• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Wikileaks DNC leak proves primary was rigged /DNC planned to use Sanders' religion ag

"So that’s a very interesting signaling by Hillary Clinton that if you act in a corrupt way that benefits Hillary Clinton, you will be taken care of. But it’s a very destructive signal for a future presidency, because it’s—effectively, it’s expanding the Overton window of corruption. It doesn’t really matter what you do, how you behave; as long as that is going to benefit Hillary Clinton, you’ll be protected."
Click to expand...

I guess we have to accept, how bad the choices post Obama are. But I hate it! Bernie was the best choice! Damn you Democrats...Damn you!
 
Fudbucker said:
"Wasserman Schultz says the party came up with a debate schedule "to maximize the opportunity for voters to see our candidates."

Wasserman Schultz’s best point is that the Democrats largely scheduled their debates with TV networks, which means viewers without cable can see them. But other than that, her statement is very disingenuous.

There are six Democratic party debates compared with 11 scheduled for the Republicans, and half of the Democratic debates are on weekends -- including one the weekend before Christmas and another on the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend. If the Democrats had wanted to "maximize" opportunities for viewers, the party could have added more debates, scheduled them on weekdays and avoided holidays.

We rate this claim False."

http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...atic-debates-maximize-exposure-debbie-wasser/
Click to expand...

I'm going to call bollocks on this because both you and Politifact are being disingenuous about this.

Merely claiming that there would have been better time slots totally ignores that fact that the first debate drew a viewership of 15.3 million viewers, a huge improvement over the first debate in 2008 which only got 8.3 million, and even eclipsed the overall record of 10.7 million viewers.

Politifact further fudges this by comparing numbers with the Republican debates totally ignoring the previous Democratic Debate numbers but instead trying to compare the sane, but let's be honest, boring Democratic Debates with the huge entertainment factor of the batcarp crazy that was the Republican ones.

The ratings say that the DNC were right with their timing as the number of people viewing this Primary's Debates set record viewership. Claiming that they were on when no one would watch them flies in the face of the numbers that actually did.
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
I'm going to call bollocks on this because both you and Politifact are being disingenuous about this.

Merely claiming that there would have been better time slots totally ignores that fact that the first debate drew a viewership of 15.3 million viewers, a huge improvement over the first debate in 2008 which only got 8.3 million, and even eclipsed the overall record of 10.7 million viewers.
Click to expand...
You are aware of the much larger access/availability to view now, than 8 years ago, right?

Several time slots could have been worse than were. NFL games being in different time zones helped.
 
Dog Town said:
You are aware of the much larger access/availability to view now, than 8 years ago, right?
Several time slots could have been worse than were. NFL games being in different time zones helped.
Click to expand...

Feel free to show that this would have increased viewership by close to 85%

ETA: Also having been in the US for the 2008 Presidential Campaign, I would actually like you to start out by proving evidence that there actually is much larger access/availability to view now too. Most homes in the US have had a TV since the 1980's and Cable and Satellite had been well and truly implemented in the US in 2008 (cable was pretty much throughout about urban USA when I was there.in 1986!)
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
Personally, as an atheist but not a Sanders supporter, I think Brad Marshall's mail was inexcusable, whether they actually acted on it or not. He should be fired. Also the person who replied "Amen".
Click to expand...

Yeah, he was a jerk. Did you notice the 'not being reported on' reply to his email telling him, no, it was a bad idea?

You don't fire people for one stupid idea. Good grief.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Yeah, he was a jerk. Did you notice the 'not being reported on' reply to his email telling him, no, it was a bad idea?

You don't fire people for one stupid idea. Good grief.
Click to expand...

The thought police have arrived. No suggesting bad ideas even by private members of a private organisation!
 
PhantomWolf said:
Feel free to show that this would have increased viewership by close to 85%

ETA: Also having been in the US for the 2008 Presidential Campaign, I would actually like you to start out by proving evidence that there actually is much larger access/availability to view now too. Most homes in the US have had a TV since the 1980's and Cable and Satellite had been well and truly implemented in the US in 2008 (cable was pretty much throughout about urban USA when I was there.in 1986!)
Click to expand...

Two words:
Phones, and tablets.
 
Dog Town said:
Must be too young for "New Coke"!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

a) it was implemented
b) I don't believe anyone got fired for it
c) It actually survived in the market place for quite some time, introduced in 1985 it was finally discontinued in 2002.
 
Dog Town said:
Must be too young for "New Coke"!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Who got fired for "New Coke"? Coca-Cola got huge benefits out of all the publicity and put Pepsi down in market share considerably. If the traditional Democratic disorganized in-fighting has the same effect on the GOP, I'm going to be a happy camper.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Who got fired for "New Coke"? Coca-Cola got huge benefits out of all the publicity and put Pepsi down in market share considerably. If the traditional Democratic disorganized in-fighting has the same effect on the GOP, I'm going to be a happy camper.
Click to expand...

Sarcasm emoticon! It was disgusting, as a Coke drinker.
 
Last edited:
Foolmewunz said:
Who got fired for "New Coke"? Coca-Cola got huge benefits out of all the publicity and put Pepsi down in market share considerably. If the traditional Democratic disorganized in-fighting has the same effect on the GOP, I'm going to be a happy camper.
Click to expand...

Exactly...

Wikipedia said:
...no one at Coca-Cola was fired or otherwise held responsible for what is still widely perceived as a misstep, for the simple reason that it ultimately wasn't. When Goizueta died in 1997, the company's share price was at a level well above what it was when he had taken over 16 years earlier and its position as market leader even more firmly established.
Click to expand...
 
Dog Town said:
Sarcasm emoticon! It was disgusting, as a Coke drinker.
Click to expand...

Except that it wasn't....

The results of the taste tests were strong – the sweeter cola overwhelmingly beat both regular Coke and Pepsi. Then tasters were asked if they would buy and drink it if it were Coca-Cola. Most said yes, they would, although it would take some getting used to. A small minority, about 10–12%, felt angry and alienated at the very thought, saying that they might stop drinking Coke altogether. Their presence in focus groups tended to skew results in a more negative direction as they exerted indirect peer pressure on other participants.
Click to expand...

Despite New Coke's acceptance with a large number of Coca-Cola drinkers, many more resented the change in formula and were not shy about making that known — just as had happened in the focus groups. Many of these drinkers were Southerners, some of whom considered the drink a fundamental part of regional identity. They viewed the company's decision to change the formula through the prism of the Civil War, as another surrender to the "Yankees".
Click to expand...

It wasn't the taste that turned people off, it was the perceptions about the changes (and yes, I was in the US in 1986 and experienced both drinks)
 
Dog Town said:
You people are funny! It was a joke. I guess no humor, when all you want is to argue! Have at it!
Click to expand...

You forget what board you are on, even if you were trying to make a joke, when you have your facts wrong, you'll be called on it.
 
PhantomWolf said:
You forget what board you are on, even if you were trying to make a joke, when you have your facts wrong, you'll be called on it.
Click to expand...

If I made an assertion of fact, you would be correct. I did not! Therefore...

Sheesh, "lighten up Francis"!
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Yeah, he was a jerk. Did you notice the 'not being reported on' reply to his email telling him, no, it was a bad idea?

You don't fire people for one stupid idea. Good grief.
Click to expand...

I personally have not read through the emails, just an article or two about them.

It really does depend though on how much damage the "one stupid idea" causes. Although DWS sort of fell on her sword (by taking arguably a better job offer, or at least one where she doesn't have to pretend to be neutral anymore), I'm not sure that's enough accountability.

There are plenty of atheist Democrats and we deserve to be treated with the same respect that religious groups get. If he were suggesting attacking him for being Jewish, that would almost certainly be a firing offense.
 
Puppycow said:
There are plenty of atheist Democrats and we deserve to be treated with the same respect that religious groups get.
Click to expand...

I gotta say; that is an ongoing indictment on the American people overall.

Too many of them are a couple of thousand years out in their thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom