U.S. Elections: The Trumph of the Will

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Just because you keep repeating this does not make it more believable. The emails with the evidence have already been linked in this thread. They came up with plans to undermine Sanders at the debate.

No, they didn't. There isn't any evidence for this at all. Link your evidence again, please - I looked back at your history, and what you've linked are...uh...some really special things that don't say this.

3 minutes ago, Altherion said:

They constructed anti-Sanders story lines and sent them to somebody higher up (most likely in the Clinton campaign) to decide on whether they should be used.

They constructed an anti-Sanders storyline. There is no evidence that they were sent anywhere, higher up or otherwise. I'm assuming you're talking about the story about how Sanders was really unorganized and didn't have things set up - the one that ended up being totally true?

3 minutes ago, Altherion said:

They circulated anti-Sanders propaganda "without attribution".

No, they didn't. Again, there's no actual evidence that this occurred at all. This is a bizarre spin on an email that says almost precisely the opposite. 

3 minutes ago, Altherion said:

It's not about personal opinions; the DNC officials in the emails actively violated their neutrality pledges.

That isn't true. Again, talking about things is not a violation of a neutrality pledge. 

[DunderMifflin]

I wish the US criminal justice system was that dismissive of evidence.

 

[Boris the Blade]

Clinton brought DWS on hahaha. What a fucking joke. She failed to get her elected in 2008 and was a failure as the head of the DNC. It also looks really shitty to pick her up after the emails that were leaked showed she was a biased piece of shit. Lets see how badly this fucks her in the polls.

[Altherion]

4 minutes ago, Triskan said:

I have a question about Libya, and I am defending Clinton only up to a point.  I agree that it did not go well.  My question is, could it have?  I think one of the things you have to judge leaders on is context and what another in their shoes would likely have done.  That is part of why Iraq was so damning for the Bush White House because it was such their idea that they pushed and not something any US President in the same shoes would have been likely to do.

When QGKaddafi was getting ready to attack Benghazi I think many and maybe most US Presidents and Secretaries of State would have been tempted to take some kind of action.  But quickly figuring out a post-QGKaddafi plan for Libya is no small task?  So was the wiser move to do nothing?  I think perhaps, but it was not the road most would have taken, ergo it was a very tough spot to be in for a western leader.

One of the pernicious effects of our policies is that eventually citizens have trouble seeing any alternatives. Think about what you are saying. A civil war starts halfway across the world and does not directly affect us in any way. How is it even sane to intervene in this civil war and eliminate the existing government without understanding what the effect of this intervention will be? What gives the US the duty or right to bomb random countries without even an endgame?

[Boris the Blade]

3 minutes ago, Altherion said:

One of the pernicious effects of our policies is that eventually citizens have trouble seeing any alternatives. Think about what you are saying. A civil war starts halfway across the world and does not directly affect us in any way. How is it even sane to intervene in this civil war and eliminate the existing government without understanding what the effect of this intervention will be? What gives the US the duty or right to bomb random countries without even an endgame?

It's as American as apple pie, baseball and mass shootings.

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Harakiri said:

Just out of curiosity. have you supported Clinton from the beginning?

What, since the big bang? I suspect no matter what I say it'll be evidence that I am firmly in the Clinton camp.

I was undecided until about January. 

4 minutes ago, Harakiri said:

 
I already said the issue a day ago a few pages back. If you really can not see the issue of DNC staffers and higher ups in the DNC vocally expressing their dislike for one candidate so liberally, then IDK what to say. I would also guess you ignore how things can be impacted subconsciously. Clearly the work environment at the DNC allowed a staffer to feel comfortable enough to throw out a scummy idea like the one they threw out. Seriously, how is that not an issue? Oh, because there was no outcome? so you're okay with scumbags in charge of a political party talking shit about one candidate and naive enough to think they may not be harder on that candidate than the one they want? That doesn't have an impact on their campaign? 

I don't know - what is the actual impact on the campaign? I'm totally willing to believe that if actions were taken, this kind of environment would facilitate it. That makes perfect sense. But the campaign is over, we don't have any evidence of wrongdoing or actions taken, and so the idea that it could cause problems doesn't really matter, because it didn't cause problems. 

I'm totally willing to believe that people could be harder on one candidate than another. What does that matter? What does being hard actually mean as far as actionable behavior? Shockingly, DWS has no obligation to be nice to someone who is accusing her of sucking at her job. She has a duty to do her job, but that's it. 

And I suspect that it's possible that it could end up having an impact on the campaign by actions taken. But that's the thing - no one is still able to point out actual actions taken as a result of this. You still haven't, after I've asked you what, 6 times now? 

4 minutes ago, Harakiri said:

If we look back at some of the things the DNC did do, or didnt do, they seemed a bit odd then, but now it comes across as just sketchy given what was in the leaked emails.

Lets talk about how quickly the DNC was to stop the Sanders campaign from having access to the potential  voter list. They were notified about potential issues with the system, yet they still stopped the Sanders campaign from having access to the list even though they were notified by that same campaign. 

They weren't notified by the Sanders campaign first, actually. They were notified by the software company, who then told the DNC and provided logs that Sanders users were looking at the data and saving it to private files for 40 minutes. But sure, it was a harsh penalty that eventually got restored when Clinton of all people stepped in and said to restore it. 

4 minutes ago, Harakiri said:

Given how incompetent DWS and the DNC under her has been, I would never think they could rig a pinata to a tree let alone an election. 

 

See, now that I can totally agree with. I think DWS is quite shitty at her job as chair and has done a really bad job over the last 8 years in running things. I think a lot of the losses of midterm elections can be squarely laid at her feet. I think she's overreacted and been too involved in things she shouldn't have. I'm very happy to see her gone. 

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, Harakiri said:

Clinton brought DWS on hahaha. What a fucking joke. She failed to get her elected in 2008 and was a failure as the head of the DNC. It also looks really shitty to pick her up after the emails that were leaked showed she was a biased piece of shit. Lets see how badly this fucks her in the polls.

DWS wasn't the DNC head in 2008. That was Howard Dean. And it was Howard Dean's 50-state strategy that got Obama elected with congressional majorities, and it was Dean's grassroots and data system that Obama used to get funding and get elected. 

I'm guessing you're referring to DWS presiding as 'honorary chair'? This does seem like a particularly stupid move.

[Maester Drew]

I never registered for either the Republican or Democratic party when I turned 18, even though it was a dream of mine to register as a Democrat when I was thirteen during Obama's first election campaign.

If I had registered as Democrat three years ago, I certainly would be going to my county's Voter Registrar Office to change my party affiliation after the DNC Wikileaks scandal.

[Kalbear]

22 minutes ago, Triskan said:

When QGKaddafi was getting ready to attack Benghazi I think many and maybe most US Presidents and Secretaries of State would have been tempted to take some kind of action.  But quickly figuring out a post-QGKaddafi plan for Libya is no small task?  So was the wiser move to do nothing?  I think perhaps, but it was not the road most would have taken, ergo it was a very tough spot to be in for a western leader.

Per the Obama article in the Atlantic the general plan was that the US would not be participating in the stabilization afterwards but someone would, and it was expected that either the French would step up or the Arab League would help out. When making the negotiations that was a big part of it. And then the leaders of the civil war victors basically said 'no, we got this' and told everyone else to fuck off. 

Both Clinton and Obama expected there to be some support ready to help fix things afterwards, but were somewhat optimistic that with the amount of oil money that Libya had and other allies in the area that the US wouldn't have to come fix it. 

And that's one of the other parts about Libya - it wasn't just a US effort or even led by the US, and if the US didn't participate it was going to happen, anyway. The British and French were very committed to doing it, and I believe that the main reason that the US got into it as well is that the Arab league also signed off - they weren't going to before that. The UN voted to enforce a no-fly zone before the US got involved, too. 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Maester Drew said:

I never registered for either the Republican or Democratic party when I turned 18, even though it was a dream of mine to register as a Democrat when I was thirteen during Obama's first election campaign.

If I had registered as Democrat three years ago, I certainly would be going to my county's Voter Registrar Office to change my party affiliation after the DNC Wikileaks scandal.

You've also said that you'll write in Sanders despite Sanders endorsing Clinton and specifically stating that he'd never want you to do that. 

irrational actors gonna irrationally act

[DunderMifflin]

Is anybody seeing Hillary's bling earrings on 60 minutes?? They are fantastic

[Boris the Blade]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

What, since the big bang? I suspect no matter what I say it'll be evidence that I am firmly in the Clinton camp.

I was undecided until about January. 

I don't know - what is the actual impact on the campaign? I'm totally willing to believe that if actions were taken, this kind of environment would facilitate it. That makes perfect sense. But the campaign is over, we don't have any evidence of wrongdoing or actions taken, and so the idea that it could cause problems doesn't really matter, because it didn't cause problems. 

I'm totally willing to believe that people could be harder on one candidate than another. What does that matter? What does being hard actually mean as far as actionable behavior? Shockingly, DWS has no obligation to be nice to someone who is accusing her of sucking at her job. She has a duty to do her job, but that's it. 

And I suspect that it's possible that it could end up having an impact on the campaign by actions taken. But that's the thing - no one is still able to point out actual actions taken as a result of this. You still haven't, after I've asked you what, 6 times now? 

They weren't notified by the Sanders campaign first, actually. They were notified by the software company, who then told the DNC and provided logs that Sanders users were looking at the data and saving it to private files for 40 minutes. But sure, it was a harsh penalty that eventually got restored when Clinton of all people stepped in and said to restore it. 

See, now that I can totally agree with. I think DWS is quite shitty at her job as chair and has done a really bad job over the last 8 years in running things. I think a lot of the losses of midterm elections can be squarely laid at her feet. I think she's overreacted and been too involved in things she shouldn't have. I'm very happy to see her gone. 

Haha no, I meant since this election year. Ah alright. I wasn't asking to shit talk, I was just curious because then I would get a better understanding of why you're just shrugging it off. 

Well, we don't know if actions were taken honestly. At least not ones that would be so overt. It is troubling to many people, including myself, that they would even allow certain things to be thrown out there as ideas to undermine him etc. It would bother me if they did it to Clinton as well. It's just disgusting, especially when the party tries to talk about unity.

I don't need to point to actions being taken since I am not claiming actions were taken. I am specifically talking about how their opinions about one candidate being so out there through out the DNC is problematic and have expressed why it is problematic, actions taken or not. It creates an environment that can be hostile towards one campaign and can make things harder for them. It's the fact that it was so out in the open and nothing was done about it since the head of the party was one of the worst with it and had a horrible poker face when she was accused of being biased and playing favorites. 

Ah, I got that wrong. Did they download it for 40 minutes? Is there a verifiable source for that? Because I do not remember seeing that at all. 

Yea, she is beyond shitty at her job. I think Clinton was beyond foolish to bring her aboard her campaign regardless of the position. She failed her in 08 and has been a disaster since.

 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Harakiri said:

Haha no, I meant since this election year. Ah alright. I wasn't asking to shit talk, I was just curious because then I would get a better understanding of why you're just shrugging it off. 

I've shrugged off a lot worse in politics than this. To me, this is just not a big deal except in the timing and in the low-information voters who are easily able to be convinced of horribleness and desperately want to have any excuse to cling to as to why Sanders lost.

1 minute ago, Harakiri said:

Well, we don't know if actions were taken honestly. At least not ones that would be so overt. It is troubling to many people, including myself, that they would even allow certain things to be thrown out there as ideas to undermine him etc. It would bother me if they did it to Clinton as well. It's just disgusting, especially when the party tries to talk about unity.

Definitely don't read anything about what Weaver wanted to do to Clinton then. 

1 minute ago, Harakiri said:

Ah, I got that wrong. Did they download it for 40 minutes? Is there a verifiable source for that? Because I do not remember seeing that at all. 

The New York times stated this:

Quote

According to two people briefed on the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a continuing review, four different user names associated with the Sanders campaign conducted 25 separate searches of the Clinton data. Audit trails of the logs show that people with the Sanders campaign searched and saved multiple files, creating new lists of their own.

Which Weaver lied about beforehand. It was clearly not just them looking at things if they were saving stuff. To me, that's far more of a big deal than this bullshit. 

1 minute ago, Harakiri said:

Yea, she is beyond shitty at her job. I think Clinton was beyond foolish to bring her aboard her campaign regardless of the position. She failed her in 08 and has been a disaster since.

Again, DWS wasn't working for Clinton in 2008 in any reasonable capacity. She was something mentioned as a 'national campaign co-chair' but as far as I can tell did not run or participate particularly much in campaign running, which wouldn't be a surprise given that she was also a sitting congresswoman. (amusingly enough Tim Kaine was the DNC chair after Dean stepped down).  

 

 

[Maester Drew]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You've also said that you'll write in Sanders despite Sanders endorsing Clinton and specifically stating that he'd never want you to do that. 

irrational actors gonna irrationally act

But why would I want to vote for Hillary "Extremely Careless" Clinton? I want my president to not be reckless. Furthermore, Sanders has every right to vote for whoever he wants, the same as anyone else. And on the whole "he'd never want me to" ...so what? No one has the right to dictate how I live my life or what choices I make.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Maester Drew said:

But why would I want to vote for Hillary "Extremely Careless" Clinton? I want my president to not be reckless. Furthermore, Sanders has every right to vote for whoever he wants, the same as anyone else. And on the whole "he'd never want me to" ...so what? No one has the right to dictate how I live my life or what choices I make.

That's absolutely true. You can lead your life however you choose. That being said, when you're basing who you want to vote for on completely irrational decisions, your decision to drop out of the democratic party because of this leak thing is almost certainly likely to be another irrational decision. You might as well have made your decision based on the weekly world news claiming Clinton is the secret bat boy and it would have been just as material. 

Though really, you should tell Trump that "Careless Clinton" one. That is a lot better than Crooked Clinton. Good work on getting Trump elected!

[The guy from the Vale]

3 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

But why would I want to vote for Hillary "Extremely Careless" Clinton? I want my president to not be reckless. Furthermore, Sanders has every right to vote for whoever he wants, the same as anyone else. And on the whole "he'd never want me to" ...so what? No one has the right to dictate how I live my life or what choices I make.

Well, the choice is boiling down to recklessness versus fraudulence. I don't know wbout you, but I know which of these two is more palatable to me.

 

 

[Kalbear]

In other news, the SecDef candidate for Trump (who, by the way, isn't eligible for that for another 7 years) Flynn tweeted out...um...well, he retweeted an antisemitic comment saying that the Jews were responsible for the DNC blaming Russia. 

He's really sad about it and said it was an accident.

How does someone accidentally retweet with a comment an antisemitic attack? 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Just now, Kalbear said:

In other news, the SecDef candidate for Trump (who, by the way, isn't eligible for that for another 7 years) Flynn tweeted out...um...well, he retweeted an antisemitic comment saying that the Jews were responsible for the DNC blaming Russia. 

He's really sad about it and said it was an accident.

How does someone accidentally retweet with a comment an antisemitic attack? 

Same way you accidentally retweet a Mussolini quote?

[Maester Drew]

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That's absolutely true. You can lead your life however you choose. That being said, when you're basing who you want to vote for on completely irrational decisions, your decision to drop out of the democratic party because of this leak thing is almost certainly likely to be another irrational decision. You might as well have made your decision based on the weekly world news claiming Clinton is the secret bat boy and it would have been just as material. 

Though really, you should tell Trump that "Careless Clinton" one. That is a lot better than Crooked Clinton. Good work on getting Trump elected!

How would I be getting Trump elected? I ain't voting for him, and according to Speaker Ryan, opposing Trump is a vote for Hillary. So... you can sleep easy knowing that my not voting for Trump will help your candidate, no matter how indirect it is.

Finally, while my avatar is irrational, I personally am not. I have thought long and hard as this election season has progressed this summer. I'll most likely vote for Gary Johnson.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Maester Drew said:

How would I be getting Trump elected? I ain't voting for him, and according to Speaker Ryan, not voting for Trump is a vote for Hillary. So... you can sleep easy knowing that my not voting for Trump will help your candidate, no matter how indirect it is. 

You're slamming her, telling others that you'd drop the democratic party because of this stupidity, and using idiotic slogans straight from the GOP. How are you not helping get Trump elected?

Just now, Maester Drew said:

Finally, while my avatar is irrational, I personally am not. I have thought long and hard as this election season has progressed this summer. I'll most likely vote for Gary Johnson.

Why? I've asked @Ser Scot A Ellisonabout this too - what, specifically, does Johnson offer that you actually desire? He isn't wanting to change the voting system, so it's not like he actually wants to get third parties into the mix. And most of his funding comes from the Koch brothers. Ever wonder why he's been so vocal on the social liberal things like legalizing pot? If he's such a good libertarian, why did the New Mexico budget increase by almost double in the time he was there?