U.S. Elections: The Trumph of the Will

[Kalbear]

I think the only rational explanation is that DWS threatened even worse things if she didn't get something, and this was the best of a whole bunch of shitty outcomes.

But it's still shitty.

[Shryke]

1 minute ago, Harakiri said:

So you don't grasp how Clinton's image that is already pretty shitty with the public as a whole is going to get a bit worse because they brought on a incompetent and crooked person like Schutlz into her campaign just after there was an email leak that showed how bias the DNC was?  

Please explain to me how a disgraced and incompetent DNC head has leverage in this position and how her fighting would do anything? The Clinton campaign would actually be better off letting her try to fight and making it public that they wanted her to step down and she is basically throwing a tantrum because they refuse to work with someone like her at this point. That probably would have been the way to go because it would have made the Clinton campaign look better and it would have made Schultz look like the asshole she is.

I do grasp the image issues. I've never said otherwise. What I'm pointing out is that y'all keep ignoring that it's not like they have much choice here. I'm also pointing out how stupid people complaining this are being because we all got what we wanted. DWS is out. Stop whinging cause your fucking magic pony ain't the right colour.

And DWS is not disgraced. She's unpopular with some and that's been growing, hence why they can dump her at all, but she's not universally reviled as you keep trying to imply. And she's certainly got connections otherwise she wouldn't even be head of the DNC in the first place. Like, is this the actual problem here? Do y'all not understand that just cause you don't like her doesn't mean she doesn't have people who do?

And the Democratic party does not want a fight with their own party chair right as their convention starts. So she got tossed some concessions in return for stepping down without a fight. It'd be better if she didn't have to be given anything but the world don't work the way you want it all the time.

[aceluby]

1 minute ago, Shryke said:

Yes, and? Like, that's not an argument against my point at all. "If she refused to step down on her own despite the controversy, doesn't that make her kinda awful?". YES. That's why so many have wanted her gone for so long. Why are you acting like this is surprising or an argument against what I said?

The leverage she has is that she can force a fight if they want her out. Given the long-time rumours of her being disliked by many in the party and her actions during this whole thing, it's clear she doesn't want to go on her own either. So yeah, just on the face of it she has leverage in that she will fight to keep her position and power and they don't want a fight.

Not sure why you're arguing so heavily about this.  The optics are AWFUL.  Head of DNC builds years of party elite enemies, resigns in disgrace due to claims of favoring one campaign over another, and within hours is hired by said campaign and given a chief spot.

You can poo poo all you want about leverage and fights, but it doesn't make it look any better.  The campaign shot themselves in the foot.

[Kalbear]

The hack story is fascinating to me. This article all but confirms that it was a Russian intelligence hack that used wiki leaks as either a weapon or a way to hide their tracks. Really cool and well researched too.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-signs-point-to-russia-being-behind-the-dnc-hack

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Yes, and? Like, that's not an argument against my point at all. "If she refused to step down on her own despite the controversy, doesn't that make her kinda awful?". YES. That's why so many have wanted her gone for so long. Why are you acting like this is surprising or an argument against what I said?

The leverage she has is that she can force a fight if they want her out. Given the long-time rumours of her being disliked by many in the party and her actions during this whole thing, it's clear she doesn't want to go on her own either. So yeah, just on the face of it she has leverage in that she will fight to keep her position and power and they don't want a fight. And that's not even touching on whatever clout she might have with people within the party who aren't among those that dislike her.

And then her career is over. Her only option was to go nuclear and screw Clinton over, which wasn't going to happen. So her leverage is vastly overstated. 

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I agree the optics look bad, though I'm not sure they look better if Clinton gives her an actual real position in the WH either. It reeks of being really blind as to how to win.

Why wouldn't it? Just tell DWS to lay low until after the election and then offer her a role in Clinton's administration, should she win. That would do a lot less damage than having DWS join Clinton's campaign just hours after she was ousted from the DNC over claims of favoritism. 

[Boris the Blade]

8 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Yes, and? Like, that's not an argument against my point at all. "If she refused to step down on her own despite the controversy, doesn't that make her kinda awful?". YES. That's why so many have wanted her gone for so long. Why are you acting like this is surprising or an argument against what I said?

The leverage she has is that she can force a fight if they want her out. Given the long-time rumours of her being disliked by many in the party and her actions during this whole thing, it's clear she doesn't want to go on her own either. So yeah, just on the face of it she has leverage in that she will fight to keep her position and power and they don't want a fight. And that's not even touching on whatever clout she might have with people within the party who aren't among those that dislike her.

So she has all these powerful people that do not like her and she is going to fight them, all of them, that want her to step down. That isn't leverage, that is career suicide. Schultz's image is so tarnished right now that anything she said would be taken with a grain of salt. She is at this point someone that could easily be discredited. 

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think the only rational explanation is that DWS threatened even worse things if she didn't get something, and this was the best of a whole bunch of shitty outcomes.

But it's still shitty.

They should have called her bluff on it. Her image is extremely tarnished now. They had the leverage in that situation to discredit her as just some angry individual that was removed from her position. And if that is what Schultz 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Fez said:

The GOP convention had tons of well-covered issues, especially during the roll call on day 1 (complete with booing, walkouts, etc.), but turns it didn't matter. This stuff doesn't get talked about outside of a very tight bubble of people who closely follow politics. All that really matters is that the hour of prime time coverage each night goes smoothly. That's all that most people will see.

So long as Sanders, Obama, and Clinton each give really good speeches, the convention should be a success. Having Biden, Kaine, Warren, Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, and Michelle Obama give really good speeches would also be nice, but isn't that important.

Yea, with Sanders, Obama and Clinton along with Michelle Obama, Warren, Bill and Chelsea Clinton. They should be set and come out of the DNC pretty damn well.


 

 

2 minutes ago, Shryke said:

I do grasp the image issues. I've never said otherwise. What I'm pointing out is that y'all keep ignoring that it's not like they have much choice here. I'm also pointing out how stupid people complaining this are being because we all got what we wanted. DWS is out. Stop whinging cause your fucking magic pony ain't the right colour.

And DWS is not disgraced. She's unpopular with some and that's been growing, hence why they can dump her at all, but she's not universally reviled as you keep trying to imply. And she's certainly got connections otherwise she wouldn't even be head of the DNC in the first place. Like, is this the actual problem here? Do y'all not understand that just cause you don't like her doesn't mean she doesn't have people who do?

And the Democratic party does not want a fight with their own party chair right as their convention starts. So she got tossed some concessions in return for stepping down without a fight. It'd be better if she didn't have to be given anything but the world don't work the way you want it all the time.

She is disgraced, this email issue is just one of many issues with her as DNC head. You do realize criticizing a move isn't whining yea? Use the ignore feature if you don't like people having a fucking discussion on a forum, where discussions are the reason for it's existence. Also, jjust because you don't want to talk about how bad the optics are doesn't mean the optics aren't bad and what ever their reason was to hire her doesn't negate the fact it is still a bad move. 

[Mexal]

2 hours ago, Altherion said:

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.

This is all true. The US has involved itself in other country's politics. It's a shitty thing to do and more times than not has backfired. I don't condone that either. But just because we've gotten involved doesn't mean we should accept Russia getting involved in ours, especially to put someone in charge like Trump. 

As for the hack, you're right, it could have been anyone. Just like the Sony hack could have been anyone but North Korea or the Chinese OPM hack could have been someone framing China. But back a few months ago, it was reported the hack was traced to two Russian intelligence agencies and now we have emails released with analyzed metadata that backs that up. If you think someone is framing Russia or is a state sponsored hacker from somewhere else, fair enough, but it's awfully convenient that:

1. Trump has very large investors from Russia because no US bank will invest in him
2. Trump's campaign manager and top adviser spent 10+ years advising the Ukraine Prime Minister with tight ties to Russia
3. Trump's foreign policy expert for that region has economic and financial ties to Gazprom which owns all of Russia's energy
4. Trump's campaign gave two shits about everything in the Republican platform except to lobby for no involvement in Ukraine
5. Trump has publicly said he wouldn't necessarily defend NATO allies in Eastern Europe from Russia
6. DNC emails are released shortly after the RNC and right before the DNC

You're spot on that none of this is proof and it's all circumstantial. But you have to be fucking blind if this doesn't worry you in the slightest and that what you take out of this entire situation is that one DNC aid suggested maybe they use the fact Sanders is Jewish against him (which they never did) or some others discussed how to make Clinton the nominee over Sanders (which would have happened regardless given he needed 4+ million more votes and 350+ more pledged delegates). 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

I got to say that I think the optics suck.  If you really want the good of the party, swallow your pride, sit it out, and hope for an ambassadorship someplace.  But everything I have seen, she would not go quietly. . . but who knows, this level of internecine fighting is so wonky and ridiculous.

BTW, many will probably disagree, but for people like me, it is Bloomberg's endorsement I will be watching the most closely.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think the only rational explanation is that DWS threatened even worse things if she didn't get something, and this was the best of a whole bunch of shitty outcomes.

But it's still shitty.

If she threatened to go nuclear, you tell her that she's going to be stripped of her committee assignments, the DCCC will endorse her primary opponent, and should she prevail she will receive no funding from the DCCC in the general and will never get another committee assignment again. 

[Kalbear]

Really, it isn't just circumstantial. There is a ton of forensic evidence gathered by multiple cybersecurity experts across multiple hacks that point to Russian intelligence being the source. They have motive and ability and have done this before. 

What should be especially troubling is the evidence that the data submitted to wiki leaks was edited and altered before sending along. Some of that was to remove the Russian Intel Metadata, but there's other indications that it was actually changed and replaced.

[Boris the Blade]

Clinton doesn't come across as a pushover to me. Any threat that was made to harm her campaign I could see her responding with a threat of her own. So I really do not get what they were thinking. And even if they were willing to give her a position just to appease her and shut her up, why do it so  publicly and not tell her to lay low for a bit because the optics of this will look bad and could be a bit damaging.

Am I whining too much? 

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

If she threatened to go nuclear, you tell her that she's going to be stripped of her committee assignments, the DCCC will endorse her primary opponent, and should she prevail she will receive no funding from the DCCC in the general and will never get another committee assignment again. 

Sure. And she still threatens and calls your bluff. She says she will make her money and time on tell all books and the talk show circuit. I just don't think that threat is that big a deal.

[Mexal]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

What should be especially troubling is the evidence that the data submitted to wiki leaks was edited and altered before sending along. Some of that was to remove the Russian Intel Metadata, but there's other indications that it was actually changed and replaced.

Was this in the motherboard article you posted? I hadn't read that before.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Was this in the motherboard article you posted? I hadn't read that before.

Yep. Along with massive amounts of non circumstantial proof. NY times is also indicating it was Russian intel. 

 

And AP now reports that the FBI is investigating the hack.

[Shryke]

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And then her career is over. Her only option was to go nuclear and screw Clinton over, which wasn't going to happen. So her leverage is vastly overstated. 

Her career is potentially over either way. She's unlikely (from where we sit now) to climb much higher in the party leadership now. 

Her leverage isn't overstated because she could fight this out and it would be damaging RIGHT NOW, regardless of what it means for her likely not terribly illustrious future.

The problem with your whole argument is you seem to think "but doing this would make her a shitty and shortsighted person". Which is not actually an argument against my point.

 

23 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Not sure why you're arguing so heavily about this.  The optics are AWFUL.  Head of DNC builds years of party elite enemies, resigns in disgrace due to claims of favoring one campaign over another, and within hours is hired by said campaign and given a chief spot.

You can poo poo all you want about leverage and fights, but it doesn't make it look any better.  The campaign shot themselves in the foot.

Of course the optics are bad. The point is that there's not alot of wiggle room here. She did not want to resign and she certainly doesn't want to disappear from the public view.

 

They should have called her bluff on it. Her image is extremely tarnished now.

And your problem is exactly as I called it. You are vastly overestimating how "tarnished" her image is right now. She is not near as unpopular as you keep pretending. Don't mistake your own opinion for the general tenor of things in DC. She is not in any position where she has to resign in disgrace. She could make a fight of staying on very easily.

 

[Kalbear]

Yeah, she said to the crowd that you will be seeing her every day leading up to the election. This is not someone willing to fall on their sword for the good of the party.

God damn but she's horrible.

[Shryke]

14 minutes ago, Harakiri said:

Clinton doesn't come across as a pushover to me. Any threat that was made to harm her campaign I could see her responding with a threat of her own. So I really do not get what they were thinking. And even if they were willing to give her a position just to appease her and shut her up, why do it so  publicly and not tell her to lay low for a bit because the optics of this will look bad and could be a bit damaging.

Am I whining too much? 

Because DWS does not want to go quietly. She still wants to open and close the DNC ffs. Despite people telling her "They will boo your ass up there". She does not want to "lay low for a bit".

[Boris the Blade]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, she said to the crowd that you will be seeing her every day leading up to the election. This is not someone willing to fall on their sword for the good of the party.

God damn but she's horrible.

Yup she's horrible.

[Shryke]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, she said to the crowd that you will be seeing her every day leading up to the election. This is not someone willing to fall on their sword for the good of the party.

God damn but she's horrible.

Which is why people have been complaining about her for years now. The Sanders supporters are johnny come latelys to this particular issue.

Most of the people involved in the Democratic Party I know have been bitching about her since at least 2014.

[Mexal]

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yep. Along with massive amounts of non circumstantial proof. NY times is also indicating it was Russian intel. 

I read the NYT article. I just didn't see anything about the emails actually being altered yet.