Jump to content


- - - - -

Schultzgate


#1 Sarang01   My Use Name Is Saber CAGiversary!   5586 Posts   Joined 15.1 Years Ago  

Posted 22 December 2015 - 09:00 PM

I was hoping people like Myke and others might comment on this issue.  How do you feel Bernie handled this issue at the debate?  What about Hillary?

 

It use to be this forum was hopping with dohdough, Myke and others.



#2 mykevermin   Queen of Scotland CAGiversary!   37011 Posts   Joined 15.1 Years Ago  

Posted 07 January 2016 - 05:03 PM

Which issue specifically?

 

I haven't been around all that much because this forum isn't particularly fun. There's no debate, just heel digging and goalpost moving. - Go see the active cognitive dissonance where people are denying that there is overt racism and xenophobia in the GOP candidates running for president to see what I mean.

 

If you can't even admit that, you're not worth debating or discussing with. You place you're being right ahead of the discussion in advance of everything else - including, ironically, being right.

 

That said, Schultz is awful and has to go. Scheduling the Democratic debates when she did and the data bullshit are nonsensical and anti-democratic (principals, not party). I like Sanders (but ironically loathe most Sanders supporters) and prefer him over Clinton. However I am not anti-Clinton, so I'm comfortable with whatever the outcome of the primary is - but I want it to be fair, and Schultz is prohibiting that.



#3 Sarang01   My Use Name Is Saber CAGiversary!   5586 Posts   Joined 15.1 Years Ago  

Posted 07 January 2016 - 10:51 PM

Which issue specifically?

 

I haven't been around all that much because this forum isn't particularly fun. There's no debate, just heel digging and goalpost moving. - Go see the active cognitive dissonance where people are denying that there is overt racism and xenophobia in the GOP candidates running for president to see what I mean.

 

If you can't even admit that, you're not worth debating or discussing with. You place you're being right ahead of the discussion in advance of everything else - including, ironically, being right.

 

That said, Schultz is awful and has to go. Scheduling the Democratic debates when she did and the data bullshit are nonsensical and anti-democratic (principals, not party). I like Sanders (but ironically loathe most Sanders supporters) and prefer him over Clinton. However I am not anti-Clinton, so I'm comfortable with whatever the outcome of the primary is - but I want it to be fair, and Schultz is prohibiting that.

Do you frequent Democratic Underground for talk?



#4 mykevermin   Queen of Scotland CAGiversary!   37011 Posts   Joined 15.1 Years Ago  

Posted 07 January 2016 - 11:05 PM

Nope. I don't do much chatting/writing outside of CAG (and even here, the wrestling threads) and social media.



#5 MSI Magus   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   8156 Posts   Joined 15.5 Years Ago  

Posted 11 January 2016 - 04:30 AM

It is a sign of how corrupt the Democratic party structure is that Schultz has been able to keep her job this long. I mean the fact that we did not have money to put on a convention this year alone should scream how badly she is failing at her job. Add in constant other set backs like Democrats losing the Senate and you have to wonder how even with corruption she has kept her job this long.

 

Also big respect to ya Myke. Most people just can not recognize on political forums that its just endless bickering, name calling, goal post moving and stepping all over their own shoes trying to twist logic to fit peoples own childish fantasies of how they in-vision the world working.

 

There are just some things like as you said racism in the Republican party and a lack of a backbone in the Democratic party that if you cant admit to, you just are not worth talking to. It really does endlessly blow my mind that the only way we improve as individuals, a society and a species is to honestly and openly admit our flaws, yet it is the one thing most people just are incapable of psychologically doing.



#6 mykevermin   Queen of Scotland CAGiversary!   37011 Posts   Joined 15.1 Years Ago  

Posted 11 January 2016 - 12:50 PM

Wait. Does the DNC put on an annual convention, including in non-presidential years?



#7 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6854 Posts   Joined 10.0 Years Ago  

Posted 11 January 2016 - 02:19 PM

Wait. Does the DNC put on an annual convention, including in non-presidential years?

I'm pretty sure it's just presidential years. Conservatives are the ones with all of those think tank/PAC conventions every year.



#8 mykevermin   Queen of Scotland CAGiversary!   37011 Posts   Joined 15.1 Years Ago  

Posted 11 January 2016 - 03:38 PM

Well, you can't control what PACs do, so I'm a bit reluctant to foist that on Preibus et al (even if they may very well be deliberate mercenaries).

 

More to the point, I didn't think that the Democrats did have them annually. 

 

I'm not sure I see a lack of backbone in the Democrats these days They've seemed to become bolder in recent years, showing a willingness to not roll over and play dead like they did during both Bush terms (the fear of standing up to republican neoliberal scorched earth policy ending with them being labeled anti-American notwithstanding).

 

The most insidious thing about burying the primaries to help Clinton over Sanders is that, for the progressive people who latched onto Obama for "hope and change" who otherwise either (a) don't think of themselves as Democrats or (b) are otherwise going to sit out an election cycle if the Democrat isn't really to their liking (see Kentucky and Matt Bevin's election) - this behavior all screams "old timey Democrat machine." We're gonna push our friends and insiders whether you like it or not, and reinforce to people who are tend to very very easily become jaded about the electoral process that the Democrats are corrupt, insider-focused and some kind of "more of the same" compared to Republicans.

 

And, for a change, they'll be right and it's not a conspiracy theory.

 

Again, I'll vote for either, but the lack of fairness the DNC is instilling in this process is very, very disappointing. Ain't nobody entitled to the nomination. The Republicans forgot that in 2000 with George W. Bush, but they're sure as hell aware of that this year. Fuck your manifest destiny, the world doesn't owe you shit.



#9 MSI Magus   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   8156 Posts   Joined 15.5 Years Ago  

Posted 11 January 2016 - 03:51 PM

Wait. Does the DNC put on an annual convention, including in non-presidential years?

I think its just in election years. To provide a link for what I was talking about

 

http://www.washingto...ntion/?page=all

 

Again basically just states Democrats have just a few million on hand so Schultz has floated an idea that would put tax payers on the hook for around 20 million. It just does not sit right with me at all and if Democrats can not raise money it says a lot about how unenthusiastic people are for our flag bearers(Schultz, Clinton and Obama)at the moment.

 

Lets be honest how many of us Democrats want to call ourselves Democrats and how many of us just do so because the racism and ignoring of history on the other side? How many people in the Democratic party can you say you just REALLY respect? Now among the few like Sherrod Brown or Elizabeth Warren people might name....so few have any power in the party and sooooo few non politics wonks know who they are.



#10 mykevermin   Queen of Scotland CAGiversary!   37011 Posts   Joined 15.1 Years Ago  

Posted 11 January 2016 - 04:03 PM

The Washington Times is a neoliberal propaganda paper (owned by the Moonies) masquerading as a legit paper.

 

The article suggests what Schultz is trying to do is bring back some elements of public campaign finance, including conventions. I'm okay with that (and think we need to go way, way back in order to unfuck ourselves from things like the Citizens United decision, the lack of necessity to disclose PAC donors, and so on). I'm happy to critique Schultz where necessary, but putting public campaign finance ahead of private plutocrat shadow funding of elections (what we have now) is a-okay with me.

 

I mean, we live in a time where Sheldon Adelson *bought* a paper that frequently disagreed with him in op-eds, tried to hide the fact that he owned it, and cease their anti-him op-eds. He bought out his opposition. The power and insidiousness of that is horrifying. And this dude is one of the plutocrats seeking to buy elections. The public can't compete with him financially, so it's very important to not stack the deck even *more* in his favor.

 

All IMO, natch.



#11 MSI Magus   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   8156 Posts   Joined 15.5 Years Ago  

Posted 11 January 2016 - 04:18 PM

The Washington Times is a neoliberal propaganda paper (owned by the Moonies) masquerading as a legit paper.

 

The article suggests what Schultz is trying to do is bring back some elements of public campaign finance, including conventions. I'm okay with that (and think we need to go way, way back in order to unfuck ourselves from things like the Citizens United decision, the lack of necessity to disclose PAC donors, and so on). I'm happy to critique Schultz where necessary, but putting public campaign finance ahead of private plutocrat shadow funding of elections (what we have now) is a-okay with me.

 

I mean, we live in a time where Sheldon Adelson *bought* a paper that frequently disagreed with him in op-eds, tried to hide the fact that he owned it, and cease their anti-him op-eds. He bought out his opposition. The power and insidiousness of that is horrifying. And this dude is one of the plutocrats seeking to buy elections. The public can't compete with him financially, so it's very important to not stack the deck even *more* in his favor.

 

All IMO, natch.

Happy to admit you can chalk this one up to me just reading the headlines. It explains why most of the sites I trust did not report anything on it. The story just kept popping up over and over in my newsfeed(made from random sites). It was a small story I did not think was the biggest deal so I let myself be ignorant.

 

Still, even if its a good move trying to bring some elements of campaign finance back. Can you deny its unhealthy and says a lot about Democrats popularity that they have 4 million on hand? I get where again a lot of why conservatives have sooooo much more money is because of guys like Adeleson and the Kochs who poor literally hundreds of millions of dollars into the Republican party. Putting that aside, 4 million is such a small piss ass number. We are the party of celberities and silcon valley.....if raising money is an issue its because people do not believe in the party.



#12 mykevermin   Queen of Scotland CAGiversary!   37011 Posts   Joined 15.1 Years Ago  

Posted 11 January 2016 - 04:22 PM

The Democratic Party is fine. Inflows and outflows, I suppose. Your current checking account(s) aren't an accurate reflection of your personal ability to spend money over the next 12 months, is it?

 

Moment-in-time measures don't always compare well to fluid measures.



#13 MSI Magus   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   8156 Posts   Joined 15.5 Years Ago  

Posted 11 January 2016 - 04:31 PM

The Democratic Party is fine. Inflows and outflows, I suppose. Your current checking account(s) aren't an accurate reflection of your personal ability to spend money over the next 12 months, is it?

 

Moment-in-time measures don't always compare well to fluid measures.

Ah but again if your personal account has $100 in it, it says something about you. Your either poor, facing finacial hardships or handled your finances like an idiot. I just feel its reckless to have let our finances ever drop this low in the first place. I do not doubt if senior/respected Democrats like the Clintons or Elijah Cummings started making calls that a lot of money could be raised on the spot. Its not the smart way to do things though.



#14 mykevermin   Queen of Scotland CAGiversary!   37011 Posts   Joined 15.1 Years Ago  

Posted 11 January 2016 - 05:20 PM

haha. fair point. I'm not sure if the comparative figures ($4.7 vs $20.whatever) for DNC vs RNC are indicative of one being poor, one being wealthy, both or neither, though. I need some other baselines to compare against.