Jump to content
Simon

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

Recommended Posts

So, back to the wikileaks release for a minute--

 

These files have been the topic of renewed discussion in some cyber forums, for obvious reasons. In a nutshell there is virtually no question that the Russian government is behind the hack. The emails were opened and edited on a computer set to use Cyrillic by default. The hacker claimed to the press that he was Romanian but spoke and wrote very poor Romanian compared to his Russian. Email communications with the "hacker" are clearly being written by several different people. There is almost no reason for a private hacker or group to spend time on DNC communications--there's no profit model there. And lastly it fits a now well-established pattern of the Putin regime to interfere in elections with well-timed leaks and hacks--it's just that up until now he's been picking on Eastern European countries.

 

On top of this Putin and Trump are thoroughly on record as supporting, if not admiring, each other. It's also been pointed out that many of the 500+ companies that Trump is involved in are Russian or have Russian ties. It's even been said that Russian money is keeping Trump's business afloat. This last may be hyperbolic but there's definitely enough involvement to constitute a serious conflict of interest.

 

The worry is that the well-established Russian pattern doesn't involve one leak. It involves a campaign of leaks and disinformation timed to cause maximum disruption. As a result we can expect more such wikileaks releases, fabricated or not. And people in the industry are now really, really worried about the security of electronic voting machines.

 

Sleep well!

I don't remember going through any mirrors, so how did I get to a world where the Republican candidate is the sucking up to the Russian dictator and the Democrats are holding the line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just a week ago, I thought the political conventions system couldn't get any more dysfunctional. Oh well, live and learn.

 

There, got that fixed for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's also unambiguously and undeniably been the target of a concerted campaign to rough up and dirty her (and Bill) politically. "The Hunting of the President" by Joe Conason, and "Blinded by the Right", by David Brock, extensively document this. It's not like this adverse rep developed in a vacuum and is based solely on her record. It's also based upon a deliberate bad faith mischaracterization of her record, mixed with lies, smears and mischaracterizations. And a portion of the electorate eager to uncritically believe all of the panegyrics against her.

 

This demonization is aided by the fact that she is a politician and as such sometimes spins the truth, quotes sources that turn out to be biased or simply wrong, and occasionally she flat out lies.

 

 If you look up Hillary Clinton on Politifact.com, you will discover that 50% of her statements are rated true or mostly true.  That, of course, means that the other half of her statements are half truths or worse.  That sounds really bad, but to put it in context, Bernie Sanders' true and mostly true rating is 52% and Barack Obama's is 48%.  So, in essence, you can only trust about half of what comes out of the mouths of any of the top Dems.

 

Lest Republicans (if there are any left in this conversation) start feeling smug, I should point out that on 28% of what Donald Trump says is rated true or mostly true and Ted Cruz's rating is a scant 25%.

 

What it comes down to is that if you wish to portray a politician, any politician, as being a "congenital liar", as William Safire characterized Hillary Clinton did so many years ago, you are going to have plenty of ammunition to work with.  The Republicans have taken this meme started Safire and have ran with it and built upon it 20 plus years, and now it is treated simply as a matter of fact by a large portion of the electorate.

 

However, I contend that it is no more (of less) true for Hillary Clinton than it is for Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.  That is to say that it is just the nature of politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lest Republicans (if there are any left in this conversation) start feeling smug, I should point out that on 28% of what Donald Trump says is rated true or mostly true and Ted Cruz's rating is a scant 25%.

I don't think there are any. So feel free. ^^

 

That said, I am actually surprised by that number. Perhaps the numbers I was hearing some months ago were based on single speeches rather than total aggregate, but I thought the numbers were significantly less (ie, less honest). 

 

Soar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't Trump be on a list for saying something like that? If I said it over the phone to a buddy, I'm pretty sure guys in black suits and shades would be watching me - or worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't Trump be on a list for saying something like that? If I said it over the phone to a buddy, I'm pretty sure guys in black suits and shades would be watching me - or worse.

What the gods get away with, the cows don't.

 

My Dad would sometimes say that when I was young. I never really understood what he was talking about. Now I think maybe I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that was definitely a rhetorical/sarcastic question. Those who have get away with everything; or can afford lawyers to get the punishment changed to little or none. When we peed-ons do the same thing we get punished to the full extent of the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/28/politics/donald-trump-russia-hacking-sarcastic/index.html

 

"Just kidding about the collusion to commit espionage with a foreign power"

 

Please tell me that you didn't not see that one coming. Trump blasts his mouth off and walks back his stupid bravado the way most people breathe. It makes trusting anything he says very difficult (to say the least).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She won by a wide enough margin that the DNC thing didn't materially affect the bottom line outcome. The DNC isn't responsible for Sen. Sanders' failure to connect better with minority voters, for example. So it's a nomination, not a coronation.

I agree with the second part wholeheartedly (it is factually a nomination, she is the democratically elected nominee). The first two points are less clear, re: the role of DNC influencing outcome or even (less likely in my opinion) did they influence minority opinion with shenanigans.

 

It's not material to her being the nominee, but I don't think it's as easily dismissed and probably will come up again. She should be very attentive to perception around this, which is why I'm thinking recent moves (DWS, Kaine) don't bode terribly well. Does she even understand why people in the country are upset? It's not about birth control access, or culture wars in my opinion.

 

Stop arguing facts and policy, and connect with people on the feelings those facts evoke. That's the strength of Michelle, Bill and Barack this week that was on display. I like facts, the electorate doesn't care that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please tell me that you didn't not see that one coming. Trump blasts his mouth off and walks back his stupid bravado the way most people breathe. It makes trusting anything he says very difficult (to say the least).

Well, let's say I didn't expect an apology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the second part wholeheartedly (it is factually a nomination, she is the democratically elected nominee). The first two points are less clear, re: the role of DNC influencing outcome or even (less likely in my opinion) did they influence minority opinion with shenanigans.

 

.

 

Coronation is how it feels to me, but that is the wrong word.  Technically, she's already been nominated, and she's simply accepting the nomination tonight (?).

 

I would point out that 1) Sanders won key demographics also, running away with the youth vote http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/06/21/report-sanders-won-young-voters-clinton-trump-combined/and 2) Even if he had somehow edged out his opponent in delegates, it sure seems the superdelegates were always going to tip the balance for the presumptive nominee. 

 

Likely, our country isn't ready for a 'Democratic Socialist' at the present time.  But the idea that political operators and numerous major media outlets were working together to ensure unbalanced coverage is (needless to say) deeply disturbing - in fact, corrosive of our democracy and our founding principles, which rely on a strong and independent fourth estate.  That is worrisome above and beyond this particular race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is this numerous major media outlet thing?  I've only heard that some DNC staffers were dismissive of the Sanders's campaign in there emails with one another and one of the heads brought the idea of trying to use Sanders' religion or lack thereof against him.  That last one is pretty bad, but to date no proof has been put forward that that particular idea was ever acted upon.  So what is this about media outlets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump just flushed the Republicans strongest criticism of Clinton, that she compromised our national security, straight down the toilet.

 

What kind of jibber-jabber is this? There's one threat to American national security in this election, and it's Hit-lery! She wears pant suits! Pant suits! I don't have to

LEAVE ME ALONE MOM I'LL GO LOOK FOR A JOB AFTER I FINISH POSTING ON THE HERO BOARDS AND PLAY CALL OF DUTY FOR A WHILE DID YOU REMEMBER TO BUY DEPENDS AT THE STORE

explain what "pant suits" means. It means she's a shrill Femi-Nazi who has come to take your American manhood away by making you fight wars with everyone forever. Your manhood! Before you even get to use it! [Oops, need to drop this in the next draft in case someone thinks I'm projecting.]

 

Whereas Trump swings his like there's no tomorrow. When he teabags someone, you know it! He says what he means! Like I do on the chats. Except with his real name! Ballsy. See?

 

In conclusion, vote Trump on election day if for some reason you find yourself out of the basement and near a "polling place."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is this numerous major media outlet thing?  I've only heard that some DNC staffers were dismissive of the Sanders's campaign in there emails with one another and one of the heads brought the idea of trying to use Sanders' religion or lack thereof against him.  That last one is pretty bad, but to date no proof has been put forward that that particular idea was ever acted upon.  So what is this about media outlets?

It is hard to get a complete picture since the evidence of inappropriate influence on journalists was provided in the 'Guccifer' leaks last month as well as the recent Wiki leaks, and it appears to be a relative handful of the thousands of emails.  Sources are scattered all over the web, but from what I can tell the DNC leaned on or changed content to benefit HRC with: Politico, Washington Post, NBC/MSNBC, CBS Polls, CNN, and Wall Street Journal (so far).  With some of the other choice bits, a composite picture is created of a systematically biased DNC.  But this only confirms what I started to suspect a long time ago, and what Sen. Sanders likely knew would be the case even before he launched his campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is hard to get a complete picture since the evidence of inappropriate influence on journalists was provided in the 'Guccifer' leaks last month as well as the recent Wiki leaks, and it appears to be a relative handful of the thousands of emails.  Sources are scattered all over the web, but from what I can tell the DNC leaned on or changed content to benefit HRC with: Politico, Washington Post, NBC/MSNBC, CBS Polls, CNN, and Wall Street Journal (so far).  With some of the other choice bits, a composite picture is created of a systematically biased DNC.  But this only confirms what I started to suspect a long time ago, and what Sen. Sanders likely knew would be the case even before he launched his campaign.

 

That is kind of nebulous.  Do you have any specific examples?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...