What's more important: Democracy or winning?

[Padawanbater2]

If you knew the party you support could get away with cheating and beating the other candidate to win the 2016 presidential election, would you support it or would you rather the election be run fairly and let the chips fall where they may?

 

[doublejj]

"No Trump"..... is more important

 

[Unclebaldrick]

I can tell we all think this needs much more thorough discussion.

 

[Padawanbater2]

"No Trump"..... is more important

What if those that are currently subverting democracy to get Clinton elected decide to change their tune and throw all their money in with someone like Trump (or worse) next time?

I can tell we all think this needs much more thorough discussion.

I'd just like to get it on record to see where RIU stands, no need for further discussion. I already know where you stand. I asked you directly and you said beating Trump is more important. To you, I'd pose the same question I did to JJ above

 

[Unclebaldrick]

What if those that are currently subverting democracy to get Clinton elected decide to change their tune and throw all their money in with someone like Trump (or worse) next time?

I'd just like to get it on record to see where RIU stands, no need for further discussion. I already know where you stand. I asked you directly and you said beating Trump is more important. To you, I'd pose the same question I did to JJ above

Just put me on the record as saying this is a bullshit question.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Just put me on the record as saying this is a bullshit question.

Why is it a bullshit question?

 

[UncleBuck]

Why is it a bullshit question?

it's a false dichotomy for one.

 

[Padawanbater2]

it's a false dichotomy for one.

It's a hypothetical question

 

[Uberknot]

Making sure the reptards do not pick any Supreme Court Judges is most important.

 

[doublejj]

Making sure the reptards do not pick any Supreme Court Judges is most important.

my point exactly

 

[Unclebaldrick]

So kill this thread and make a new one with a "that is a bullshit question" choice. Let the people decide.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Making sure the reptards do not pick any Supreme Court Judges is most important.

That is paramount, but like I just asked the other two guys, what if we get into a situation where the shoe is essentially on the other foot? Where there are important supreme court nominations up for grabs and the next likely president will be a republican because the special interests that actually control the direction of the outcome of the election have decided that a republican will be better for them?

A lot of you guys seem to be on board with it this time because they've chosen Clinton over Trump, and although I might not agree with you, I can see why. But what recourse will you have if you're on the other end one day? Even someone like me, who is politically on your side 100% would tell you to STFU for not speaking up when it actually mattered.

 

[UncleBuck]

That is paramount, but like I just asked the other two guys, what if we get into a situation where the shoe is essentially on the other foot? Where there are important supreme court nominations up for grabs and the next likely president will be a republican because the special interests that actually control the direction of the outcome of the election have decided that a republican will be better for them?

A lot of you guys seem to be on board with it this time because they've chosen Clinton over Trump, and although I might not agree with you, I can see why. But what recourse will you have if you're on the other end one day? Even someone like me, who is politically on your side 100% would tell you to STFU for not speaking up when it actually mattered.

this is conspiracy theory territory. the election is not rigged. stop trumping.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Between the tasks of changing the minds of the electorate and changing the minds of the special interest groups that control the outcomes of federal elections, I think it's much easier to do the former

 

[Padawanbater2]

this is conspiracy theory territory. the election is not rigged. stop trumping.

Yeah, just like DNC and media collusion was before it was leaked

 

[see4]

For Republicans, it's all about winning.

For rational human beings, it's all about Democracy and the least scary solution.

 

[UncleBuck]

Yeah, just like DNC and media collusion was before it was leaked

some mid level staffers emailing each other is your shocking evidence?

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. the evidence shows that whatever plan these underlings hatched failed miserably, as hillary got the worst media coverage and still does.

she is winning now not because "they've chosen her" but because random voters being polled like her better than they like trump as a potential president. despite horrible press coverage.

seriously, drop the conspiracy theories. they make you look small.

 

[Padawanbater2]

some mid level staffers emailing each other is your shocking evidence?

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. the evidence shows that whatever plan these underlings hatched failed miserably, as hillary got the worst media coverage and still does.

A flawed study from Crimson Hexagon is not very convincing

"Crimson Hexagon then took more than 170,000 posts by these outlets — stories published from January 1, 2015, until April — and ran them through their "auto-sentiment" tool. The software scans tens of thousands of stories within minutes for positive or negative language, sorts them into separate buckets, and tallies up the results.

For example, the software would take at a sentence that said "Trump made a stronger argument" and mark it as a "positive sentiment." Once it looks through the entire story, the software then categorizes the article as positive, negative, or neutral."

"Their final list — which includes the Washington Post, Politico, Fox News, the Huffington Post, and CNN — looks like a fairly conventional ranking of the biggest media players."

"We comb the content and see whether it's positive or negative," says Molly Moriarty, content marketing manager at Crimson Hexagon. "As you'll see, a lot of the conversation about the candidates is overtly negative."

A few problems I can identify:

1. a program is abstractly deciding which articles are 'good', 'bad' or 'neutral'
2. Clinton was being investigated by the FBI which would skew any positive/negative ratio results
3. Fox News leads in the ratings among major media outlets and serves as the propaganda wing of the republican party which means there would automatically be a negative bias towards the leading democratic candidate
4. never heard of Crimson Hexagon
5. correlation doesn't equal causation. There could very well have been both direct DNC and media collusion (like we have evidence for; Jake Tapper at CNN, Ken Vogel at Politico, Phil Griffin at MSNBC, etc.) and Clinton could have received "the most negative coverage" according to Crimson Hexagon and still won. They are not mutually exclusive positions

she is winning now not because "they've chosen her" but because random voters being polled like her better than they like trump as a potential president. despite horrible press coverage.

The democratic primary was already rigged to ensure Hillary Clinton was the nominee. All of the most important special interests groups have thrown their financial support behind Clinton and abandoned Trump because she is a much more predictable corporatist and they know they will get exactly what they want out of her administration. TPP? Yep, they'll get that, just watch. The entire media establishment outside of Fox News is backing Clinton. What, do you think the media doesn't have an influence in public elections in this country?

 

[UncleBuck]

A flawed study from Crimson Hexagon is not very convincing

"Crimson Hexagon then took more than 170,000 posts by these outlets — stories published from January 1, 2015, until April — and ran them through their "auto-sentiment" tool. The software scans tens of thousands of stories within minutes for positive or negative language, sorts them into separate buckets, and tallies up the results.

For example, the software would take at a sentence that said "Trump made a stronger argument" and mark it as a "positive sentiment." Once it looks through the entire story, the software then categorizes the article as positive, negative, or neutral."

"Their final list — which includes the Washington Post, Politico, Fox News, the Huffington Post, and CNN — looks like a fairly conventional ranking of the biggest media players."

"We comb the content and see whether it's positive or negative," says Molly Moriarty, content marketing manager at Crimson Hexagon. "As you'll see, a lot of the conversation about the candidates is overtly negative."

A few problems I can identify:

1. a program is abstractly deciding which articles are 'good', 'bad' or 'neutral'
2. Clinton was being investigated by the FBI which would skew any positive/negative ratio results
3. Fox News leads in the ratings among major media outlets and serves as the propaganda wing of the republican party which means there would automatically be a negative bias towards the leading democratic candidate
4. never heard of Crimson Hexagon
5. correlation doesn't equal causation. There could very well have been both direct DNC and media collusion (like we have evidence for; Jake Tapper at CNN, Ken Vogel at Politico, Phil Griffin at MSNBC, etc.) and Clinton could have received "the most negative coverage" according to Crimson Hexagon and still won. They are not mutually exclusive positions

The democratic primary was already rigged to ensure Hillary Clinton was the nominee. All of the most important special interests groups have thrown their financial support behind Clinton and abandoned Trump because she is a much more predictable corporatist and they know they will get exactly what they want out of her administration. TPP? Yep, they'll get that, just watch. The entire media establishment outside of Fox News is backing Clinton. What, do you think the media doesn't have an influence in public elections in this country?

so show me the evidence that the media is following the plot of these mid level staffers then.

maybe my one graph wasn't done by a good source. show me the counter evidence then. show me that this apparent DNC plot actually worked.

all you've shown me are some emails by mid level staffers. not convincing enough for me yet.

maybe you can have republicans in congress do another investigation.

$7 million later they will find nothing. like always.

you are buying into the bullshit without knowing it.

 

[ttystikk]

What, do you think THOSE WHO CONTROL the media doesn't have an influence in public elections in this country?

FIFY.