Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
You get that the whole "prominent Republicans aren't endorsing Trump yet" bit was ginned up by the media, right?
Is that why previous GOP presidents and nominees didn't show up? They were watching too much MSNBC?
Do you know how many GOP presidents and nominees didn't show up to the 2012 convention? The 2008 convention? Any? Ever? I'll give you a hint: Every 4 years, the people who show up to the convention changes as the politics and positions change. It's normal. Obviously, Trump is a much bigger shuffle than we've seen in decades, but it's only a matter of degrees. And it's mostly a matter of the media making a point of reporting on it, over, and over, and over. So you're aware of it.
Did you know that then president Bush failed to show up to the 2008 convention, instead just sending a video? OMG! He totally dissed McCain! Right? Do you recall the media making more than a token mention of this? No, you don't. Heck. I didn't even remember it until I was just looking some data up about previous convention attendees.
BTW, in case you are curious, this is what "ginning up" looks like.
Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
And yeah, you're probably thinking "Priebius who". Which is kinda the point.
Unlike you, I actually follow the news. I don't pretend about it by passing through Yahoo or Facebook. Priebus getting involved is nothing compared to Ryan. Ryan got involved.
He did? That's funny. Because all I remember was him repeatedly being ambushed by reporters asking him to take a position on some nutty "plan" to stop Trump, and him repeatedly saying he wouldn't do it. Again, this is a perception lead by the mere act of the media choosing to keep bringing it up. Ryan himself didn't do anything.
Quote:
As long as you agree that the impact of her actions are irrelevant, then we are good.
I don't agree. I think I've already stated multiple times that we can't know how much impact her actions may have had because we don't actually know the full extent of those actions. We do know from the email leaks that she had repeated conversations with journalists essentially telling them to not print anything negative about Clinton (well, or complaining when they did). How much that actually influenced reporting on Clinton relative to reporting on Sanders is impossible to tell. But to just assume it had no effect? That's kinda dumb.
More to the point it isn't about the effect, but the intent. She very clearly wanted Clinton to win. Saying that this is ok because we can't measure accurately how much her actions may have helped that to occur is silly.
Quote:
Side note: Since I don't think you will be responding to our previous conversation, a /32 is one IP (IRRC), not a range of IP addresses.
Hah! Good catch. I was thinking address range and not mask. It's not a common format for me and I don't normally use masks at the ends of the range. Or at least that's my excuse!
Edited, Jul 26th 2016 4:52pm by gbaji