No no, I'm sure old white men with power would never try to influence things or people to the detriment of their attackers or opponents. That group of people rose to the top of the food chain in our society because of innate qualities in leadership and compassion, after all.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
Dave
Staff member
I agree that this doesn't pass the smell test, but with so many people coming out against Weinstein (& others) right now a single incident is a coincidence. But it also makes it a good idea to keep our eyes on the others involved for bullshit like this. Because if it starts to happen to others I'll start making the tinfoil hats and decrying conspiracy to discredit accusers.
Because, you know, it's only because they're old, and/or white and/or men that this happened. Other groups are completely immune to the temptations of power.
That entire last paragraph was sarcasm. Bubble, why the hell do you have to make it about such things, or even imply such?
I was just referring back to the Weinstein thing. I mean, I'm a white aging guy, you know, I'm well aware we are, in fact, simply superior...No, wait, I mean, not at all different from any other group at all, generally speaking, on a moral level.
My whole post was sarcastic, as well. I'm honestly surprised you asked Dave - I thought his "gee, this is surely a coincidence" was as clearly ironic as it can get, and mine was building on that.
It's HOW the sarcasm went that even though you were being sarcastic about the topic, was STILL racist and sexist against the group you were pointing out. The opposite of your meaning is that white men are sexist and racist and that's why they stay at the top.
So yes you were being insulting to anybody in that group, and yes, you can be nasty to a group you're part of, even unintentionally.
This one is for @Li3n - DNC Official Says She Doesn't Want To Recruit 'Cisgender Straight White Males'
The quote is from the original email for hiring people, as well as the article itself.
GasBandit
Staff member
Shitlord.
So, like every other field outside of Harvey Weinstein's hotel room.
GasBandit
Staff member
As we have a spanish language station and an urban station, diversity hiring isn't usually a concern for us.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774
tl;dr: The DNC was broke due to Obama's campaign, finding itself in debt to the tune of $24 million. In exchange for being able to determine all major leadership positions in the DNC and a host of other controlling benefits, Hillary Clinton's campaign agreed to invest in the DNC.
Her control over the DNC started about four months after announcing her candidacy, in mid-2015, nearly a year before she won the nomination.
Still tl;dr?
Hillary Clinton bought out the DNC in 2015.
There's more though:
That's messed up.
tl;dr: The DNC was broke due to Obama's campaign, finding itself in debt to the tune of $24 million. In exchange for being able to determine all major leadership positions in the DNC and a host of other controlling benefits, Hillary Clinton's campaign agreed to invest in the DNC.
Her control over the DNC started about four months after announcing her candidacy, in mid-2015, nearly a year before she won the nomination.
Still tl;dr?
Hillary Clinton bought out the DNC in 2015.
There's more though:
So not only did she control the DNC but she took money from states that needed it to support the down ballot - obviously costing the DNC many of the seats in state legislature as well as congress.
That's messed up.
Dave
Staff member
Again, blame it all on DWS. That dumb asshat not only helped bankrupt the DNC (by not righting the ship after Obama emptied the coffers by fundraising) but handed everything over to Clinton, ensuring Bernie would get fucked, Trump would be president, and the country would shift dangerously to the right. If you think one person can't make a difference, just look at her dumb ass and see what one incompetent person can do to an entire country.
Then look at the white house for example #2.
Then look at the white house for example #2.
How many years back (solidly, without exception) do we want to go with that one?
In a way, that's the essence of libertarianism: For almost every case, Bad Situation + Government = Worse Situation
More like Bad Situation + Bad Government = Worse Situation.
The parties are too busy fighting with one another right now to take note of the collateral damage being done to their constituency.
--Patrick
See, I'm not a libertarian, I'm just summing it up very very broadly above. I'm more on the government as a necessary evil that should be only as powerful as necessary. They're related, but not the same (at least to me). But I acknowledge the elements of truth of the statement I made, while also thinking it's incomplete and too simple. It's kind of like people's views on communism. Some say it's great in theory, but that corrupt people have made it horrible. Others think that it's flawed by definition because it ignores the reality of people. Where you sit on that scale is related to above IMO.
A corollary to my statement about a necessary evil should be that no other single entity in the country should be more powerful than the government either, so the rise of corporate powers should be smacked down aggressively. Too big to fail is too big to exist, but also too big to be controlled should also be similarly destroyed. Everything should be decentralized, including government. That's the flaw inherent in many of the political philosophies of the 17th-19th centuries, they were more concentrated on how to limit the power of individual rich people over government itself (aka: Lords/Nobility), whereas they never saw the corporate hegemony way of getting around such restrictions. They didn't realize how powerful one corporation (and even sometimes one person at the head of such) could get, and how it would rival a government.
I'm getting way off track, but hey, it's the politics forum.
Cyberpunk is this generation's EnlightenmentSee, I'm not a libertarian, I'm just summing it up very very broadly above. I'm more on the government as a necessary evil that should be only as powerful as necessary. They're related, but not the same (at least to me). But I acknowledge the elements of truth of the statement I made, while also thinking it's incomplete and too simple. It's kind of like people's views on communism. Some say it's great in theory, but that corrupt people have made it horrible. Others think that it's flawed by definition because it ignores the reality of people. Where you sit on that scale is related to above IMO.
A corollary to my statement about a necessary evil should be that no other single entity in the country should be more powerful than the government either, so the rise of corporate powers should be smacked down aggressively. Too big to fail is too big to exist, but also too big to be controlled should also be similarly destroyed. Everything should be decentralized, including government. That's the flaw inherent in many of the political philosophies of the 17th-19th centuries, they were more concentrated on how to limit the power of individual rich people over government itself (aka: Lords/Nobility), whereas they never saw the corporate hegemony way of getting around such restrictions. They didn't realize how powerful one corporation (and even sometimes one person at the head of such) could get, and how it would rival a government.
I'm getting way off track, but hey, it's the politics forum.
We already live in a world with a LOT of too big to fail companies, or companies that hold the power of governments. Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, and if you want to go outside of IT - Toyota, ICBC, JPMorgan, Exxon, Samsung, TimeWarner...
Keeping companies in check is completely anathema to American capitalism, and Europe has failed to properly do so, basking in the beneftis of American exports and allowing American companies to control a LOT of imporant branches in Europe as well.
It is my opinion that this is how the USA has been able to prosper as well as it has, what with the States having some autonomy over their own existence even though they're still under the umbrella of an entire country.
--Patrick
Does Obama deserve any blame in this? It was arguably his campaign that convinced the DNC to focus on the presidency, ignore the downticket races (ie, put all available funds towards presidency), and cost the dems congress.
Was it really DWS's job to "fix" the DNC after Obama left it mired in tens of millions of dollars of debt?
Were you in her position, what would you have done differently to fix it so that the 2016 nomination race could have been fair?
Dave
Staff member
Obama most certainly shares blame in this. He left the DNC in a bad position. But then DWS made everything worst by ignoring it and selling out to a singular campaign.
What I would have done - and she SHOULD have done - would have been to focus on fundraising to refill the depleted coffers in the runup to the next election. They needed to solidify a single unified message that had the ability to resonate. Instead, their platform was essentially "we're not them!" Which is a terrible "platform". You need to give people a reason to vote FOR you, not expect them to vote AGAINST someone.
What I would have done - and she SHOULD have done - would have been to focus on fundraising to refill the depleted coffers in the runup to the next election. They needed to solidify a single unified message that had the ability to resonate. Instead, their platform was essentially "we're not them!" Which is a terrible "platform". You need to give people a reason to vote FOR you, not expect them to vote AGAINST someone.
So; Oprah 2020.
Bernie wasn't some magical savior of America. Socialism isn't a cure all. The political spectrum has been swinging right because of the excesses of Leftism in modern times.
DNC strong arming itself is a clear indicator that Democrats have lost control of the plot. Lately it seems the Left is intent on canniblizing itself.
DNC strong arming itself is a clear indicator that Democrats have lost control of the plot. Lately it seems the Left is intent on canniblizing itself.
GasBandit
Staff member
I don't know that the nomination of Bernie would have really made a difference. Hillary still won the popular vote by a large margin. *Maybe* Bernie would have swung some states by getting more people to come out and vote, but more likely the Russian propaganda machine would have just gone in a different direction.
The DNC does need a wake up call, but the Russian influence is really the biggest issue of the moment.
The DNC does need a wake up call, but the Russian influence is really the biggest issue of the moment.
The political spectrum had been swinging more towards the extremes, as the center had failed to keep people interested and happy. While I personally would definitely prefer Bernie over Trump, neither is really the end all be all solution. Hillary was the candidate par excellence of the establishment, and it was the establishment that lost, pretty much.
Besides, just looking at Trump is short sighted, he didn't come out of nowhere. Podemos, Wilders, UKIP, 5 estella, in Belgium somehow *both* the fascists and the communists, En Marche and Le Pen in France,... everyone, everywhere is looking for a solution on the extremes. And no-one is finding the right answers.
Papa John's, the official pizza of neo-nazis and the alt-right
Alt-Right has terrible tastes in everything.
Alt-Right has terrible tastes in everything.
When I was in college, Papa Johns was basically the only pizza place that delivered to campus. It sucked.