U.S. Elections: The Trumph of the Will

[Shryke]

2 minutes ago, peterbound said:

By suggesting that someone call out Sander's religion, so Clinton can get more votes?  What you're trying to say is that they didn't put that plan into action, so it's alright.  No harm no foul. What I'm saying is that those types of statements support the over all tone, attitude, and bias on the part of the DNC to get Hillary the primary. 

 

How are we seeing to different things, when the truth is so blindly obvious?  

Well, because the truth that is blindingly obvious is that the comment about using Sanders' religion is a statement by a single employee of the DNC and not by the DNC itself. Once you realise that the opinion of a single (or 3) employee of the DNC that the DNC then did not even act on does not represent the views or actions of the DNC itself, the truth becomes rather obvious. It's just the truth is not what you are claiming it is.

There is no evidence the DNC endorsed this employees opinion and their lack of action suggests the exact opposite.

Plus, you know, you still haven't shown what I asked for, which is evidence of how they actively tried to get one candidate elected.

[Shryke]

Just now, Mexal said:

As a democrat, I care infinitely more that the leaked emails went through Russian computers than I do that the DNC wanted Hillary to win. From what I've read, their influence didn't change much and she won by almost 4 million votes and 350+ delegates (w/o super delegates). The DNC couldn't close that gap if they wanted. But the fact Russia is fucking with our presidential election and wants Trump in power should scare everyone.

Indeed. It should especially, as I keep pointing out, make you seriously question the accuracy and completeness of what you are reading. This is like taking Fox News info at face value.

One should especially look at this stuff with a great deal of suspicion in light of the fact that this leak, by all accounts, comes from the russian government itself who at the very least were the ones to pass on the information to wikileaks, many tweets from wikileaks showing that they don't even seem to understand what they are reading half the time, the vaguely anti-semitic tweets they hastily deleted earlier, their intentionally releasing of people's personal information for no discernible reason beyond being complete assholes and their admitted desire (as of like 6 fucking years ago) to edit the the information they are given and use it for political ends.

People keep acting like Wikileaks is in any way trustworthy. Even though alot of what's going on right now seems to be an attempt by the russian government to influence the US election via wikileaks.

[Shryke]

Oh shit, I forgot to post this one too from earlier:

 

Wikileaks obvious and would be ominous if it wasn't so pathetic threat over someone saying they will do a report on the connection between Russia, Trump and Wikileaks on their show. (the threat is so trumpian actually, which is kinda funny)

[The Anti-Targ]

So, people are pissed off that individuals inside the DNC were biased in favour of Clinton, which seems to be a completely predictable and understandable bias, and they wrote e-mails about how to help Clinton's campaign,  some of which contained dodgy suggestions, or said not nice things about Sanders. None of which appear to have been acted on in any formal or underhanded way by the DNC itself in order to help Clinton.

I can certainly see the PR problem here, but I don't see a moral, ethical or procedural problem for Hillary Clinton or the DNC as a whole. Is there a smoking gun I haven't seen?

The superdelegates were always a lock for Clinton because of their inherent bias going into the whole thing as Clinton has been a Democratic stalwart for decades and for Johnny-come-lately Sanders to gain a large enough chunk of superdelegates to affect the outcome of the primary would have required Sanders to be a whole lot more appealing to the Democratic party elites than he was. So unless there is a money trail or evidence of influence over the voting it seems like there's nothing to see here.

[Kalbear]

In other news, Sanders team wanted concessions like private plane to fly around and campaign, as well as simply considering to keep fighting at delegation.

 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/bernie-sanders-private-plane?bffbmain&ref=bffbmain&utm_term=.iaB0DyEmQ#.aeVo4eyqR

[Squab]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So, people are pissed off that individuals inside the DNC were biased in favour of Clinton, which seems to be a completely predictable and understandable bias, and they wrote e-mails about how to help Clinton's campaign,  some of which contained dodgy suggestions, or said not nice things about Sanders. None of which appear to have been acted on in any formal or underhanded way by the DNC itself in order to help Clinton.

I can certainly see the PR problem here, but I don't see a moral, ethical or procedural problem for Hillary Clinton or the DNC as a whole. Is there a smoking gun I haven't seen?

The superdelegates were always a lock for Clinton because of their inherent bias going into the whole thing as Clinton has been a Democratic stalwart for decades and for Johnny-come-lately Sanders to gain a large enough chunk of superdelegates to affect the outcome of the primary would have required Sanders to be a whole lot more appealing to the Democratic party elites than he was. So unless there is a money trail or evidence of influence over the voting it seems like there's nothing to see here.

I haven't read through all the emails so I have to take your word on the content. Why is Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigning considering there is "nothing to see here"?

[all swedes are racist]

1 minute ago, Squab said:

I haven't read through all the emails so I have to take your word on the content. Why is Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigning considering there is "nothing to see here"?

Because, while there may have been no real, tangible wrong doing, this whole thing presents some pretty shitty optics. Also, she is, as far as I know, unpopular with a decent segment of the party and frankly not good at her job

[Squab]

6 minutes ago, R'hllors Red Lobster said:

Because, while there may have been no real, tangible wrong doing, this whole thing presents some pretty shitty optics. Also, she is, as far as I know, unpopular with a decent segment of the party and frankly not good at her job

if there is "nothing to see here", why the "bad optics"?

[all swedes are racist]

I'm not the one who said "nothing to see here" so I'm not going to defend that particular turn of phrase; there clearly is something to see here, and that is the tempest-in-a-teacup spectacle of a great many people voicing their displeasure at seeing how the sausage is made. 

 

[Kalbear]

Because Sanders has wanted her gone for two years now and it looked bad on the eve of the DNC to not be doing nice things for him. Plus it was a good excuse to fire her ass.

[Kalbear]

This trump and putin thing is looking more actually reasonable - and the main reason is that putin has given trump like 400 million in loans.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-putin-yes-it-s-really-a-thing

[The Anti-Targ]

40 minutes ago, Squab said:

I haven't read through all the emails so I have to take your word on the content. Why is Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigning considering there is "nothing to see here"?

Did I say that? No. Perhaps read more than the last phrase.

I said unless there is s smoking gun, which hasn't materialised yet AFAIK, then there's nothing to see here. To me it looks like DSW had nothing to resign over, though perhaps I've missed some damning e-mail of hers which puts her personally in an untenable position. But in terms of any foul play on the part of the DNC as an organisation it appears, based on the lack of substantial evidence to come out thus far, there's no reason for the head to roll. Maybe DSW knows that buried in those e-mails is something quite incriminating. Baut as of right now it seems a lot of people are getting hot and bothered over not much of any real substance.

[The Anti-Targ]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

This trump and putin thing is looking more actually reasonable - and the main reason is that putin has given trump like 400 million in loans.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-putin-yes-it-s-really-a-thing

Oh, for a minute there I thought you meant more acceptable.

[Shryke]

8 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Did I say that? No. Perhaps read more than the last phrase.

I said unless there is s smoking gun, which hasn't materialised yet AFAIK, then there's nothing to see here. To me it looks like DSW had nothing to resign over, though perhaps I've missed some damning e-mail of hers which puts her personally in an untenable position. But in terms of any foul play on the part of the DNC as an organisation it appears, based on the lack of substantial evidence to come out thus far, there's no reason for the head to roll. Maybe DSW knows that buried in those e-mails is something quite incriminating. Baut as of right now it seems a lot of people are getting hot and bothered over not much of any real substance.

DWS is resigning because while there's not anything big wrong here it looks real bad and that's always been more then enough for heads to roll. Beyond that, Sanders' people have been trying to get rid of her for awhile now and there's plenty of people in the democratic party sphere who have been asking for the same for years now too.

So basically a bad press cycle hit and DWS was sacrificed to appease it.

[Inigima]

Much longer in the making than one bad press cycle, but yes. For christ's sake, I hope Clinton's campaign will finally learn that looking bad is enough to hurt you, even if you didn't technically break any laws.

RE: Gary Johnson, he's a horrible proxy for Sanders. Many reasons why have already been discussed, but Johnson would also be fine with you getting fired for being the wrong race, gender, or sexual orientation. He's not "in favor" of that happening, technically, but he doesn't believe the government should be able to stop it.

[TrackerNeil]

7 hours ago, Mexal said:

As a democrat, I care infinitely more that the leaked emails went through Russian computers than I do that the DNC wanted Hillary to win. From what I've read, their influence didn't change much and she won by almost 4 million votes and 350+ delegates (w/o super delegates). The DNC couldn't close that gap if they wanted. But the fact Russia is fucking with our presidential election and wants Trump in power should scare everyone.

i have no idea why anyone is shocked or really cares. From the emails, the things they suggested weren't put in action and even if the DNC was biased, that's not Clintons fault. On top of that, te RNC tried so hard to keep Trump from getting the nomination. This is politics and isn't abnormal. What is abnormal is a foreign power hacking a political party and releasing the data in an effort to get another nominee elected. That's fucked up.

Thank you!

[DunderMifflin]

1 hour ago, Inigima said:

Much longer in the making than one bad press cycle, but yes. For christ's sake, I hope Clinton's campaign will finally learn that looking bad is enough to hurt you, even if you didn't technically break any laws.

Doesn't look like it since Hillary hired DWS to work for her immediately after the resignation.

[Fez]

Well then. I thought the GOP convention was a complete shitshow, but it looks like Trump got a pretty large bounce out of it. Hopefully Clinton will get her own bounce out of the Democratic convention to cancel it out. But still, its pretty damn depressing that anyone watched that thing and said to themselves "Yep, I want that for the country."

On the plus side, Utah.

Quote

Trump 29% Clinton 27% Johnson 26%

I'm not sure if that's statewide or just UT-4, either way though that's a crazy result. Perot came in 2nd in Utah in '92, and Mormons got so many of their own issues about both Trump and Clinton, Johnson might actually have a shot here.

[maarsen]

6 hours ago, Kalbear said:

This trump and putin thing is looking more actually reasonable - and the main reason is that putin has given trump like 400 million in loans.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-putin-yes-it-s-really-a-thing

When Trump inevitably defaults on these loans,  I guess Putin will just be another in a long  line of people wishing they had never dealt with the man.

[Altherion]

8 hours ago, Mexal said:

As a democrat, I care infinitely more that the leaked emails went through Russian computers than I do that the DNC wanted Hillary to win. From what I've read, their influence didn't change much and she won by almost 4 million votes and 350+ delegates (w/o super delegates). The DNC couldn't close that gap if they wanted. But the fact Russia is fucking with our presidential election and wants Trump in power should scare everyone.

i have no idea why anyone is shocked or really cares. From the emails, the things they suggested weren't put in action and even if the DNC was biased, that's not Clintons fault. On top of that, te RNC tried so hard to keep Trump from getting the nomination. This is politics and isn't abnormal. What is abnormal is a foreign power hacking a political party and releasing the data in an effort to get another nominee elected. That's fucked up.

This post is probably very, very funny for anyone reading this thread who is not from a Western country. The United States has a long, long history of interfering in the politics of foreign countries via every means -- NGOs, propaganda, financing and even military coups. If Russia really is behind this, now Americans finally know how it feels.

That said, I have not been able to find any hard evidence that Russia is behind this. There are people making claims who have an interest in it being Russia, but there's no actual proof. Computers physically located in Russia being involved doesn't mean much: modern hackers typically work through multiple layers of proxies. Keep in mind that the security here was so awful (they kept credit card numbers in plain text with the associated addresses and social security numbers!) that there was no need for elite government hackers -- it could have been anyone.