Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

[fuelair]

So you seem to be saying that, trust, objectivity, and compelling weight is determined by how much a source agrees with your opinion. I find that a peculiar method of measuring of objectivity.

But quite popular since we mostly lost real reporting so long ago!!!!!

 

[theprestige]

And right now, the candidate that is supposed to be done according to this thread is dominating the delegate counts. Counting superdelegates (as one should) Clinton has 1121 to Sanders' 479. Not counting those unpledged delegates, Clinton has a well over 200 delegate lead with 663-457. Next up, Maine, which Sanders will probably narrowly win, then Michigan and Mississippi, which Clinton should win big in. I think it's quite likely that we'll be going into the March 15th primaries with Clinton up by 275 pledged delegates or so.

According to this thread, Hillary was supposed to be done because of evidence of corruption. The question of whether she would face any serious competition in the primaries didn't even enter into it. Now, that question has come to dominate the conversation. So much so that in forming your conclusion to the thread so far, you don't even bother to review the OP at all.

To me, what's fascinating about all of this is the lack of discussion by progressives, about what the rise of Bernie Sanders says about the Democratic Party. There's plenty of narrow partisan bickering between the Shillaries and the Bernie Bros, but it seems the closest anyone has gotten to the broader question is Skeptic Ginger dismissing the anti-Hillary faction of her party as dupes of the GOP.

While Skeptic Ginger's analysis is probably reassuring to an Establishment worldview, it hardly seems sufficient to explain what happened here. The number of candidates in the Republican primaries is widely and rightly seen as the sign of a party in turmoil, and a voter base that is discontent and ill-led. Only a few months ago, members here were pointing and laughing at the "clown car" that is the Republican field--and that was before Trump started to become a thing. I recall one of the mods (Cleon? jsfisher?--it doesn't matter) praising the Democrats for their unity in supporting a single candidate, and avoiding all the messy bickering in the Primaries that was sure to dog the Republicans. Well, they were right about the Republican primaries being a mess. I wonder if they'd like to revisit their views on the Democrats, in light of recent events.

Wasn't Bernie's candidacy supposed to be an "awareness raising" thing? Wasn't he supposedly just in the ring to move the conversation a little away from Hillary's standard centrist establishment line, and towards the more progressive parts of the party's agenda? Well, that hasn't worked out at all. Instead of embracing Bernie's talking points, and his voters, Hillary seems to have taken his candidacy seriously, as something to be opposed, rebutted. Hillary seems to have assumed that there were Democrats out there who would vote for Bernie instead of her. The surprise turned to be that her assumption was correct. I think everybody, including the candidates themselves, was a little surprised by that. So now I'm wondering, why do those voters exist, and why was the party surprised to discover them?

ETA: No offense to Trakar, who has been very articulate from very early on about why he supports Sanders, and about why he thought from the beginning that Sanders's candidacy was more than just a conversation piece. I'm wondering more about the larger picture, about what the existence of voters like Trakar says about the Democratic Party more broadly.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So you seem to be saying that, trust, objectivity, and compelling weight is determined by how much a source agrees with your opinion. I find that a peculiar method of measuring of objectivity.

 

[wareyin]

According to this thread, Hillary was supposed to be done because of evidence of corruption. The question of whether she would face any serious competition in the primaries didn't even enter into it. Now, that question has come to dominate the conversation. So much so that in forming your conclusion to the thread so far, you don't even bother to review the OP at all.

I'm sorry I didn't give much deference to a long-banned poster, nor his OP consisting of another conservative claim of a Clinton scandal which (like every other one so far) fell apart when looked at. If you would like to try to carry Elf-grinder3000's torch in this thread, feel free.

To me, what's fascinating about all of this is the lack of discussion by progressives, about what the rise of Bernie Sanders says about the Democratic Party. There's plenty of narrow partisan bickering between the Shillaries and the Bernie Bros, but it seems the closest anyone has gotten to the broader question is Skeptic Ginger dismissing the anti-Hillary faction of her party as dupes of the GOP.

While Skeptic Ginger's analysis is probably reassuring to an Establishment worldview, it hardly seems sufficient to explain what happened here. The number of candidates in the Republican primaries is widely and rightly seen as the sign of a party in turmoil, and a voter base that is discontent and ill-led. Only a few months ago, members here were pointing and laughing at the "clown car" that is the Republican field--and that was before Trump started to become a thing. I recall one of the mods (Cleon? jsfisher?--it doesn't matter) praising the Democrats for their unity in supporting a single candidate, and avoiding all the messy bickering in the Primaries that was sure to dog the Republicans. Well, they were right about the Republican primaries being a mess. I wonder if they'd like to revisit their views on the Democrats, in light of recent events.

Wasn't Bernie's candidacy supposed to be an "awareness raising" thing? Wasn't he supposedly just in the ring to move the conversation a little away from Hillary's standard centrist establishment line, and towards the more progressive parts of the party's agenda? Well, that hasn't worked out at all. Instead of embracing Bernie's talking points, and his voters, Hillary seems to have taken his candidacy seriously, as something to be opposed, rebutted. Hillary seems to have assumed that there were Democrats out there who would vote for Bernie instead of her. The surprise turned to be that her assumption was correct. I think everybody, including the candidates themselves, was a little surprised by that. So now I'm wondering, why do those voters exist, and why was the party surprised to discover them?

You seem to have a very faulty memory when it comes to the Democratic Party this election cycle. Clinton has always been the heavy favorite, yes, but no one assumed that Sanders would get no votes. It wasn't that long ago that people were expecting/hoping Biden to run, as well.

ETA: No offense to Trakar, who has been very articulate from very early on about why he supports Sanders, and about why he thought from the beginning that Sanders's candidacy was more than just a conversation piece. I'm wondering more about the larger picture, about what the existence of voters like Trakar says about the Democratic Party more broadly.

It may not be very reassuring to you, but iirc, Trakar considers himself a Republican, so I'm not clear that his views say much about the Democratic Party.

 

[fuelair]

You guys don't realize that the age divide is 47 and up-irrational hatred, 46 and younger, not.

Wife and I are respectively 71 and 69. Neither of us dislike (even )Hillary but she prefers Bernie and I want a Democrat to win President (and Democrats to get voted in and take out the trash)*!!!!!!.





*by which we mean those who hate the poor, children, people who aren't just like they are but subservient, support companies over workers, support foreign over domestic workers, etc., ad inf. **




** or, specifically, republickers

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

According to this thread, Hillary was supposed to be done because of evidence of corruption. The question of whether she would face any serious competition in the primaries didn't even enter into it. Now, that question has come to dominate the conversation. So much so that in forming your conclusion to the thread so far, you don't even bother to review the OP at all.

What difference does that make? That wasn't credible either.

To me, what's fascinating about all of this is the lack of discussion by progressives, about what the rise of Bernie Sanders says about the Democratic Party. There's plenty of narrow partisan bickering between the Shillaries and the Bernie Bros, but it seems the closest anyone has gotten to the broader question is Skeptic Ginger dismissing the anti-Hillary faction of her party as dupes of the GOP.

Little projection here? The GOP is falling apart. Cue the false equivalency tu quoque.

While Skeptic Ginger's analysis is probably reassuring to an Establishment worldview, it hardly seems sufficient to explain what happened here. The number of candidates in the Republican primaries is widely and rightly seen as the sign of a party in turmoil, and a voter base that is discontent and ill-led. Only a few months ago, members here were pointing and laughing at the "clown car" that is the Republican field--and that was before Trump started to become a thing. I recall one of the mods (Cleon? jsfisher?--it doesn't matter) praising the Democrats for their unity in supporting a single candidate, and avoiding all the messy bickering in the Primaries that was sure to dog the Republicans. Well, they were right about the Republican primaries being a mess. I wonder if they'd like to revisit their views on the Democrats, in light of recent events.

There are a few very loud Berniites but if you look at the forum poll, most Sanders supporters will support Clinton if she's nominated. And you don't hear many in the Democratic Party especially at the top, the so called establishment, bad mouthing Sanders or even suggesting they wouldn't support him as a candidate.

Wasn't Bernie's candidacy supposed to be an "awareness raising" thing? Wasn't he supposedly just in the ring to move the conversation a little away from Hillary's standard centrist establishment line, and towards the more progressive parts of the party's agenda? Well, that hasn't worked out at all. Instead of embracing Bernie's talking points, and his voters, Hillary seems to have taken his candidacy seriously, as something to be opposed, rebutted. Hillary seems to have assumed that there were Democrats out there who would vote for Bernie instead of her. The surprise turned to be that her assumption was correct. I think everybody, including the candidates themselves, was a little surprised by that. So now I'm wondering, why do those voters exist, and why was the party surprised to discover them?

ETA: No offense to Trakar, who has been very articulate from very early on about why he supports Sanders, and about why he thought from the beginning that Sanders's candidacy was more than just a conversation piece. I'm wondering more about the larger picture, about what the existence of voters like Trakar says about the Democratic Party more broadly.

According to whom?

So you're saying that you had some version of how things were supposed to go and you have your own version of how they went instead, neither of which are more than personal speculation.

What else do you have?

 

[Trakar]

Please demonstrate where I have ever stated that I determine the objectivity of the sources I reference by how closely they match my own impressions and opinions of the world (which is what you have just done).

I do occasionally cite sources which reflect my perspectives, but I am almost always very explicit that these sources are demonstrations that my perspectives are not singular and are shared by a significant number of people with similar perspectives, I do not claim them to be objective qualifications of any issue.

 

[Trakar]

...It may not be very reassuring to you, but iirc, Trakar considers himself a Republican, so I'm not clear that his views say much about the Democratic Party.

A Progressive first and foremost, a Republican in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, and Eisenhower, second. Much in the way that you apparently consider yourself an establishment Democratic supporter first and foremost and a right-leaning moderate/conservative-lite, corporatist second.

 

[Trakar]

But quite popular since we mostly lost real reporting so long ago!!!!!

Agreed

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Please demonstrate where I have ever stated that I determine the objectivity of the sources I reference by how closely they match my own impressions and opinions of the world (which is what you have just done).

I do occasionally cite sources which reflect my perspectives, but I am almost always very explicit that these sources are demonstrations that my perspectives are not singular and are shared by a significant number of people with similar perspectives, I do not claim them to be objective qualifications of any issue.

Demonstrate that you are affected by confirmation bias? Did I miss the evidence you posted that I was so affected?

What on Earth makes you think you are free from confirmation bias re Clinton? I've posted links with evidence contradicting the claims she's some corrupt, lying, politician. What have you posted and why is that any less cherry picked you claim without evidence that my links were?

 

[Belz...]

According to this thread, Hillary was supposed to be done because of evidence of corruption. The question of whether she would face any serious competition in the primaries didn't even enter into it. Now, that question has come to dominate the conversation. So much so that in forming your conclusion to the thread so far, you don't even bother to review the OP at all.

To me, what's fascinating about all of this is the lack of discussion by progressives, about what the rise of Bernie Sanders says about the Democratic Party. There's plenty of narrow partisan bickering between the Shillaries and the Bernie Bros, but it seems the closest anyone has gotten to the broader question is Skeptic Ginger dismissing the anti-Hillary faction of her party as dupes of the GOP.

While Skeptic Ginger's analysis is probably reassuring to an Establishment worldview, it hardly seems sufficient to explain what happened here. The number of candidates in the Republican primaries is widely and rightly seen as the sign of a party in turmoil, and a voter base that is discontent and ill-led. Only a few months ago, members here were pointing and laughing at the "clown car" that is the Republican field--and that was before Trump started to become a thing. I recall one of the mods (Cleon? jsfisher?--it doesn't matter) praising the Democrats for their unity in supporting a single candidate, and avoiding all the messy bickering in the Primaries that was sure to dog the Republicans. Well, they were right about the Republican primaries being a mess. I wonder if they'd like to revisit their views on the Democrats, in light of recent events.

Wasn't Bernie's candidacy supposed to be an "awareness raising" thing? Wasn't he supposedly just in the ring to move the conversation a little away from Hillary's standard centrist establishment line, and towards the more progressive parts of the party's agenda? Well, that hasn't worked out at all. Instead of embracing Bernie's talking points, and his voters, Hillary seems to have taken his candidacy seriously, as something to be opposed, rebutted. Hillary seems to have assumed that there were Democrats out there who would vote for Bernie instead of her. The surprise turned to be that her assumption was correct. I think everybody, including the candidates themselves, was a little surprised by that. So now I'm wondering, why do those voters exist, and why was the party surprised to discover them?

ETA: No offense to Trakar, who has been very articulate from very early on about why he supports Sanders, and about why he thought from the beginning that Sanders's candidacy was more than just a conversation piece. I'm wondering more about the larger picture, about what the existence of voters like Trakar says about the Democratic Party more broadly.

See, sometimes I hate you, and sometimes I love you. This is one of the latter times. That was a good post, regardless of whether I agree with your points or whether anyone else does.. We should all strive to make more of those, and fewer of these:

 

[Trakar]

Demonstrate that you are affected by confirmation bias? Did I miss the evidence you posted that I was so affected?

What on Earth makes you think you are free from confirmation bias re Clinton? I've posted links with evidence contradicting the claims she's some corrupt, lying, politician. What have you posted and why is that any less cherry picked you claim without evidence that my links were?

I've never claimed that I was without bias.

You are the one who asserted that you found the source referenced to be an objective and compelling source because it agreed with your experience and opinions, and then you claim it supremely ironic that I stated that I find this definition of objective to be peculiar. Please point to any post I have made where I assert or claim that any reference or citation I have made is objective because it agrees with what believe and my experience.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

See, sometimes I hate you, and sometimes I love you. This is one of the latter times. That was a good post, regardless of whether I agree with your points or whether anyone else does.. We should all strive to make more of those, and fewer of these:

So someone accuses me of only posting sources that support my POV and what, I needed to spell it out that the same person was ignoring their own confirmation bias?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've never claimed that I was without bias.

You are the one who asserted that you found the source referenced to be an objective and compelling source because it agreed with your experience and opinions, and then you claim it supremely ironic that I stated that I find this definition of objective to be peculiar. Please point to any post I have made where I assert or claim that any reference or citation I have made is objective because it agrees with what believe and my experience.

Well guess I do need to spell it out, I posted citations that contained evidence. That is I posted evidence you are welcome to address. Instead you hand-waved said evidence away with an ad hominem attack—if I posted it, it is therefore biased.

That is pure irony.

 

[Belz...]

So someone accuses me of only posting sources that support my POV and what, I needed to spell it out that the same person was ignoring their own confirmation bias?

My point, Ginger, was that if we all spent less time posting snarky remarks, pictures and dismissals (myself included), we might have a more interesting forum, here. You did miss that point, of course.

 

[wareyin]

A Progressive first and foremost, a Republican in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, and Eisenhower, second. Much in the way that you apparently consider yourself an establishment Democratic supporter first and foremost and a right-leaning moderate/conservative-lite, corporatist second.

You have stated on these forums that you are a Republican, which is why I felt theprestige's idea that you represent any faction of the Democratic Party is wrong. Your claims that I am a "right-leaning moderate", "conservative-lite", and/or "corporatist", however, are entirely off-topic, as well as completely without merit or support.

 

[mgidm86]

Hmm, I'm in my mid 40s, I've seen plenty of both Hillary and Bill, and I can't fathom the hatred for them either.

ditto

You guys don't realize that the age divide is 47 and up-irrational hatred, 46 and younger, not.

Ok, the divide is 47 years, 300 days and up!

Honestly, I think the divide rests in how much a person watches FOX news/listens to conservative talk radio, vs how much they get their facts from actual news sources.

Actual news sources? What would those be? Watch and listen? Do you get your news from TV and radio? Your school newspaper?

By the way, do you see a difference between your reply and the others? Couldn't you address my comments like an adult? Maybe I was a smart-ass in my post, I actually can't remember haha.

I can see from my last few visits to this forum that I need to take a break. I get pissed at stuff I see here, but I would buy anyone here a drink if I ever met 'em in person (even da libs). It's all good. At least people here give a crap enough to engage in conversation.

Cheers!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My point, Ginger, was that if we all spent less time posting snarky remarks, pictures and dismissals (myself included), we might have a more interesting forum, here. You did miss that point, of course.

I happen to think dismissing someone's cited evidence on the basis the person posting it just looks at bias confirming evidence is also snarky.

And praising a wall of opinion as if the number of words makes something valid while a short and sweet 'look in the mirror' symbol is considered snarky doesn't give one much confidence in your judging criteria.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Actual news sources? What would those be? Watch and listen? Do you get your news from TV and radio? Your school newspaper?

By the way, do you see a difference between your reply and the others? Couldn't you address my comments like an adult? Maybe I was a smart-ass in my post, I actually can't remember haha.

I can see from my last few visits to this forum that I need to take a break. I get pissed at stuff I see here, but I would buy anyone here a drink if I ever met 'em in person (even da libs). It's all good. At least people here give a crap enough to engage in conversation.

Cheers!

A study of Fox News viewers found the more Fox in their diets, the more likely they were to believe false things. In addition, Fox has an editorial bias that comes from the top down in the form of daily memos, something the other mainstream TV news programs don't do. That doesn't mean they don't make programing choices that sell to a specific market, and actually, for the last couple months CNN and MSNBC have had almost nothing on besides a constant drone of political pundits.

I've taken to watching AlJazeera for my TV news along with Democracy Now for my anti-war POV.
Pretty sure most of the people on this forum probably get their main news diet online.

 

[Belz...]

I happen to think dismissing someone's cited evidence on the basis the person posting it just looks at bias confirming evidence is also snarky.

The only reason why I picked your post, Ginger, is because it was right next to theprestige's, and illustrated what I wanted to say. I could've picked one of mine just as easily.

And praising a wall of opinion as if the number of words makes something valid while a short and sweet 'look in the mirror' symbol is considered snarky doesn't give one much confidence in your judging criteria.

Who said it had anything to do with the number of words? Is it because his posts had words and yours didn't? That is your assumption, not mine.