abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Fair enough, I thought you were replying to me and I felt like ranting because @Fogdog summoned me to the thread calling me an accelerationist.
DNC Email Leak
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Olive Drab Green
Well-Known Member
What does accelerationist mean? I don't have the context.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
The context is revolutionary and regarding a situation where there are revolutionary movements in a society. In this context is that he suggests that I would prefer Donald Trump in order to hasten such revolution.
I am voting for Jill Stein because I support her.
Olive Drab Green
Well-Known Member
I mean, I suppose I'm an accelerationist, but neither candidate is relatively in the same direction as the one I want to accelerate in.
Corso312
Well-Known Member
Olive Drab Green
Well-Known Member
I like it.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
They just keep throwing liberal candidates under the corporate run fascist bus.
I think the term in this case was meant to suggest that you're okay with Chump in office, as long as it hastens the revolution. I would not agree with that assessment of your motives, based on what I've read of your politics here.
Fuck- I'm more of a lefty than you are, lol
Olive Drab Green
Well-Known Member
Not regarding Trump, definitely not. But I'm definitely down for a change of pace, focus, and scenery.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
No, that's expected
People are upset because the Clinton campaign, the DNC, and the mainstream media colluded together to ensure a Clinton victory (which is in fact illegal according to the FEC IIRC)
Yeah, I would say that it is considering DWS resigned because of it and members of the DNC implicated in the email scandal have publicly apologized for their conduct
So did Donald Trump among GOP candidates, and yet he's the republican nomineehas anyone even mentioned that she has had the most negative coverage of any candidate by far?
Although with Trump, I actually think the negative coverage benefitted him. The negative coverage of Clinton didn't seem to make a difference compared to the tricks her campaign, the DNC and the media pulled. Have you heard of "Correct the Record"? Head on over to /r/hillaryclinton to see that shit in full force;
"Putin did it 'cuz Trump!"
Olive Drab Green
Well-Known Member
I'd be upset if anyone conspired to rig an election, to include Bernie.are people upset that hillary did her best to win an election? is that a scandal now?
has anyone even mentioned that she has had the most negative coverage of any candidate by far?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Fantastic fucking point!
If Sanders did the same shit Clinton did, I'd be supporting Clinton
True colors
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so hillary tried to win an election and the DNC did what was in their best interests by defending their candidate from an onslaught of negative coverage?No, that's expected
People are upset because the Clinton campaign, the DNC, and the mainstream media colluded together to ensure a Clinton victory (which is in fact illegal according to the FEC IIRC)
Yeah, I would say that it is considering DWS resigned because of it and members of the DNC implicated in the email scandal have publicly apologized for their conduct
So did Donald Trump among GOP candidates, and yet he's the republican nominee
Although with Trump, I actually think the negative coverage benefitted him. The negative coverage of Clinton didn't seem to make a difference compared to the tricks her campaign, the DNC and the media pulled. Have you heard of "Correct the Record"? Head on over to /r/hillaryclinton to see that shit in full force;
"Putin did it 'cuz Trump!"
failing to see any scandal here, much less a reason to even be upset.
Olive Drab Green
Well-Known Member
I'm not trying to get into it with you about this, because when you're not trolling, you're pretty level, but that's like saying it was in the best interest of 1860s white men to keep enslaved African slaves in chains: sure, it may have been, but we both know damn well it isn't/wasn't right, and you can't justify something simply because it was in the best interest of the ideology you may identify with.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
No, the DNC colluded with the Clinton campaign and members of CNN and MSNBC to ostracize the Sanders campaign and paint negative narratives against Sanders during the primary when, according to the DNCs own rulebook, they're to remain neutral during the democratic selection process. Like I said, illegal according to the FEC. DNC can't collude with a specific campaign and they certainly can't steer the public narrative like we now have evidence they did
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
She won the primary, what are you talking about "they didn't do a good job"? They succeeded, she won, they did a fantastic job
She won regardless of the negative press because of the shit she and the DNC pulled
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
How much of that 'negative media coverage' came from Fox News?
What did the numbers look like coming from CNN and MSNBC in regards to Clinton v. Sanders?
Wanna bet on each of those networks there was more negative media coverage for Sanders than Clinton? Avatar bet, 3 months. I haven't checked, but I'm willing to bet that much, how bout you?
What did the numbers look like coming from CNN and MSNBC in regards to Clinton v. Sanders?
Wanna bet on each of those networks there was more negative media coverage for Sanders than Clinton? Avatar bet, 3 months. I haven't checked, but I'm willing to bet that much, how bout you?
Olive Drab Green
Well-Known Member
Not the best example, but my point is, using "It's ok because it's in someone's best interest" might be one of the worst justifications there is. Hitler argued the extermination of the Jewish citizens of Europe was in Germany's best interest. Watergate was supposed to be in Nixon's best interest. I mean, it's just a terrible justification, y'know? Especially when you know that it's wrong. Don't try to bullshit, because if it had been Trump doing the same thing, we'd both be demanding his head.