Philadelphia DNC 2016


Off-Topic Discussions

501 to 539 of 539 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I've found a big disconnect between my friends who listen to NPR and my friends who listen to/watch networks like Fox and CNN. NPR is probably one of the best mainstream media outlets out there, to be honest. Pity it's not actually that mainstream.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
Obviously, both parties have had movements demanding major change. I think the main difference in the convention disruptions is the fact that the Democrats actually acknowledge the difference. Hilary has reached a hand out to bridge the gap and sat down at the table with Bernie. (Whether you believe its honest or genuine or not is up to you) Trump on the other hand has more or less told his opposition to get in line or else. In fact, trump already said he is going to send millions into the coffers of opponents to run against Kasich and Cruz. (I wouldn't worry about that if I were them, Trump has a habit of saying he is going to toss money around that never materializes. Just ask the veterans...)

And contractors....

Scarab Sages

Rysky wrote:
Rysky wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:


The RNC, meanwhile, tried to get Justin Bieber. He agreed only on the condition that he be allowed to perform in front of BLM flags. They didn't get Justin Bieber.

.. do you have any idea how badly you have to mess up for the phrase "Go Justin Beiber" to be a rational response?

The. F*~&. Cleveland.
Hmm, they apparently got trolled by Third Eye Blind as well.

It was spur-of-the-moment trolling, as they were playing at an unrelated charity event. When they discovered that the RNC was in town, the "motherf***ing artist up here" (his words, not mine) Stephan Jenkins took full advantage of his microphone and speakers to mock the Republican platform.

While I normally prefer my rock and roll without any political messages, I cannot help but have some shred of admiration for Jenkins in sticking to his beliefs as well as keeping up his cultivated image. Though I am not sure I can forgive them for refusing to play Semi-Charmed Life, which I always sing when my swashbuckler players use their similarly named ability.


Well, it's one way not to get invited to do charity events.

So, I did a little research. TEB was doing a charity for Musicians on Call who ARE aware of TEB's take on things. They are aware of the political positions and TEB's thoughts on science and other areas. They still expected a concert of TEB songs and hits.

TEB isn't even concerned about hurting MOC. Their excuse, MoC knoew TEB's take on things (true), and so, it's all okay (it's NOT).

TEB's message, it's okay to screw over disabled people, sick people, and kids just so you can play a big prank on a crowd who are giving to charity because there are a FEW (in otherwords, not everyone in the crowd) Republicans are also in it.

I was never a fan of TEB to begin with, so overall, it doesn't affect me except for TEB screwing over kids and sick people, and as I was never a fan my opinion really doesn't matter, but I have ZERO respect for what they did.

There's a time and a place for politics, a charity event is NOT ONE OF THEM.

I wrote more, but it was probably over the top. Short to say, I don't have a problem with the message they gave, but refusing to actually sing their own songs and hits...I'd probably have booed them too if I had been a TEB fan. On the otherhand, if I were a HARDCORE TEB fan, since I think they played a few of their lesser known songs (that were more political in nature) I might have been thrilled, as most times groups sing their hits and not the other songs they have. Still, refusing to sing their big hit, probably would have gotten a boo from me nevertheless.

On the otherhand, as far as marketing, from an old forgotten 90s band, this is genius. They probably have gotten more hits about who and what they are than they have over the past decade combined due to this stunt. Based on that, not sure if this was due to their politics, or because they needed something to get their name out there again (sort of like the type of stunts Donald Trump does as well).

On an unassociated note to that...since we've discussed Trump in this thread...

Just for fun

And ONLY FOR FUN...

What is your Trump Score

I scored 496.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Malik Doom wrote:

That doesn't scare me nearly as much as Hillary receiving it. She might be dusting off her private server.

I don't know how secure that thing was but it probably beats Trumps Twitter account.

You know, you THINK you're using hyperbole then....Linky

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Why is it controversial to have a take on science?


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
Why is it controversial to have a take on science?

Because science is our means of learning about reality and reality has a well known liberal bias.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Malik Doom wrote:

That doesn't scare me nearly as much as Hillary receiving it. She might be dusting off her private server.

I don't know how secure that thing was but it probably beats Trumps Twitter account.

You know, you THINK you're using hyperbole then....Linky

Non Facepuke Linky

According to this, the base is alive and well. Article writer needs to use the power of the Google more often.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Malik Doom wrote:
That doesn't scare me nearly as much as Hillary receiving it. She might be dusting off her private server.
I don't know how secure that thing was but it probably beats Trumps Twitter account.
You know, you THINK you're using hyperbole then....Linky

Honestly, I expect that's more Trump just making stuff up, based off some pre-Iraq War memory of the US having troops in Saudi Arabia than him leaking anything secret.

He's not exactly known for his strong grasp on foreign policy.


Riyadh AFB is alive and well. It's no secret. The article writer couldn't be bothered to do a quick-n-dirty Google search.


Turin the Mad wrote:
Riyadh AFB is alive and well. It's no secret. The article writer couldn't be bothered to do a quick-n-dirty Google search.

Well drat. Sorry for spreading that one then. The irony called to me...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Riyadh AFB is alive and well. It's no secret. The article writer couldn't be bothered to do a quick-n-dirty Google search.
Well drat. Sorry for spreading that one then. The irony called to me...

I blame the author of the article. Basic fact checking is the bedrock of journalism. Apparently, it's not on bedrock, but limestone...


This morning while waiting around for flights I got to see a lot of CNN. And a lot of Trump, who by far seems to be getting covered more, at least base on this morning. Trump basically can ensure media coverage as long as he keeps spouting outrageous comments, which then causes CNN and others to bring on Trump people to clarify his points, whatever. By keeping in the spotlight he might be able to win voters just by sheer repetition of republican talking points

In other news, Trump is already complaining about some of the debate dates, being unfair because they are against NFL games. So I wondering if he is laying the groundwork against declining from participation in them. I don't think he has anything to actually gain from doing so.


Going up against NFL ratings is typically a losing proposition. He may be jockeying to decline participation, but it seems more likely that the reality TV guru in him recognizes that his campaign needs as much viewership as possible.


thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Well, I suppose if you only count what was televised, and inside the building, it went off without contention.

And whether you only count what was televised and inside the building at the RNC, it didn't. And if you count what was outside or not televised, it also didn't.

Was it perfect unity? Of course not. There are always protests and contention. If you want to play the false equivalence game, go ahead. I'm bored with it. The Republican Convention was poorly planned, poorly run, had distinctly D-List speakers and apparently failed to do Trump much good.

The Democratic one had some protests, but handled them well (particularly on the floor) and was organized and run like clockwork in comparison. We don't know yet what the effects will be, but I'll bet that even with outside things like the wikileak figured in, she'll get a nice polling bounce out of it and be farther ahead than before the conventions.

It may not make a spit of difference. Trump built his platform on an area where the Democrats have always been vulnerable, especially with a candidate that's not very popular among the general population. Fear and Hatred topped with a Law and Order platform have always worked well with the Republicans in the past, and we may well see a major surge in the White Male vote going heavily for Trump. Especially in states like Pennsylvania where people want to continue making their livings digging coal no matter what some damm fool "Environmentalist" might say.

Don't take it on my say. This article from the Atlantic does a much better job on explaining just why a Trump Presidency is more than just a real possibility.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Pan wrote:
Why is it controversial to have a take on science?
Because science is our means of learning about reality and reality has a well known liberal bias.

Coal miners don't give a damm on what some "enviromentalist" has to say if it has any thing about shutting them down. For them, reality stops with concerns about making a living.

Democrats and Liberals alike have always had this strange idea that logic matters when people perceive they are facing hard times. The fact that the perception may not be true is irrelevant.


MMCJawa wrote:

This morning while waiting around for flights I got to see a lot of CNN. And a lot of Trump, who by far seems to be getting covered more, at least base on this morning. Trump basically can ensure media coverage as long as he keeps spouting outrageous comments, which then causes CNN and others to bring on Trump people to clarify his points, whatever. By keeping in the spotlight he might be able to win voters just by sheer repetition of republican talking points

In other news, Trump is already complaining about some of the debate dates, being unfair because they are against NFL games. So I wondering if he is laying the groundwork against declining from participation in them. I don't think he has anything to actually gain from doing so.

This person gets it. All Trump has to do is to keep spouting out, He almost doesn't need ads when the Media gives him not only repitition but a smoothing out of his diatribe for FREE, in their constant battle for ratings. This is inevitable in the system. Trump won't stop getting free support, free coverage, it's the formula that's enabled him to literally change the game that the experts have been so comfortable in predicting in the past. He'll do an even better job against a nationally-reviled Clinton, than Bush did with the "Willie Horton" approach against Michael Dukakis.

I don't know if Sanders could have done any better with his almost total failure to win the minority vote.


*looks outside* Has hell frozen over cause it sure feels like Old Scratch decided to vent some his furnaces outside.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Pan wrote:
Why is it controversial to have a take on science?
Because science is our means of learning about reality and reality has a well known liberal bias.

Coal miners don't give a damm on what some "enviromentalist" has to say if it has any thing about shutting them down. For them, reality stops with concerns about making a living.

Democrats and Liberals alike have always had this strange idea that logic matters when people perceive they are facing hard times. The fact that the perception may not be true is irrelevant.

I know. And it makes the fight hard. It's easier to lie and tell them the jobs will come back.

It's a lie, of course. It's not environmentalists killing coal jobs. First it was the changes in coal mining itself - mountaintop removal taking far less people then old mines. Now it's mostly competition from fracking & cheap natural gas.
Coal jobs aren't coming back.


As a guy that lives near coal country (though not as close as some), you are absolutely correct. Coal jobs aren't profitable any more because the fact the demand for coal is down. Not just as an energy source, but also because of its use with steel. When those two things go down, it affects the live blood of manufacturing jobs across a great cut of the US. Couple that with the automation of certain jobs and thus as you said, need for less unskilled labor, we have the current climate.

While the environment DOES play a factor, it's not nearly as strong as the lack of demand in the face of changing energy needs/supplies and demands for certain types of energy/production items.


thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Pan wrote:
Why is it controversial to have a take on science?
Because science is our means of learning about reality and reality has a well known liberal bias.

Coal miners don't give a damm on what some "enviromentalist" has to say if it has any thing about shutting them down. For them, reality stops with concerns about making a living.

Democrats and Liberals alike have always had this strange idea that logic matters when people perceive they are facing hard times. The fact that the perception may not be true is irrelevant.

I know. And it makes the fight hard. It's easier to lie and tell them the jobs will come back.

It's a lie, of course. It's not environmentalists killing coal jobs. First it was the changes in coal mining itself - mountaintop removal taking far less people then old mines. Now it's mostly competition from fracking & cheap natural gas.
Coal jobs aren't coming back.

Yes, there is a War on Coal, but it's being fought by the economy, not by environmentalists. The latter just wants to pull the plug on the life support.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Have any of you read the actual emails from the DNC* Wikileaks trove?

As gamers we know that if you roll the dice enough times you can get almost any result. So the fact that total rubes get elected to national office doesn't really come as a shock or a surprise. What I find shocking though in the Wikileaks DNC emails is the rancid juvenility of those in charge. These people weren't elected into positions of high power within the DNC by unknowing masses but appointed by their colleagues. And if the emails had not been leaked, the DNC ruling members who exchanged emails with her would be just fine with Debbie Wasserman Schultz still in charge.

While I like being right as much as the next person, being right about stuff like this just takes all of the fun out of it.

Some days it's hard being a cynical hipster :(

* In the interests of full disclosure - I assume the RNC to be no better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I read some of them. A lot of them sounded like... how should I put this... like a bunch of 20-year-old interns determined to keep secrets and feeling they were extremely important and unlikely to ever get caught or reprimanded no matter what they did.


Red,

Isn't that like all the internet?


Rednal wrote:
I read some of them. A lot of them sounded like... how should I put this... like a bunch of 20-year-old interns determined to keep secrets and feeling they were extremely important and unlikely to ever get caught or reprimanded no matter what they did.

Shocking, isn't it. Who woulda thunk it?


I know. Such shock. Much surprise. Wow. XD

...Though I did hear something about a class action lawsuit that some of Sanders' supporters were trying to bring, given that the DNC's own rules say it's supposed to be impartial...


Well I wish them luck. I hope they can prevail but if not...


thejeff wrote:
Rednal wrote:
I read some of them. A lot of them sounded like... how should I put this... like a bunch of 20-year-old interns determined to keep secrets and feeling they were extremely important and unlikely to ever get caught or reprimanded no matter what they did.
Shocking, isn't it. Who woulda thunk it?

The shock isn't that people are like that - see Thomas Seitz's comment - it's that the people in charge behaving like that is just fine to the rest of the gang.

Without the hack+leak no one would have been reprimanded, let alone fired.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks Quark for citing me as a source. ;)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is nothing really damming or embarrassing in those emails. The only people who think they're some some of smoking gun evidence are juviniles. Phrases involving sausage and making come to mind.

Liberty's Edge

Krensky wrote:
There is nothing really damming or embarrassing in those emails.

Well...

They show clear evidence of bias and open communication of such. That's more than just 'embarassing' given that the organization is supposed to be impartial towards all candidates. Several members clearly were not. Further, they weren't even trying to hide their bias. Yet none of them were reprimanded or reminded to act impartially. That suggests systemic problems throughout the organization. Hence the forced ouster of several individuals, including the head of the organization.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Krensky wrote:
There is nothing really damming or embarrassing in those emails.

Well...

They show clear evidence of bias and open communication of such.

They show clear evidence of a scant handful of occasions of bias. That's really nothing. It certainly isn't indicative of the sort of institutional bias that would stand any chance of skewing an election. At most, it's evidence that no one within the organization was actively policing bias.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


Coal miners don't give a damm on what some "enviromentalist" has to say if it has any thing about shutting them down. For them, reality stops with concerns about making a living.

Which is exacerbated by the lack of a social safety net and the social stigma that comes from expanding it.

It's also faux outrage at the environmentalist.

US coal production is way up

The hippies aren't what's taking jobs, its big giant honking machines that get more coal more safely with fewer workers. Same as the logging industry.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Krensky wrote:
There is nothing really damming or embarrassing in those emails.

Well...

They show clear evidence of bias and open communication of such. That's more than just 'embarassing' given that the organization is supposed to be impartial towards all candidates. Several members clearly were not. Further, they weren't even trying to hide their bias. Yet none of them were reprimanded or reminded to act impartially. That suggests systemic problems throughout the organization. Hence the forced ouster of several individuals, including the head of the organization.

Was that email dump a complete dump of everything that was taken or was it selective?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


Coal miners don't give a damm on what some "enviromentalist" has to say if it has any thing about shutting them down. For them, reality stops with concerns about making a living.

Which is exacerbated by the lack of a social safety net and the social stigma that comes from expanding it.

It's also faux outrage at the environmentalist.

US coal production is way up

The hippies aren't what's taking jobs, its big giant honking machines that get more coal more safely with fewer workers. Same as the logging industry.

I agree it's not the hippies, but while coal production is up over the long term, the drop at the end of that chart is huge. By 2011 we were down to mid-90s levels and I believe we've continued dropping since then, mostly due to competition from the fracking boom.


thejeff wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Krensky wrote:
There is nothing really damming or embarrassing in those emails.

Well...

They show clear evidence of bias and open communication of such. That's more than just 'embarassing' given that the organization is supposed to be impartial towards all candidates. Several members clearly were not. Further, they weren't even trying to hide their bias. Yet none of them were reprimanded or reminded to act impartially. That suggests systemic problems throughout the organization. Hence the forced ouster of several individuals, including the head of the organization.

Was that email dump a complete dump of everything that was taken or was it selective?

given that the dump included social security numbers and I think credit card information from donors, I don't think it was very selective at all...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:

Have any of you read the actual emails from the DNC* Wikileaks trove?

As gamers we know that if you roll the dice enough times you can get almost any result. So the fact that total rubes get elected to national office doesn't really come as a shock or a surprise. What I find shocking though in the Wikileaks DNC emails is the rancid juvenility of those in charge. These people weren't elected into positions of high power within the DNC by unknowing masses but appointed by their colleagues. And if the emails had not been leaked, the DNC ruling members who exchanged emails with her would be just fine with Debbie Wasserman Schultz still in charge.

While I like being right as much as the next person, being right about stuff like this just takes all of the fun out of it.

Some days it's hard being a cynical hipster :(

* In the interests of full disclosure - I assume the RNC to be no better.

The Wikkileaks dump should be seen as exactly what it is... Julian Assange's personal war on Clinton ever since she's called for his arrest. The leak acheived it's intended purpose... disrupt the Democratic Party in the middle of Clinton's attempts to unify it by enraging the Sanders crowd.


MMCJawa wrote:
thejeff wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Krensky wrote:
There is nothing really damming or embarrassing in those emails.

Well...

They show clear evidence of bias and open communication of such. That's more than just 'embarassing' given that the organization is supposed to be impartial towards all candidates. Several members clearly were not. Further, they weren't even trying to hide their bias. Yet none of them were reprimanded or reminded to act impartially. That suggests systemic problems throughout the organization. Hence the forced ouster of several individuals, including the head of the organization.

Was that email dump a complete dump of everything that was taken or was it selective?

given that the dump included social security numbers and I think credit card information from donors, I don't think it was very selective at all...

Honestly for such information dumps SSN and credit card numbers would be considered easy to put out. It gives the idea that everything is there and doesn't cost the releaser anything.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Krensky wrote:
There is nothing really damming or embarrassing in those emails.

Well...

They show clear evidence of bias and open communication of such. That's more than just 'embarassing' given that the organization is supposed to be impartial towards all candidates. Several members clearly were not. Further, they weren't even trying to hide their bias. Yet none of them were reprimanded or reminded to act impartially. That suggests systemic problems throughout the organization. Hence the forced ouster of several individuals, including the head of the organization.

Let's be real, guys. The media portrayal of Sanders did far more to slow his campaign than the DNC itself ever could have hoped to accomplish.

I'm tired of giving Wikileaks attention. It's a s+*%ty organization run by a rapist. And apparently kind of pandering to antisemites now.

Even if Wikileaks isn't being guided by Russia here—and let's be honest, it probably is—it's a stupid, utterly biased mess of a movement now. If they actually cared about information being "free", we'd have seen them trying to release Trump's tax returns. They just want to get Trump in charge. If Wikileaks was shut down tomorrow by The Man, nobody would mourn them.

501 to 539 of 539 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Philadelphia DNC 2016 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Off-Topic Discussions