US Elections: CTRL ALT-RIGHT DELETE

[Tywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Extraordinarily damning headline in the HuffPost this AM. Apparently the article is over how R donor money is making its way to Trump properties, presumably instead of being used toward the campaign. This is exactly what many have been alleging since the very beginning of the Trump masquerade. Its all a big con to line the families pockets. Iirc the article is called "Art of the Steal"......really, who couldnt have seen that coming? This guy is running for the Presidency solely to enrich himself, directly and through misleading facades, "Art of the Steal" indeed.

Here's the article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-rnc-self-dealing_us_57cdcba0e4b078581f13b262

It's kind of amazing how nothing seems to stick to this guy.

[aceluby]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Here's the article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-rnc-self-dealing_us_57cdcba0e4b078581f13b262

It's kind of amazing how nothing seems to stick to this guy.

He's really in your face about his ability to launder campaign donations directly to himself

[MerenthaClone]

2 hours ago, aceluby said:

He's really in your face about his ability to launder campaign donations directly to himself

And meantime, the AP is essentially running a story that says "Hillary Clinton:  corrupt because she met with people that a SOS would normally meet with who about half the time, from cherry-picked numbers donated to an influential charity foundation she was somewhat connected with??? Even though there's absolutely no evidence of actual impropriety?"  

Fuck the AP.  "If there's smoke, there's fire. Please ignore our actual smoke machines sitting nearby, though"

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Quick Twitter list of Trump's Military supporters

 

 

[The Anti-Targ]

So reading an article about the CIA looking into alleged/potential Russian attempts to disrupt the election.

I wonder what they would see as strategically benefiting them the most? Get Trump elected to have a friend in the Whitehouse, or get Hillary elected and leave all sorts of evidence just under the surface for people to find of election tampering that can;t be traced back to them and create all sorts of political and social turmoil to put the US off balance.

I guess in theory having Trump elected or having Hillary elected under a dark cloud of Russian manufactured corruption would be almost equally destabling.

[Altherion]

9 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

The polls are tightening again. Of course, Trump is still the underdog with a 1 in 3 shot, but that is too close for comfort (especially as it is predicated on FL and OH being in the D column, and I don't trust those two flaky states). I guess my own level of comfort is somewhere nearer a 1 in 4 chance.

Apart from the 'angry voter' fires being stoked, the three things that are preventing this from being a runaway (IMO) are Benghazi/e-mail server/Clinton's health. I admit, the third one came as a surprise to me, and I didnt even think it would be brought up as an issue. But apparently a lot of people think there is something to it.

I'd say the 2:1 currently being predicted in Clinton's favor is what the race has been all along. Trump has a chance, but he needs several things to go his way.

Clinton's health will probably go away as an issue once her cold goes away. She's coughing and her voice is clearly a bit different, but practically everybody gets colds. On the other hand, the emails are the gift that just keeps on giving. I was particularly impressed by this gem from the recently released FBI notes (look at Section 3E on page 26):

Quote

 

Clinton was aware she was an Original Classification Authority (OCA) at State; however, she could not recall how often she used this authority nore could she recall any training or guidance provided by State. Clinton could not give an example of how the classification of a document was determined; rather she stated there was a process in place at State before her tenure, and she relied on career foreign service professionals to appropriately mark and handle classified information.

...

The FBI provided Clinton with copies of her classified e-mails ranging from CONFIDENTIAL to TOP SECRET/SAP and Clinton said that she did not believe the e-mails contained classified information.

 

So, either Clinton is lying to the FBI or, as Secretary of State -- the top Cabinet Secretary and, in peacetime, the one with access to classified information second only to the President -- she did not know what classification entailed and literally wouldn't know classified information when she saw it. I'm no longer certain Trump needs an October surprise. It might be sufficient that the latest news to come out before the election is about Clinton rather than Trump.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

27 minutes ago, Triskan said:

I don't believe for a moment that Genera Tso would support Trump.

Not General Tso himself, just his chicken.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

I'd say the 2:1 currently being predicted in Clinton's favor is what the race has been all along. Trump has a chance, but he needs several things to go his way.

Clinton's health will probably go away as an issue once her cold goes away. She's coughing and her voice is clearly a bit different, but practically everybody gets colds. On the other hand, the emails are the gift that just keeps on giving. I was particularly impressed by this gem from the recently released FBI notes (look at Section 3E on page 26):

So, either Clinton is lying to the FBI or, as Secretary of State -- the top Cabinet Secretary and, in peacetime, the one with access to classified information second only to the President -- she did not know what classification entailed and literally wouldn't know classified information when she saw it. I'm no longer certain Trump needs an October surprise. It might be sufficient that the latest news to come out before the election is about Clinton rather than Trump.

Meh, what you quoted seems pretty tame. Unlike a career official at State who would have to develop some expertise in classifying information, the only qualification needed to become secretary of state is that the President wants you in that role. And that would mostly be because you can present a decent public face to the world and competently schmooze with foreign leaders. 

Classification of documents is rather an arcane science. You can generally look at a document and say, "well we don't really want that being freely available to the public."  But to reliably know whether a document should be restricted, classified, secret or top secret or any other classification is a level of understanding I would think is beyond most Sec's of State, and pretty much all other members of the President's cabinet and the President him or herself. Indeed document classification is something that functionaries and underlings should be doing, and members of cabinet should not be wasting precious time routinely analysing a document to determine it's level of restriction. 

[TrackerNeil]

19 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

The polls are tightening again. Of course, Trump is still the underdog with a 1 in 3 shot, but that is too close for comfort (especially as it is predicated on FL and OH being in the D column, and I don't trust those two flaky states). I guess my own level of comfort is somewhere nearer a 1 in 4 chance.

Apart from the 'angry voter' fires being stoked, the three things that are preventing this from being a runaway (IMO) are Benghazi/e-mail server/Clinton's health. I admit, the third one came as a surprise to me, and I didnt even think it would be brought up as an issue. But apparently a lot of people think there is something to it.

 

16 hours ago, MerenthaClone said:

And meantime, the AP is essentially running a story that says "Hillary Clinton:  corrupt because she met with people that a SOS would normally meet with who about half the time, from cherry-picked numbers donated to an influential charity foundation she was somewhat connected with??? Even though there's absolutely no evidence of actual impropriety?"  

Fuck the AP.  "If there's smoke, there's fire. Please ignore our actual smoke machines sitting nearby, though"

I think Merentha's post answers Tesla's. Clinton is viewed as untrustworthy not so much because of anything she's done or said, but because of what is done and said about her. Repeated investigations, groundless and fruitless as they may be, will take their toll on anyone's reputation, and Clinton's had twenty years of that treatment. Any lies she has told are standard politician untruths of the from-a-certain-point-of-view variety.

Trump, on the other hand, lies repeatedly, spectacularly, and unshamefacedly, saying something one day and denying it the next, even though we have videographic evidence of him doing so. The man's greed and dishonesty is well documented but since it's been far less investigated, he's viewed as more trustworthy. Ye gods, but what has this nation come to?

[Fez]

20 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Apart from the 'angry voter' fires being stoked, the three things that are preventing this from being a runaway (IMO) are Benghazi/e-mail server/Clinton's health. I admit, the third one came as a surprise to me, and I didnt even think it would be brought up as an issue. But apparently a lot of people think there is something to it.

I tend to think that the first two of those are already baked in to the electorate, and I don't think the third one is really that convincing. I suspect the two biggest reasons the polls have gotten closer are that (1) Trump has for the most part managed to not be too offensive to 'moderate' Republicans for the past several weeks (and when he has, it hasn't gotten as much coverage as did before), and (2) Clinton and most of the top Democrats weren't out campaigning for most of August. Clinton was all fundraising all the time, which is important but I think it was a mistake to basically disappear for a month. And I have no idea where Obama/Sanders/Warren/Bill were (Biden was out there at least). It let the message from the convention get lost.

[S John]

Can't just pack it in and assume the lead is safe when your opponent literally relishes the attention and is going to be on TV all day every day.  

[Tywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, S John said:

Can't just pack it in and assume the lead is safe when your opponent literally relishes the attention and is going to be on TV all day every day.  

Prevent defense almost always fails. 

[S John]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Prevent defense almost always fails. 

Yep. Prevents you from winning.  

[DireWolfSpirit]

@Manhole Eunuchsbane

Perhaps the Trump campaign will come out with a list of Royalty that endorses him next?

Queen Latifah

The King of Queens

Nat King Cole

King Salmon

Princess Leia

Duke Ellington

Duke Snider

King Tommen

Queen Regent Cersei

Although I suspect the Trump campaign has forged a few of these floaters and have it on good authority that both Evelyn Champagne King and Prince Rogers Nelson told La Donald to get bent.

[IheartIheartTesla]

13 hours ago, Altherion said:

Clinton's health will probably go away as an issue once her cold goes away. She's coughing and her voice is clearly a bit different, but practically everybody gets colds. On the other hand, the emails are the gift that just keeps on giving. I was particularly impressed by this gem from the recently released FBI notes (look at Section 3E on page 26):

Its not just the coughing fits, some people believe she has a blood clot that might impair her mental faculties. And I heard mutterings that she tripped down some stairs once.....its all pretty bogus since she took blood thinners and the clot went away (like it does for millions of Americans). But like the 'birther/secret muslim' controversy and swiftboating, this is the kind of narrative that will keep going unless it is tackled swiftly. In other words, I think it has legs among conservatives and maybe even some swing voters.

I agree with what Fez said, fundraising is important but Clinton should take the health issues head on, maybe even hold a press conference, and grab control of the narrative again.

[Altherion]

10 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Meh, what you quoted seems pretty tame. Unlike a career official at State who would have to develop some expertise in classifying information, the only qualification needed to become secretary of state is that the President wants you in that role. And that would mostly be because you can present a decent public face to the world and competently schmooze with foreign leaders. 

Classification of documents is rather an arcane science. You can generally look at a document and say, "well we don't really want that being freely available to the public."  But to reliably know whether a document should be restricted, classified, secret or top secret or any other classification is a level of understanding I would think is beyond most Sec's of State, and pretty much all other members of the President's cabinet and the President him or herself. Indeed document classification is something that functionaries and underlings should be doing, and members of cabinet should not be wasting precious time routinely analysing a document to determine it's level of restriction. 

I don't think you understand the nature of either the US Secretary of State or classification. Your first paragraph describes something along the lines of the Ambassador of the United States to France (or any other allied country that doesn't require much intervention). The Secretary of State is not supposed to be like that -- yes, they must present a proper public face and competently interact with foreign leaders, but behind that face must be a mind that understands foreign policy and US government procedures better than nearly anyone in the US and thus has a significant hand in determining them. Classification should not be beyond a Secretary of State's abilities. In fact, Original Classification Authority means precisely that: the individual who is entrusted with it should be able to determine whether a document should be classified and at what level.

[TrackerNeil]

2 hours ago, S John said:

Yep. Prevents you from winning.  

What specifically should Clinton be doing, then?

[Tywin et al.]

29 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

What specifically should Clinton be doing, then?

Call an A gap overload blitz, duh. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

@Manhole Eunuchsbane

Perhaps the Trump campaign will come out with a list of Royalty that endorses him next?

Queen Latifah

The King of Queens

Nat King Cole

King Salmon

Princess Leia

Duke Ellington

Duke Snider

King Tommen

Queen Regent Cersei

Although I suspect the Trump campaign has forged a few of these floaters and have it on good authority that both Evelyn Champagne King and Prince Rogers Nelson told La Donald to get bent.

I hear King Vitamin is all about Trump. As well as being an important part of this balanced breakfast.

 http://pauleide.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/03/king-vitaman-Paul-Eide.jpg

 

/And don't forget about The Duke of New York. He's A-#1, baby.

[SerPaladin]

46 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

What specifically should Clinton be doing, then?

She's been letting Trump have the spotlight, hoping for Trump to do something dumb that makes him lose. He's been doing something dumb fortnightly for almost a year and a half as a candidate. Old school electoral physics do not apply to him.

What's her actual biggest advantage? She knows the specifics of how to do the job.

What's her biggest disadvantage? All of the pieces of "untrustworthy" that swirl around her.

If I was running the campaign, I would have her map out a detailed policy position on a narrow-ish topic every three or four days. Go DEEP on America's relationship with the EU, on spurring Job Growth, on engaging with Russia, on LGBT policy, on ISIS, on abortion, on Israel, on race relations/ police, on trade, on the FED interest rates, on veterans health care, on NASA, on and on and on. Flood the zone, put so much policy content on the table every few days that there is no breathing room on the news shows for Trump antics or for her own scandals.

Campaign management types HATE to make firm policy statements, because they are afraid of alienating one voter group or another. Flooding the zone with hard policy positions would be hazardous in any other election cycle. But Trump can't handle specifics. Even if Clinton lost a few people at the margins of the abortion debate, for example, Trump would be backpedaling and reacting and likely contradicting himself. He would lose more.