Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    08 Dec '16 15:22 / 1 edit
    From Monday's 538 podcast:

    (on Jill Stein's raising money for the recount efforts):

    "This was a deeply dishonest thing that she did that people should lose respect for her for... It's bait and switch... People should find ways to try to get their money back... I'm not a lawyer, but if I were, I'd look for ways where this is legally actionable."

    This was among several similarly themed statements in the segment.

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/politics-podcast-everyones-still-mad-at-everyone-about-the-election/

    (the discussion starts about 30 minutes in and goes for about 4 or 5 minutes)

    Agree or disagree?
  2. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    08 Dec '16 15:48
    Originally posted by sh76
    From Monday's 538 podcast:

    (on Jill Stein's raising money for the recount efforts):

    "This was a deeply dishonest thing that she did that people should lose respect for her for... It's bait and switch... People should find ways to try to get their money back... I'm not a lawyer, but if I were, I'd look for ways where this is legally actionable."

    This wa ...[text shortened]... e discussion starts about 30 minutes in and goes for about 4 or 5 minutes)

    Agree or disagree?
    There was nothing "dishonest" about it.

    Nate should go back to playing with his models.
  3. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    08 Dec '16 15:50
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    There was nothing "dishonest" about it.

    Nate should go back to playing with his models.
    His theory is that she was really trying to increase her own popularity, generating email donor lists, etc., while soliciting people to donate based on unrealistic hopes of reversing the election.
  4. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    08 Dec '16 15:58
    Originally posted by sh76
    His theory is that she was really trying to increase her own popularity, generating email donor lists, etc., while soliciting people to donate based on unrealistic hopes of reversing the election.
    I defy you or Nate Silver or anyone else to find anything "dishonest" on the recount fundraising page. https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount
  5. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    08 Dec '16 16:00
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I defy you or Nate Silver or anyone else to find anything "dishonest" on the recount fundraising page. https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount
    I wonder why she didn't also call for recounts in Minnesota, New Hampshire and Nevada.
  6. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    08 Dec '16 16:11 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I defy you or Nate Silver or anyone else to find anything "dishonest" on the recount fundraising page. https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount
    You never do believe smoke = fire, extending credulity against common sense. I bet you believe Bill and Loretta were talking about grand kids on the tarmac that day.
  7. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    08 Dec '16 16:11
    Originally posted by sh76
    I wonder why she didn't also call for recounts in Minnesota, New Hampshire and Nevada.
    No you don't.

    As the page makes clear and as anyone who knows anything about the Greens is already aware, the Party has been fighting against voting suppression measures which are ubiquitous in Republican controlled areas. Thus they have no incentive to aid a scumbag like Trump or his boot-licking minions.
  8. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    08 Dec '16 16:15 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    You never do believe smoke = fire, extending credulity against common sense. I bet you believe Bill and Loretta were talking about grand kids on the tarmac that day.
    Is that a concession that there is nothing dishonest on the page?

    In fact, it is quite clear about the purposes of the effort which dovetails with the Green Party platform position against the voter suppression efforts of the Republicans all over the country. It is a truism of history that the Right has always fought to reduce democratic participation and the Left to extend it.

    EDIT: From the Green Party platform:

    A. Political Reform

    OUR POSITION

    Greens will crack down on political corruption and strengthen the voice of the people at all levels of government.

    Everyone deserves the opportunity to influence the governmental decisions that affect them. But the defining characteristics of modern politics in the United States are a corrupt campaign finance system that enables corporate and wealthy elites to purchase political outcomes; and an abundance of anti-democratic electoral, ballot access and debate rules designed to minimize participation and choice.

    To achieve genuine citizen participation, citizens must share in the power of governing. Greens seek to bring vibrant grassroots democracy to every part of the United States.

    Greens seek to repair U.S. electoral system, from how elections are financed, to conducting them in more fair and representative ways, to ensuring accountability and transparency on all levels of government. In particular, Greens believe that the U.S. winner-take-all voting system is fundamentally flawed, resulting in low voter participation, little choice or competition in countless elections, and far too few women and minorities in elected office.

    The failure to fulfill the promise of democracy leaves millions of people in our country too discouraged to vote and others who chose to vote seemingly trapped among false and limited choices. A system that promotes full and fair representation would draw millions of people in the United States into civic life and could revive democracy in this country.

    http://www.gp.org/democracy_2016#DemPoliticalReform

    Nate probably never read this.
  9. 08 Dec '16 16:46
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    There was nothing "dishonest" about it.

    Nate should go back to playing with his models.
    Exactly. Jill Stein is a saint, just like Hillary.

    Nothing to see here!!
  10. 08 Dec '16 22:21
    Originally posted by sh76
    His theory is that she was really trying to increase her own popularity, generating email donor lists, etc., while soliciting people to donate based on unrealistic hopes of reversing the election.
    I have mixed feelings, but in her defense she didn't say it was to reverse the election results.
  11. 08 Dec '16 22:23
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I defy you or Nate Silver or anyone else to find anything "dishonest" on the recount fundraising page. https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount
    She was responding to a group of people who conducted a statistical analysis in the three states in question, which showed discrepancies between counties of similar demographics, but which seemed in Trump's favor with certain technology. They didn't conduct studies in the other states because the results there weren't surprising.
  12. Subscriber mchill
    cryptogram
    08 Dec '16 22:38 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    From Monday's 538 podcast:

    (on Jill Stein's raising money for the recount efforts):

    "This was a deeply dishonest thing that she did that people should lose respect for her for... It's bait and switch... People should find ways to try to get their money back... I'm not a lawyer, but if I were, I'd look for ways where this is legally actionable."

    This wa ...[text shortened]... e discussion starts about 30 minutes in and goes for about 4 or 5 minutes)

    Agree or disagree?
    She's a politician, what do you expect? It seems about on par with "The Donald" pulling out $20,000 from his "charitable" foundation to have a portrait painted of himself. The things politicians get away with is rather depressing.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-clue-to-the-whereabouts-of-the-6-foot-tall-portrait-of-donald-trump/2016/09/14/ae65db82-7a8f-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html?utm_term=.1a29f9294b9a
  13. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    09 Dec '16 11:30
    Originally posted by sh76
    I wonder why she didn't also call for recounts in Minnesota, New Hampshire and Nevada.
    Recounts were already underway in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada and Florida.

    I'm not sure Minnesota or New Hampshire needed recounts.
  14. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    09 Dec '16 11:37
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    No you don't.

    As the page makes clear and as anyone who knows anything about the Greens is already aware, the Party has been fighting against voting suppression measures which are ubiquitous in Republican controlled areas. Thus they have no incentive to aid a scumbag like Trump or his boot-licking minions.
    Successful voter suppression isn't going to be detected by a recount.

    Otherwise we could look at the 28 states that used Kobach's Interstate Crosscheck system, starting with a subpoena of the Elections Officers in those states.
  15. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    11 Dec '16 12:53
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    Recounts were already underway in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada and Florida.

    I'm not sure Minnesota or New Hampshire needed recounts.
    New Hampshire was closer than WI and PA in percentage and was separated by less than 3,000 raw votes.