2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumGuccifer 2.0 Leak Reveals How DNC Rigged Primaries for Clinton
Hillary Clinton didnt win the Democratic primaries through democratic means
http://observer.com/2016/06/guccifer-2-0-leak-reveals-how-dnc-rigged-primaries-for-clinton/#.V2WQfqrhi7R.twitter
Botany
(70,501 posts)n/t
Response to Botany (Reply #1)
Post removed
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)kayakjohnny
(5,235 posts)You know, kind of like Bernie is doing.
kayakjohnny
(5,235 posts)Besides, it's storming out and I have nothing better to do.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)Botany
(70,501 posts)but please keep your bitter feelings going if it makes you feel better
kayakjohnny
(5,235 posts)Kind of like Bernie has been for his whole life.
brush
(53,772 posts)tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Right?
Policies and trustworthiness be damned.
brush
(53,772 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 19, 2016, 10:06 AM - Edit history (1)
Hillary's lost to Obama in 2008 was razor thin (she actual had more votes, he more delegates), yet she conceded before the convention, campaigned for him pre-convention, and at the convention called for suspension of the first ballot and asked that Obama be declared the nominee by acclamation.
There was no holding out for "policies and trustworthiness", she accepted her loss, a much, much closer loss than Sanders has suffered, graciously and moved forward to help the party defeat the repug opponent.
That's how it's done. Defeating Trump now is way more important than anything else at this point. It's not too late for Sanders to pitch in. It will be soon though as he risks permanently damaging his legacy if he continues with his refusal to even acknowledge Clinton's win and fails to endorse her.
randome
(34,845 posts)* Primarily known for losing the Democratic nomination in 2016 against Hillary Clinton yet continuing his campaign until the convention, at which point he was outvoted by 3000 delegates, the largest margin of loss in DNC history.
bjo59
(1,166 posts)tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Big stage and part of the platform...
Win for Bernie!
BreakfastClub
(765 posts)will be remembered is that America voted for the first woman president in 2016. THAT is history in the making--not some guy who lost the primary by yuuuge margins. He won't be remembered. Sorry.
SirBrockington
(259 posts)Say something negative about Clinton and wait for em flood in.
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)-none
(1,884 posts)The new rules impart say:
Do not post disrespectful nicknames, insults, or highly inflammatory attacks against any Democratic public figures. Do not post anything that could be construed as bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for any Democratic general election candidate, and do not compare any Democratic general election candidate unfavorably to their general election opponent(s).
Why we have this rule: Our forum members support and admire a wide variety of Democratic politicians and public figures. Constructive criticism is always welcome, but our members don't expect to see Democrats viciously denigrated on this website. This rule also applies to Independents who align themselves with Democrats (eg: Bernie Sanders).
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)I fully understand and follow the rules.
-none
(1,884 posts)Many Hillary supporters seem to think Bernie and his supporters will be fair game come Monday, because Bernie ".... is not a Democrat." Never mind is running as one.
I think some people will be disappointed when Bernie bashing still will not allowed.
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)greiner3
(5,214 posts)Reading comprehension is your friend
Response to greiner3 (Reply #70)
DesertRat This message was self-deleted by its author.
randome
(34,845 posts)The things is, you were trolled yourselves when you bought into these fake 'Guccifer 2.0' documents. Go read the 6 or 7 other threads on this then come back and laugh with us at how gullible people are.
TheFarseer
(9,322 posts)But don't think the rest of us are crazy for caring who the president owes a favor to.
randome
(34,845 posts)Read all the other threads on this!
{Ow. My head hurts.}
TheFarseer
(9,322 posts)But I know about millions and millions in donations from corporations and foreign governments. I don't like the idea of a president that owes a favor to Saudi Arabia, China, Monsanto, Citigroup and big Pharma. But hey, nobody gives a f#!&k so why do I bother.
randome
(34,845 posts)But these documents are such incredible bullshit, it makes me wonder whether or not evolution is starting to take a side street. What is wrong with people who post such clear and compelling nonsense over and over again?
The so-called memo was written TO the DNC, not FROM them. All super-PACS work with the DNC. Even Sanders' campaign does! So what could possibly be the point of suggesting they indicate collusion?
{Really, I'm getting a headache now.}
Squinch
(50,949 posts)TheFarseer
(9,322 posts)I think you just heard that expression and wanted to throw it in somewhere.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)TheFarseer
(9,322 posts)If Hillary was your first choice, you can obviously rationalize money influencing politics. Is that even debatable?
Squinch
(50,949 posts)And it's come full circle.
emulatorloo
(44,119 posts)Squinch is implying this post of yours is a version of the loaded question fallacy:
"It's your prerogative to not care about corruption.
But don't think the rest of us are crazy for caring who the president owes a favor to."
This site lists and explains logical fallacies. It is a pretty good education site .
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html
Loaded Question
Form:
A question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition.
Exposition:
A "loaded question", like a loaded gun, is a dangerous thing. A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.
Since this example is a yes/no question, there are only the following two direct answers:
"Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which entails "I was beating my wife."
"No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which entails "I am still beating my wife."
Thus, either direct answer entails that you have beaten your wife, which is, therefore, a presupposition of the question. So, a loaded question is one which you cannot answer directly without implying a falsehood or a statement that you deny. For this reason, the proper response to such a question is not to answer it directly, but to either refuse to answer or to reject the question.
Some systems of parliamentary debate provide for "dividing the question", that is, splitting a complex question up into two or more simple questions. Such a move can be used to split the example as follows:
"Have you ever beaten your wife?"
"If so, are you still doing so?"
In this way, 1 can be answered directly by "no", and then the conditional question 2 does not arise.
Exposure:
Since a question is not an argument, simply asking a loaded question is not a fallacious argument. Rather, loaded questions are typically used to trick someone into implying something they did not intend. For instance, salespeople learn to ask such loaded questions as: "Will that be cash or charge?" This question gives only two alternatives, thus presuming that the potential buyer has already decided to make a purchase, which is similar to the Black-or-White Fallacy. If the potential buyer answers the question directly, he may suddenly find himself an actual buyer.
------------------
I agree with Squich that your post was a version of the Loaded Question fallacy.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)On Sun Jun 19, 2016, 01:41 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
And again, when did you stop beating your wife?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2203443
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Spam, spam, spam
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jun 19, 2016, 01:49 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Primaries are over.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: spam?
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Fact Fact Fact! Leave it the hell alone.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Hey~
Squinch
(50,949 posts)Response to kgnu_fan (Original post)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)Squinch
(50,949 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)brooklynite
(94,517 posts)...because, if you find this "evidence" compelling, how do you explain why Sanders hasn't lodged a single complaint about the integrity of the vote?
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)brooklynite
(94,517 posts)He'll do the right thing, won't he?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)It is just mind-boggling to see people actually posting articles from The Observer here.
apcalc
(4,465 posts)OMG. Total Fraud.
Well maybe Alex Jones or Glen Beck were not available.
Guccifer
That guy seems like such a good guy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer
emulatorloo
(44,119 posts)This one seems even more fraudulent to me.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)When that happens another spin cycle will kick-off and there will be something else wrong with it. There will be no proof good enough for a lot of people to even consider it.
obamanut2012
(26,068 posts)bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)in their avatars....yep.......But Bernie is still is still running for President tick tick tick talk.....................
MFM008
(19,808 posts).........
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)The revelation: The Democratic Party preferred a Democrat win the nomination. Wow. Truly earth shattering.
What this does reveal is the unyielding contempt the self-entitled continue to have for the equal voting rights of those who dare to vote differently from them. It proves how their concern for the people is limited to themselves to the exclusion of the overwhelming majority of voters. It also shows a complete inability to believe that anyone but themselves could possibly have the right to legitimate views or political decisions. It is a stunning demonstration of self-entitlement, the kind of self-entitlement that led them to spend the primary election cycle insulting the subaltern rather than trying to engage in persuasion, that prompted them to refuse to work for voter turnout but insist they were somehow owed power and the right to rule over the majority, and that any result that deprived them of that was somehow illegitimate. That this movement is overwhelmingly white and male and seeks to dismiss the votes of people of color, women, and the elderly makes clear what they ultimate goal is.
It also ignores the point that Bernie outspent Hillary 2-1, but lost in spite of that. Part of that reason was that he refused to devote adequate resources to organizing, which is why his CA campaign directly quit less than a month before that primary. Bernie chose to spend money on rallies and advertising, showing this "revolution" was far more focused on corporate media that organizing people to bring about change. That the same people insist polls generated by corporate media should take precedence over the votes of mere citizens exposes their rhetoric to be entirely self-serving.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)was not supported by the information in the thread itself or the link and that there has to be some standard for such accusations other than just posting malicious statements without any proof. I immediately received a DU email stating that I was alerting on a post that had already been alerted to, but so far, I haven't seen any further response from DU as to the results of review of any alert. There was a post further down that has hidden but that was not the OP post that I was alerting to. This is irresponsible. I hope the revised rules will up the standards for people making claims of 'rigging' which hasn't been proven or even alledged by someone from a credible source. If you tell a lie enough, it becomes the truth to many and DU should not allow itself to be used as a tool for spreading such unsubstantiated BS.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)unsubstantiated crap. The lies are coming out fast and furious these last two days.
stuffmatters
(2,574 posts)I'm sure Brown regrets to this day that he went along with Warren's agenda, but that certainly made for a much more "democratic" race. And that was Dem vs Repub...with big money salivating on the sidelines to contribute for Brown
There was no reason in this Democratic primary that PACS needed to be allowed. If both candidates stand, supposedly, Against Citizens United, then why aren't both eager to run against each other without the perversion of (often anonymous and TAXFREE) BIG SLUSH.
There was no need for for the Democratic Primary to be undemocratic. I never understood why the knee jerk excuse for HIllary's Super PAC against Bernie was that "she had to do it because ...the Repugs, that's the way it's done, everybody does it, etc.
Allowing BIG SLUSH into her Primary campaign, Hillary brought a Hummer to a bicycle race.
And no, Unions(like the Nurses) are not PACS,
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Take it to Alex Jones if you like the tinfoil hat trash.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... ever do that "Electoral Fantasies" blog ... I'll need you to supply the music!!
emulatorloo
(44,119 posts)But no From:? Seriously?
Hard for me to imagine that people can't see thru it. The 'observer' article spin takes the cake, and smells a bit fishy.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)It's not that difficult and it didn't require a conspiracy.
riversedge
(70,204 posts)okieinpain
(9,397 posts)Article says she cheated because she used the rules to her advantage. Lol, funniest thing I've read in a while.
Hekate
(90,667 posts)Are you in the right place?