nomination.  

Whether I think it is acceptable or not, I don't like it, is immaterial since I hold zero power in the R nominating process.  

I will admit Donna Brazielle is not the most trustworthy character so maybe her book is all BS.  The way it read, and the way the DNC argued the court case, seem to match up pretty well though given the dearth of debates, candidates and process that was argued in the lawsuit(not my opinion)

What is to rationalize what is the argument given the results of the lawsuit?

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say, zork.  Your first response suggested it's OK for the Republicans to cancel primaries because Trump is the incumbent.  Now you're seemingly saying you don't like any of it but you don't have to.  Which is it?  You drew the distinction of an incumbency -- clearly that makes it a lesser evil in your mind.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say, zork.  Your first response suggested it's OK for the Republicans to cancel primaries because Trump is the incumbent.  Now you're seemingly saying you don't like any of it but you don't have to.  Which is it?  You drew the distinction of an incumbency -- clearly that makes it a lesser evil in your mind.  

I fleshed out my reasoning of my opinion on what was possibly the reason for the R actions in the subsequent posts.  The first post was a one liner-ish.  Incumbency IS different than a race without, but the pre-condition of the referenced lawsuit (results therein) has been known since well before today and is a more important point that I did not spell out in that first short post IMHO.   Believe it or not. 

Less evil is not what I would call it anyway, not that it matters because the party can do what it wants essentially. Less likely to matter with an incumbent who has shown no overt verbiage that he isn't running is clearly why.   And again, what I believe doesn't matter.  This isn't about me.  

The party knows, logically and my opinion,  they are tied to Trump unless he decides, for whatever reason, he doesn't want to run.  If only because, again back to the 2016 race loyalty oath, if Trump was ouster-ed, kicked out, by the R's unwillingly he could torpedo the race by running on his own.(IND, Third party, etc)

I don't recall you giving an opinion on the referenced DNC lawsuit?  Of course it was on Shaggy IIRC.

 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, zork said:

I don't recall you giving an opinion on the referenced DNC lawsuit?  Of course it was on Shaggy IIRC.

I never had a reason to dig in.  The parties can do what they want.  Hillary Clinton quite literally bailed out the DNC -- it's no surprise that they wanted her as their candidate.

Again, our country's history is littered with examples of a few powerful men picking their party's candidate with NO input from the electorate.  This is a complete non-issue.  Always has been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...