U.S. Elections: The Trumph of the Will

[Inigima]

Based on what I'm reading, it seems like there is no genuine story to the DNC leaks. There is a lot of shady-looking shit, and those optics are going to piss off a lot of people. As far as I can tell, they tip-toed right up to the line, but didn't cross it, which is pretty much the story of Clinton's last however long. Whether there were actual violations or not (there weren't, looks like!), Clinton and the DNC really, really need to start taking notice of how bad some of this stuff looks to the public, because I really believe it will have electoral consequences. So far they have shown zero inclination toward self-reflection on these matters, so hopefully they won't be enough to give us President Trump.

[Martell Spy]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/sanders-clinton-teams-comprise-on-creating-unity-commission-226077

Sanders, Clinton teams create 'unity commission' to examine overhauling superdelegates

[lancerman]

10 hours ago, Shryke said:

And yet you have zero evidence that she's actually been hacked except for the tenuous non-logic I've already pointed out.

You've got nothing. This is baseless bullshit and you know it.

The evidence is that the FBI said she was hacked and Assange says he has her emails. Those are the two biggest authorities on the matter, the guy who investigated her and the biggest producer of hacked information ever. Which I said in my last post. So either you didn't read it, you ignored it or you doubt the two most likely people to know whether she was hacked. 

You've got nothing and your argument is a akin to closing your eyes and saying we don't know for sure. It's kind of ridiculous that we are still even having this discussion when there is overwhelming proof that she was and you only compared a bank being robbed to your house not being robbed, as if it was some valid response. If anything is tenous logic and ignoring any evidence on the matter....

[AverageGuy]

5 hours ago, Seli said:

It would be negligent of the party not to discuss potential ways the likely candidates could be attacked. Especially blindingly obvious ones in the US context such as religiousity.

Getting the candidate ready to these types of attack in the relatively safe environment of the primaries could be considered a smart move.

I think the "they never actually acted on it/personal beliefs" stance is legitimate. In that case I also think the e-mail is unprofessional-- save that shit for personal time, or at least for IM; it's not what you should be putting forward to other colleagues in an official setting. However, are you seriously arguing that the purpose of the e-mail was to get a candidate (i.e. Sanders) ready for a potential line of attack? Because that takes some chutzpah.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

6 hours ago, Seli said:

It would be negligent of the party not to discuss potential ways the likely candidates could be attacked. Especially blindingly obvious ones in the US context such as religiousity.

Getting the candidate ready to these types of attack in the relatively safe environment of the primaries could be considered a smart move.

This seems like a pretty radical interpretation of the text. The email does not read as a suggestion to help Sanders prep for potential attacks against him based on his religion. It reads pretty clearly as a suggestion for someone to attack Sanders based on his religion (or lack thereof) because it would hurt him in the Kentucky and West Virginia primaries. 

A few questionable emails aside, though, I think people have completely unrealistic expectations about how others should behave. The idea that DNC employees aren't going to have feelings - even strong feelings - about who could end up being the de facto party leader or president? It's kind of ridiculous. People gripe about all sorts of things in work emails - clients, co-workers, whatever. It happens. It seems perfectly normal to me that people are going to be shooting emails back and forth talking about the campaign, and their preferences are going to come out. The idea that DNC employees are supposed to be robots that don't ever express their personal preferences in non-public settings is unrealistic at best. The standard is whether or not anything was actually done to tip the scales one way or the other. I haven't seen any actual evidence of interference in the primary, so I'm not terribly bothered. 

[Mexal]

1 hour ago, lancerman said:

The evidence is that the FBI said she was hacked and Assange says he has her emails. Those are the two biggest authorities on the matter, the guy who investigated her and the biggest producer of hacked information ever. Which I said in my last post. So either you didn't read it, you ignored it or you doubt the two most likely people to know whether she was hacked. 

You've got nothing and your argument is a akin to closing your eyes and saying we don't know for sure. It's kind of ridiculous that we are still even having this discussion when there is overwhelming proof that she was and you only compared a bank being robbed to your house not being robbed, as if it was some valid response. If anything is tenous logic and ignoring any evidence on the matter....

Except the FBI didn't say she was hacked. They said she could have been hacked. If they knew she was hacked, knew that the emails and classified information was in foreign hands, they would have prosecuted her. But they don't and what they actually said is there is no evidence she was hacked but they wouldn't expect to find any cause hackers are good. So they left open the option it happened but have zero proof that it did on any level.

As for Assange, he said he was going to release enough emails to get her prosecuted prior to her winning the nomination and I haven't seen shit. He released 20k emails that didn't add anything to the story. So we'll see. I'm still waiting.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

The idea that Vladimir Putin could very well be interfering with a US Presidential election is a much bigger deal than some DNC members shit-talking Bernie Sanders.

[Spring Bass]

That "Trump and Putin" article by Josh Marshall is pretty creepy, especially this part: 

Quote

7. Here's where it gets more interesting. This is one of a handful of developments that tipped me from seeing all this as just a part of Trump's larger shadiness to something more specific and ominous about the relationship between Putin and Trump. As TPM's Tierney Sneed explained in this article, one of the most enduring dynamics of GOP conventions (there's a comparable dynamic on the Dem side) is more mainstream nominees battling conservative activists over the party platform, with activists trying to check all the hardline ideological boxes and the nominees trying to soften most or all of those edges. This is one thing that made the Trump convention very different. The Trump Camp was totally indifferent to the platform. So party activists were able to write one of the most conservative platforms in history. Not with Trump's backing but because he simply didn't care. With one big exception: Trump's team mobilized the nominee's traditional mix of cajoling and strong-arming on one point: changing the party platform on assistance to Ukraine against Russian military operations in eastern Ukraine. For what it's worth (and it's not worth much) I am quite skeptical of most Republicans call for aggressively arming Ukraine to resist Russian aggression. But the single-mindedness of this focus on this one issue - in the context of total indifference to everything else in the platform - speaks volumes.

I don't think Trump is an agent of a foreign power or anything like that. But I could absolutely see him bending on US foreign policy in ways because it would be good for his business, and because he's alienated so many potential financiers here in the US that he's had to go to Russia and elsewhere abroad to find a new round of victims investors to bail him out from his business incompetence. Trump has never been shy about mixing business and politics. 

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, lancerman said:

The evidence is that the FBI said she was hacked and Assange says he has her emails. Those are the two biggest authorities on the matter, the guy who investigated her and the biggest producer of hacked information ever. Which I said in my last post. So either you didn't read it, you ignored it or you doubt the two most likely people to know whether she was hacked. 

You've got nothing and your argument is a akin to closing your eyes and saying we don't know for sure. It's kind of ridiculous that we are still even having this discussion when there is overwhelming proof that she was and you only compared a bank being robbed to your house not being robbed, as if it was some valid response. If anything is tenous logic and ignoring any evidence on the matter....

Except the FBI didn't say she was hacked. Here's a literal quote from Comey:

Quote

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked.

So right off the bat you are flat out wrong, which might make you reconsider why I'm treating your posts the way I do. Stop lying dude.

Now, Comey goes on to say "But she totally could have been I guess", but again, without any evidence. Because he's already admitted there is none.

So again, we have your lie about what the FBI said and your potential lie about what Assange, a man who is entirely untrustworthy anyway, said. None of whom can actually produce so far any evidence backing up their claims.

So exactly why am I supposed to take you and your claim seriously again?

[lancerman]

35 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Except the FBI didn't say she was hacked. Here's a literal quote from Comey:

So right off the bat you are flat out wrong, which might make you reconsider why I'm treating your posts the way I do. Stop lying dude.

Now, Comey goes on to say "But she totally could have been I guess", but again, without any evidence. Because he's already admitted there is none.

So again, we have your lie about what the FBI said and your potential lie about what Assange, a man who is entirely untrustworthy anyway, said. None of whom can actually produce so far any evidence backing up their claims.

So exactly why am I supposed to take you and your claim seriously again?

Okay I'll rephrase. The FBI director said there were attempted hacks and there was the possibility some were successful in addition to the world's most notorious publisher of hacked government documents saying he had her emails. 

 

Thats a a far far cry from your ludicrous comparison. And considering you've been jumping through hoops making blatantly valueless comparisons I have to question your motives at this points. 

Lets agree to disagree because it appears you aren't going concede any likelyhood unless you flat out have read hacked emails. And considering you have jumped through even more hoops in regards to which evidence you accept its hard to think we are really having a level discussion. This isn't getting anywhere, good day. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

The thing that bugs me about the DWS and DNC alleged intervention on Clinton's behalf is that it continually gets kind of swept under the rug. When a Bernie supporter brings it up, they're called a Bernie Bro. I've brought this up so much here it is annoying, I know, but it IS a real problem, especially now, when Wikileaks drops this story. Not all Bernie Bros are equal and this is what I've been saying since April or May. I can let the insults slide off my back and not vote for Trump.

But a lot of people are not going to vote or are going to vote for Stein because of stories like the Wikileaks one, and Hillary, and DWS, and all the rest seem really arrogant like they don't need to do jack all to fix this problem. To the point of bringing in a real crappy VP pick that bridges none of these potential "bro" gaps. I know the VP pick's strengths, I know the reality of that situation, but I fear many will not.

We have a real problem forming on our hands here if we're in the anti-Trump camp.

[Martell Spy]

Trump Defends Roger Ailes: ‘He Helped Those Women’
GOP candidate insinuates Gretchen Carlson and 20 others are lying about their boss's alleged sexual harassment.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/24/trump-s-indefensible-defense-of-roger-ailes-sexual-harassment.html

 

 

[all swedes are racist]

Well this seems hopeful

http://www.npr.org/2016/07/24/487242426/bernie-sanders-dnc-emails-outrageous-but-not-a-shock

DWS replaced by Marcia Fudge as chair of the convention

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, lancerman said:

Okay I'll rephrase. The FBI director said there were attempted hacks and there was the possibility some were successful in addition to the world's most notorious publisher of hacked government documents saying he had her emails. 

Where did he say there were attempted hacks? I can find nothing saying he said that.

 

Quote

 

Thats a a far far cry from your ludicrous comparison. And considering you've been jumping through hoops making blatantly valueless comparisons I have to question your motives at this points. 

Lets agree to disagree because it appears you aren't going concede any likelyhood unless you flat out have read hacked emails. And considering you have jumped through even more hoops in regards to which evidence you accept its hard to think we are really having a level discussion. This isn't getting anywhere, good day. 

 

Right, let's agree that you are continuing to make insinuations without any evidence, and in the face of people saying they checked and there's no evidence it happened. And that even though you are making these baseless assumptions, you are still gonna keep acting like I'm the unreasonable one. 

 

Dude, just admit you've got nothing. It's faster.

 

[Shryke]

44 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

The thing that bugs me about the DWS and DNC alleged intervention on Clinton's behalf is that it continually gets kind of swept under the rug. When a Bernie supporter brings it up, they're called a Bernie Bro. I've brought this up so much here it is annoying, I know, but it IS a real problem, especially now, when Wikileaks drops this story. Not all Bernie Bros are equal and this is what I've been saying since April or May. I can let the insults slide off my back and not vote for Trump.

But a lot of people are not going to vote or are going to vote for Stein because of stories like the Wikileaks one, and Hillary, and DWS, and all the rest seem really arrogant like they don't need to do jack all to fix this problem. To the point of bringing in a real crappy VP pick that bridges none of these potential "bro" gaps. I know the VP pick's strengths, I know the reality of that situation, but I fear many will not.

We have a real problem forming on our hands here if we're in the anti-Trump camp.

Considering the lack of evidence, what exactly is anyone supposed to do about it? It's a bunch of emails that don't show anything specific and are likely specifically tailored to make Clinton look bad. Even Sanders is saying "Vote Clinton". At this point, anyone who's gonna throw a tantrum about this shit isn't gonna be convinced.

 

[TrackerNeil]

15 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

What does it matter how much difference it makes? Maybe you can ask that question January of next year, while we ponder 4 years of a Trump presidency.

If collusion is proven, my first question wouldnt be about the magnitude of the effects of it, but rather what kind of ethics allowed it to happen in the first place.

We'll see what happens in November, although I don't know why you think that makes a difference. 

As to your second point, the job of the DNC is to elect Democrats. Sanders was not a Democrat, so how is there an ethical violation here?

[Centrist Simon Steele]

2 hours ago, Shryke said:

Considering the lack of evidence, what exactly is anyone supposed to do about it? It's a bunch of emails that don't show anything specific and are likely specifically tailored to make Clinton look bad. Even Sanders is saying "Vote Clinton". At this point, anyone who's gonna throw a tantrum about this shit isn't gonna be convinced.

 

 

 

Well--recent reports suggest DWS is out of the DNC, https://www.yahoo.com/news/bernie-dnc-email-debbie-wasserman-000000534.html this was a good step. Ousting DWS is a symbolic move, but I wonder if it is too little too late. The evidence in the emails of high-ranking dems spitballing ways to tank Bernie is enough for any reasonable person to say there is a problem.

I hope the above move is enough. I really, really don't want Trump, and I do think Clinton would be a good President. This kind of thing has be dealt with beyond the, "there is no evidence, what do you want us to do" mode.

[Boris the Blade]

22 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

We'll see what happens in November, although I don't know why you think that makes a difference. 

As to your second point, the job of the DNC is to elect Democrats. Sanders was not a Democrat, so how is there an ethical violation here?

He was running a Democrat so he is a Democrat, but way to excuse their bullshit. 

[Kalbear]

DWS was already out. This might up the timetable. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

19 hours ago, Kalbear said:

For fact checking, sure. For comments, you'd send the article - at least that's what I've seen for political stuff. 

That's how it was done for the first 200 years. They don't want to just pick someone, but they do want the party to also have a say. That's why superdelegates exist, and that's why the DNC exists - to specifically fight against populist candidates that can win a lot of votes but can't win an election. They also want to use it to gauge the popularity and electability of a candidate. This was, for instance, how Kennedy ended up getting the nomination - he had to show that he was at least reasonably electable.

I agree that it looks completely sketchy and lame. But it's never been a democratic process, and doesn't claim to be. They certainly think they know who the best candidate is, but they don't make that be the final decision. Again, Obama won despite being disfavored by the DNC initially. He did so by not only winning over voters but by winning over party elites and getting endorsements. Those things matter too, at least to the Democratic party. 

 

Clearing quote.