Campaign 2016

[KDS]

While I can't immediately recall any of her recent Beach Boys related posts, they have to be more productive that the SSMB versions of Beavis and Butthead constantly derailing threads with anti Mike Love stuff. 

[HeyJude]

filledeplage is not the only poster on here who won't give an inch.  

I would actually, and truly respectfully to everyone, disagree with this. And I only point out that to highlight why some of these discussions  (both "Sandbox" and "On Topic" discussions) become so circular and repetitive.

It doesn't mean one person is the sole reason for such. Engaging in the discussion obviously furthers it, and I'm sure Emily and myself and many others have at various points on this board asked ourselves the question that almost becomes an existential sort of question of how long one should continue to be baited into the circular arguments.  

But there are only two people (and lately just the one on this thread) on this board who have posted *at length* over years on this board who seem to NEVER, EVER, EVER concede any point on anything, forever, for all time. Neither of those people are anyone arguing against Trump in this thread. (Nor is it KDS, who, while I disagree with obviously when it comes to this thread, I find is fully capable of having a reasonable discussion and who offers plenty of good discussion and back-and-forth on the on-topic section of the board as well).

This thread in this particular respect is *very similar* to some of the threads where the topic is Mike Love, with the same one person refusing to acknowledge any criticism of her point of view or characterizations, mixed in with non-sequitur comments not having any relation to the topic at hand, and a bunch of people taking turns in increasingly frustrated episodes, trying *desperately* to see if even *one single point* about anything will be conceded.

[the captain]

Why doesn't everyone live up to the challenge? Compromise, show your willingness to give ground and listen to opposing views. Quit saying who doesn't do it, and do it yourselves. Obviously nobody thinks everyone will suddenly agree on everything, but why not show some effort? Pretend you're not full of sh*t...

[Tab Lloyd]

As someone who has had the misfortune of following this thread----who doesn't like a good train-wreck?----I would like to offer some (perhaps unwanted) 'wisdom' about the downer dynamics going on. When someone is so heavily invested in their personal reality and world view that they cannot tolerate the remote possibility that they might conceivably be on shaky ground on any given subject, that person should be ignored. Only a masochist would insert one's self into an 'argument' or debate with such a person. It's like Charley Brown trying one more time to kick that damn football! We all know that Lucy's gonna pull it back at the last second...every time! I guess dancing alone is boring, but who wants to be tap danced into the floor? Me? I am just a wall flower at this orgy.

[Emily]

OK, without questioning the source of my opinion, why do you think having Mayor Stephanie Rawlings Blake at the DNC is a good idea?

You want to be heard?  I'm listening.  

Hi KDS,
First, looking more closely at your question, I’m not 100% sure what you’re asking. I have three possible interpretations:
1.   Was it a politically (as in votes) good idea for the DNC to have Mayor Stephanie Rawlings Blake (that’s a lot of typing; I’m going to refer to her as SRB from here out) appear at the convention?
2.   Was it a good idea in terms of long-term effect, or even short-term effect on cultural zeitgeist to have SRB appear at the convention?
3.   Is it morally defensible to have SRB appear at the convention?

When I said earlier that I’d try to write a thoughtful response, I was thinking that your question was the third. I’ll answer them in order, but I’m afraid I don’t have much that’s thoughtful to say about the first or second.

1.   Was it a politically (as in votes) good idea for the DNC to have SRB appear at the convention?

I don’t know. I guess it plays negatively to some people: those who interpret this mainly as not being supportive of law enforcement. I guess it pays positively to some people: those who interpret this mainly as being supportive of Black Lives Matter. And I assume there are other people with different interpretations. I really don’t know how it might shake out in terms of votes.
Sorry I don’t have a better answer for that.

2.   Was it a good idea in terms of long-term effect, or even short-term effect on cultural zeitgeist to have SRB appear at the convention?
Again, I don’t know. I would guess neither particularly; but again, I really don’t even have a guess.
Political vote-getting and political messaging aren’t really my things.

So for 1 and 2, I’m sorry if I over-promised, but if one of those is your question, I don’t actually have much to say.

3.   Is it morally defensible to have SRB appear at the convention?

For 3, to me, I would say yes, it’s morally defensible.

a.    I interpret the comment about space differently from you.
Here’s the whole comment:  "It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qx2w9huI5mk  -The famous quote is at 9:30.

After the media began reporting your interpretation of the quote, that she was intentionally giving rioters space to destroy, her office sent this clarification:

“What she is saying within this statement was that there was an effort to give the peaceful demonstrators room to conduct their peaceful protests on Saturday. Unfortunately, as a result of providing the peaceful demonstrators with the space to share their message, that also meant that those seeking to incite violence also had the space to operate. The police sought to balance the rights of the peaceful demonstrators against the need to step in against those who were seeking to create violence.”

The interpretation in the clarification makes sense to me. What she is saying is, there’s a trade-off: the positive steps to keep the protesters safe by keeping traffic and “other things” away from the protestors, have the negative of also creating space for those who wish to destroy. So it’s a delicate balancing act between these two things – making space for peaceful protests – good; making space for destruction - bad. Try to find a balance.

So, in my opinion, the criticism is unwarranted.

Also, in the first two minutes she is quite clear that she does not condone violence or rioting.

b.   I tend to lean toward a restrained police response to protests, and that seems to have been SRB’s inclination as well.
She’s been criticized because the governor brought the national guard toward the city during the demonstrations and she asked them to hold back, and because she didn’t send a militarized police force to the demonstrations. This was the “making space” for the peaceful protests and demonstrations. I certainly cannot prove it to be so, but my inclination is to think that sending militarized police or national guard to an as-yet peaceful protest increases the likelihood of violence and, if it does occur, the degree of violence.
I also am a firm believer in the right to protest and demonstrate and am often disturbed by governments’ (US or state, but usually state) reactions to people exercising this right. I’ve had trouble in the past understanding why the approach to “make space” for a peaceful demonstration is not more often made.
But, as she said, making room for peaceful demonstrations leaves room for destruction. And unfortunately in Baltimore, rioting did break out. When it did, police were dispatched and made many arrests the first day, so it doesn’t seem they weren’t ready.
One thing that concerns me, though, is that it seems that the police response to the threat of Mondawmin Mall mistakenly exacerbated the situation. I don’t know if SRB was involved in planning this, but if she was, it wasn’t well done. The police seem to have shut down all access around the area, which seems reasonable, except the kids from a school nearby used public transit from that area to get home. When they went to the area to go home, they were faced with police telling them to disperse and go home while the police had shut off their access to get home. It seems the police started detaining kids who didn’t disperse. This seems to have been a very bad plan – with precedence in Soweto – and it seems to have had a consequence of increasing the violence.
However, the police do not seem to have used excessive force during the riots and the rioting seems to have gone by with no lives lost.
So, in the end, I feel like the police and mayor handled the situation pretty well, but with some tactical errors.

But I don’t know much about her performance as mayor outside of this event, which may or may not have been considered when making the choice to have her appear at the convention.

[Emily]

Why doesn't everyone live up to the challenge? Compromise, show your willingness to give ground and listen to opposing views. Quit saying who doesn't do it, and do it yourselves. Obviously nobody thinks everyone will suddenly agree on everything, but why not show some effort? Pretend you're not full of sh*t...

I do not have your restraint, the captain, and it's a failing. And I am much more reactionary when engaged and frustrated. Also a failing.

But I think that the acceptance of dishonesty as currency and the rejection of evidence-based reasoning are, together, one of the biggest political issues of our time.  I understand that listening to an opposing view eases tension, and that's a wise thing to do sometimes. But the pretense that all views are of equal validity is destructive to discourse. Some things are simply matters of opinion - what's your favorite Beach Boys song? In that case, all views are of equal validity. But when people are discussing views that have at least some objective aspect, an evidence and fact-based consideration of the objective information will create a more sound perspective. Oftentimes, two people can look at one fact and reasonably find two, or more, interpretations. But a third person might ignore the fact, or make up a different fact, or offer an interpretation that has no logical basis. In that case, the third view does not have the same level of validity as the first two (or more).
And the idea my daughter was taught in school - "all opinions are equal" - is not actually true.

[Emily]

Emily - there is a 42 page DNC complaint to read.  There are documentary evidence sources are contained within.  

Happy Friday!    

So, the 42 page document actually only contained 6 pages of case facts.

And the argument is that on May 26, 2015 (as you indicated in a post above), in DNC's emails there was a DNC memo regarding some strategy for Clinton's campaign. The complaint is that the DNC must be neutral among all Democratic candidates.

The problem here is on May 26, 2015, Hillary Clinton was the only Democratic candidate for president. None of the other candidates had yet declared, except Sanders, who was still fudging about whether he is an independent or a Democrat.
 
It seems that Sanders’ most recent statement on his affiliation had been April 30, 2015, when he announced his candidacy and said, “I am an independent who is going to be working with the —" Sanders told Seven Days Thursday afternoon, cutting himself off mid-sentence. "I am what I am, and I will have to deal with the state-by-state regulations. But I am what I am."
http://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2015/04/30/in-bid-for-democratic-nomination-sanders-remains-an-independent

It wasn’t until November, 2015, that he “declared he was a full-fledged Democrat.” http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/feb/23/bernie-sanders-democrat/

I don’t think the DNC is meant to be impartial between Democratic and non-Democratic candidates, do you?

[Emily]

Hi FdP,
I wonder if you could support these assertions:

1.   That the video you posted on pg 52 – about which you said:
after Bernie got the shaft, hundreds left the venue and it was not reported.  Some guy recorded, uploaded, commented, and now people are being bussed in to fill those seats left empty by Bernie's delegates. Nomiki Konst, a Sanders supporter and contributor to Fox, also reported seeing people bussed in to fill the seats.  In politics it is called "wallpaper."
What evidence do you have
-that the video is a representation of seats left specifically by the Sanders walk out?
-from someone other than a Sanders surrogate/supporter that people were being bussed in to fill the seats?

2.   On page 53 you make reference to the “criminality” of the DNC emails. On what basis do you make that claim?
3.   On page 53 you make your first of many references to the craigslist ad. What evidence do you have that the DNC placed that ad?
4.   On page 55 you posted a video that you claim was filmed after the Sanders walk out. The person who posted it (on the 27th) said that it was a video of the security breach (which was on the 27th). It’s pretty clear it’s the same scenes as those here (which were on the 27th): http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Protesters-Break-Through-DNC-Security-Fence-388499832.html

What evidence do you have that the video you posted was taken on the 26th, as you claimed?

5.   What’s your evidence that there was an official first ballot before the presented ballot at the Democratic Convention?
6.   On page 55 you said, " There are an equal number of Dems who are horrified at what happened at the DNC so both major parties are almost up for grabs."
What is your evidence for the claim of an “equal number”?

[filledeplage]

Hi FdP,
I wonder if you could support these assertions:

1.   That the video you posted on pg 52 – about which you said:
after Bernie got the shaft, hundreds left the venue and it was not reported.  Some guy recorded, uploaded, commented, and now people are being bussed in to fill those seats left empty by Bernie's delegates. Nomiki Konst, a Sanders supporter and contributor to Fox, also reported seeing people bussed in to fill the seats.  In politics it is called "wallpaper."
What evidence do you have
-that the video is a representation of seats left specifically by the Sanders walk out?
-from someone other than a Sanders surrogate/supporter that people were being bussed in to fill the seats?

2.   On page 53 you make reference to the “criminality” of the DNC emails. On what basis do you make that claim?
3.   On page 53 you make your first of many references to the craigslist ad. What evidence do you have that the DNC placed that ad?
4.   On page 55 you posted a video that you claim was filmed after the Sanders walk out. The person who posted it (on the 27th) said that it was a video of the security breach (which was on the 27th). It’s pretty clear it’s the same scenes as those here (which were on the 27th): http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Protesters-Break-Through-DNC-Security-Fence-388499832.html

What evidence do you have that the video you posted was taken on the 26th, as you claimed?

5.   What’s your evidence that there was an official first ballot before the presented ballot at the Democratic Convention?
6.   On page 55 you said, " There are an equal number of Dems who are horrified at what happened at the DNC so both major parties are almost up for grabs."
What is your evidence for the claim of an “equal number”?

Hi Emily - the complaint will be litigated and you can follow that evidence trail.  I post videos to share information, not to be ripped apart because you don't agree.

Since the DNC is over, now the cover-ups, including wifi jamming of those who were outside of the "DNC Wall" where the signals improved once the telecoms were called out on Twitter, will be addressed.  Too little, too late.  Instead of a DNC issue it will be a campaign issue.

Yes, Comey conceded that there were "portions of the emails" which were "classified" - Comey is your source.  

No, the exhibit that I referred to is in the complaint to support it.  Sanders "ran" as a Dem.  He was called out by the DNC as not being a Dem.  Who cares?  Sanders met the requisite requirements to get on the ballot.  

Hillary was brought up a Republican and head of such a group in college.  She is running as a Democrat because declared herself one, and she registered, and met the requisite requirements to get on the ballot.  Bernie was disparaged as not being a "real Dem" because he was not part of their agenda.

Bernie's philosophies were attacked as not being bona fide.  Hillary's pedigree was not assaulted. And there was an agenda to only support Bernie but they took money from his contributors, who alleged they were damaged by the favoritism and lack of neutrality in the organization. Those are among the allegations in the complaint.  

The complaint alleges that there was no impartiality in the organization which is supposed to support all of their candidates who run as such.

William Weld, (a died-in-the-wool Republican) is "running" with Johnson.  He is not a Libertarian, but "running" as one, having met their ballot requirements.  

It is procedural and not substantive or philosophical alignment with party philosophy.  

[KDS]

Emily

We both have different philosophies on how to deal with rioters too.  You support restraining the police.  I'd prefer to restrain the criminals. 

Once the protesters starting spilling into the streets, the police should've had the authority to stop them instead of allowing space.   Tear gas or pepper spray would have likely diffused the situation quickly.   Had that been done, businesses wouldn't have been destroyed.

I think Blake herself knows she screwed up, and that's why she's not seeking reelection in November.   In Baltimore, she'd have won too since the city is overwhelmingly Democrat.   

So I read your post and gave it some thought.  But I can't agree. 

[Emily]

Emily

We both have different philosophies on how to deal with rioters too.  You support restraining the police.  I'd prefer to restrain the criminals.  

Once the protesters starting spilling into the streets, the police should've had the authority to stop them instead of allowing space.   Tear gas or pepper spray would have likely diffused the situation quickly.   Had that been done, businesses wouldn't have been destroyed.

I think Blake herself knows she screwed up, and that's why she's not seeking reelection in November.   In Baltimore, she'd have won too since the city is overwhelmingly Democrat.  

So I read your post and gave it some thought.  But I can't agree.  

Hi KDS,
I'm not sure I understand your idea that I support restraining the police against rioters. I looked at my answer again and saw that I said I support a restrained police response to protest. I did not say that in reference to rioters or criminals, but to protesters. 

But thank you for the read/response.

[Emily]

Hi FdP,
I wonder if you could support these assertions:

1.   That the video you posted on pg 52 – about which you said:
after Bernie got the shaft, hundreds left the venue and it was not reported.  Some guy recorded, uploaded, commented, and now people are being bussed in to fill those seats left empty by Bernie's delegates. Nomiki Konst, a Sanders supporter and contributor to Fox, also reported seeing people bussed in to fill the seats.  In politics it is called "wallpaper."
What evidence do you have
-that the video is a representation of seats left specifically by the Sanders walk out?
-from someone other than a Sanders surrogate/supporter that people were being bussed in to fill the seats?

2.   On page 53 you make reference to the “criminality” of the DNC emails. On what basis do you make that claim?
3.   On page 53 you make your first of many references to the craigslist ad. What evidence do you have that the DNC placed that ad?
4.   On page 55 you posted a video that you claim was filmed after the Sanders walk out. The person who posted it (on the 27th) said that it was a video of the security breach (which was on the 27th). It’s pretty clear it’s the same scenes as those here (which were on the 27th): http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Protesters-Break-Through-DNC-Security-Fence-388499832.html

What evidence do you have that the video you posted was taken on the 26th, as you claimed?

5.   What’s your evidence that there was an official first ballot before the presented ballot at the Democratic Convention?
6.   On page 55 you said, " There are an equal number of Dems who are horrified at what happened at the DNC so both major parties are almost up for grabs."
What is your evidence for the claim of an “equal number”?

Hi Emily - the complaint will be litigated and you can follow that evidence trail.  I post videos to share information, not to be ripped apart because you don't agree.

Since the DNC is over, now the cover-ups, including wifi jamming of those who were outside of the "DNC Wall" where the signals improved once the telecoms were called out on Twitter, will be addressed.  Too little, too late.  Instead of a DNC issue it will be a campaign issue.


Yes, Comey conceded that there were "portions of the emails" which were "classified" - Comey is your source.  

No, the exhibit that I referred to is in the complaint to support it.  Sanders "ran" as a Dem.  He was called out by the DNC as not being a Dem.  Who cares?  Sanders met the requisite requirements to get on the ballot.  

Hillary was brought up a Republican and head of such a group in college.  She is running as a Democrat because declared herself one, and she registered, and met the requisite requirements to get on the ballot.  Bernie was disparaged as not being a "real Dem" because he was not part of their agenda.

Bernie's philosophies were attacked as not being bona fide.  Hillary's pedigree was not assaulted. And there was an agenda to only support Bernie but they took money from his contributors, who alleged they were damaged by the favoritism and lack of neutrality in the organization. Those are among the allegations in the complaint.  

The complaint alleges that there was no impartiality in the organization which is supposed to support all of their candidates who run as such.

William Weld, (a died-in-the-wool Republican) is "running" with Johnson.  He is not a Libertarian, but "running" as one, having met their ballot requirements.  

It is procedural and not substantive or philosophical alignment with party philosophy.  

Well, as you like to say, rather than supporting your assertions with arguments (which indicates to me that you don't actually believe them to be true, but you are trying to be a propagandist of the "lie until it's true" order, but why you do that here baffles me); it will be litigated. But if Sanders publicly proclaimed himself to be an independent the day he announced and hadn't modified that until after the date of the email, I think it's pretty easy for the judge to say "no case," and that you are promoting your desired outcome as fact. Of course, if the judge throws it out based on its lack of merit, you and your "underground press" will be calling it "corruption" as loudly as possible, and not noting that it's an interpretation of the evidence that one could arrive at independently.
And misleading people in that way, and the way you have tried to do in the last several pages, THAT is corrupt.

[Emily]

Hi FdP,
I wonder if you could support these assertions:

1.   That the video you posted on pg 52 – about which you said:
after Bernie got the shaft, hundreds left the venue and it was not reported.  Some guy recorded, uploaded, commented, and now people are being bussed in to fill those seats left empty by Bernie's delegates. Nomiki Konst, a Sanders supporter and contributor to Fox, also reported seeing people bussed in to fill the seats.  In politics it is called "wallpaper."
What evidence do you have
-that the video is a representation of seats left specifically by the Sanders walk out?
-from someone other than a Sanders surrogate/supporter that people were being bussed in to fill the seats?

2.   On page 53 you make reference to the “criminality” of the DNC emails. On what basis do you make that claim?
3.   On page 53 you make your first of many references to the craigslist ad. What evidence do you have that the DNC placed that ad?
4.   On page 55 you posted a video that you claim was filmed after the Sanders walk out. The person who posted it (on the 27th) said that it was a video of the security breach (which was on the 27th). It’s pretty clear it’s the same scenes as those here (which were on the 27th): http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Protesters-Break-Through-DNC-Security-Fence-388499832.html

What evidence do you have that the video you posted was taken on the 26th, as you claimed?

5.   What’s your evidence that there was an official first ballot before the presented ballot at the Democratic Convention?
6.   On page 55 you said, " There are an equal number of Dems who are horrified at what happened at the DNC so both major parties are almost up for grabs."
What is your evidence for the claim of an “equal number”?

Hi Emily - the complaint will be litigated and you can follow that evidence trail.  I post videos to share information, not to be ripped apart because you don't agree.

Since the DNC is over, now the cover-ups, including wifi jamming of those who were outside of the "DNC Wall" where the signals improved once the telecoms were called out on Twitter, will be addressed.  Too little, too late.  Instead of a DNC issue it will be a campaign issue.

Yes, Comey conceded that there were "portions of the emails" which were "classified" - Comey is your source.  

No, the exhibit that I referred to is in the complaint to support it.  Sanders "ran" as a Dem.  He was called out by the DNC as not being a Dem.  Who cares?  Sanders met the requisite requirements to get on the ballot.  

Hillary was brought up a Republican and head of such a group in college.  She is running as a Democrat because declared herself one, and she registered, and met the requisite requirements to get on the ballot.  Bernie was disparaged as not being a "real Dem" because he was not part of their agenda.

Bernie's philosophies were attacked as not being bona fide.  Hillary's pedigree was not assaulted. And there was an agenda to only support Bernie but they took money from his contributors, who alleged they were damaged by the favoritism and lack of neutrality in the organization. Those are among the allegations in the complaint.  

The complaint alleges that there was no impartiality in the organization which is supposed to support all of their candidates who run as such.

William Weld, (a died-in-the-wool Republican) is "running" with Johnson.  He is not a Libertarian, but "running" as one, having met their ballot requirements.  

It is procedural and not substantive or philosophical alignment with party philosophy.  

Not sure why you mentioned Comey. He made no comment on the DNC emails that I'm aware of.
It took me a while to make out what your were saying in some of the rest of your post, but you say that Sanders was " disparaged as not being a "real Dem" because he was not part of their agenda."
Might it not be because he, himself, indicated that he's not really a Democrat? Can you see the willfulness of your interpretation? At that time, he, himself, was not calling himself a Democrat, so it seems a little much to expect the Democratic Party to embrace him as a Democrat.

All of the other allegations are moot. If Sanders was not clearly a Democrat (and by his own words, he wasn't) there's plenty of ethical and legal room for the DNC to not treat him as a Democrat.
You're actually, by having me look at the propaganda put out by the little Bernie or Bust contingent, convincing me more that they don't have any leg to stand on and that they are basically hypocritical propagandists. I'd thought they had more than these sorts of lies, hyperbole and hypocrisy.
But the media will report it as a huge scandal, you'll say they aren't reporting it and that you are learning about it from underground sources, as you spread information that was put out there disingenuously.
And the reason it bothers me so much, the reason I bother, is this is emblematic of exactly why our government isn't closer to what people want it to be. Because there are legions of people intentionally obfuscating information so people don't understand what they're voting for.
Almost every anti-government complaint I've seen in this thread, from the left or the right, was carried out by elected officials doing what they said they'd do before they were elected.
People protest the Iraq war and the actions of the Obama administration in the middle east, but they voted for people who were openly hawkish in their language while campaigning.
People complain about big business, but they voted for people who openly plan to deregulate
People complain about income inequality, but they voted for people who openly plan to deregulate, are openly anti-union, openly plan to cut taxes on upper brackets and business, openly support free trade but don't support redistribution in the US in response to the effects of that.

Why do people keep voting for what they don't support? Because people distort elections into being about weird patriotism issues and swiftboat things and "death panels" and emails and, here's a throw-back, Willie Horton. And people will get all mad and run out and vote based on their anger over these manipulations and then be angry that the candidate they voted for did what they were promising to do and call it "corruption."

It's a shame.

[KDS]

Emily

We both have different philosophies on how to deal with rioters too.  You support restraining the police.  I'd prefer to restrain the criminals.  

Once the protesters starting spilling into the streets, the police should've had the authority to stop them instead of allowing space.   Tear gas or pepper spray would have likely diffused the situation quickly.   Had that been done, businesses wouldn't have been destroyed.

I think Blake herself knows she screwed up, and that's why she's not seeking reelection in November.   In Baltimore, she'd have won too since the city is overwhelmingly Democrat.  

So I read your post and gave it some thought.  But I can't agree.  

Hi KDS,
I'm not sure I understand your idea that I support restraining the police against rioters. I looked at my answer again and saw that I said I support a restrained police response to protest. I did not say that in reference to rioters or criminals, but to protesters. 

But thank you for the read/response.

What about when protesters start blocking traffic and destroying property?  At that point, they're not longer protesters.  They are criminals.   

[filledeplage]

Hi FdP,
I wonder if you could support these assertions:

1.   That the video you posted on pg 52 – about which you said:
after Bernie got the shaft, hundreds left the venue and it was not reported.  Some guy recorded, uploaded, commented, and now people are being bussed in to fill those seats left empty by Bernie's delegates. Nomiki Konst, a Sanders supporter and contributor to Fox, also reported seeing people bussed in to fill the seats.  In politics it is called "wallpaper."
What evidence do you have
-that the video is a representation of seats left specifically by the Sanders walk out?
-from someone other than a Sanders surrogate/supporter that people were being bussed in to fill the seats?

2.   On page 53 you make reference to the “criminality” of the DNC emails. On what basis do you make that claim?
3.   On page 53 you make your first of many references to the craigslist ad. What evidence do you have that the DNC placed that ad?
4.   On page 55 you posted a video that you claim was filmed after the Sanders walk out. The person who posted it (on the 27th) said that it was a video of the security breach (which was on the 27th). It’s pretty clear it’s the same scenes as those here (which were on the 27th): http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Protesters-Break-Through-DNC-Security-Fence-388499832.html

What evidence do you have that the video you posted was taken on the 26th, as you claimed?

5.   What’s your evidence that there was an official first ballot before the presented ballot at the Democratic Convention?
6.   On page 55 you said, " There are an equal number of Dems who are horrified at what happened at the DNC so both major parties are almost up for grabs."
What is your evidence for the claim of an “equal number”?

Hi Emily - the complaint will be litigated and you can follow that evidence trail.  I post videos to share information, not to be ripped apart because you don't agree.

Since the DNC is over, now the cover-ups, including wifi jamming of those who were outside of the "DNC Wall" where the signals improved once the telecoms were called out on Twitter, will be addressed.  Too little, too late.  Instead of a DNC issue it will be a campaign issue.


Yes, Comey conceded that there were "portions of the emails" which were "classified" - Comey is your source.  

No, the exhibit that I referred to is in the complaint to support it.  Sanders "ran" as a Dem.  He was called out by the DNC as not being a Dem.  Who cares?  Sanders met the requisite requirements to get on the ballot.  

Hillary was brought up a Republican and head of such a group in college.  She is running as a Democrat because declared herself one, and she registered, and met the requisite requirements to get on the ballot.  Bernie was disparaged as not being a "real Dem" because he was not part of their agenda.

Bernie's philosophies were attacked as not being bona fide.  Hillary's pedigree was not assaulted. And there was an agenda to only support Bernie but they took money from his contributors, who alleged they were damaged by the favoritism and lack of neutrality in the organization. Those are among the allegations in the complaint.  

The complaint alleges that there was no impartiality in the organization which is supposed to support all of their candidates who run as such.

William Weld, (a died-in-the-wool Republican) is "running" with Johnson.  He is not a Libertarian, but "running" as one, having met their ballot requirements.  

It is procedural and not substantive or philosophical alignment with party philosophy.  

Well, as you like to say, rather than supporting your assertions with arguments (which indicates to me that you don't actually believe them to be true, but you are trying to be a propagandist of the "lie until it's true" order, but why you do that here baffles me); it will be litigated. But if Sanders publicly proclaimed himself to be an independent the day he announced and hadn't modified that until after the date of the email, I think it's pretty easy for the judge to say "no case," and that you are promoting your desired outcome as fact. Of course, if the judge throws it out based on its lack of merit, you and your "underground press" will be calling it "corruption" as loudly as possible, and not noting that it's an interpretation of the evidence that one could arrive at independently.
And misleading people in that way, and the way you have tried to do in the last several pages, THAT is corrupt.

Emily - the assertions are supported but you don't care for the evidence because it does not align with your political philosophies. Not my problem.

You can say that you "think" that it is misleading but that is opinion-based and not fact-based.

It is 2 days since the close of the DNC.  Now, on the slow news day, the back-story of the lack of coverage of the participation of Sander's supporters is finally filtering out. Even Fox did a crappy job with coverage of the Bernie walkout.   The alternative sources, which, I doubt you even watched because your mind is closed to it, it "appears." The story will gain traction in the next two weeks. Even if Bernie is no longer the figurehead of this movement (whose political philosophies I disagree with) someone will keep it going.

Hillary is not running against Trump.  She is running against Julian Assange.  She is running against her lack of transparency and the corruption that caused DWS to leave at the beginning of the convention. And there is still an investigation into the Clinton Foundation.  

And, I don't appreciate being called a liar or corrupt.  We can "disagree without being disagreeable" as they teach at Harvard.  

We will all have to wait to see if the suit withstands a motion-to-dismiss in a few weeks.  I'm patient.

In the meanwhile, Haitian Immigrants protested against Hillary and Bill.  Guess they are lying, too?

https://youtu.be/-QtAhtrRA1M

https://youtu.be6ltr/6ltrRNC-_Rw

http://www.caribbean360.com/news/protests-continue-hillary-clintons-role-haiti

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/03/haitian-activists-protest-outside-of-hillary-clintons-office-over-billions-stolen-in-relief-funds-video/

Funny, that Facebook took down these activists' site.  

[Emily]

Emily

We both have different philosophies on how to deal with rioters too.  You support restraining the police.  I'd prefer to restrain the criminals.  

Once the protesters starting spilling into the streets, the police should've had the authority to stop them instead of allowing space.   Tear gas or pepper spray would have likely diffused the situation quickly.   Had that been done, businesses wouldn't have been destroyed.

I think Blake herself knows she screwed up, and that's why she's not seeking reelection in November.   In Baltimore, she'd have won too since the city is overwhelmingly Democrat.  

So I read your post and gave it some thought.  But I can't agree.  

Hi KDS,
I'm not sure I understand your idea that I support restraining the police against rioters. I looked at my answer again and saw that I said I support a restrained police response to protest. I did not say that in reference to rioters or criminals, but to protesters.  

But thank you for the read/response.

What about when protesters start blocking traffic and destroying property?  At that point, they're not longer protesters.  They are criminals.    

I agree that at that time, they're breaking the law, and while I would still expect police response to be proportional to the crime (destroying property to me is much more serious than blocking traffic, for instance, unless they've blocked traffic to the degree that emergency vehicles can't do their work, at which time that becomes a much more serious crime), I would expect the police to arrest those committing crimes, as they did.

I'm hesitant to call anyone but a career criminal 'a criminal', as I feel like it defines the whole person by one action. You and I have broken laws, but we aren't 'criminals'. I don't consider someone who blocks traffic during a protest to be 'a criminal' but I do think they are committing a crime and the police should act accordingly. And, yes, even more so if they are destroying property.

But there are also effective ways to handle things and ineffective ways. If you've got a mob of people, 5% of whom are being destructive, and if the police pushing against the crowd at large with riot gear to get to the 5% being destructive causes the response that 60% are now going to be destructive, the police have caused more harm than good. I think the first goal should probably to disperse and quell, then to worry about who was doing what.

[Emily]

Hi FdP,
I wonder if you could support these assertions:

1.   That the video you posted on pg 52 – about which you said:
after Bernie got the shaft, hundreds left the venue and it was not reported.  Some guy recorded, uploaded, commented, and now people are being bussed in to fill those seats left empty by Bernie's delegates. Nomiki Konst, a Sanders supporter and contributor to Fox, also reported seeing people bussed in to fill the seats.  In politics it is called "wallpaper."
What evidence do you have
-that the video is a representation of seats left specifically by the Sanders walk out?
-from someone other than a Sanders surrogate/supporter that people were being bussed in to fill the seats?

2.   On page 53 you make reference to the “criminality” of the DNC emails. On what basis do you make that claim?
3.   On page 53 you make your first of many references to the craigslist ad. What evidence do you have that the DNC placed that ad?
4.   On page 55 you posted a video that you claim was filmed after the Sanders walk out. The person who posted it (on the 27th) said that it was a video of the security breach (which was on the 27th). It’s pretty clear it’s the same scenes as those here (which were on the 27th): http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Protesters-Break-Through-DNC-Security-Fence-388499832.html

What evidence do you have that the video you posted was taken on the 26th, as you claimed?

5.   What’s your evidence that there was an official first ballot before the presented ballot at the Democratic Convention?
6.   On page 55 you said, " There are an equal number of Dems who are horrified at what happened at the DNC so both major parties are almost up for grabs."
What is your evidence for the claim of an “equal number”?

Hi Emily - the complaint will be litigated and you can follow that evidence trail.  I post videos to share information, not to be ripped apart because you don't agree.

Since the DNC is over, now the cover-ups, including wifi jamming of those who were outside of the "DNC Wall" where the signals improved once the telecoms were called out on Twitter, will be addressed.  Too little, too late.  Instead of a DNC issue it will be a campaign issue.


Yes, Comey conceded that there were "portions of the emails" which were "classified" - Comey is your source.  

No, the exhibit that I referred to is in the complaint to support it.  Sanders "ran" as a Dem.  He was called out by the DNC as not being a Dem.  Who cares?  Sanders met the requisite requirements to get on the ballot.  

Hillary was brought up a Republican and head of such a group in college.  She is running as a Democrat because declared herself one, and she registered, and met the requisite requirements to get on the ballot.  Bernie was disparaged as not being a "real Dem" because he was not part of their agenda.

Bernie's philosophies were attacked as not being bona fide.  Hillary's pedigree was not assaulted. And there was an agenda to only support Bernie but they took money from his contributors, who alleged they were damaged by the favoritism and lack of neutrality in the organization. Those are among the allegations in the complaint.  

The complaint alleges that there was no impartiality in the organization which is supposed to support all of their candidates who run as such.

William Weld, (a died-in-the-wool Republican) is "running" with Johnson.  He is not a Libertarian, but "running" as one, having met their ballot requirements.  

It is procedural and not substantive or philosophical alignment with party philosophy.  

Well, as you like to say, rather than supporting your assertions with arguments (which indicates to me that you don't actually believe them to be true, but you are trying to be a propagandist of the "lie until it's true" order, but why you do that here baffles me); it will be litigated. But if Sanders publicly proclaimed himself to be an independent the day he announced and hadn't modified that until after the date of the email, I think it's pretty easy for the judge to say "no case," and that you are promoting your desired outcome as fact. Of course, if the judge throws it out based on its lack of merit, you and your "underground press" will be calling it "corruption" as loudly as possible, and not noting that it's an interpretation of the evidence that one could arrive at independently.
And misleading people in that way, and the way you have tried to do in the last several pages, THAT is corrupt.

Emily - the assertions are supported but you don't care for the evidence because it does not align with your political philosophies. Not my problem.
You can say that you "think" that it is misleading but that is opinion-based and not fact-based.

That's incorrect. I explained why I don't think the evidence is solid and provided evidence to support my point. Not responding to or acknowledging that point and saying instead that the only reason I'm countering your evidence is "because it does not align with my political philosophies" is another common manipulation: presenting non-fact as fact then claiming fact and evidence-based responses are political, implying that all opinions are equal, regardless of fact. It's a form of lying.
Sanders was calling himself an Independent at the time. That's a fact that will be taken into account by the judge. The situation is ambiguous as there is no defined legal standard as to when someone should be considered a Democrat by the Democratic Party for the purposes of running for election. So there's room for the judge to go either way on that point.
You will continue to pretend that this ambiguity doesn't exist in your posts and your propaganda sites will do the same. And that is, factually and actually, misleading.

It is 2 days since the close of the DNC.  Now, on the slow news day, the back-story of the lack of coverage of the participation of Sander's supporters is finally filtering out. Even Fox did a crappy job with coverage of the Bernie walkout.   The alternative sources, which, I doubt you even watched because your mind is closed to it, it "appears." The story will gain traction in the next two weeks. Even if Bernie is no longer the figurehead of this movement (whose political philosophies I disagree with) someone will keep it going.

Yup, the crappy sites will continue to present crap, on the left and right.

Hillary is not running against Trump.  She is running against Julian Assange.  She is running against her lack of transparency and the corruption that caused DWS to leave at the beginning of the convention. And there is still an investigation into the Clinton Foundation.  

This is a perfect example of how people like you have corruptly derailed the election, so that people won't vote on the actual policy issues (once again) and then they'll be all mad that government's not responsive to them. Duh. Vote on policy if you want the different policies.

And, I don't appreciate being called a liar or corrupt.  We can "disagree without being disagreeable" as they teach at Harvard.  

This is exactly the area where I get in trouble for insulting you. So I'll try to word this carefully:
I understand you don't appreciate being called a liar, but I wonder why you keep repeating things that you must know to be false (which is lying). I consider manipulating information to tell an untruth to be very disagreeable.

I noticed you still haven't provided evidence for the many claims you've made that I listed above.

Why don't you do that before you introduce a new topic?

Edit - and, tegarding an earlier statement you made, William Weld is not a "dyed-in-the-wool" Republican; he's a "dyed-in-the-wood" traditional conservative, which is not what the current Republican Party represents. That's why he's running as a Libertarian. Because at this point, Libertarianism is closer to traditional conservatism than the Republican Party is.

[filledeplage]

Emily - First, I've been a member of this forum for around 8 years. In 8 years, I have made 3048 posts. I have started 10 topics in 8 years. In terms of starting topics, I don't think that is excessive.  It is a little over an average of 1 thread that I started, a year.  It is not for you do assess whether I am an excessive starter of topics.

In a little under a year, you have started 16 topics.  That is an observation. You have posted 1788 times.  That is half as many as I have posted in 8 years. Last time I checked, you did not have  the term "mod" next to your name. 

Second, here are a few random phrases that I think are problematic. "That is incorrect." You are not the arbiter of correctness nor of evidence. Whether Sanders calls himself an Independent or not, he met the threshold standard of declaring himself a Dem. That is all you need plus whatever requirements are necessary. 

According to Slate.com, you file forms with the Federal Election Commission, register your (exploratory) committee as a non-profit, and at the $5,000 mark send your application form to the Federal Election Commission and Statement of Candidacy...Bernie must have fulfilled the threshold requirements for his name to appear on the ballots of the several states.

Third, what you call "crappy" sites is your opinion.  They are the meat-and-potatoes of the grassroots political world.  And in a few days you will probably see some form of the story, as an afterthought, but in a form that is "marginalized" to benefit the corporate media, but in some form, so there can be no accusation of an imbalance in the media. 

Fourth, "derailing?" That allegation is the reason that I started a new thread.  Those are real human beings, protesting, particularly the Haitians complaining of the Clinton involvement her brother has a gold mine, there are issues of election fraud, in addition to money issues.  Guess those people don't matter and their opinion doesn't matter. The First Amendment is in trouble, when their opinions don't matter nor their right to express them.

Fifth, "how people like me" - where do you get off with a comment like that? So I must be in "good company..." (or some company - maybe equally "bad" company)

Sixth, "being called a liar, etc." - you are not the arbiter of truth or falsity. FYI - the name-calling is a violation of Rules and Guidelines #2 "...when it crosses into personal attacks, it becomes a different matter...personal insults at other board members..." ("liar" is one of those name calling words.)   

"Manipulating information?" I just put it out there and people can decide or not. Perhaps you would like to "control" the flow of information.  Again a First Amendment problem.

After only starting 10 topics, in around 8 years, it seemed a really good day to start one.    

William Weld, is a dyed-in-the-wool Republican.  He is in the race as a "spoiler" in my opinion and because he is bored and wants to get back in the game. Both current parties are undergoing a revolution as to whom they stand for and for what they stand. Democrats and Republicans come in multiple varieties whether liberal, moderate or conservative or an amalgam of subgroups.  The typecast confers a connotation of inflexibility.  JMHO

[Emily]

Just asking why you're starting a new topic when there are still so many unanswered questions on the old. You have a pattern of throwing in little bombs and when they are questioned, just moving on to the next bomb. Trying to hold you accountable for what you say.

Some things are actually identifiably incorrect. Your continual denial of this is emblematic of so much that's wrong in our body politic.

There is no legally defined 'threshold' of being a Democratic or not Democratic candidate, other than following each state's separate procesures for getting on the ballot. At the time of the May 26 memo, Sanders was not on any ballots. That's exactly why this is so ambiguous legally. In one day, he filed a paper saying he was running as a Democrat (which is not legally defining), AND said that he's not a Democrat. If you think honestly about this, you will acknowledge that it's ambiguous and your insistence that it's not is incorrect.


Again, you do not distinguish at all between crap and legitimate reporting. I'll give you an example: look up politicususa. They sent me an email asking for submissions. I looked at the site and it's crap. It's a pro-Clinton version of the anti-Clinton crap you keep posting. If I played your game, I'd be posting their crap and writing crap for them, and ignoring people pointing out that it's crap. I don't. Because integrity matters to me.

regarding your response to "derailing," I'm not sure if it's a reading comprehension problem, but based on your record I'm inclined to think that your response to my "derailing" comment was more derailing. I did that in very clear reference to your Julian Assange/Clinton Foundation/DWS comment. Why are you pretending I said it in reference to your Haiti comment and then pretending to be outraged by something I didn't do?

I get off on a comment about "people like you" when referring to people who repeat factless assertions in the face of counter-facts and derail elections with bogus scandals, etc. because of all of the evidence in this thread.

Regarding lying and truth and falsity, once again, I'm going to insist that facts exist, despite the prevailing notion that they don't. Regarding insults, there are words that are specifically and only used as insults. Words we consider to be "bad words" mostly. There are other words that may be insulting if they are used to describe you, but they may simultaneously be accurate adjectives. If the accurate adjective is being accurately used to describe your current actions, well, I think that's on you. To lie, and then be offended when someone points out you're lying, seems irresponsible and unreasonable to me.

The first amendment says nothing about how I may respond to your posts. If you went to law school you must know that. Heck, if you went to high school you must know that.

Even when Weld was running for governor of MA way back when, he was very careful to publicly distance himself from mainstream Republican thought. He was a registered Republican for a long while, but he has been a very consistent traditional conservative. Whether he feels that the Republican Party is a home for him is up to him. Many prominent traditional conservatives have disavowed the current Republican Party zeitgeist. And yes, I can support that.  

Btw, when I referenced you introducing a new topic, I did not mean a new thread on the board. I meant a new topic in this thread ie Haiti.
Sorry that wasn't clear.

[Debbie KL]

While following this is exhausting, it is fascinating.

I don't think pointing out that someone is lying is calling them a name.  I think it is addressing an action, not the person.

If there is one thing police have learned over the years, it's that direct confrontation in particular instances can do more harm than good - a perfect example in a many cases is disengaging from police chases appearing to create less harm, and it's a fragile call.  I think the Baltimore mayor had a lot on her plate, and didn't speak in simplistic enough terms to resonate with the public.  There are clearly times when "giving space" causes the least harm in the end. I think some property issues are less important than dead people, or inflaming the ones who are there.  These are dynamic situations and I'm in no way prepared or informed enough in the immediate circumstances to out-guess the mayor or her police department.  But pretending that this makes her a terrible choice to speak at the convention is, I think, an unfounded claim.

In regards to the walk-out by some Bernie or Bust people the first night - many of whom obviously came back, there are lots of debates about how many there were. The photo provided by these people online didn't match what I saw in live shots of the hall at the time and it doesn't jive. I would love to see a time-stamp on it.  I will repeat, this is Democracy in action.  The Republican convention didn't have such an event because the protestors didn't show up, including 2 past Presidents and a number of powerful Repubs. 

[bluesno1fann]

If I could, I'll be voting Stein in November..... People don't deserve to have to choose a lesser of two evils - a faux progressive militaristic oligarchist or a demagogue and an imbecile

If the Democrats do lose in November, it'll be their fault for choosing such an abysmal candidate. Ditto the Republicans.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

If I could, I'll be voting Stein in November..... People don't deserve to have to choose a lesser of two evils - a faux progressive militaristic oligarchist or a demagogue and an imbecile

If the Democrats do lose in November, it'll be their fault for choosing such an abysmal candidate. Ditto the Republicans.

Is Jill on the ballot where you live? She is in here in Texas, and I'll be voting for her.

[bluesno1fann]

If I could, I'll be voting Stein in November..... People don't deserve to have to choose a lesser of two evils - a faux progressive militaristic oligarchist or a demagogue and an imbecile

If the Democrats do lose in November, it'll be their fault for choosing such an abysmal candidate. Ditto the Republicans.

Is Jill on the ballot where you live? She is in here in Texas, and I'll be voting for her.

I say if I could, as in if I was American. I can't, as I'm Australian. But I do have a keen interest in political developments in both the States and the UK, as well as Australia

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Gotcha...that would make sense!

[NOLA BB Fan]

Can't in good conscience vote for either one of these.
I am so embarrassed for my country. Am sure that those in other countries are shaking their heads, wondering, out of all the millions of eligible voters 35 years of age and older in the US, is this the best they could come up with?!
 
Will look over the other parties on my state's ballot. Haven't seen a final ballot yet but what's on it so far are the two main parties, plus Green and Libertarian. In the past we've also had Constitution, Prohibition, 3 (!) Socialist parties plus a couple of others.
Family are telling me that I "have" to vote for one of the two main candidates.
I don't agree.
My state, Louisiana, is going for Trump. No way will it go for Clinton. So it's settled already here. Trump's getting all the electoral votes*. A vote for anyone else in essence won't count. So I might as well vote my conscience.

*The asinine system we have in place in our country but that my ultra-conservative friends love (probably because of the 2000 election results). In most states including my own, Trump could get 1,000,000 votes and Clinton 999,999, but with the winner take all aspect of the Electoral College, all the electoral votes would go to Trump.