ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 2016 elections , Clinton controversies , Democratic primaries , dnc , Donna Brazile , election controversies , hillary clinton

Reply
Old 4th November 2017, 07:50 AM   #201
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,676
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
To be honest, that's a private organisation which the public has a huge legitimate interest in, as it helps shape the policies of the land. You can't compare this to a car dealership, a lacrosse club or the Backshrub County Association for the Preservation of Historical Aprons.
No, the public does not.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 07:56 AM   #202
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,894
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
It is stated in the article that Clinton offered to bail out the broke DNC in exchange for the control she wanted. She gave them $20 million.

Are there any laws regarding campaign financing in a primary? It says she siphoned money from the Victory Fund as well as cash that should have stayed with the states she supposedly raised money for. If so how does she account for those donations? Maybe she doesn't have to?

According to Brazile she was able to go beyond the $2,700 limit per donor because money offered to the states can be much higher.

I don't pretend to know how this all works, just looking for comments.
Quote:
Yet the states kept less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fund-raisers Hillary’s campaign was holding, just as Gary had described to me when he and I talked in August. When the Politico story described this arrangement as “essentially … money laundering” for the Clinton campaign, Hillary’s people were outraged at being accused of doing something shady. Bernie’s people were angry for their own reasons, saying this was part of a calculated strategy to throw the nomination to Hillary.
aye, there is the rub, she was slamming Sanders about not helping people down the ballot while at the very same time she was gobbling up 99% of the funds including those intended for the States.

So the DNC ceded control, she starved the States of funds, and then hypocritically accused Sanders of doing in theory what she was doing in practice.
__________________
"I am strongly inclined to assume TBS's continued misconstrual reveals a serious problem about him."

Source and context

Last edited by The Big Dog; 4th November 2017 at 07:57 AM.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 07:59 AM   #203
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,676
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
aye, there is the rub, she was slamming Sanders about not helping people down the ballot while at the very same time she was gobbling up 99% of the funds including those intended for the States.

So the DNC ceded control, she starved the States of funds, and then hypocritically accused Sanders of doing in theory what she was doing in practice.
1% is more than 0% and doesn't describe the quantity. 1 could be significantly more than zero.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 08:03 AM   #204
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,894
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
1% is more than 0% and doesn't describe the quantity. 1 could be significantly more than zero.
less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million. Do the math.
__________________
"I am strongly inclined to assume TBS's continued misconstrual reveals a serious problem about him."

Source and context
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 08:06 AM   #205
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,676
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million. Do the math.
So, more than Sanders.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 08:12 AM   #206
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,894
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
So, more than Sanders.
That is right! Hillary's 99.5% plus that she sucked out of the Victory fund due to her secret agreement with the DNC was infinitely more than Sanders.

I think you are finally getting it.

Hillary ********** the whole ballot, not just Sanders.
__________________
"I am strongly inclined to assume TBS's continued misconstrual reveals a serious problem about him."

Source and context
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 08:17 AM   #207
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,676
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
That is right! Hillary's 99.5% plus that she sucked out of the Victory fund due to her secret agreement with the DNC was infinitely more than Sanders.

I think you are finally getting it.

Hillary ********** the whole ballot, not just Sanders.
I thought the goal post was only more than Sanders.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 08:17 AM   #208
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,977
"Hillary brought more money in, so her increased influence and access is warranted."

This is the same ideological group railing against Citizens United, right?

This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 08:22 AM   #209
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,811
Originally Posted by Cleon View Post
I guess Donna Brazile and Elizabeth Warren are "Bernie Bros" now?
It appears Donna Brazile is lying to sell books and Elizabeth Warren got snookered.
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 08:28 AM   #210
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,894
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I thought the goal post was only more than Sanders.
Exactly, Hillary took more than Sanders from the Victory fund.

Hillary used her special agreement with the DNC to set up a fund that allowed her to take advantage of the higher limits available to the State funds, take 99.5% percent of those funds, and claim that she was helping the folks down the ballot while Sanders was not.

In fact, she was capping out big local donors ability to contribute to the State parties while keeping all the money. ****, Mr. Ponzi would be impressed with the arrogance of that scam.
__________________
"I am strongly inclined to assume TBS's continued misconstrual reveals a serious problem about him."

Source and context
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 08:30 AM   #211
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,894
Originally Posted by Stacko View Post
It appears Donna Brazile is lying to sell books and Elizabeth Warren got snookered.
Quote:
Ray Buckley, the chairman of New Hampshire’s Democratic Party, said that he first learned of the agreement while serving as DNC vice chair in 2016. “The day that Donna discovered this, she called me and I almost passed out,” Buckley said. “We were blatantly misled.”
What is your excuse for Ray Buckley??
__________________
"I am strongly inclined to assume TBS's continued misconstrual reveals a serious problem about him."

Source and context
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 08:37 AM   #212
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,783
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
"Hillary brought more money in, so her increased influence and access is warranted."

This is the same ideological group railing against Citizens United, right?

This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be
This needs to be quoted to preserve it for posterity. Have you submitted this to Tucker or to Fox & Friends. They love this sort of reasonable-sounding cognitive dissonance.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 08:44 AM   #213
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,894
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
This needs to be quoted to preserve it for posterity. Have you submitted this to Tucker or to Fox & Friends. They love this sort of reasonable-sounding cognitive dissonance.
Oh I don't know that Hillary and her gang had cognitive dissonance on CU, no question that they knew they were hypocrites while pretending to be against CU while sucking that sweet, sweet SuperPac cash
__________________
"I am strongly inclined to assume TBS's continued misconstrual reveals a serious problem about him."

Source and context
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 08:46 AM   #214
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,676
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Oh I don't know that Hillary and her gang had cognitive dissonance on CU, no question that they knew they were hypocrites while pretending to be against CU while sucking that sweet, sweet SuperPac cash
People respond to incentives. There is nothing wrong with supporting a rule change while adhering and responding to the incentives of the current rule structure.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 08:54 AM   #215
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,386
I'm going to have to agree with Trump supporters that Hillary Clinton stole the rigged election from Bernie. She received 55% of the popular vote to Sanders' 43%. I also agree that Russian hacking and Comey's late announcement had absolutely no effect on the outcome of the general election, which Hillary Clinton lost in a LANDSLIDE (meaning if .1% of voters in certain states had gone the other way, she would've won both the popular vote and the Electoral College).
__________________
November 2nd, 2016:
Cain: Americans are so ******* stupid.
Shalamar: This is why I'm certain Trump will win.

Last edited by Cain; 4th November 2017 at 08:56 AM.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 09:02 AM   #216
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 43,959
Time for a third party? To quote a past presidential candidate: "the politics of failure have failed, we need to make them work again."
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 09:25 AM   #217
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,483
TBD, what a great thread, but you’re to cause the five stages of grief all over again.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 09:27 AM   #218
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,894
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
I'm going to have to agree with Trump supporters that Hillary Clinton stole the rigged election from Bernie. She received 55% of the popular vote to Sanders' 43%. I also agree that Russian hacking and Comey's late announcement had absolutely no effect on the outcome of the general election, which Hillary Clinton lost in a LANDSLIDE (meaning if .1% of voters in certain states had gone the other way, she would've won both the popular vote and the Electoral College).
protip: citing to the electoral results in a rigged election isn't exactly the most persuasive argument.

Any comments about the effect of Hillary gobbling up cash intended for the races down the ballot, or just going ignore that and go with sarcasm?
__________________
"I am strongly inclined to assume TBS's continued misconstrual reveals a serious problem about him."

Source and context
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 09:34 AM   #219
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,977
Here, I'll be an example:

Even though I support many positions and policies and agree Trump is way worse, I am sometimes disappointed in the DNC.

It's really not that hard.

This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 09:38 AM   #220
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,049
Bernie Sanders was not the one who got robbed in all this. In fact, Bernie was the big winner, in my opinion.

I like listening to Bernie. He's well spoken. However, he's an avowed socialist, and he practices what he preaches. I wouldn't vote for him unless he was up against a truly horrific candidate, like Donald Trump.

The Clinton influence on the Democratic Party was so powerful that serious alternatives to Hillary stayed away. That left Sanders and a few non-entities. Had there been a serious alternative to Clinton, Bernie would not have been in the spotlight. He was this year's Howard Dean, great for the youthful idealists, but not a serious chance at winning the White House or even the nomination.

Serious candidates knew that the party had the power to steer the nominating process toward Clinton. It was "her turn". She joins Bob Dole and Walter Mondale in that club of candidates chosen by party insiders. As a consequence, we have President Trump. Congratulations, party insiders.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 09:45 AM   #221
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,543
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I usually disagree with you, but I think that you have a good point here, up until your prediction. Maybe changes will come, maybe not, but the feelings of being cheated seem likely.
If you feel cheated, what do you do? You make darn sure they don't cheat again; and if you have the ability, you try to change the rules a bit to favor your guy. This is what the anti-war Democrats did back after 1968; they took control of the party machinery to ensure that candidates needed primary support in order to win. They had a better argument back then, but that's unlikely to deter the Sanderistas.

Quote:
On the other hand, back in the days of the smoke filled rooms selecting candidates, a Trump would never make it out the gate. And that would be better. Used to be that parties stood for something, but not so much any more. Trump is not a Republican or a conservative. He's just Trump.
Probably, but there'd also probably be no President Obama either. Hillary would have cruised to the nomination in 2008.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 10:48 AM   #222
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,156
Ah, nostalgia for the smoke filled back rooms! The good old days! Or were they?

There's an old Russian saying: "The best ruler is a good czar, the worst ruler is a bad czar."

The implication is that it's better for the people to have no czar, and rule themselves for better or worse.

But sooner or later someone wants to go back to the czar.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 11:10 AM   #223
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,386
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
protip: citing to the electoral results in a rigged election isn't exactly the most persuasive argument.
If they did a better job rigging it, she would have won by more. Or by less. It was just obviously rigged since there's no way someone with as little name recognition as Clinton could defeat an old Jew who has always identified as a socialist and never as a Democrat, especially considering he comes from the gigantic state of Vermont.

Quote:
Any comments about the effect of Hillary gobbling up cash intended for the races down the ballot, or just going ignore that and go with sarcasm?
Nah. I'm gonna stick with the rigging/influence stuff. Clinton Cash threw the Democratic primary her way, but outside parties had no effect on the general election.
__________________
November 2nd, 2016:
Cain: Americans are so ******* stupid.
Shalamar: This is why I'm certain Trump will win.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 11:17 AM   #224
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,894
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
If they did a better job rigging it, she would have won by more. Or by less. It was just obviously rigged since there's no way someone with as little name recognition as Clinton could defeat an old Jew who has always identified as a socialist and never as a Democrat, especially considering he comes from the gigantic state of Vermont.

Nah. I'm gonna stick with the rigging/influence stuff. Clinton Cash threw the Democratic primary her way, but outside parties had no effect on the general election.
Yes, I fully expected that you, like all the other Clinton apologists have done in this thread, would ignore Clinton's siphoning off cash from down the ballot. Did it cost them any chance of winning the House or Senate thereby mitigating the election of Trump?

It's cool, we totally get it. Facts are hard sometimes.
__________________
"I am strongly inclined to assume TBS's continued misconstrual reveals a serious problem about him."

Source and context
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 11:19 AM   #225
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,704
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post

Serious candidates knew that the party had the power to steer the nominating process toward Clinton. It was "her turn". She joins Bob Dole and Walter Mondale in that club of candidates chosen by party insiders. As a consequence, we have President Trump. Congratulations, party insiders.
That about sums it up.
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 11:31 AM   #226
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,785
Originally Posted by Stacko View Post
It appears Donna Brazile is lying to sell books and Elizabeth Warren got snookered.
Does it? I haven't seen evidence of lying. Pardon me if I've missed something, but please do direct me to reliable sources to this effect.

Thanks. I admit I'm not keeping up with this story, but your allegation was surprising to me.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 11:33 AM   #227
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,785
Originally Posted by logger View Post
TBD, what a great thread, but you’re to cause the five stages of grief all over again.
Ha ha! Ha ha! Oh, mercy!

It's so funny when people are concerned about the news. Why can't they just ignore it? Stupid people!
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 11:38 AM   #228
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,785
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Ah, nostalgia for the smoke filled back rooms! The good old days! Or were they?

There's an old Russian saying: "The best ruler is a good czar, the worst ruler is a bad czar."

The implication is that it's better for the people to have no czar, and rule themselves for better or worse.

But sooner or later someone wants to go back to the czar.
I never suggested such a thing.

There were good results from the proverbial smoke-filled rooms. There were bad results, too (one of which Brainster pointed out -- Obama would not have made it through that process and he turned out to be a decent president).

I'd like that the Republican establishment was a little more in control of Republicans. I think that Trump is a dark stain on what we loosely call the conservatives. I think that decent, principled conservatives actually agree with me on this. But decent, principled conservatives have lost control of the party, which is no longer principled but opportunistic. Damn shame, because principles matter, they spur reasoned debate and conversation, whereas what Trump aims for is mere blind loyalty to a mere man.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 11:41 AM   #229
Elagabalus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,781
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Does it? I haven't seen evidence of lying. Pardon me if I've missed something, but please do direct me to reliable sources to this effect.

Thanks. I admit I'm not keeping up with this story, but your allegation was surprising to me.
It's in the other thread.
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 11:44 AM   #230
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,811
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Does it? I haven't seen evidence of lying. Pardon me if I've missed something, but please do direct me to reliable sources to this effect.

Thanks. I admit I'm not keeping up with this story, but your allegation was surprising to me.
Here and here. There was a tawdry agreement between the DNC and Hillary's campaign but it had nothing to do with fundraising as she claimed. The Sanders campaign also had a joint fundraising agreement with DNC which she claims they didn't. Let's face it: The Hillary campaign had an exclusive tawdry agreement to approve some DNC staff is not a sexy book selling scandal.
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 11:49 AM   #231
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,811
Here's her latest stinker. DNC rules do not give the chair the authority to unilaterally replace a nominee. Delegates would reconvene if there was a vacancy. On the other hand, this is a nice hook for the people that wish Biden would have run.
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 11:57 AM   #232
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,894
what is interesting is that Clinton surrogates are all over the place repeating the same ridiculous talking points, ignoring the damage they did down the ballot and ripping on Sanders and others all on the name of propping up Hillary's failed legacy.

Some people just want to watch the world burn....
__________________
"I am strongly inclined to assume TBS's continued misconstrual reveals a serious problem about him."

Source and context
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 12:02 PM   #233
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,977
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Ah, nostalgia for the smoke filled back rooms! The good old days! Or were they?

There's an old Russian saying: "The best ruler is a good czar, the worst ruler is a bad czar."

The implication is that it's better for the people to have no czar, and rule themselves for better or worse.

But sooner or later someone wants to go back to the czar.
Not a fan of smoke filled back rooms.

But they were better than this gold-plated feces we have now.

How American Politics Went Insane

Short version: parties, as all institutions, try to preserve themselves. The Democratic reorganizations of the 60s are a great example. The party has to turn out votes and win elections, so members not likely to win couldn't just buy their way to the top. Steering a party to a loss would take quite more gift giving than that system would allow. Basically the party ruled its members (even as they patronized in). Now, it's every member for themselves largely raising their own war chest (and "totally not coordinated" super-PACs).

There's no reason to abide by party procedures and play that old back filled room game.

This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be

Or maybe secret financing deals while screwing each other over with you donation dollars is a "smoke filled back room" narrative and precious Saint Hillary is just another one of the "old boys" who run it?

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 4th November 2017 at 12:05 PM.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 12:14 PM   #234
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,156
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I never suggested such a thing.

There were good results from the proverbial smoke-filled rooms. There were bad results, too (one of which Brainster pointed out -- Obama would not have made it through that process and he turned out to be a decent president).

I'd like that the Republican establishment was a little more in control of Republicans. I think that Trump is a dark stain on what we loosely call the conservatives. I think that decent, principled conservatives actually agree with me on this. But decent, principled conservatives have lost control of the party, which is no longer principled but opportunistic. Damn shame, because principles matter, they spur reasoned debate and conversation, whereas what Trump aims for is mere blind loyalty to a mere man.
As a decent, principled conservative, I see it very differently, and I don't actually agree with you.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 12:16 PM   #235
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,283
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Exactly, Hillary took more than Sanders from the Victory fund.

Hillary used her special agreement with the DNC to set up a fund that allowed her to take advantage of the higher limits available to the State funds, take 99.5% percent of those funds, and claim that she was helping the folks down the ballot while Sanders was not.

In fact, she was capping out big local donors ability to contribute to the State parties while keeping all the money. ****, Mr. Ponzi would be impressed with the arrogance of that scam.
No, you're ignoring the money the DNC got, and the fact that it was because of their debts that the state parties got screwed, and that that debt payoff effectively meant that the DNC got more benefit from the fund than individual contributions would have allowed, whereas Clinton didn't get anything out of the fund that she wouldn't have gotten if the Victory Fund was just for her campaign. The complaint of the state parties is that they feel used to raise contributions that didn't benefit state races as much as implied by the promotions -- a valid complaint, but I don't think Democrats need any help from Republicans in dealing with it, thank you.
WilliamSeger is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 12:30 PM   #236
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,156
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Not a fan of smoke filled back rooms.

But they were better than this gold-plated feces we have now.

How American Politics Went Insane

Short version: parties, as all institutions, try to preserve themselves. The Democratic reorganizations of the 60s are a great example. The party has to turn out votes and win elections, so members not likely to win couldn't just buy their way to the top. Steering a party to a loss would take quite more gift giving than that system would allow. Basically the party ruled its members (even as they patronized in). Now, it's every member for themselves largely raising their own war chest (and "totally not coordinated" super-PACs).

There's no reason to abide by party procedures and play that old back filled room game.

This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be

Or maybe secret financing deals while screwing each other over with you donation dollars is a "smoke filled back room" narrative and precious Saint Hillary is just another one of the "old boys" who run it?
The smoke filled room gave us Hillary. The lack of one gave us Trump.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 12:41 PM   #237
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,785
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
As a decent, principled conservative, I see it very differently, and I don't actually agree with you.
Fair enough.

Do you regard Trump as a decent, principled conservative?

Note that I'm not asking of he was better than Hillary, but rather whether he is the sort of man exemplifying your principles.

Thanks for your response.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 01:06 PM   #238
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,304
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
To be honest, that's a private organisation which the public has a huge legitimate interest in, as it helps shape the policies of the land. You can't compare this to a car dealership, a lacrosse club or the Backshrub County Association for the Preservation of Historical Aprons.
The public has a legit interest in Exxon Oil's contribution to global warming, it still requires a specific law if I want to address that.

What specific law do you believe the DNC violated?
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 01:15 PM   #239
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,304
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
....
The Clinton influence on the Democratic Party was so powerful that serious alternatives to Hillary stayed away. ...
Serious candidates knew that the party had the power to steer the nominating process toward Clinton. It was "her turn". She joins Bob Dole and Walter Mondale in that club of candidates chosen by party insiders. As a consequence, we have President Trump. Congratulations, party insiders.
Do tell us, other than the fact a lot of Democrats actually preferred Clinton, how exactly did this "steering" work?
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 01:17 PM   #240
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,304
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
That about sums it up.
I repeat the question for you, do tell us, other than the fact a lot of Democrats actually preferred Clinton, how exactly did this "steering" work?
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:25 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.