Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
So on FB I come across a video of policemen roughing people up and pushing them around at night, and it comes with this description
also, the story goes, that 800 sanders volunteers were removed from the arena yesterday so no pro sanders/anti clinton signage would be seen on media during the clinton speech...
also, the story goes, 1900 sanders delegates who walked out last night, were not allowed back in today —- that their places were taken by paid actors, so that the arena wouldnt look half empty....
a copy of a Philly craigslist ad asking for 700 people to work as fill-ins/audience members at a convention has been circulating on FB
At this point, whether it's ture or not matters far less than that it's a very catchy story that's going to take some work to debunk, and that the anti-Clinton narrative is strong. Given the bullshit that was pulled during the primaries, I would only be mildly shocked if this were true.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Seems like you are spreading disinformation that is obviously untrue- the fact that it embodies anti-Clinton sentiment doesn't seem like a good enough reason to spread something which is again obviously untrue.. And you'll have to be specific about what you are claiming was "pulled" during the primaries.
And on a related topic, some facts about the DNC leak
(tl; dr version, it's really stupid for people to celebrate the leak/Wikileaks itself).
edited 28th Jul '16 2:36:59 PM by Hodor2
@the Handle
Any time you wanted to stop posting this nonsense would be great. "1900 Sanders delegates removed". I've heard lots of stupid crap from the PUB camp, but this one's up there. 200 Sanders delegates marched out in a huff and refused to come back, choosing instead to sit in a tent wearing Robin Hood hats and "silenced" gags while pretending to be martyrs. Most of his delegates remained in the hall and are still there, being productive. A couple more were hushed or removed when they tried heckling the speakers.
Only "mildly surprised" if it were true. If you didn't want it to be true I rather doubt you'd be posting it.
edited 28th Jul '16 2:43:26 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
When I hear "the media isn't reporting this, but...", I typically switch to the mindset that whatever I hear is going to be either engagingly funny, or tin-foil nonsense.
This is seeming a lot more like the second, but that's probably because I'm tired of all of the accusations/counter-accusations going on right now.
![]()
That. The "paid actors thing" is particularly stupid. Not only would that be impossible to coordinate and obviously exposed if there was a Craiglist ad with that language, but it's also a really good illustration of how there's little Clinton could do to appease a certain variety of Sanders supporter, because they don't actually think anyone voted for her.
The paid actors thing also kind of angers me because there's this internet subculture of people who think that mass shootings are staged by the Obama administration as a plot to seize guns and the victims'/their famlies are paid actors(the same people also make the contradictory claim that that the massacres were carried out by the Obama administration). Since I don't give any respect to this kind of claim when it's made by right nuts, I'm not gong to cater to the feelings of left wing people claiming the same kind of conspiracy theory.
edited 28th Jul '16 2:47:38 PM by Hodor2
Apparently a few deluded diehards
are trying to plan something for Clinton's speech tonight. Because it will achieve so much.
Yeah, I know he's not advocating the story but I think he's underselling how easily it can be debunked. Craigslist is searchable and even if I post were removed, it would likely be archived or a screenshot gotten.
And I've taken the liberty of searching the Philly Craigslist and I'm calling "pics or it didn't happen".
The numbers are also exaggerated and while some arrests of protestors have been made so far it's not looked any worse than Cleveland. And while I haven't seen the video it would be easy to use one from a different context.
Edit to add: Irony
. (Disclaimer: no easy way to verify it's real.)
edited 28th Jul '16 2:55:32 PM by Elle
I stand corrected. It has begun.
Speaking as someone who is actually watching the convention—the entire convention—and rabidly consuming information about it, I can safely say that none of this crap is happening. Slate, which is about as left-wing as a mainstream magazine can get, and which definitely pulled for Sanders, puts the number of walkouts at 200 at the most, almost all in the immediate aftermath of Clinton being nominated.
As to the notion that they were all ejected after Tuesday to prevent any disruption...right. That's why morons were unfurling "no more war" banners during Obama's speech, heckling Pannetta, and trying (and failing) to interrupt Kaine with "Bernie" chants.
edited 28th Jul '16 2:58:55 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Trying to think how to best phrase this, but I think Handle knows it's not true and is sort of admitting as much, but is trying to use the story to argue that there's something wrong with Clinton/the DNC that needs to be fixed through pandering to Sanders' supporters (and by extension is an argument for Sanders being a better/less divisive candidate).
But the problem is, people who believe this kind of shit as well as the delegates who are creating trouble at the convention aren't really coming to the issue with good intentions/a willingness to be persuaded.
And I think it's also a problem to use them as an example because of how they are a small minority (although they claim to be the majority) and I think there's some "having it both ways" (which maybe I've done too in the opposite direction).
If you (a Sanders' supporter) are arguing that Sanders' supporters will support Clinton and aren't going to "screw things up", then you can't turn around and use the craziest "Never Clinton" people as an argument against Clinton/the DNC/an argument about the need to appease Sanders' supporters.
edited 28th Jul '16 3:01:59 PM by Hodor2
Well, I'm reassured. Good thing it's false.
As for those who think I have a vested interest in spreading that, if that were the case, I would have spread it on Facebook. I posted it here because I trust you guys to help me discern the truth, especially those of you who are at the convention.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Holdouts will not decide election
.
This article reminded me of something I myself came across a few weeks back. A guy on my Facebook feed kept trying to link me to polls saying that huge portions of Sanders supporters aren't going to vote for Clinton. The hilarious thing is that the polls he's linking people to aren't necessarily wrong, just misleading. After all, they polled people who still identify as Sanders supporters this late in the game, after he conceded and told his fanbase to go vote for Clinton. Anyone who ignores that and continues to see themselves as a Sanders voter or delegate before anything else is highly likely to be a diehard. And yeah, only a tiny portion of the diehards will vote for Clinton. What the polls miss, of course, is that said diehards are only a very small portion of the people who voted for Sanders in the primary.
As it became clear Sanders wasn't going to be the nominee, large swathes of his fans will have come to identify themselves as Clinton supporters or even just Democratic supporters, rather than continuing to identify with him. But if polls don't change their questions, that reality doesn't get reflected. That's how you can have one poll saying 90% of those who supported Sanders are now ready to vote for Clinton, while another poll insists more than a third of Sanders' supporters won't vote for Clinton. They're not talking to the same group of people at all. And those bad polls, coupled with a general sense of denial, fuel the impression among the diehards, who tend to hang out in echo chambers both socially and on the Internet, that they are a far larger group.
@The Handle- "Given the bullshit that was pulled during the primaries, I would only be mildly shocked if this were true."
Maybe not a vested interest, but definitely eager to believe what seems like an obvious conspiracy theory/hack job against Clinton.
And what are you asserting was "pulled during the primaries"?
edited 28th Jul '16 3:13:49 PM by Hodor2
@Ambar
Someone told me once that it is passingly small that you'll see a Goldwater-esque landslide, because of the polarization created by mass-media. Those people who identify as "Red" or "Blue" will, 95% of the time, vote "Red" or "Blue". It is only the extremely vocal minority that you see saying "I won't vote for 'x' despite always voting Red/Blue", and they just don't amount to enough to swing an election.
Turnout ends up deciding it way more than swinging the moderate vote.
Pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter
. People who refuse to vote because their candidate didn't win are acting on feeling more than anything else.
On a more positive note, a compilation
of the best DNC speeches from last night.
edited 28th Jul '16 3:24:43 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Which then begs the question (yes, I know I'm using the phrase improperly, but it sounds fitting) - how the bloody hell did she ever get the position to begin with? Nepotism, or Screw the Rules, I Have Connections!?
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"