PDA

View Full Version : 2016 Presidential Election



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

GulDukat
06-07-2016, 09:43 PM
Trump's speech was fucking awful.

New pro-Clinton super-PAC ad. Pretty powerful.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/07/us/politics/super-pac-highlights-donald-trumps-mockery-of-disabled-journalist.html?_r=0

allegro
06-07-2016, 11:51 PM
What's everyone make of this? People who are Trump supporters are outright distancing themselves from him over this, GOP elite that tepidly and unenthusiastically supported him are backing away quickly, people like Graham are all but saying they'll vote for Hillary instead -- what's any of this mean, why is this the issue and story that's prompted this response and how (if at all) do you think this'll affect him going into the general? What was, above all, the point in Trump saying this? It's a topic no one's seemed particularly concerned about, and the Clinton email news the other week could've dominated the cycle, and yet instead he kicked up dirt where there wasn't anyone looking for it and seems to have gotten it all into his own eyes. Why? Is this just a genuine fuck-up on his part?
He is threatening the balance of power. He has threatened that if he wins in November, he could come back and use his power against this Judge. It's WAY more than Trump accusing the Judge of racism and prejudice.

SEE THIS (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/06/don-and-judge).

He has crossed a HUGE line, here.

Here is why Trump's assertion has no legal basis (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/the-problem-with-calling-out-judges-for-their-race/485732/).

GulDukat
06-08-2016, 12:04 AM
Live results.

http://www.nytimes.com/live/california-new-jersey-clinton-sanders/?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

allegro
06-08-2016, 12:09 AM
allegro - you were the one mentioning that Trump needs to pull in a lot of independents to win and he isn't going to do that with his divisive messaging. Did you see that Hillary refused to say that "the 2nd Amendment grants the right to bear arms"? That's something that would lose here a LOT of independents and even a sizable chunk of democrats.

She said that she basically didn't love some parts of Heller, but she did agree that arms should be regulated, per the 2nd Amendment (which a lot of online idiots don't seem to know IS IN THE 2ND AMENDMENT ... WELL REGULATED) and per Heller.

INTERVIEW IS HERE (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/06/06/hillary-clinton-on-guns-and-the-second-amendment/)

allegro
06-08-2016, 12:20 AM
So a local reporter where I live broke this story about Pam Bondi, the FL attorney general having been essentially bribed by Trump to drop the Trump University case.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-pam-bondi-donald-trump-scott-maxwell-20160604-column.html
Holy crap, this is huge.

implanted_microchip
06-08-2016, 12:32 AM
Holy crap, this is huge.
It should be, yet it's not in the news cycle at all -- I honestly think the Mexican thing may have been a smokescreen for this. Trump even went past people in his campaign and insisted directly that his surrogates needed to double down on the comments, and I wouldn't be shocked at all if that was to try and keep the focus on that and not give room for anyone to notice this story. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that absolutely criminal behavior? Can he really wriggle out of that one?

Also, on another note, this Politico article's a wild read:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-campaign-last-days-224041

GulDukat
06-08-2016, 12:46 AM
Good article on the final weeks and days of the Sanders campaign.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-campaign-last-days-224041

allegro
06-08-2016, 12:49 AM
Good article on the final weeks and days of the Sanders campaign.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-campaign-last-days-224041
Lol kleiner352 linked this right above you :-)

DigitalChaos
06-08-2016, 01:57 AM
She said that she basically didn't love some parts of Heller, but she did agree that arms should be regulated, per the 2nd Amendment (which a lot of online idiots don't seem to know IS IN THE 2ND AMENDMENT ... WELL REGULATED) and per Heller.

INTERVIEW IS HERE (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/06/06/hillary-clinton-on-guns-and-the-second-amendment/)
I mean, that's a kind interpretation of what she said... but it doesn't seem to be the common view right now. Even Washington Post is saying she opened herself up for Trump attacks on it:

Hillary Clinton declined to say Sunday whether she believes in a constitutional right to bear arms, possibly opening the door to a fresh round of attacks from Donald Trump, who has already accused the likely Democratic presidential nominee of wanting to "abolish" the Second Amendment. In an interview on ABC's "This Week," Clinton deflected twice when she was asked whether she agrees with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/05/hillary-clinton-wavers-on-second-amendment-right-to-bear-arms/

DigitalChaos
06-08-2016, 02:16 AM
Good article on the final weeks and days of the Sanders campaign.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-campaign-last-days-224041

wow, this is really interesting to read. It definitely lines up with what I'd expect to hear. However, why the hell is this being published so early? It seems like something that would be published when Sanders officially taps out.

allegro
06-08-2016, 02:16 AM
I mean, that's a kind interpretation of what she said... but it doesn't seem to be the common view right now. Even Washington Post is saying she opened herself up for Trump attacks on it
Yes, I saw that Post article and the stupid misleading headline and it's total clickbait and the Post is getting SLAMMED for it. But, you said that she refused to say "the 2nd Amendment grants the right to bear arms" and that's totally not true, either.

Stephanopoulos asked her if the 2nd Amendment provided an INDIVIDUAL's right to bear arms, and she answered:

"I think that for most of our history, there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment until the decision by the late Justice Scalia ..."

Meaning the Heller decision re handguns and self-defense in the home. And this is true.

She continues:

" ... and there was no argument until [Heller] that localities and states and the federal government had a right, as we do with every amendment, to impose reasonable regulation.

So I believe we can have common sense gun safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment, and, in fact, what I have proposed is supported by 90 percent of the American people and more than 75 percent of responsible gun owners.

So that is exactly what I think is constitutionally permissible."

She continues:

"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation. And what people have done with that decision is to take it as far as they possibly can and reject what has been our history from the very beginning of the republic, where some of the earliest laws that were passed were about firearms.

So I think it’s important to recognize that reasonable people can say, as I do, responsible gun owners have a right — I have no objection to that."

In other words, right to bear arms, as regulated.

This is typical lawyer equivocation based on stare decisis.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" as amended by SCOTUS opinions.

GulDukat
06-08-2016, 06:17 AM
wow, this is really interesting to read. It definitely lines up with what I'd expect to hear. However, why the hell is this being published so early? It seems like something that would be published when Sanders officially taps out.

CA was just called for Clinton. There is absolutely zero rationale for Sanders to stay in at this point. Personally, I am relieved. Winning the nomination but losing in CA would have been embarrassing.

Deepvoid
06-08-2016, 07:18 AM
I agree that Sanders need to come to realization that he's not gonna win this and he needs to graciously drop out of the race, while declaring his support for Clinton.
She's gonna need all the help to win against Trump.

At this time, I wouldn't even bet $20 on Clinton ... oh fuck I already did.

GulDukat
06-08-2016, 07:41 AM
Trump's last several days have been a disaster. If the rest of his campaign looks like that, he's not in very good shape for November.

Jinsai
06-08-2016, 07:44 AM
I agree that Sanders need to come to realization that he's not gonna win this and he needs to graciously drop out of the race, while declaring his support for Clinton.
She's gonna need all the help to win against Trump.

At this time, I wouldn't even bet $20 on Clinton ... oh fuck I already did.

And people need to stop saying this. The people who backed Sanders did so, largely, because they were inspired by someone with new ideas. He is now being backed into a position where if he concedes to the endless "drop out already you fucking old man with your sexist bro followers and stop making Hillary's life so unnecessarily hard! Stop dividing the party!" rhetoric, then guess what happens to the people who believed in him?

He WILL almost certainly concede, but I think he wants to do so in a way that will leave the people who believed in him and his message a little less than furious with the Democratic party. I was tired of the "just drop out already!" spin bullshit before, but now that Hillary has basically clinched it, it's in everyone(who doesn't like Trump)'s best interest to shut up about how Bernie should just fuck off already.

GulDukat
06-08-2016, 07:48 AM
Sanders had every right to stay in until now, or even next Tueaday, with the final contest. But there comes a time when, yes, he does need to concede already, for the good of the party. He ran as a Democrat, and he came in second place.

Jinsai
06-08-2016, 07:52 AM
I'm in support of people waking up to how our electoral process works more than anything at this point. If you want what's "good for the party," you don't want Bernie's enthusiastic, fired-up support group to really go "bernie or bust." The best thing Sanders could do at this point is address to his supporters how this system works, why it was very unlikely that he'd even get this far, make everyone feel good about it, and then introduce them to their next best option.

Or you could kick him to the curb and hope for the best. It's in Hillary's best interest that Sanders doesn't drop out now and say "well, she beat me, oh well, sorry..."

allegro
06-08-2016, 09:33 AM
Remember, though: Bernie's not a Democrat. He only ran on the Dem ticket so he had a chance of winning. As soon as this race is over, he'll be an Independent again.

He just wants to go to the convention and try to force them into getting rid of Superdelegates. Even if all of his voters don't vote for Hillary, Hillary can still win against Trump, anyway. It's doubtful that Bernie can get his supporters to vote for a Democrat except for a temporary Dem like him.

I don't personally care if he doesn't drop out; it makes the convention lots less boring. Face it, those conventions are boring. Now, when each state submits its vote on the floor, it will actually be exciting

Bernie's own people and staff depict him as a stubborn dude whom you don't want to cross, bordering on tyrant.

botley
06-08-2016, 09:51 AM
This brouhaha about the electoral system is something that seems very out of character for Bernie. He was all against superdelegates, corrupt party-line-toers & blah blah blah, but then he kept telling his supporters they were going to be his path to victory, that they could snatch away the nomination from Hillary if they could just convince the superdelegates to get on board. Superdelegates are a perfectly reasonable system, I think; if you award party delegates in proportion to the popular vote, as many Democratic primaries do, you could potentially have had three candidates make it all the way to the end of the race, with no clear majority winner (which is NOT the case in this election)... then it's the job of superdelegates to break the tie and make a decision in the party's best interest. It's the same principle behind proportional representation elections that many parliamentary systems use. You know, the ones with which Bernie would like American domestic policy to more closely align.

Deepvoid
06-08-2016, 09:52 AM
And people need to stop saying this. The people who backed Sanders did so, largely, because they were inspired by someone with new ideas. He is now being backed into a position where if he concedes to the endless "drop out already you fucking old man with your sexist bro followers and stop making Hillary's life so unnecessarily hard! Stop dividing the party!" rhetoric, then guess what happens to the people who believed in him?

He WILL almost certainly concede, but I think he wants to do so in a way that will leave the people who believed in him and his message a little less than furious with the Democratic party. I was tired of the "just drop out already!" spin bullshit before, but now that Hillary has basically clinched it, it's in everyone(who doesn't like Trump)'s best interest to shut up about how Bernie should just fuck off already.

No one is going to think less of him if he drops out.
The fact is, he's not leading with pledged delegates, he's not leading with the number of votes. Sanders won 23 states against 32 for Clinton.

No matter how you slice and dice it, Sanders is not the preferred candidate of Democratic voters.

botley
06-08-2016, 10:19 AM
Right, but Bernie is still saying: let's wait until all the votes are counted, and let me make my pitch at the convention. Of course that's his right, and I will be eagerly waiting to see what happens there. But eventually he has to admit that he lost, by a fair process, which is not something his supporters have been conditioned to hear. And Hillary should address the concerns of people who feel their choice was snatched away from them. She would have to work her ass off for the next five months to connect with those people and earn their vote. She'd also have to start answering questions about her missteps while in office. She clearly has better policy than Donald, better temperament and better qualifications. Opening herself up a bit more to some frank questioning would really help soften the perception she is hiding a torrid history of shady impropriety. Like, just release the transcripts from all of your speaking engagements now. What do you have to lose?

allegro
06-08-2016, 11:07 AM
Like, just release the transcripts from all of your speaking engagements now. What do you have to lose?
That's kinda like copyrighted speech material; she got paid a lot of money for that, she doesn't want anybody stealing her (reportedly boring) material.

botley
06-08-2016, 11:34 AM
That's kinda like copyrighted speech material; she got paid a lot of money for that, she doesn't want anybody stealing her (reportedly boring) material.
She would retain her copyright, no one can steal that. There's a lot of interest to hear what she said in those speeches, people will comb through them and she has always fared better when subjected to open, fully transparent questioning. What's the worst that happens, people rip her off while she's President? Her ideal scenario is she doesn't need to use that speaking material for the next eight years.

allegro
06-08-2016, 12:46 PM
She would retain her copyright, no one can steal that. There's a lot of interest to hear what she said in those speeches, people will comb through them and she has always fared better when subjected to open, fully transparent questioning. What's the worst that happens, people rip her off while she's President? Her ideal scenario is she doesn't need to use that speaking material for the next eight years.

She's weird like that; she maybe wants to use it in 8 years. Lawyers are like that, really. They hold their own material tightly close to their vests. We don't even share our FORMS with other lawyers. "Make your own fucking forms."

DigitalChaos
06-08-2016, 02:20 PM
All the "Bernie should drop out now" people are missing what's going on. This quote from the "last days" article sums up what he is doing:

"This isn’t about what’s good for the Democratic Party in his mind, but about what he thinks is good for advancing the agenda that he’s been pushing since before he got elected mayor of Burlington."


And that's exactly what I said he was probably doing months ago. The value in a presidential campaign can extend beyond the value of winning. You can spread an idea with the platform. This is exactly what Ron Paul did.

implanted_microchip
06-08-2016, 03:00 PM
All the "Bernie should drop out now" people are missing what's going on. This quote from the "last days" article sums up what he is doing:

"This isn’t about what’s good for the Democratic Party in his mind, but about what he thinks is good for advancing the agenda that he’s been pushing since before he got elected mayor of Burlington."


And that's exactly what I said he was probably doing months ago. The value in a presidential campaign can extend beyond the value of winning. You can spread an idea with the platform. This is exactly what Ron Paul did.

And yet according to that article, Harry Reid seriously offered him a strong degree of influence in the Senate and a much more tangible way to get his agenda moving. How you can just go "NOPE!" at that over something as petty as "they haven't all endorsed ME yet!" and then behave as if you're doing everything to advance your agenda is hard to believe. It seems extremely petty. If that article's correct then he was given a very real opportunity to actually shape the direction of Congress and he nuked it out of, what, pride?

DigitalChaos
06-08-2016, 03:04 PM
And yet according to that article, Harry Reid seriously offered him a strong degree of influence in the Senate and a much more tangible way to get his agenda moving. How you can just go "NOPE!" at that over something as petty as "they haven't all endorsed ME yet!" and then behave as if you're doing everything to advance your agenda is hard to believe. It seems extremely petty. If that article's correct then he was given a very real opportunity to actually shape the direction of Congress and he nuked it out of, what, pride?

That's an entirely different problem. That would point to a major problem with Bernies diplomacy. ....another reason he'd make a shit president (if true).

implanted_microchip
06-08-2016, 03:16 PM
That's an entirely different problem. That would point to a major problem with Bernies diplomacy. ....another reason he'd make a shit president (if true).

Considering what people like Barney Frank have said for decades, that article is pretty easy to believe, albeit not one that's nice to believe. The idea that he's trying to get Frank kicked out of the party leadership over being offended by him because he doesn't love him is just ... I mean, isn't that the kind of thing everyone accuses "shitty politicians" of doing? It definitely doesn't help the image of a self-righteous ideologue who refuses to work with anyone that disagrees that people like Frank have depicted him as being.

I miss the guy who was all "this is not a negative campaign!" and positive-energy and all about maintaining a sense of integrity. I realize I've experienced the cliche disaffection with a too-good-to-be-true candidate that everyone goes through, but damn if he didn't do a great job of selling it at the start of this whole mess.

DigitalChaos
06-08-2016, 03:34 PM
And that's the low bar that populism creates. It's also what got us Trump. The masses love that shit, especially when the perceived alternatives are horrible. A lot of us saw these aspects of Bernie.

Jinsai
06-08-2016, 05:27 PM
Remember, though: Bernie's not a Democrat. He only ran on the Dem ticket so he had a chance of winning. As soon as this race is over, he'll be an Independent again.

Yes, but he's already indicated that if he loses, he will shift priorities towards supporting the clearest realistic opposition to Donald Trump. He will back Hillary in the main election if/when she is declared the Democratic candidate, and he will urge his supporters to get behind her as well. The only reason I could imagine he would not do so is out of some bitterness... and for all the stories that seem to surface about him being a "tyrant" behind closed doors, he has done a damn good job of presenting an outward demeanor free from petulant spitefulness. It would be a very unfortunate thing to watch him "de-cloak" on the public stage.

DigitalChaos
06-08-2016, 06:48 PM
http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/current-utah-polling/

Trump 29%
Other 29%
Clinton 26%
Johnson 16%

Interesting polling.

Jinsai
06-08-2016, 07:36 PM
I'm a little troubled by the way that Jill Stein is seizing this opportunity to collect the bitter-Sanders-supporter vote. Social media is being plastered with appeals from Stein to mad Bernie fans. I am starting to get Nader flashbacks again...

allegro
06-08-2016, 09:05 PM
Yes, but he's already indicated that if he loses, he will shift priorities towards supporting the clearest realistic opposition to Donald Trump. He will back Hillary in the main election if/when she is declared the Democratic candidate, and he will urge his supporters to get behind her as well. The only reason I could imagine he would not do so is out of some bitterness... and for all the stories that seem to surface about him being a "tyrant" behind closed doors, he has done a damn good job of presenting an outward demeanor free from petulant spitefulness. It would be a very unfortunate thing to watch him "de-cloak" on the public stage.

I know what HE says, but last night his mere mention of Hillary garnered huge BOOS and he waived his hand, sternly, trying to shut that down but he has a bunch of people in the crowd who are only there to vote for him, and nobody else. I suspect many weren't Dems before, many may have never even VOTED before, and they're just not going to get on board with anybody except him. So thinking that all he has to do is tell them to go vote for Hillary and that's what they'll do is delusional.

You can see little hints of his being a curmudgeon sometimes during the campaign, he isn't always sweetness and light. That's always been his demeanor, but people have always accepted that as part of his personality and looked at his earnest attitude and tried to ignore the rest. Except of course for the employees who were afraid of him and the press people he told to go fuck themselves during his career, LOL. It's Bernie's way or hit the highway. He's kinda Ted Cruz without the religion.

DigitalChaos
06-08-2016, 10:19 PM
I'm a little troubled by the way that Jill Stein is seizing this opportunity to collect the bitter-Sanders-supporter vote. Social media is being plastered with appeals from Stein to mad Bernie fans. I am starting to get Nader flashbacks again...

Why is that troubling? It's a completely different party. The Greens don't owe the Dems shit.

The Libertarian party pulled in a lot of voters when Trump took the nomination. We are seeing the same with Hillary. The #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary people are pushing us up to record levels. Simply getting on the debate stage (need multiple 15% polls) would be such a huge thing for not only the party but also the collective American people. So few people understand that there are other ways to deal with politics besides R or D. But Gary Johnson would very likely cause both Hillary and Trump to move more left on most topics.

Jinsai
06-08-2016, 11:47 PM
Why is that troubling? It's a completely different party. The Greens don't owe the Dems shit.

It's troubling to me (personally I guess) because I don't think this is the right road to expanding the presidential candidacy towards third party goals, and I think now is the WRONG time for the Green party to be pressing a presidential bid against the possibility of a Trump presidency. The "values" that Trump espouses run in direct conflict with the Green party, the Democrats are at least largely on the same page with regards to the issues they deem to be the most important. The Green party in the past upset the Gore vs Bush election, and Gore was a huge force in the fight for proactively responding to climate change. Nader may have had some central points that he disagreed with, but I'm sure in hindsight he regrets handing the election to Bush in a fight to grant the greens more visibility. He ultimately became a reviled pariah, and the Green party languished into obscurity in the fallout.

The best thing to come from this recent primary run is the revealing of the fucked election process, and how it is locked down to two candidates. Still, Bernie (whom allegro points out) is not really a democrat, ran for office under their ticket and almost won. If we're talking strategy, that's how to do it: take over one of the two parties. Ron Paul did an admirable job pulling a similar libertarian coup with the Republican ticket four years ago.

If Ron Paul had responded to losing by endorsing the Libertarian candidate over the Republican winner, he would have been as reviled as Nader. Here, we're seeing Stein making a move to take over for Bernie now that his campaign has failed. The green party cannot win. They might get "noticed for once," but they will ultimately risk sinking Clinton. From where I stand, I would much, much, MUCH rather have Clinton than Trump... and if I'm going to be a realist for a second, it's probably going to come down to that inevitable conclusion.

If this was a less terrifying alternative option, like Kasich, yes, I would actually be on board with Stein. But the truth of the matter is Stein could be the straw that breaks the party's back here, and (like Nader in 2000) hands the election to the polar opposite of everything the party stands for. She is standing on the shoulders of the support he built, and using that as a launching point to draw in interest to their movement. She and her team are possibly not thinking this through to the inevitable conclusion though, where she will be remembered as the one who fucked it all up.

The best thing Sanders could do now is disavow Stein's co-opting of his movement, and unless he's changed his mind or something, encourage people to support the fight against Trump, even if (as Chomsky put it) that means "holding your nose and voting for Clinton."

Jinsai
06-08-2016, 11:55 PM
I know what HE says, but last night his mere mention of Hillary garnered huge BOOS and he waived his hand, sternly, trying to shut that down but he has a bunch of people in the crowd who are only there to vote for him, and nobody else. I suspect many weren't Dems before, many may have never even VOTED before, and they're just not going to get on board with anybody except him. So thinking that all he has to do is tell them to go vote for Hillary and that's what they'll do is delusional.

You can see little hints of his being a curmudgeon sometimes during the campaign, he isn't always sweetness and light. That's always been his demeanor, but people have always accepted that as part of his personality and looked at his earnest attitude and tried to ignore the rest. Except of course for the employees who were afraid of him and the press people he told to go fuck themselves during his career, LOL. It's Bernie's way or hit the highway. He's kinda Ted Cruz without the religion.

Or, as I just went on and on about, they'll vote for him and nobody else... except maybe they'll jump on board with Jill Stein. I am sincerely hoping that Sanders has a plan to get his supporters on the "NOT Trump" boat, and I think it will take him staying in there till the end, while slowly easing in the idea of swapping to Clinton if it comes to that. We'll see though. He's too protective of his public image (again, I hope) to make a horrible misstep here. I believe he is, above all else, against the concept of Trump being president. I can't believe it's come to this.

But Sanders hasn't even dropped out yet, and that's not stopping Stein from spamming social media to convert the momentum behind his campaign over to the green party. If that actually happens in some real way, Trump will win. If he drops out now, he loses his soap box to steer this in (what I believe to be) the right direction.

allegro
06-09-2016, 12:10 AM
that's not stopping Stein from spamming social media to convert the momentum behind his campaign over to the green party.
I followed the Greens and Stein for a long time on Twitter and subscribed to their email for years and I only just recently unsubscribed because they were driving me nuts, but that's not recent spam; they spam all the time, for all kinds of reasons; they don't have any other normal routes of publicity (e.g. network and cable news coverage) so they send emails and they tweet, and they target audiences they think will be kindred spirits. I used to be for the Greens but they're just too "unicorn" and unrealistic hippy for me. I might as well vote for Cheech and Chong.

Jinsai
06-09-2016, 12:11 AM
This brouhaha about the electoral system is something that seems very out of character for Bernie. He was all against superdelegates, corrupt party-line-toers & blah blah blah, but then he kept telling his supporters they were going to be his path to victory, that they could snatch away the nomination from Hillary if they could just convince the superdelegates to get on board. Superdelegates are a perfectly reasonable system, I think; if you award party delegates in proportion to the popular vote, as many Democratic primaries do, you could potentially have had three candidates make it all the way to the end of the race, with no clear majority winner (which is NOT the case in this election)... then it's the job of superdelegates to break the tie and make a decision in the party's best interest. It's the same principle behind proportional representation elections that many parliamentary systems use. You know, the ones with which Bernie would like American domestic policy to more closely align.

Honestly, I don't know why it has to be more complicated than "one person, one vote" in both the primary and general elections. We make a lot of noise about democracy and how great it is, but this is a strange obfuscation of the will of the people. Whether or not Sanders is flip flopping on this doesn't matter to me as much as if people realize that it needs to change.

Jinsai
06-09-2016, 12:13 AM
I followed the Greens and Stein for a long time on Twitter and subscribed to their email for years and I only just recently unsubscribed because they were driving me nuts, but that's not recent spam; they spam all the time, for all kinds of reasons; they don't have any other normal routes of publicity (e.g. network and cable news coverage) so they send emails and they tweet, and they target audiences they think will be kindred spirits. I used to be for the Greens but they're just too "unicorn" and unrealistic hippy for me. I might as well vote for Cheech and Chong.

I agree, in general these underdogs need to rethink their approach when it comes to social media outreach. Holy shit I remember how hard it was to get Al Franken to stop spamming my inbox. At the same time, what Jill Stein is doing now is tantamount to running pro-Bernie ads with a redirect link to the Green party.... and unfortunately, it seems like it's gaining traction.

allegro
06-09-2016, 12:17 AM
I agree, in general these underdogs need to rethink their approach when it comes to social media outreach. Holy shit I remember how hard it was to get Al Franken to stop spamming my inbox. At the same time, what Jill Stein is doing now is tantamount to running pro-Bernie ads with a redirect link to the Green party.... and unfortunately, it seems like it's gaining traction.

With this Trump anti-Federal Judge mess, and now these possible bribery charges against him regarding Trump University class action suits in Florida and Texas, a huge number of actual voting conservatives are going to back off from him because he is showing himself as no longer a refreshing novelty but instead an unpredictable, emotional liability who is not fit to be President. With more and more Republicans WITHDRAWING support, Trump is sinking his own ship and many are saying they'll vote for HILLARY instead of Trump. That's how bad it's become.

What I don't get is what Bernie is doing: On one hand, he wants to get the DNC to drop the Superdelegates. On the other hand, he wants to get the Superdelegates to jump Hillary's ship and vote for him. So he wants the DNC to drop the Superdelegates AFTER he gets to use the Superdelegates to his benefit, in a party he wasn't a part of until he ran for President.

This same Superdelegate thing happened in 2008, and Hillary gracefully conceded to Obama and endorsed him (and that race was nearly a dead heat).

The concept that Bernie is remaining in the race to keep these ideas on the platform is nice, but goofy. The President and the Democratic Platform and Bernie's "Mission" don't mean shit when nearly everybody else in Congress forget about their own constituents once they get to D.C. and mostly care about lobbyists and their own pockets and not one fucking bit about their constituents, and they throw their hands up and say "oh, so sorry, nothing we can do." The Democratic party certainly needs to change but it needs to change by getting rid of LOBBYISTS controlling its own members, not just by going after Wall Street, etc. Nearly every member of Congress ends up being very rich (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/01/12/making-it-rain-members-of-congress-are-mostly-millionaires/). Go figure (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/01/millionaires-club-for-first-time-most-lawmakers-are-worth-1-million-plus/).

Jinsai
06-09-2016, 02:01 AM
With this Trump anti-Federal Judge mess, and now these possible bribery charges against him regarding Trump University class action suits in Florida and Texas, a huge number of actual voting conservatives are going to back off from him because he is showing himself as no longer a refreshing novelty but instead an unpredictable, emotional liability who is not fit to be President. With more and more Republicans WITHDRAWING support, Trump is sinking his own ship and many are saying they'll vote for HILLARY instead of Trump. That's how bad it's become.

What I don't get is what Bernie is doing: On one hand, he wants to get the DNC to drop the Superdelegates. On the other hand, he wants to get the Superdelegates to jump Hillary's ship and vote for him. So he wants the DNC to drop the Superdelegates AFTER he gets to use the Superdelegates to his benefit, in a party he wasn't a part of until he ran for President.

This same superdelegate thing happened in 2008, and Hillary gracefully conceded to Obama and endorsed him (and that race was nearly a dead heat).

The concept that Bernie is remaining in the race to keep these ideas on the platform is nice, but goofy. The President and the Democratic Platform and Bernie's "Mission" don't mean shit when nearly everybody else in Congress forget about their own constituents once they get to D.C. and mostly care about lobbyists and their own pockets and not one fucking bit about their constituents, but who throw their hands up and say "oh, so sorry, nothing we can do." The Democratic party certainly needs to change but it needs to change by getting rid of LOBBYISTS controlling its own members, not just by going after Wall Street, etc. Nearly every member of Congress ends up being very rich (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/01/12/making-it-rain-members-of-congress-are-mostly-millionaires/). Go figure (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/01/millionaires-club-for-first-time-most-lawmakers-are-worth-1-million-plus/).

The grass-roots situation here is clearly different. And if Sanders wanted to really fuck things up, all he'd have to do is hold a press conference at this point and say "Fuck it. Vote for Trump. It's all the same thing."

I think he's standing for something, and he's done something impressive that deserves recognition. I am very sick of the "fuck off already" contention. He will support Hillary, but I want to hear what he has to say. If people would stop jumping the gun, I think you might see him resolve all of the contentious issues here well.

Again, I am more concerned with the Green party making the move to "pick up where Bernie left off!" If they mobilize that vote, Trump WILL win

allegro
06-09-2016, 02:03 AM
But what he is saying right now isn't making sense (http://theatln.tc/1TVrgJj).

And there isn't a hell of a lot of overlap in platform between the Greens and Bernie. And a lot of Bernie's supporters aren't going to vote for anybody except Bernie. That happens in every election with voters who are not hardline party voters,.

Hillary has a huge number of minority voters, a huge demographic overall. Hardline party Dems will vote for the Democratic candidate. Others, who knows. At this point, REPUBLICANS are saying they are going to vote for Hillary.

Jinsai
06-09-2016, 02:09 AM
But what he is saying right now isn't making sense (http://theatln.tc/1TVrgJj).

And there isn't a hell of a lot of overlap in platform between the Greens and Bernie. And a lot of Bernie's supporters aren't going to vote for anybody except Bernie. That happens in every election with voters who are not hardline party voters,.

Then why am I seeing legions of people jumping to the Green camp? Maybe they hold the issue of climate change paramount, and all other issues fall to the wayside. I don't know, but that's at least an area where they converge on the venn diagram.

It's an issue I can sympathize with, because if I have grandkids, they're totally fucked if someone doesn't get in there and take control on this issue.

allegro
06-09-2016, 02:13 AM
Then why am I seeing legions of people jumping to the Green camp? Maybe they hold the issue of climate change paramount, and all other issues fall to the wayside. I don't know, but that's at least an area where they converge on the venn diagram.

It's an issue I can sympathize with, because if I have grandkids, they're totally fucked if someone doesn't get in there and take control on this issue.

I don't know, I know shitloads of Real Democrats. I only know one Green who has been one since '08. I live in a highly Dem area. I only associate with Dems. Where I am, Hillary is not the anti-Christ; she just set a record and made history.

Oddly enough, I live where Stein was born and raised. We care a lot about saving the Great Lakes, here, and even a Republican Senator is on board (Kirk).

Again, as you know, the President does not legislate. The Legislative branch does that. The President tries to talk the Legislative branch into things in the public's interest or on behalf of voters. But big climate change decisions are not generally Executive branch decisions. The President can begin initiatives but s/he needs approval and a budget for funding.

Ultimately, the Green's rhetoric is as full of bullshit promises as all the rest. Sounds good, but good luck.

Here is the Green platform (http://www.ontheissues.org/Green_Party.htm).

Jinsai
06-09-2016, 02:20 AM
I don't know, I know shitloads of Real Democrats. I only know one Green who has been one since '08. I live in a highly Dem area. I only associate with Dems. Where I am, Hillary is not the anti-Christ; she just set a record and made history.

My VERY conservative parents hate Trump, they think he's destroyed the party, but, BUT, they hate Hillary more... but not enough to vote. I asked my mother who she would vote for and she said "nobody." Her conscience is fucking up her ability to vote for Trump. She thinks she has compatriots who feel the same, but I think she is underestimating the mentality that has taken over her party. Trump, at this point, has a real chance at winning, and everyone, EVERYONE should be pushing for that to not happen.

ANYONE but Trump (or Ted Cruz). Come on Republicans!!! Give me an option! At this point, I'll vote republican if you sound sensible. But every candidate you put on the table sounds completely insane. TED CRUZ? REALLY?! That was the best you could come up with in response to Trump?

At this point, it is the republican's race to lose. Honestly, if you gave me Ron Paul as an option now, I'd vote for him over Clinton. As long as it wasn't the possibility of Donald fucking Trump.

allegro
06-09-2016, 02:32 AM
My VERY conservative parents hate Trump, they think he's destroyed the party, but, BUT, they hate Hillary more... but not enough to vote. I asked my mother who she would vote for and she said "nobody." Her conscience is fucking up her ability to vote for Trump. She thinks she has compatriots who feel the same, but I think she is underestimating the mentality that has taken over her party. Trump, at this point, has a real chance at winning, and everyone, EVERYONE should be pushing for that to not happen.

ANYONE but Trump (or Ted Cruz). Come on Republicans!!! Give me an option! At this point, I'll vote republican if you sound sensible. But every candidate you put on the table sounds completely insane. TED CRUZ? REALLY?! That was the best you could come up with in response to Trump?

At this point, it is the republican's race to lose. Honestly, if you gave me Ron Paul as an option now, I'd vote for him over Clinton. As long as it wasn't the possibility of Donald fucking Trump.

It is too late, Trump is their nominee and there is not going to be an alternative unless Trump gets indicted or something.

If you would vote for certain Republicans over Clinton, knowing the Republican party rejects climate change, rejects a woman's right to choose, rejects the Voters Rights Act, rejects campaign finance reform, rejects all gun control, etc etc just because you hate Hillary? Sorry, but there is something else going on, there.

Jinsai
06-09-2016, 03:45 AM
It is too late, Trump is their nominee and there is not going to be an alternative unless Trump gets indicted or something.

If you would vote for certain Republicans over Clinton, knowing the Republican party rejects climate change, rejects a woman's right to choose, rejects the Voters Rights Act, rejects campaign finance reform, rejects all gun control, etc etc just because you hate Hillary? Sorry, but there is something else going on, there.

I don't need to repeat it, but I know my vote doesn't matter since I live in California. It only "mattered" in the primaries, for the first time ever, and it was a wash.

I will vote for Clinton. Only because I hate Trump. Business as usual. Kill me. Kill me. Kill me.

I cannot deal with this indifference to how transparently the election system is being demonstrably laid out for all to see how fucked it is, and still everyone is decrying personal concerns. I guess I am as well. I would like to say "the best thing to come from Sanders' campaign is that people got to see how fucked everything is," but here I am, concerned that Jill Stein is using his downfall as an advantageous moment, primarily because it terrifies me that she might gain enough ground to become another Nader...

We're fucked beyond repair. I will vote against Trump. If Trump wins, I will never forgive the Democratic party for fucking things up this badly.

Deepvoid
06-09-2016, 07:29 AM
Bruce Campbell calls out hoax about bloodied Trump supporter
(http://www.mediaite.com/online/bruce-campbell-calls-out-hoax-bloodied-trump-supporter-is-actually-an-evil-dead-actress/)
Reaching new lows every day. The power of social media combined with the laziness of the majority of journalists.
This is not how you're supposed to advance ideas and changes. This is not how you're suppose to rally the troops behind your leader.
If Trump supporter think this is the best way to have their man elected, well then he's clearly not the right guy for the job.

GulDukat
06-09-2016, 07:47 AM
Dana Carvey's impression of Trump, Clinton and Sanders. Hilarious.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2016/06/08/dana_carvey_shows_conan_o_brien_his_donald_trump_b ernie_sanders_bill_clinton.html

GulDukat
06-09-2016, 10:41 AM
How the GOP could dump Trump.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D54tbYAqDZc

allegro
06-09-2016, 02:07 PM
Looks like the Dem troops are being rallied (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/bernie-sanders-president-obama-white-house-hillary-clinton/486416/?utm_source=atlfb).

GulDukat
06-09-2016, 02:17 PM
Obama endorses Clinton. Funny how in the video Obama states that he met with Sanders "this week," yet it was released a few hours after their actual meeting.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-endorses-hillary-clinton-175408133.html

allegro
06-09-2016, 02:38 PM
Popular vote so far, Democrats. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html)

Popular vote so far, Republicans (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_vote_count.html).

implanted_microchip
06-09-2016, 03:03 PM
I've got to say, the Democrats have a hell of a stacked deck this election when it comes to all the people we'll see out campaigning -- Barack Obama as an extremely popular sitting president and Joe Biden as a sitting VP, Bill Clinton (someone who seems to be admired more as time goes by), Elizabeth Warren, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi -- I'm positive Bernie is going to stump as well, and he's really fucking great at getting people gathered together around a cause and does have a command of an audience that can draw pretty much anybody in when he's speaking. It's just a ton of more or less the greatest his of the Democratic party in the past twenty or so years.

Meanwhile, on the Republican side ... it may not ultimately amount to a ton, but goddamn if Trump seems to have a relatively low-level of big surrogates who plan to campaign for him. I mean, right now it's like half the GOP endorsements he's netted this past month are potentially about to fly away all over again, even. The image of a fired up and confident Barack Obama coming after Trump when he's got ... who, a barely-pretending-to-be-enthused Paul Ryan or a Sarah fucking Palin at his hip? If there's one thing Obama does fantastically that no one can't give him credit for, it's campaigning well, and he seems pretty damn intent on being in the thick of this (as he should be; pretty much his entire legacy's up for grabs along with the Supreme Court seats and I don't think for an instant that he intends on letting that go into Donald Trump's hands).

Jinsai
06-09-2016, 03:56 PM
Obama is as popular as he is loathed. For a lot of people, it's effective when they hear Trump call Obama's presidency "a disaster." He doesn't need to be specific, or actually target WHY he thinks it's a "disaster," they agree. Partisan allegiance will win over 90% of people out there, and you don't even need to try.

implanted_microchip
06-09-2016, 04:12 PM
Obama is as popular as he is loathed. For a lot of people, it's effective when they hear Trump call Obama's presidency "a disaster." He doesn't need to be specific, or actually target WHY he thinks it's a "disaster," they agree. Partisan allegiance will win over 90% of people out there, and you don't even need to try.

Regardless those people would never be swayed anyway and his approval rating is sitting around a 60% right now, which is pretty damn incredible. If you look at his campaigns he was able to build a sense of unity and togetherness that won him two elections. When he's down in the trenches the guy knows how to campaign. There are people that aren't big on Obama and then there's that Fox News-y crowd you describe (which I know far too many of in person) and those same people have the same hard-coded blind hatred of Hillary, too. There's certain groups you just can't expect to have won over. I don't honestly believe that group to be a majority of the electorate though.

allegro
06-09-2016, 04:14 PM
Obama is as popular as he is loathed. For a lot of people, it's effective when they hear Trump call Obama's presidency "a disaster." He doesn't need to be specific, or actually target WHY he thinks it's a "disaster," they agree. Partisan allegiance will win over 90% of people out there, and you don't even need to try.
Well but a lot (majority?) of anti-Obama crap is just racism. The level of vitriol is far beyond plain old party politics.

It's really amazing that we are finally THIS CLOSE to a female President. I watched a Rachel Maddow special last night about the history of female Presidential candidates; footage of Shirley Chisholm in 1972 and a reporter asking various people if they would vote for a woman for President and most said NO, THAT'S A MAN'S JOB.

Jinsai
06-09-2016, 04:26 PM
Well but a lot (majority?) of anti-Obama crap is just racism. The level of vitriol is far beyond plain old party politics.

It's really amazing that we are finally THIS CLOSE to a female President. I watched a Rachel Maddow special last night about the history of female Presidential candidates; footage of Shirley Chisholm in 1972 and a reporter asking various people if they would vote for a woman for President and most said NO, THAT'S A MAN'S JOB.

That is the silver lining for me here. I really do feel like it would be a wonderful break in precedent to have a female president. Finally. It's not someone I personally am very enthusiastic about, to understate things, but that at least is a great thing that's been long overdue.

implanted_microchip
06-09-2016, 04:37 PM
a reporter asking various people if they would vote for a woman for President and most said NO, THAT'S A MAN'S JOB.

God am I the only person who remembers Fox News' attempt in 08 to argue that we couldn't have a woman president because "Middle Eastern leaders won't respect anything she'd say"? I still find it hilarious that after those lines of attack she got to then be Secretary of State, it was like a giant finger to those people.

GulDukat
06-09-2016, 05:03 PM
Warren will endorse Clinton on Rachel Maddow tonight.

implanted_microchip
06-09-2016, 05:12 PM
I never knew how ready I was for presidential twitter wars until right now

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/740973710593654784

Jinsai
06-09-2016, 06:17 PM
I never knew how ready I was for presidential twitter wars until right now

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/740973710593654784

This is childish and horrifying.... our presidential candidates are having a Twitter feud. Is there any way this could get more juvenile? I would advise Hillary to stop feeding the troll, but.... just fuck this.

implanted_microchip
06-09-2016, 06:27 PM
This is childish and horrifying.... our presidential candidates are having a Twitter feud. Is there any way this could get more juvenile? I would advise Hillary to stop feeding the troll, but.... just fuck this.

I mean to be fair it's not the first time the candidate profiles have had little @ spats back and forth. I remember Bernie giving a long list of shit at Hillary once of "you stood for this corrupt evil bill" and Hillary simply responded with one sentence, "You voted for it," which really ended it there. All I've seen out of her has largely been, at the most at all, those sorts of small recognition of things without deeper engagement.

If it means anything at all her tweet's blown up while his has remained pretty static but good god I can't believe I'm typing these words analyzing how many likes a tweet has for one candidate versus the other and that one of those candidates is Donald Trump. This is a weird time to exist.

Jinsai
06-09-2016, 06:58 PM
maybe they'll start responding to each other with memes...

allegro
06-09-2016, 11:16 PM
Warren the former Harvard Law Professor. Brava.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5O10KPQICY&feature=youtu.be

allegro
06-09-2016, 11:20 PM
THIS ... THIS ... IT MATTERS!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AF82N0B2VYE

allegro
06-09-2016, 11:29 PM
The Federalist #78 - Alexander Hamilton (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm)


Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers." And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.

tony.parente
06-10-2016, 02:21 AM
I think it's really funny that everyone is upset (rightfully) at that judge who only sentenced that rapist 6 months in prison when a certain democratic nominee got her represented rapist a year or so of probation for raping a 12 year old girl.

But you know, battle tested and qualified and things.

botley
06-10-2016, 07:09 AM
Do I have to link the Snopes article? Are you counting on that not being literally the first thing people will check when they read a claim like that?


Clinton successfully arranged for a plea bargain due to mishandling of evidence, and her client was sentenced to a year in jail (time served) and four years of probation. That outcome is not unusual for violent criminal charges, even decades later: 2014 statistics show that fewer than three percent of criminal cases (including rape) go to trial, and the remaining 97 percent are resolved through plea bargaining.
A lot of us aren't upset at the judge who gave that lenient sentence, but the culture that shrugs at those statistics.

Jinsai
06-10-2016, 07:38 AM
I don't think this is the right thread to be talking about that Stanford student who raped an unconscious girl behind a dumpster and who then had a judge (who also went to Stanford!!!) give him the most lenient sentence imaginable... unless we're expanding the drift to talk about how connections buy everything in this world...

Sarah K
06-10-2016, 10:31 AM
That Obama endorsement video actually got me pretty fucking excited.

allegro
06-10-2016, 12:00 PM
A lot of us aren't upset at the judge who gave that lenient sentence, but the culture that shrugs at those statistics.
Trials aren't friendly to sexual assault victims. Nearly all cases, civil and criminal, settle before trial. Being a registered sex offender for life (where people often think you are a CHILD sex offender and won't let you around their children) isn't something to disregard as necessarily lenient. Neither is several years of probation, which is very strict (http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/probation-faq.html). But we digress.

allegro
06-10-2016, 12:11 PM
Meanwhile, after Elizabeth Warren endorsed Clinton on Rachel Maddow's show last night and Warren answered Maddow's question that, yes, Warren felt she was qualified to be Vice President:

WE GET THIS (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/06/10/warren-to-meet-with-clinton-this-morning-fueling-vp-speculation/)!

tony.parente
06-10-2016, 12:16 PM
>Clinton names warren her VP
>Clinton wins presidency
>Clinton gets indicted and impeached
>Warren becomes president
>Warren names Sanders her VP
>Embarassed hillbots the country over

DigitalChaos
06-10-2016, 12:24 PM
But guys, these companies aren't trying to help Hillary... they are just doing what is most profitable (like being first to market with a story and totally not trying to manipulate voters). /s




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFxFRqNmXKg


I've been watching this one slowly evolve and some of the Hillary supporters have hilarious justifications.

allegro
06-10-2016, 12:32 PM
But guys, these companies aren't trying to help Hillary... they are just doing what is most profitable (like being first to market with a story and totally not trying to manipulate voters)
But people are still going to vote for whomever they want to vote for, not whatever comes up in a search engine.

It's like the basis of Citizens United: Corporations and Unions can pay as much money as they want for free speech to endorse a candidate, but that does not buy votes; because advertising, etc., doesn't necessarily convert to votes.

People are convinced, for whatever reason (usually party lines) and then use the search engines or Facebook info) to try to convince OTHERS. For instance, one of our old friends is a Trump fanatic and is using these Facebook memes about what a really great guy Trump is, saving children from burning building and rescuing crippled children by offering them his corporate jet and giving a bunch of money to old people in senior citizen homes, to counter-attack Trump stuff. He isn't "convincing" anybody but himself, of course. Nobody is being "manipulated." The only real manipulation I see is the media on TV and on Facebook, etc., using headlines to sucker people into a story as clickbait, and then you actually READ the information and go, hey, wait a second...

DigitalChaos
06-10-2016, 12:33 PM
You didn't watch the whole thing then. It absolutely influences voters. It can't really be that surprising considering how poorly informed and educated a lot of voters are.

allegro
06-10-2016, 12:37 PM
Clinton gets indicted and impeached
indicted for what, exactly?

allegro
06-10-2016, 12:39 PM
You didn't watch the whole thing then. It absolutely influences voters. It can't really be that surprising considering how poorly informed and educated a lot of voters are.

Sorry, I was in marketing and advertising for many years; not buying it. They aren't using Google for that. Yes, they are very stupid. yes, they think anything they see on the internet is true. But most of them don't even know how to use Google. And, when they do, the hits they do get are going to be ANTI Hillary, not pro Hillary.

Khrz
06-10-2016, 12:41 PM
Communication obviously influences opinion, not in quid Pro quo levels, sure, but come on. Visibility is key, and many people nowadays only listen to the news they are fed, not everyone makes the effort to actually inform themselves. Those who don't are particularly vulnerable to that kind of communication.

tony.parente
06-10-2016, 12:53 PM
indicted for what, exactly?
For the basis of her felony investigation.

allegro
06-10-2016, 01:39 PM
For the basis of her felony investigation.
Investigation. She did not commit a crime (http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/no-hillary-did-not-commit-a-crime-at-least-based-on-what-we-know-today/).

See also (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/state-dept-inspector-general-report-sharply-criticizes-clintons-email-practices/2016/05/25/fc6f8ebc-2275-11e6-aa84-42391ba52c91_story.html):


Officials have told The Washington Post that FBI investigators have so far found little evidence that Clinton maliciously flouted classification rules. Clinton and her team have cooperated with the FBI, and officials have said they plan to interview Clinton about the matter soon.

allegro
06-10-2016, 01:57 PM
Communication obviously influences opinion, not in quid Pro quo levels, sure, but come on. Visibility is key, and many people nowadays only listen to the news they are fed, not everyone makes the effort to actually inform themselves. Those who don't are particularly vulnerable to that kind of communication.
I have a degree in communication; I understand how it works; it works both ways. Just a search on "Hilary Clinton" brings up general Hillary Clinton-focused sites, which is normal for any search algorithm: her web page, her Twitter account, her Facebook account, her Wiki page; and in News, at least three negative news articles about Hillary Clinton at the very top of the hits. People tend to get their information first from news sources like network and cable news, newspapers, and online news sources like online news feeds via Twitter and Facebook, and then when they want to Google FURTHER information and if they know how to type out a proper search query (most don't), they will get a more narrowed-down response. Yes, most believe the "news" they get from Facebook and don't bother to construct a proper search query to find Snopes' or Politifact's response.

All of these conspiracy theories undermining over 15,600,000 voters who voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic primary, so far to date, suggesting that most or all of these voters were somehow manipulated into voting for Hillary via Google or the media or whatever other witchcraft or voodoo ... I just think we will eventually, years down the road, come to see this as blatant sexism.

Jinsai
06-10-2016, 02:16 PM
I posted that video (about Google slanting search results against suggesting negative content that reflected what people were actually searching for) the other day on my Facebook page. I don't get how this isn't a bigger deal. Maybe everyone is so burned out on hearing scandals and too exhausted to look at another "REALLY this is something that is happening and it matters!" video.

Fuck google. Sure, they're a private company, they can do what they want (except no, they can't)... but the looming danger is that this company (which is storing an ungodly collection of everything about you and everyone you know, for y'know, advertising purposes which will enhance your life or something) is potentially a political tool. There is no slope more slippery than Google being caught dipping their feet in these waters unnoticed, and I am freaked out that nobody cares.

DigitalChaos
06-10-2016, 02:25 PM
I honestly haven't investigated myself, so there COULD be a reasonable explanation for the Google thing.

implanted_microchip
06-10-2016, 02:36 PM
At this point anyone who believes for an instant that Hillary Clinton will be indicted for the email thing is no better than any other conspiracy theorist and is just desperately grasping at straws. The president wouldn't have ever endorsed her if he believed it to be a realistic possibility. There's no way in hell the entire Democratic party would so quickly band together around a candidate they believed had a shot at being put in prison. You have to be ignoring all sense of reason to really think that's going to happen at all.

And like allegro even said, googling Hillary pulls up basic links that anyone famous or any politician produces along with negative articles. It's not like googling her name just sends you to a "vote for Hillary" donation page. And Google's been known to pull some shit in the past in general, as far as I can remember. Facebook has openly been proven to target pro-Trump posts and I don't see many people crying about it.

I do think conspiracy fatigue is high as hell. When, after every single state in which Hillary Clinton won, you'd have thousands of people running around online ranting about how it was clearly because of some rigged system and weaving lengthy and bizarre conspiracy theories about how no one was democratically electing her at all and clearly an independent senator is the clearly preferred choice of a party he'd never even been a part of until he wanted to run for POTUS, you tend to tire people out.

For three decades Republicans have been throwing conspiracy after conspiracy, accusation after accusation, crying wolf after crying wolf at Hillary over and over and over again. They've done it so much and it's been full of shit so many times that it's extremely hard to pay attention anymore when someone tries to do it. It's funny because in trying to discredit her at every point, conservatives have more than anything given her a great defense which is "people have been trying to find some smoking gun regarding me for 30 years and the best they have is suggestion and hearsay. I've been able to remain a highly-regarded politician and function in a system that has routinely tried to discredit me at any moment. More hands have dug through my past in an attempt to find dirt than any other candidate and yet I'm still here. I've been vetted by the very media that's tried to condemn me."

I've spent my entire life watching Republicans go on and on and on and on and on and on and on again and on some more about why Hillary Clinton is some corrupt and evil witch of a woman and every single time it's fallen through and not held up under scrutiny. Unless some bombshell of a thing came out that was irrefutable and 100% veritably criminal I just don't see myself or a lot of people caring at all anymore outside of the fringe left that's desperate to believe that the person they don't want that more people voted for won't be the victor and the right that would, if she saved babies from a burning orphanage, would accuse her of just doing it for votes.

allegro
06-10-2016, 02:47 PM
I honestly haven't investigated myself, so there COULD be a reasonable explanation for the Google thing.

I searched "Hillary Clinton felony" and "felony" came up at the top suggestion, and I got at least 5 negative hits. THE TOP HIT was negative. It's just more Facebook ca-ca.

A Google query did find this. (http://www.vox.com/2016/6/10/11903028/hillary-clinton-google-debunked)

Jinsai
06-10-2016, 02:52 PM
And like allegro even said, googling Hillary pulls up basic links that anyone famous or any politician produces along with negative articles. It's not like googling her name just sends you to a "vote for Hillary" donation page. And Google's been known to pull some shit in the past in general, as far as I can remember. Facebook has openly been proven to target pro-Trump posts and I don't see many people crying about it.

That's not what the video suggested was happening with regards to the possible Hillary/Google thing... and yes, I think Facebook, Google, or any gigantic media outlet that primarily functions by using our personal information as currency should be kept under firm watch. This goes beyond my personal political affiliations. It's bigger than how much I hate Trump, and that's huge. If Facebook is tailoring their content with a political agenda, even if it's just opposition to Trump, that is fucked up.
allegro this isn't about search RESULTS

allegro
06-10-2016, 02:55 PM
That's not what the video suggested was happening with regards to the possible Hillary/Google thing... and yes, I think Facebook, Google, or any gigantic media outlet that primarily functions by using our personal information as currency should be kept under firm watch. This goes beyond my personal political affiliations. It's bigger than how much I hate Trump, and that's huge. If Facebook is tailoring their content with a political agenda, even if it's just opposition to Trump, that is fucked up.
allegro this isn't about search RESULTS

Look at my post again.

Jinsai
06-10-2016, 03:04 PM
Look at my post again.

From the end of that article:


Apparently, Google has a policy of not suggesting that customers do searches on people's crimes. I have no inside knowledge of why it runs its search engine this way. Maybe Google is just uncomfortable with having an algorithm suggesting that people search for other people's crimes.In any event, there’s no evidence that this is specific to Hillary Clinton, and therefore no reason to think this is a conspiracy by Google to help Clinton win the election.

Disclosure: My brother works at Google

Ok... I'm not sure if that point about the author's brother was included to imply "trust me, I know this is true, my brother WORKS there!" or intended to be a true disclosure in case this fact were revealed and included in a refutation as implied bias....

BUT, the claim is not true. Try looking up "cri" for Al Capone.

implanted_microchip
06-10-2016, 03:04 PM
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bob-dole-trump-support-224173

Well Trump has yet another glowing endorsement in which Bob Dole says "What else am I gonna do?"

allegro
06-10-2016, 03:09 PM
the claim is not true. Try looking up "cri" for Al Capone.
Autosuggestions are based on most frequent use.

And your own browser cache.

Try typing "Mike Tyson Rape"

Jinsai
06-10-2016, 03:16 PM
Autosuggestions are based on most frequent use.

And your own browser cache.

Try typing "Mike Tyson Rape"

But that runs against what the article was implying... which was more along the lines of "our friendly friend Google doesn't like the idea of people being steered towards looking up someone's criminal record."

The video making this claim about search suggestions also admits that it is inconclusive, that it doesn't know, but that it finds it suspicious. Who knows if it's true, I'm dubious actually, but I'm hyper paranoid about this sort of shit.


All of these conspiracy theories undermining over 15,600,000 voters who voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic primary, so far to date, suggesting that most or all of these voters were somehow manipulated into voting for Hillary via Google or the media or whatever other witchcraft or voodoo ... I just think we will eventually, years down the road, come to see this as blatant sexism.

This bothers me, to be honest. I'm sexist now because I suspect that Google might be getting involved in political scheming?

implanted_microchip
06-10-2016, 03:26 PM
I think allegro isn't calling you a sexist but rather implying that the fervent dying need to discredit Hillary that we're seeing and have seen for decades in the media abroad and in so many political factions stems from a sexist attitude. Trump is as guilty as anyone of scandal and there are genuine cases of him potentially bribing attorney generals to drop cases, including the one in my own state. You sure don't see that getting covered much, though, nor do you see a ton of outrage. At most you get "Eh, what do you expect?"

I don't like her and don't think she belongs anywhere in our political system but a friend of mine and I agreed a lot on how Carly Fiorina was totally treated in a sexist way, a double standard was applied to her as a former CEO. "Oh well she wrecked a business and made people lose jobs, what a failure!" Meanwhile when all the lay-off stuff around Romney was talked about, the narrative was, "Well, he's a businessman -- it's what they do!" and that was permitted as a defense. Same with Trump. It's just like the way that latent societal racism led to the insanely feverish witch hunt that was the birther movement against Obama. "He's black; he must be African." People bought into it. There are a lot of people in this country that seem to need Hillary Clinton to be a discredited, evil and corrupt piece of shit. And, sure, that can be said for almost anyone with a public enough profile, but it's hard to argue that there isn't a special kind of scrutiny placed against her, just as there has been for every woman who's run for president as a Republican, too. Michelle Bachman was derided as a stupid lunatic and an idiot 24/7 and that was fine but to say the same of someone just as ridiculous like Ted Cruz would be cause for debate. To attack Fiorina for her bad business decisions was acceptable, but to attack Donald Trump for his spree of bad business decisions and openly supporting the housing market crash is nowhere near as accepted and is shot down as "he's a businessman, what do you expect?" by all of the conservative media.

Jinsai
06-10-2016, 03:35 PM
I think @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) isn't calling you a sexist but rather implying that the fervent dying need to discredit Hillary that we're seeing and have seen for decades in the media abroad and in so many political factions stems from a sexist attitude. Trump is as guilty as anyone of scandal and there are genuine cases of him potentially bribing attorney generals to drop cases, including the one in my own state. You sure don't see that getting covered much, though, nor do you see a ton of outrage. At most you get "Eh, what do you expect?"

I think Trump has been called out (fairly) for being a bigot and a rampant sexist. The problem with him is nothing seems to make a dent in his armor. Trump is currently demonstrating that he can say that a Hispanic judge can't preside over a case involving him because it's obvious that Trump's racist bullshit towards Mexicans is too much of a motivating interest for anyone of Hispanic heritage to remain impartial. That's some AMAZING bullshit, and it's looking like he might just chug right along and find some way to top that one.

On the other hand, a lot of criticism (or in this case, even speculation about something that would be super fucked up if true) when it comes to Clinton is frequently dismissed as stemming from a sexist motivation. This is always weird, but how can you defend yourself against that? I can swear that I'd love to vote for Elizabeth Warren if she were on the ticket, but it's easy to call that a lie since it's not dealing with reality, and fair point actually. There is NOTHING I can use to defend against that accusation... and so, I can't say that I really dislike Clinton, or that i find something she's done reprehensible, or that I find her untrustworthy, or that I disapprove of her political record, or that there may be something truly terrifying going on with Google... because any of those stances at best aligns me with sexist Hillary Haters, and at worst makes me one of them.

Swykk
06-10-2016, 03:36 PM
Trump's failures have been well covered, especially at first, but that coverage has lessened over time. I'd say this happened because NOTHING appears to damage his reputation among his supporters.

Haha, same time, Jinsai!

Fiorina was a shitty candidate on a Trump level but look what happened. Here he is. The Republican nominee. I had a good laugh at Romney throwing shade, though. He helped create these monsters. He's a shitty businessman as well. They all deserve each other.

implanted_microchip
06-10-2016, 03:50 PM
Jinsai I didn't and I am not calling you a sexist. My whole point was I think she was trying to say that the aggressively anti-Hillary contingency in the US has sexism as a strong core motivator. Fox News pundits and the entire Republican media in 2008 genuinely tried to say that "the world isn't ready for a female president" and that "Middle Eastern countries would never take our leadership seriously because they're so sexist," basically trying to claim that we should use Saudi Arabia as our barometer for progress.

That is sexist. Flat-out. Not everyone is like that. But a very large chunk of the Right is. The last thing they want is a woman in charge. When phrases like "glass ceiling" get mentioned there are people here that panic. Hell, someone on this very forum tried to claim that the wage gap doesn't exist and that they were "embarrassed" by Bernie calling himself a feminist. That line of thinking does exist among a lot of people. I don't think it's among everyone, nor do I think it's with you, but I do think it's a powerful motivator behind the eagerness that a lot of the media has had over time to demonize Hillary.

And while people have tried to call Trump out, the conservative media has totally gotten behind him. They weren't so quick to defend Fiorina and they aren't so quick to defend any women, really. I hear tons of Republicans defend him as "just a businessman." I know people that are going to vote for Trump and that is their defense, chronically.

allegro
06-10-2016, 04:42 PM
I never knew how ready I was for presidential twitter wars until right now

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/740973710593654784

I KNEW something was off when it wasn't in her Twitter history:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/06/10/fyi-hillary-clinton-did-not-actually-tweet-that-sick-donald-trump-burn/?tid=sm_fb

implanted_microchip
06-10-2016, 04:51 PM
I KNEW something was off when it wasn't in her Twitter history:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/06/10/fyi-hillary-clinton-did-not-actually-tweet-that-sick-donald-trump-burn/?tid=sm_fb

I mean Trump's been fairly unique in directly writing his own tweets, and even then there was that one time he tried to claim some intern tweeted for him. I rarely have ever thought that Bernie Sanders sits making memes and posting lengthy strings of tweets in the middle of debates he's in, for instance.

tony.parente
06-10-2016, 05:22 PM
Investigation. She did not commit a crime (http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/no-hillary-did-not-commit-a-crime-at-least-based-on-what-we-know-today/).

See also (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/state-dept-inspector-general-report-sharply-criticizes-clintons-email-practices/2016/05/25/fc6f8ebc-2275-11e6-aa84-42391ba52c91_story.html):

Except she did commit a crime (http://lawnewz.com/opinion/yes-hillary-clinton-did-commit-a-crime/)

allegro
06-10-2016, 07:30 PM
Except she did commit a crime (http://lawnewz.com/opinion/yes-hillary-clinton-did-commit-a-crime/)
Up for interpretation. Then I would like to see the FBI indicted for not properly securing the security clearance data of over 20.5 million Federal employees (on an unenencrypted server that was hacked by the Chinese, subjecting said employees to identity theft and blackmail and risking U.S. security). Again, witch hunt.

If there was in fact substantial evidence that could lead to an indictment, the FBI and the IG should have expedited the process instead of wasting millions of taxpayer dollars. The country will be REALLY pissed if that is how is pans out. No investigation should take this fucking long and cost taxpayers this much money in a misdirected voting process. O'Malley is sure gonna be pissed, too, that's for sure.

DigitalChaos
06-10-2016, 07:35 PM
So, on the validity of the Google is censoring bad things about Hillary. Here is what I have after digging.

A head at google (Matt Cutts) says that the "bad" autocomplete data DOES show up when you omit the "clinton" portion of the search. He even provided screenshots. He said its because people searching for negatives generally use "hillary X" instead of "hillary clinton X"
https://twitter.com/mattcutts/status/741329314457624577

But then Matt Cutts links to this Vox article (http://www.vox.com/2016/6/10/11903028/hillary-clinton-google-debunked) and an article by a self-proclaimed SEO expert (https://medium.com/@rhea/hillary-clintons-search-results-manipulated-by-sourcefed-not-google-3dd9a5c68ca1) that attempts to debunk the intentional censorship by saying that google blocks ALL the similar negative autocompletes for ANY full name search. That seems to conflict a bit with Matt Cutts who was saying that it is the searcher who chooses to use the first name, and that's what creates the weird split.

I don't fucking know. Nobody seems to know. Not even google employees. It's like the fucking Coke recipe where the knowledge of it is split across various people... or maybe its just so fucking complex now that nobody knows anymore.

allegro
06-10-2016, 07:40 PM
Nobody does know the Google algorithms, it's like the recipe for Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Jinsai
06-10-2016, 08:22 PM
the problem, I think it's unfair to say that people asking whether or not Google is in Clinton's pocket is a demonstration of sexism in action. It's a very troubling thing to consider, and that blowback doesn't help. It's not a question of whether or not Google is dabbling in politics... it's not "if," it's "how and when."

Shouting down criticism of Clinton in ANY regard as an example of runaway sexism is lame. The irony is, that's the main thing I'm actually enthusiastic about! I love the idea of breaking the chain and having a female president. That's almost the ONLY thing I truly love about the idea of a Hillary presidency. Really, is this sort of dismissal all that different functionally from Trump saying that a Mexican can't judge him?

DigitalChaos
06-10-2016, 09:07 PM
The whole gender-card and race-card thing is so lame. It's been used a lot to just completely shut down debate and criticism without any fairness. There are many on the left who love to use it. It was gross watching it being used against GOP voters, many of which loved Sarah Palin and Ben Carson. It was easier to, wrongly, use against them because of the GOP stereotype and their tendency to use language that can come off as bigoted (even though its not their intent). But to watch that shit start to be used internally against Dems who's first pick isn't Hillary... holy FUCK.

DigitalChaos
06-10-2016, 09:12 PM
And yeah, to me it doesn't matter if Google is intentionally doing something that favors a candidate. We see that kind of thing in the media all the time, why would internet search not be similar? My issue is with people not knowing it or realizing it while they are active voters. It's like people who watch Fox or MSNBC and think they are not biased sources... and then they go vote based on what they saw!

We need lots of skepticism in the general public and we need people to actively reach outside of their bubbles to see alternate views. Unfortunately, that goes against human nature. It also goes against a lot of what the popular social media platforms are cultivating. ... fucking sucks. I know I'm preaching to the choir here... and in some ways we are our own bubble of informed-above-average voters... but even in this tiny little weird group we have diversity in political and news sources.

implanted_microchip
06-10-2016, 09:24 PM
To dismiss all criticism as sexism or racism is absolutely wrong but I definitely didn't see myself or allegro doing it and I'd argue it is just as wrong to think that neither play into things at all. Racism and sexism both exist in spades on this planet and in this country, and as long as they do you will see them influence the way that people vote and the way that people attack those they do not like, including politicians.

Racism and sexism doesn't require people to use the N word and call women inferior; attitudes, expectations, scrutiny and general emotions can all be informed by racist and sexist viewpoints. There are a lot of latent misogynists who are naturally inclined to dislike Hillary and a lot of latent racists inclined to dislike Obama. This can lead to a confirmation bias where they only listen to the things that validate those feelings and dismiss any that challenge it. Take for instance the camp of Bernie supporters all primary long that would one day say "if Hillary wants my vote, she'd better adopt this platform" only to turn around and say "I think she'd say anything to get a vote so I don't trust her." They presented a no-win situation that is very clearly coming from some sort of a personal bias. Is it sexism? I don't know that. But sexism's certainly informed a lot of people's distaste for her. It's wrong to act like an issue doesn't exist at all just because some may overstate it.

Jinsai
06-10-2016, 09:32 PM
DigitalChaos, I think we need to fabricate something we can disagree about, because it's super weird that we agree so much lately

tony.parente
06-10-2016, 09:42 PM
@DigitalChaos (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=598), I think we need to fabricate something we can disagree about, because it's super weird that we agree so much lately DigitalChaos thinks I'm good looking, modest, funny and I have a sparkling personality. He also thinks I'm the most treasured member of this board and thinks I should be the king of ETS.

Jinsai
06-10-2016, 09:46 PM
@DigitalChaos (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=598) thinks I'm good looking, modest, funny and I have a sparkling personality. He also thinks I'm the most treasured member of this board and thinks I should be the king of ETS.

Someone I actually dislike needs to repost this...

It's a weird time to be alive with regards to American politics, but that's probably always been the case.

Frozen Beach
06-11-2016, 03:31 AM
http://i.imgur.com/NHeZSYN.jpg

DigitalChaos
06-11-2016, 12:49 PM
If we insist that sexism is to be discussed about the presidential election, why aren't we addressing the part where people are voting for her specifically because of her gender? I think the whole thing is fucking stupid, especially for a candidate who uses her gender as a selling point. Gender should have nothing to do with it but Hillary makes her gender part of it.


somewhat related, here is a video from Reason:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFwdvMQHmOI

implanted_microchip
06-11-2016, 01:23 PM
I do believe a lot of people during the primary that said they chose Hillary over Bernie based on being a woman were leaving an unspoken "because I agree with them both enough that that's the biggest difference for me." I totally get that. People want to feel represented and they want to see us progress more. I remember the same kind of comments and criticism in 2008 based on race.

If that's the only lone reason you're voting for someone, sure, that's questionable, but I really do not think most people who cite gender as a motivating factor are using that as their only gauge for whether or not they'll vote for someone. If that was the case then Hillary would've been voted out in 2012 and Michelle Bachman would be running for re-election.

DigitalChaos
06-11-2016, 02:00 PM
If that's the only lone reason you're voting for someone, sure, that's questionable,
But if that's the reason you aren't voting for someone, then it's not questionable... that's blatant sexism? lol... way to keep objectivity. This is exactly what I am saying, it's not viewed or discussed equally. Your bit about leaving the unspoken portion off also applies to a LOT of the people who get accused of sexism against Hillary.

I honestly don't give a shit about any of it BECAUSE Hillary pushes her gender as a selling point. None of it is worth discussing in this situation BECAUSE of what Hillary is doing with the gender topic. I gave more attention to the calls of racism around Obama because he wasn't all "vote for me because I'm black" ... he let the press and everyone else do that.

botley
06-11-2016, 02:28 PM
maybe they'll start responding to each other with memes...

LOL already happening (http://pic.twitter.com/smaUds8PnY)

implanted_microchip
06-11-2016, 02:55 PM
But if that's the reason you aren't voting for someone, then it's not questionable... that's blatant sexism?

If someone said "I won't vote for her because she has a vagina" how is that anything but sexism? I don't get it. Saying "I find the idea of a female president appealing and like the thought of living in a country where there is proof that anyone of any gender or race can become president is one that I really enjoy" is not the same as saying "I find the idea of a woman in power awful and think that because they have different chromosomes, they'll be terrible and we just aren't ready for that as a country."

And I never claimed to be objective. No one is. The best anyone can do is try and recognize their biases and keep them in check. The minute you develop an opinion or have a feeling on things, you're no longer objective. If you really think you "keep objectivity," then you're probably as biased as anyone but can't even recognize it. Get over it. Different people feel different ways and that's okay.

tony.parente
06-11-2016, 03:14 PM
Good ole Hillary approved drone strikes with her personal email. (http://www.salon.com/2016/06/10/fbi_criminal_investigation_emails_clinton_approved _cia_drone_assassinations_with_her_cellphone_repor t_says/)

Jinsai
06-11-2016, 03:16 PM
LOL already happening (http://pic.twitter.com/smaUds8PnY)

Oh my god...

DF118
06-11-2016, 05:24 PM
Oh my god...

The year USA politics devolved into a twitter flame war.

implanted_microchip
06-11-2016, 05:36 PM
Worth noting Elizabeth Warren pitched in with a "No, seriously -- delete your account" tweet at Donald. Even your heroes are not immune to the allure of trolling

DigitalChaos
06-11-2016, 05:42 PM
Wait, so was there ever any attribution for the fake "delete your account" hillary tweet? Was that her marketing team doing a fake test to see how the public would like it? And then they liked it so they actually had her start it for real?

Kleiner - i'm trying really hard but i just can't... i have no energy to argue over the sexism/hillary thing. I have no strong feelings on it other than the whole topic is stupid.

tony.parente
06-11-2016, 05:56 PM
Worth noting Elizabeth Warren pitched in with a "No, seriously -- delete your account" tweet at Donald. Even your heroes are not immune to the allure of trolling

Warren became irrelevant as soon as she endorsed Clinton. She gave up her values for big corporate, money talks I guess.

implanted_microchip
06-11-2016, 07:27 PM
Warren became irrelevant as soon as she endorsed Clinton. She gave up her values for big corporate, money talks I guess.

You are everything Bernie fans spent months trying to argue they're not

tony.parente
06-11-2016, 07:57 PM
You are everything Bernie fans spent months trying to argue they're not
I'm sorry I'm not a fan of a big corporate candidate who is everything she claims to be fighting against.

sick among the pure
06-11-2016, 08:51 PM
Good ole Hillary approved drone strikes with her personal email. (http://www.salon.com/2016/06/10/fbi_criminal_investigation_emails_clinton_approved _cia_drone_assassinations_with_her_cellphone_repor t_says/)

If that is fucking true, holy shit. Like, rage-inducing holy shit.

tony.parente
06-11-2016, 08:57 PM
If that is fucking true, holy shit. Like, rage-inducing holy shit.

Literally approved a drone strike on her goddamned cell phone. The risk to national security that she willingly caused due to her willful negligence is unimaginable.

"what difference does it make?"

tony.parente
06-11-2016, 10:58 PM
Hillary erased all mention of her TPP support from paperback reprint of her memoir. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/11/paperback-version-clintons-hard-choices-omits-her-tpp-trade-pact-support.html)
Shit these things keep flooding in today.

Ever heard of Rajiv Fernando? (http://nypost.com/2016/06/10/another-sign-hillary-clintons-state-department-was-for-sale/)
Fun fact: He's also a super delegate that will be voting for Hillary in July. The democtratic process is fucked.

DigitalChaos
06-11-2016, 11:32 PM
Good ole Hillary approved drone strikes with her personal email. (http://www.salon.com/2016/06/10/fbi_criminal_investigation_emails_clinton_approved _cia_drone_assassinations_with_her_cellphone_repor t_says/)

If that is fucking true, holy shit. Like, rage-inducing holy shit.
also worth knowing:

There is pretty strong circumstantial evidence that Hillary's sloppy OpSec resulted in her repeatedly compromising counterterrorism missions. The targets were always one step ahead. They stopped having these issues as soon as they stopped giving advanced notice to Hillary about the missions.
http://bgr.com/2016/05/26/hillary-clinton-emails-phone-military-terrorism/


Also, she may have gotten an undercover CIA agent killed (and blown the cover of others)
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/clinton-emails-held-indirect-references-undercover-cia-officers-n510741


Again, not hard proof.... yet. But it's something that may be coming down the pipe with the FBI.

implanted_microchip
06-12-2016, 03:06 PM
I feel like the recent shooting in Orlando deserves some discussion here, because it's no doubt going to have some impact on this election.

I've said since last October that all Trump needs to win is a San Bernadino-esque attack close to November. This may be too soon, but I could see this being a huge advantage for him, and I won't be surprised at all if we see him do the unthinkable among Republicans and appeal to the disaffected LGBT and feminist community that's fed up with the party that's supposed to defend them calling them bigots or Islamaphobic for suggesting that it's wrong to support countries that stone gay people to death and execute women for driving a car or being raped.

He's already played to the Bernie crowd -- the last speech he gave, he spent a good few minutes talking about Sanders supporters "left out in the cold by a corrupt system" being welcome to join him, and that he promises to fight against that kind of rigging. How effective these appeals will be is to be determined but he's already showed a willingness to appeal to crowds the GOP never plays to. Just compare his tweets and Hillary's about this attack and you immediately see a difference -- Trump is using strong language, demanding justice and change and Hillary is implying powerlessness, waiting on more information and not taking action. Whether one's more level-headed or not, these things impact people's emotions and that's what decides elections.

tony.parente
06-12-2016, 03:24 PM
I'm very, very interested in how Trump takes this. He's taken the position of not allowing people on the no fly list/watch lists/"enemies of the state" to buy guys and to close those loop holes but he's also not a fan of gun free zones. It's a toss up here because any outlying Bernie supporters who would think about voting for trump (IE fucking idiots) would be way turned off if trump started spouting about more guns needed in gay nightclubs.

He needs to be careful here, because right now it's his race to lose.

Jinsai
06-12-2016, 05:45 PM
I'm very, very interested in how Trump takes this.

He tweeted "Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don't want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!"

What the fuuuuuuuuuuck

tony.parente
06-12-2016, 06:11 PM
He tweeted "Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don't want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!"

What the fuuuuuuuuuuck


Aaaand he shit the bed.

DigitalChaos
06-12-2016, 06:24 PM
Meanwhile, Bernie is talking about how 25years ago he wanted automatic weapons to be banned (they have been banned for longer than that). WTF man.

tony.parente
06-12-2016, 06:44 PM
Trump is such a fucking idiot, and Clinton is a goddamned political robot.

How did we allow our political climate turn into this circus? Memes, emails, hair and pandering.

implanted_microchip
06-12-2016, 06:50 PM
Trump also told Obama to step down because he didn't mention radical Islam in his speech.

And things are like this because of our 24-hour news network infrastructure that desperately needs a story at all times for ratings since they're profit-driven and social media for being an instantaneous medium that's killed any digestion time before people react to things. It's why critical reviews and analysis of entertainment are a lost art culturally as well. Everyone thinks they know everything and nobody is interested in learning anything that conflicts with their very narrow and very particular world view and we have a media that allows for that.

DigitalChaos
06-12-2016, 06:54 PM
Trump is such a fucking idiot, and Clinton is a goddamned political robot.

How did we allow our political climate turn into this circus? Memes, emails, hair and pandering.

Because we don't take a stand. We have always allowed this. Every year it slides another step toward horrible. This is why I am libertarian. I think we would, collectively, be much better off if the individual had maximum control over their own choices while the central government had the least influence. Then it doesn't matter who is in power because their power is minimal.

DigitalChaos
06-12-2016, 07:05 PM
Trump also told Obama to step down because he didn't mention radical Islam in his speech.


Despite Trumps continual over the top commentary, it's a valid criticism that Obama didn't mention Islam in any of this. Especially when he was happy to plug gun control.

Dra508
06-13-2016, 12:36 AM
Despite Trumps continual over the top commentary, it's a valid criticism that Obama didn't mention Islam in any of this. Especially when he was happy to plug gun control.
Not a lot of data about shooter at time of speech. Why would he bring up Islam?
There was a gun.
Obama doesn't get paid by NRA.

Deepvoid
06-13-2016, 07:36 PM
Well you know, it appears Trump believes Obama has something to do with the attacks. Obama's actions are so fishy that "there's something going". Trump stole a page from Alex Jones' playbook.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puN0XkSGKeQ

Also, Trump campaign revoked the Washington Post's press credentials.

GulDukat
06-14-2016, 08:39 AM
Hillary Clinton is tied with Donald Trump in.............UTAH!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/13/this-new-poll-utah-poll-is-amazingly-bad-for-donald-trump/

Nationally, Clinton leads Trump by 4.5 points.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Trump's general election campaign is an even bigger disaster than most thought it would be at this point.

Deepvoid
06-14-2016, 12:08 PM
DNC hacked by Russian hackers. Research on Trump stolen. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html)

DigitalChaos
06-14-2016, 03:40 PM
DNC hacked by Russian hackers. Research on Trump stolen. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html)


Guess it's time to repost this again so nobody can read it: Bloomberg's 9 month investigation into Latin American hacking in elections... that has a direct implication on US elections. (http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-how-to-hack-an-election/)

GulDukat
06-14-2016, 05:49 PM
One candidate is surging in a new poll.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/283488-poll-clinton-holds-double-digit-lead-over-trump

implanted_microchip
06-14-2016, 06:19 PM
One candidate is surging in a new poll.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/283488-poll-clinton-holds-double-digit-lead-over-trump

But but but people told me we'd have "egg on our faces" because we "supported the wrong candidate" in November!

DigitalChaos
06-14-2016, 06:20 PM
If you pin the election on gun control, you can all by guarantee a Trump win.

allegro
06-14-2016, 06:40 PM
It seems to me that Trump is gonna go in the direction of controlling ISIS Muslims from getting guns, since he can't throw American Muslims out of the country and "banning Muslims" wouldn't have helped with this guy who was an American citizen. All he has to do is spin it that "Patriots" have to find a way to stop Terrorists from getting guns and the only way to do that is a national database that includes the FBI watch list of possible terrorists because you know ...

MUSLIM TERRORISTS.


SEE ALSO GALLUP POLL RE GUNS (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx).

Baphomette
06-14-2016, 07:00 PM
Guess it's time to repost this again so nobody can read it: Bloomberg's 9 month investigation into Latin American hacking in elections... that has a direct implication on US elections. (http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-how-to-hack-an-election/)Disgusting. Bought by US dollars, traitor to his people and now may/may not be working for Trump. Ugh.

GulDukat
06-14-2016, 07:54 PM
If you pin the election on gun control, you can all by guarantee a Trump win.

93 percent of Americans want universal background checks while 58 percent favor a ban on assault weapons.

http://m.voanews.com/a/us-gun-poll/3373993.html

There aren't enough Dale Gribbles in the U.S. to elect Donald Trump. He will never be president.

october_midnight
06-14-2016, 10:29 PM
Here's a crazy read: Man attends today's Trump rally in Greensboro, live tweets the horror he witnesses. (https://storify.com/case_face/a-trump-rally-in-greensboro-anger-in-here-is-palpa)

tony.parente
06-15-2016, 01:51 AM
Hillary Clinton recieved secret memo stating Obama administration support for ISIS in 2012 back when it was called Al Qaeda in Iraq (http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/14/hillary-clinton-received-secret-memo-stating-obama-admin-support-for-isis/)

tony.parente
06-15-2016, 01:56 AM
Bonus picture of the Orlando terrorists dad visiting Hillary Clintons office at the state department.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ck2E7QuW0AYoCkU.jpg:large

allegro
06-15-2016, 10:14 AM
Hillary Clinton recieved secret memo stating Obama administration support for ISIS in 2012 back when it was called Al Qaeda in Iraq (http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/14/hillary-clinton-received-secret-memo-stating-obama-admin-support-for-isis/)

Hindsight is 20/20. I don't understand how this impicates Hillary for receiving a memo from the Commander in Chief.

And a gay Muslim guy going postal in a gay club due to ISIS propaganda dictatating the murder of gay people like himself is a tragedy that shouldn't be exploited to further your anti-Hillary conspiracy agenda, Tony.

Sarah K
06-15-2016, 10:15 AM
Sourced from Breitbart, ffs.

tony.parente
06-15-2016, 10:25 AM
Sourced from Breitbart, ffs.
I mean I could have just sourced the actual emails. In fact gimmie a sec.

I hope this suffices.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

Sarah K
06-15-2016, 10:45 AM
"Hillary may or may not have received this memo that may or may not have been an intelligence briefing on the rise of ISIL."

Okay. Cool. Seems like something she should have been sent, seeing as how she was the Secretary of State at the time.

Deepvoid
06-15-2016, 11:07 AM
I mean I could have just sourced the actual emails. In fact gimmie a sec.

I hope this suffices.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

After reading through this memo, it paints a portrait of AQI and an assessment of the situation in Syria, its borders and Iraq.
I failed to see explicit support of AQI by the administration. Maybe you could point the paragraph in question. My English may be playing tricks on me.

DigitalChaos
06-15-2016, 06:04 PM
Disgusting. Bought by US dollars, traitor to his people and now may/may not be working for Trump. Ugh.

It's funny you immediately think Trump, but it sounds like 2 separate candidates are connected. However, everything in that article is pretty easy stuff. There is no reason for these people to be THE team other than proving themselves in other elections. I'm sure we will hear about quite a lot of other hacking situations that control the outcome way more than the voters can.

DigitalChaos
06-15-2016, 06:07 PM
DNC hacker slams CrowdStrike, publishes opposition memo on Donald Trump
http://www.csoonline.com/article/3084594/security/dnc-hacker-slams-crowdstrike-publishes-opposition-memo-on-donald-trump.html#tk.twt_cso





....
The hacker claiming responsibility for the DNC attack (using the alias Guccifer 2.0) mocked CrowdStrike's assessment that he was a sophisticated hacker group, noting that he was pleased the company "appreciated my skills so highly. But in fact, it was easy, very easy."

"Guccifer may have been the first one who penetrated Hillary Clinton’s and other Democrats’ mail servers. But he certainly wasn’t the last. No wonder any other hacker could easily get access to the DNC’s servers. Shame on CrowdStrike: Do you think I’ve been in the DNC’s networks for almost a year and saved only 2 documents? Do you really believe it?"

As proof, he published the full opposition report on Donald Trump, which describes the GOP presidential candidate having "no core."

...


In response to DNC comments that no financial information was accessed during the attack, several donor lists were also published on Wednesday by the hacker, showing millions in financial contributions from Hollywood elites, businesses, trade groups, and unions.

The hacker ended their disclosure with a notice that a bulk of the compromised documents, including memos marked confidential and secret – allegedly taken from Hillary Clinton's personal email server – were delivered to WikiLeaks.




... holy shit.

DigitalChaos
06-15-2016, 06:16 PM
And here is the meat: https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/dnc/

Just... Holy fuck. So much meat.

Your Name Here
06-15-2016, 06:24 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1UnKN3zGlk

Baphomette
06-16-2016, 03:22 AM
It's funny you immediately think Trump, but it sounds like 2 separate candidates are connected.I caught that but Trump is the only one who has made anti-Latino comments and since the hacker is Latino...

Jinsai
06-16-2016, 02:52 PM
Lately this is what my dreams have been like...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbM6WbUw7Bs

aggroculture
06-16-2016, 03:07 PM
I had a dream a few days ago (whilst in Chicago, in a hotel room looking out on Trump Tower). Trump had come to the campus, and was organizing groups of people to beat up the graduate students. I was explaining to him that my dissertation was on the topic of "failure" and he answered that of course this was not needed here, so I could go back to my country, and send the visa back in the mail. Then I was walking around a version of my town with a feeling of fear, everywhere I went these groups were getting ready for violence, and that's when I woke up.

Dra508
06-16-2016, 06:03 PM
GOP Operative tweets Trump the Cheeto Jesus (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gop-operative-lashes-out-at-party-calls-trump-cheeto-jesus-in-epic-tweetstorm_us_57626d13e4b05e4be860ec59?section=)

Never tweet at night, that's my motto.

Some of his lines could have been culled from the old ETS shit list. lollerskates.

implanted_microchip
06-17-2016, 05:28 PM
The trainwreck continues:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dozens-of-gop-delegates-launch-new-push-to-halt-donald-trump/2016/06/17/e8dcf74e-3491-11e6-8758-d58e76e11b12_story.html

GulDukat
06-18-2016, 09:28 AM
Lately this is what my dreams have been like...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbM6WbUw7Bs
Wow. That is seriously the most fucked up video I have ever watched.

DigitalChaos
06-18-2016, 04:20 PM
The best political artwork always comes in response to republican presidents rather than democratic ones.

Who's excited for Year Zero 2 to finally get traction?

DigitalChaos
06-18-2016, 07:36 PM
Even CNN is asking WTF is going on now.

Obama allows the State Department to hold Hillary emails until after the election.
Gotta love how they are promising Nov 31 (there are only 30 days in Nov)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCcvxIkxFEM

neorev
06-19-2016, 07:02 PM
Counterpunch 6 part series investigating election fraud...

Part 1: Taking Election Fraud Allegations Seriously

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/09/hillary-clinton-versus-bernie-sanders-taking-election-fraud-allegations-seriously-part-1/


Part 2: Debunking Some Election Fraud Allegations

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/10/hillary-clinton-versus-bernie-sanders-debunking-some-election-fraud-allegations/

Part 3: In-depth Report on Exit Polling and Election Fraud Allegations

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/11/hillary-clinton-versus-bernie-sanders-in-depth-report-on-exit-polling-and-election-fraud-allegations/


An Interview With Lead Edison Exit Pollster Joe Lenski

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/11/an-interview-with-lead-edison-exit-pollster-joe-lenski/

Part 4: Purged, Hacked, Switched

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/12/purged-hacked-switched-on-election-fraud-allegations-in-hillary-clinton-vs-bernie-sanders/

Part 5: Chicago Election Official Admits “Numbers Didn’t Match”


http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/13/chicago-election-official-admits-numbers-didnt-match-hillary-clinton-vs-bernie-sanders-election-fraud-allegations/

Part 6: Clinton Does Best Where Voting Machines Flunk Hacking Tests

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/16/clinton-does-best-where-voting-machines-flunk-hacking-tests-hillary-clinton-vs-bernie-sanders-election-fraud-allegations/

allegro
06-19-2016, 09:01 PM
Part 5: Chicago Election Official Admits “Numbers Didn’t Match”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/13/chicago-election-official-admits-numbers-didnt-match-hillary-clinton-vs-bernie-sanders-election-fraud-allegations/

That goes all the way back to the JFK election:

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/14/election_fraud_chicago_style_illinois_decades_old_ notoriety_for_election_corruption_is_legendary/

Sarah K
06-20-2016, 11:52 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/20/us/politics/hillary-clinton-vice-president.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Cory Booker getting the VP spot would make me excited about this election. Anything to get him on the national radar! He's fucking rad as shit.

BONUS HERE IS A SELFIE HE TOOK OF US. MY FLIGHT GOT IN VERY LATE THE NIGHT BEFORE AND I LOOK LIKE SHIT BUT THIS WAS EXCITING ANYWAY

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/12974318_10154775652513082_794537356795955005_n.jp g?oh=50077119d759cc572c66443d659caaf2&oe=57C8B1EC

Frozen Beach
06-21-2016, 11:05 AM
http://tenplay.com.au/news/national/june/trump-assassination-attempt-foiled (http://tenplay.com.au/news/national/june/trump-assassination-attempt-foiled)

Sarah K
06-21-2016, 11:22 AM
I read about that yesterday, and I can't believe that is isn't a bigger story. That's really scary shit.

implanted_microchip
06-21-2016, 12:13 PM
So, uh ...

Any Mad Men fans other than myself here? Because apparently Roger and Don are lending their talents to Trump for 35k a month:

https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/745096813821177856

Deepvoid
06-21-2016, 07:29 PM
Michele Bachmann tops list of Trump's evangelical advisory board.
(http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/trump-unveils-his-evangelical-advisory-board-and-conspiracy-loon-michele-bachmann-tops-the-list/)
Talk about a match made in hell.

Jinsai
06-25-2016, 12:33 PM
and now James Dobson has endorsed Trump's evangelical leanings... could this get any more transparent? Fuck these people.

I truly do not understand how Trump is so invulnerable. He can have moments, like where he embarrasses himself on Twitter for completely misunderstanding the issue with Britain leaving the EU, resulting in him being loudly mocked, and he just keeps chugging along.

Remember when this bizarre sound sank all hope of Howard Dean ever becoming president?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6i-gYRAwM0

What the fuck is wrong with us? That guy can make a strange sort of disingenuous sounding squeak into a microphone, and oh shit it's all over for him. Trump does this shit all day and people love him for it.

allegro
06-25-2016, 01:45 PM
Trump does this shit all day and people love him for it.
Yes, but his group of on-the-fence supporters is dwindling. His Groupies will always be Groupies, just as Trent Reznor farts rainbows even when he's an asshole. But that doesn't convert to "Trump will win the majority of votes in this country."

SEE ALSO THIS (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/delegates-file-lawsuit-challenging-binding-rules-n598696). AND THIS (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/gop-unbind-convention-delegates-224774).

Remember, McCain chose Palin as a last-ditch effort to court the Evangelicals and it was catastrophic failure. Evangelicals do not run this country. And the basis of Trump's reaction to Brexit was probably the underlying reason for Brexit (WE'RE NUMBER ONE, FUCK THOSE IMMIGRANTS).

This Republican convention is gonna be a fucking shit storm. And they totally deserve it.

cynicmuse
06-26-2016, 12:35 AM
and now James Dobson has endorsed Trump's evangelical leanings... could this get any more transparent? Fuck these people.
Jerry Falwell Jr (son of Jerry Falwell, leader of the Moral Majority back in the 80's) tweeted a photo of himself with Trump, with a photo of Trump on the cover of Playboy in the background. The hypocrisy is blatant... Falwell Sr. lambasted Jimmy Carter for doing an interview with Playboy. Trump also didn't realize that Scotland voted against (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/25/us/politics/donald-trump-scotland.html) Brexit.

DigitalChaos
06-26-2016, 07:19 PM
McCain chose Palin as a last-ditch effort to court the Evangelicals and it was catastrophic failure.

What about a Trump/Hillary ticket? What happens then?

Ryan
06-27-2016, 09:02 AM
this is will be my first and last post to this thread

http://i.imgur.com/HsdwH0c.jpg

botley
06-30-2016, 11:49 AM
I don't know if anyone here brought this up back when it was first surfacing last month, but the Republican nominee for President allegedly raped a 13-year-old girl (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html) in 1994 and threatened to kill her whole family if she came forward. She has a corroborating witness and has filed a civil lawsuit. I can't even process what a disturbing, ugly nightmare this is turning out to be.

Dra508
07-01-2016, 04:08 PM
I don't know if anyone here brought this up back when it was first surfacing last month, but the Republican nominee for President allegedly raped a 13-year-old girl (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html) in 1994 and threatened to kill her whole family if she came forward. She has a corroborating witness and has filed a civil lawsuit. I can't even process what a disturbing, ugly nightmare this is turning out to be.
Curious why Clinton wouldn't be using this one against him. Protecting the victim perhaps.

Frozen Beach
07-01-2016, 04:23 PM
Curious why Clinton wouldn't be using this one against him. Protecting the victim perhaps.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/05/bill-clinton-sexual-sex-assault-misconduct-rape-allegations-accusers-affairs-names-list-women-mistresses-scandals-photos-pictures/ (http://heavy.com/news/2016/05/bill-clinton-sexual-sex-assault-misconduct-rape-allegations-accusers-affairs-names-list-women-mistresses-scandals-photos-pictures/)

allegro
07-01-2016, 10:07 PM
Curious why Clinton wouldn't be using this one against him. Protecting the victim perhaps.
So far, the media isn't picking up on it, and Hillary doesn't tend to go after this kind of stuff. I don't think Bill's history of affairs (and uncharged history of alleged rapes) has anything to do with it so much as the media will eventually do this FOR her.

Exocet
07-02-2016, 12:12 AM
Do not trust polls..Brexit taught me this..seriously.

As a Brit....I think he will win the presidency...

onthewall2983
07-02-2016, 01:08 PM
Do not trust polls..Brexit taught me this..seriously.

As a Brit....I think he will win the presidency...

This might change your mind (http://www.npr.org/2016/06/26/483452230/npr-battleground-map-florida-pennsylvania-move-in-opposite-directions)

I don't think he'll win, but I don't think we should relax until he's gone either.

tony.parente
07-02-2016, 01:36 PM
I wonder if Sanders is staying in the race just in case Clinton gets indicted?
Random thought, not related to anything we are talking about ATM.

PS Clinton is meeting with the FBI today in regards to her criminal investigation, wonder how that's going to turn out.

Frozen Beach
07-02-2016, 06:34 PM
I wonder if Sanders is staying in the race just in case Clinton gets indicted?
Random thought, not related to anything we are talking about ATM.

PS Clinton is meeting with the FBI today in regards to her criminal investigation, wonder how that's going to turn out.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/749350193095667713

tony.parente
07-02-2016, 07:32 PM
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/749350193095667713
Haha wellllll shit. 2 of the most corporate candidates in history.

just fuck my shit up

Bachy
07-03-2016, 09:53 PM
https://media.giphy.com/media/l0HFiBi4a1dHylhRe/giphy.gif

implanted_microchip
07-04-2016, 01:45 AM
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-s-star-david-tweet-about-hillary-clinton-posted-n603161

This fuckin' guy I swear

Space Suicide
07-04-2016, 01:39 PM
Can't wait till this fuckwit election is over so we can start living our sentence with whichever moron gets the office.

botley
07-04-2016, 07:16 PM
HRC is many things, but a moron she is not.

elevenism
07-04-2016, 07:43 PM
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-s-star-david-tweet-about-hillary-clinton-posted-n603161

This fuckin' guy I swear
oh, for fuck's sake. "Dishonest media trying to make this into a Star of David."
But at least he didn't know, i GUESS, although that, in and of itself is scary.

Dra508
07-04-2016, 11:25 PM
HRC is many things, but a moron she is not.

Seriously, she's smarter than most people. Why are so many threatened by it? Tell me she's cut more corners that other pols. Pahlease.

tony.parente
07-05-2016, 01:07 AM
Can't wait till this fuckwit election is over so we can start living our sentence with whichever moron gets the office.
I think the words you meant were dangerous warhead of destruction, deceit, personal interest and pain.

theimage13
07-05-2016, 08:07 AM
I think the words you meant were dangerous warhead of destruction, deceit, personal interest and pain.

"Moron" just cuts down on the risk of carpal tunnel syndrome though.

onthewall2983
07-05-2016, 08:35 AM
I don't know what coverage it got nationally but the local buzz is that Mike Pence's meeting with Trump over the weekend is now making him a favorite for his VP. I sincerely hope that's the case as it will hopefully give my mother, who worked in a gov't job until her recent retirement under Pence, pause as to her endorsement to Trump.

Swykk
07-05-2016, 09:02 AM
Yeah, make no mistake, Pence is just Mitch Daniels' more crazed clone.

onthewall2983
07-05-2016, 01:47 PM
I asked her about it this morning and with a slight hesitation she said she would not vote for a Trump/Pence bill.

onthewall2983
07-05-2016, 02:10 PM
Yeah, make no mistake, Pence is just Mitch Daniels' more crazed clone.

And very, very bland which is why Trump probably likes him. No chance of him being upstaged.

tony.parente
07-06-2016, 12:08 AM
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."

Pretty good summary of the investigation.

allegro
07-06-2016, 12:24 AM
Pretty good summary of the investigation.

This is just FBI speak for "none of our employees better think about doing this shit, now" to avoid precedent.

Security or Administrative sanctions does not mean criminal charges,

The home email system was found to have been implemented for convenience and not for any treasonous or malicious purposes.

tony.parente
07-06-2016, 01:28 AM
This is just FBI speak for "none of our employees better think about doing this shit, now" to avoid precedent.

Yeah, wouldn't want people thinking they could do what she did and get away with it.

implanted_microchip
07-06-2016, 02:09 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/05/donald-trump-praises-saddam-hussein-for-killing-terrorists-so-good/

At this point I feel like he's actively striving to not be president

allegro
07-06-2016, 02:56 AM
Yeah, wouldn't want people thinking they could do what she did and get away with it.

You say that as if it's criminal, but this is more like shopping on the Web on company time.

They could not very well indict her for "carelessness" with security when the FBI's OPM was guilty of that same offense (https://fcw.com/articles/2016/01/11/dss-opm-hack-lessons.aspx?m=1), subjecting 20.5 million Federal employees to identity theft and blackmail, costing U.S. taxpayers millions of dollars in ID protection services for two years, yet no security or administrative sanctions were issued.

Re Clinton:

"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."

tony.parente
07-06-2016, 03:10 AM
You say that as if it's criminal, but this is more like shopping on the Web on company time.
Yeah, this is totally on the same level as buying shoes on amazon at work. When I think minor slip ups I think willful incompetence that effects national security and then deleting evidence.

allegro
07-06-2016, 03:19 AM
Yeah, this is totally on the same level as buying shoes on amazon at work. When I think minor slip ups I think willful incompetence that effects national security and then deleting evidence.

The FBI, itself, did the SAME FUCKING THING, see my above post; hence why it cannot view this as a malicious or intentional act, but merely a careless one. It has to look at legal precedent to determine if criminal charges are warranted, but re sanctions it has done WORSE THAN SHE DID AND NOTHING HAPPENED TO THE FBI.

Shopping on the internet while on your boss's dime is grounds for termination, but it's usually done carelessly and not a willful attempt to sabotage the company computer or its security. Unless you are buying child porn from the office computer, then the Feds step in.

The report fully indicated that nobody deleted any "evidence." Email was deleted to conserve server space a long time ago, much like how I delete email from my work Gmail account. None of this was determined to be a criminal act.

tony.parente
07-06-2016, 04:25 AM
The FBI, itself, did the SAME FUCKING THING, see my above post; hence why it cannot view this as a malicious or intentional act, but merely a careless one. It has to look at legal precedent to determine if criminal charges are warranted, but re sanctions it has done WORSE THAN SHE DID AND NOTHING HAPPENED TO THE FBI.


The government also killed Eric Garner, so does that mean I have a free pass to choke out minorities?

Swykk
07-06-2016, 08:04 AM
I'd love to have heard the conversation Bill had with Lynch.

It's just disgusting the way this all turned out. And yeah, some of it is surely sour grapes on my part but it's because I backed the candidate that actually gave a shit about me and mine, not some uber rich assholes or power hungry companies. I love the show Girls but Lena Dunham is a fucking blind dumbass for leading the "YOU GUYZ--HILLARY CUZ ITS TOTES TIME FOR A FEMALE PREZ...NO REAL OTHER CONCRETE REASON" charge.

If she wins, nothing really changes except her love of war. So watch out, Syria and Iran. Wall Street and banks get to rest easy and continue to fuck us while we vote against our best interests.

Worse, is that she's so hated that there's a good chance 'MURKUH will gets its first dictator but not its first moron in office. That guy will have nuke codes. The Reality TV/Stupid Is Cool "culture" of hate will run the country.

Either way, the result will not be a good thing. Quite depressing. I think I'm done posting in this thread.

tony.parente
07-06-2016, 08:19 AM
On one side of the coin we have a xenophobic, fear mongering orange man who wants to build a stupid wall and put all Muslims in a database. On the other side of the coin we have AT BEST an incompetent, easily confused 2 faced woman that has made it very clear that she'll blatantly lie to the american people or just refuse to answer questions when backed into a wall.

With Trump they'll laugh and think we're trigger happy.
With Clinton they won't respect us and think we're weak and incompetent.

Put them both on a rocket and shoot them into the sun.

allegro
07-06-2016, 11:38 AM
The government also killed Eric Garner, so does that mean I have a free pass to choke out minorities?

The point: Criminal charges are based on a legal definition of a crime, not public opinion.

My BIGGER POINT was: Biggest security breach in American history, with the most sensitive data, on a MASSIVE scale, actually happened after the FBI was repeatedly warned that their UNENCRYPTED SERVER with only ONE LAYER of security was dangerously vulnerable; nothing changed, the American public YAWNED.

This? OMG THE HUMANITY. START BUILDING FALLOUT SHELTERS THE END IS NEAR.

Hillary Clinton was a HIGHLY respected Secretary of State.

Dra508
07-06-2016, 11:42 AM
. On the other side of the coin we have AT BEST an incompetent, easily confused 2 faced woman that has made it very clear that she'll blatantly lie to the american people or just refuse to answer questions when backed into a wall.


With Clinton they won't respect us and think we're weak and incompetent.



Come on now, calling out politicians for lying is just silly. And saying she is incompetent isn't accurate either. 2 faced: well that's just sexist.

Who they?

aggroculture
07-06-2016, 12:16 PM
still confused as to why this email scandal is a thing. Republicans do FUCKED UP THINGS all the time...like blocking Zika funding because they want to use it to attack Planned Parenthood. Like selling their souls to the NRA. Like blocking a supreme court nomination just because. But OH, HILLARY USED PRIVATE EMAIL BAD BAD. Looks like she wasn't hacked, nothing bad happened. Get the fuck over it, move on. This bullshit is just Swift Boat Part II. Watching Bernie fans clutch at this is...left eats left, again.

implanted_microchip
07-06-2016, 02:04 PM
still confused as to why this email scandal is a thing. Republicans do FUCKED UP THINGS all the time...like blocking Zika funding because they want to use it to attack Planned Parenthood. Like selling their souls to the NRA. Like blocking a supreme court nomination just because. But OH, HILLARY USED PRIVATE EMAIL BAD BAD. Looks like she wasn't hacked, nothing bad happened. Get the fuck over it, move on. This bullshit is just Swift Boat Part II. Watching Bernie fans clutch at this is...left eats left, again.

But but but corporate Democratic whores and $hillary and where are the Wall Street speeches and I swear Bernie's in it because he knows she'll get indicted and he'll save us don't you see, it's impossible that decades of Republican accusations and manufactured scandals against this woman amidst a major smear campaign on her character that's taken place for ages in this country ever got to my Pure Liberal™ brain!

(/s and not because I would normally think those statements need a /s at the end but good Christ Reddit and even a lot of this thread sure are proof you do these days)

allegro
07-06-2016, 02:21 PM
Republicans do FUCKED UP THINGS all the time.
Like stupid shit with their own email accounts (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-republicans-who-did-exactly-what-hillary-did).

Like OHHHHH JEEZ REMEMBER THIS? NO? Hmmmmm (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/10/flashback-when-millions-of-lost-bush-white-hous/202820).

DigitalChaos
07-06-2016, 02:24 PM
lol at the apologists in this thread who see a republican witch hunt and immediately dismiss the entire topic due to the association.
Were you as dismissive of these things going unpunished:
- Wall Street fraud that caused the financial crisis
- The torture that was implemented by our politicians and military
- The various war crimes of the Bush presidency
- The Bush email server scandal
etc....


Not only are you willing to be dismissive, but you are willing to VOTE for this person. After years of bitching about privilege, you decide to be outright permissive of one of the most blatant form of privilege (https://theintercept.com/2016/07/05/washington-has-been-obsessed-with-punishing-secrecy-violations-until-hillary-clinton/) by supporting it with a vote. Your morally driven views of justice are a joke. You might as well be Occupy Wall Street voting the CEO of Goldman Sachs as president.

implanted_microchip
07-06-2016, 02:30 PM
Your morally driven views of justice are a joke.

You're really doing a whole lot to win people over, dude

allegro
07-06-2016, 02:37 PM
most blatant form of privilege (https://theintercept.com/2016/07/05/washington-has-been-obsessed-with-punishing-secrecy-violations-until-hillary-clinton/)

That link contains the following quote:

"Had someone who was obscure and unimportant and powerless done what Hillary Clinton did – recklessly and secretly install a shoddy home server and worked with Top Secret information on it, then outright lied to the public about it when they were caught – they would have been criminally charged long ago, with little fuss or objection."

But it neglects to mention that NOBODY at the FBI was brought to task for the RIDICULOUS fuck-up that was the OPM hack. THAT FUCKING HACK AFFECTED ME, PERSONALLY. TALK ABOUT "SHODDY?" Hillary's email? Nope, probably WASN'T hacked. And it did not affect me one fucking iota. But that OPM hack will likely cause fall-out for fucking YEARS. I had to lock down my credit agency accounts and I don't know when I can un-freeze them. We don't know if the other shoe will respectively drop. We don't know "why" the hackers wanted all that EXTREMELY sensitive data that included millions of FINGERPRINTS. And NOBOBY at the FBI was found liable, and there wasn't even a sacrificial lamb to point fingers at, nada, nothing. It's the FBI, they can do whatever the fuck they want. No "power" at the "top," no "Wall Street" to blame; it's the FBI, you'd think you could TRUST them to secure such important data, right? Now my family's life is potential fucked up forever due to their GROSS NEGLIGENCE. This isn't some fucking "moral view," this is my LIFE, here. You want to be some fucking hippy and vote for the Libertarian, that's fine, then go ahead and vote Trump into office, and let's see what fucking game you're playing with your bullshit Utopia view of the world. We're talking reality, here. The reality is that if you vote for the Libertarian for this election, you should have left your fucking ass behind the computer playing WoW in your underpants. You think you're Abbie Fucking Hoffman but he ended up being a corporate sellout, too. We don't have a fucking Unicorn running for President. Anybody with "Politician" on their Business Card is full of shit, Jack.

Even the Libertarian. Coming in here and treating people like we're all a bunch of fucking puppets and you're somehow enlightened because you got the Memo about the Third Party, like they aren't already or aren't going to be just as corrupt and full of shit as the others, is laughable.

Dra508
07-06-2016, 02:49 PM
But it neglects to mention that NOBODY at the FBI was brought to task for the RIDICULOUS fuck-up that was the OPM hack. THAT FUCKING HACK AFFECTED ME, PERSONALLY. TALK ABOUT "SHODDY?" Hillary's email? Nope, probably WASN'T hacked. And it did not affect me one fucking iota. But that OPM hack will likely cause fall-out for fucking YEARS. I had to lock down my credit agency accounts and I don't know when I can un-freeze them. We don't know if the other shoe will respectively drop. We don't know "why" the hackers wanted all that EXTREMELY sensitive data that included millions of FINGERPRINTS. And NOBOBY at the FBI was found liable, and there wasn't even a sacrificial lamb to point fingers at, nada, nothing. It's the FBI, they can do whatever the fuck they want. No "power" at the "top," no "Wall Street" to blame; it's the FBI, you'd think you could TRUST them to secure such important data, right? Now my family's life is potential fucked up forever due to their GROSS NEGLIGENCE. This isn't some fucking "moral view," this is my LIFE, here. You want to be some fucking hippy and vote for the Libertarian, that's fine, then go ahead and vote Trump into office, and let's see what fucking game you're playing with your bullshit Utopia view of the world. We're talking reality, here. The reality is that if you vote for the Libertarian for this election, you should have left your fucking ass behind the computer playing WoW in your underpants. You think you're Abbie Fucking Hoffman but he ended up being a corporate sellout, too. We don't have a fucking Unicorn running for President. Anybody with "Politician" on their Business Card is full of shit, Jack.

Dude, that shit is messed up. My bf's mom works for a company that makes all the defense budget stuff (something I like to call a jobs program), recently she had to formally inform her family that they may have been compromised, because guess what, to get government clearance, you have to list everyone in your family, especially the ones with other or multiple passports.

allegro
07-06-2016, 02:55 PM
Dude, that shit is messed up. My bf's mom works for a company that makes all the defense budget stuff (something I like to call a jobs program), recently she had to formally inform her family that they may have been compromised, because guess what, to get government clearance, you have to list everyone in your family, especially the ones with other or multiple passports.
You had to list all of your children, too, and their respective social security numbers. So they are pretty much compromised for life. That data included psych records, drug records, marital and divorce records, all travel history, ALL KINDS OF SHIT that could be used against you for blackmail to get security information, etc.

Dra508
07-06-2016, 03:05 PM
You had to list all of your children, too, and their respective social security numbers. So they are pretty much compromised for life. That data included psych records, drug records, marital and divorce records, all travel history, ALL KINDS OF SHIT that could be used against you for blackmail to get security information, etc.Good thing I haven't married in. :O

DigitalChaos
07-06-2016, 03:14 PM
You're really doing a whole lot to win people over, dude
nobody is going to win anyone over who is this deeply lost. One day people are bitching about some rich white kid that got away with rape, the next they are ready to defend and vote for the rich lady who intentionally bypassed record keeping laws and intelligence handling. Oh wait, some black kid just got shot in Baton Rouge, there is your cue to start up the hypocrisy!

DigitalChaos
07-06-2016, 03:19 PM
@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) - gee, maybe we should be increasing the amount of attention these things get instead of just accepting them as normal to the point where we will elect people who do it. Crazy, right? Or hey, maybe this is just "reality" and we all get to deal with it in the name of getting a president who just happens to be 99% shit instead of 100% shit. What a great value! /s

allegro
07-06-2016, 03:22 PM
nobody is going to win anyone over who is this deeply lost. One day people are bitching about some rich white kid that got away with rape, the next they are ready to defend and vote for the rich lady who intentionally bypassed record keeping laws and intelligence handling. Oh wait, some black kid just got shot in Baton Rouge, there is your cue to start up the hypocrisy!
There is ZERO evidence that this was her intention. She kept just as good, if not better, records than the Bush White House and her server was tighter than the fucking FBI's Office of Personnel Management's (unencrypted!) server that handled extremely sensitive NORAD-level security clearance data. Her server was better than the FBI's. Crazy, right?

Here's another idea that was brought up in the above article that you linked: If you mark stuff TOP SECRET, gee, isn't that liable to attract MORE attention than stuff that ISN'T marked TOP SECRET?

Sending out a Christmas message that's marked TOP SECRET? Seriously? Wtf.

Here's another idea: The FBI hack, or Hillary's knowing the shithole that is a typical Government server, might not be the case if the fucking REPUBLICANS would send more money in the direction of a budget dedicated to Homeland Security that improves our computer security DRASTICALLY. Right now, it's for shit. But the Republicans are lucky they can figure out their email. Shit, Hillary only uses her Blackberry to send email, too, she barely uses a computer. McAfee if right: We are fucking DOOMED in the world of computer warfare. We're still in the fucking 80s, we have back doors WIDE OPEN, COME ON IN, TAKE WHAT YOU WANT OUT OF THE FRIDGE, Matthew Broderick War Games probably is still a possibility.

The fact that nobody asked for backups of emails until HRC had not been SoS for a long time and this investigation happened just shows you what a data clusterfuck that DC really is and that she probably really didn't know what she was doing was "wrong" but she was just protecting data because anybody in Government knows what a fucking mess the Government makes of anything related to tech. There is no handbook of protocols, and if there was it was probably written in 1982 and related to COBOL.

And nobody is looking at the giant clusterfuck system, the nuclear warheads that operate off of giant ancient floppy disks, the grid that could be taken down in an instant; instead, they are looking at a single person as if she was doing things for nefarious purposes, when what she was obviously doing was using a system that was superior than the fucking SHIT HOLE that is any Government server (http://www.voanews.com/content/unclassified-computers-hackers-white-house/2710893.html). And the Government never accepts responsibility, never says it's vulnerable, never tries to change it because admitting it seemingly makes them even more vulnerable.

DigitalChaos
07-06-2016, 03:32 PM
There is ZERO evidence that this was her intention.
"but emails disclosed in the report made it clear that she worried that personal emails could be publicly released under the Freedom of Information Act."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/state-department-hillary-clinton-emails.html

but it doesn't matter. People of lesser privilege have been punished for intel mishandling even though they had no intent. (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/kristian-saucier-investigation-hillary-clinton-223646)

Your proposal about classification levels is silly though. External people do not see the classification. The classification is for those with access so they know how to handle the data.

implanted_microchip
07-06-2016, 03:38 PM
nobody is going to win anyone over who is this deeply lost. One day people are bitching about some rich white kid that got away with rape, the next they are ready to defend and vote for the rich lady who intentionally bypassed record keeping laws and intelligence handling. Oh wait, some black kid just got shot in Baton Rouge, there is your cue to start up the hypocrisy!

The idea that you think that raping another living, breathing human being or putting a gun to somebody and pulling the trigger four times while they are in a powerless state and you have multiple non-lethal ways of restraining them are somehow, in some bizarre, fantastical, comic book alternate universe fever dream of a world equivalent to someone sending emails without following the right rules is probably the most absurd thing I've ever seen on this website, and that's saying something; you Evil Knievel'd your way right fucking over every batshit /r/politics-copypasta post from tony and even Bill's famous "I wish Trent would do drugs again" screed and I am almost impressed, holy fucking hell you are a bitter, bitter person who seems wholly deluded to what it is to be sexually abused, and I'm happy because nobody deserves that experience even if they're so fucking stupid that they think it's no different in severity from someone pressing send on an email.

Edit: wow guess who can't be added to ignore lists; I feel my personal liberty being oppressed; I guess I should join the party against the Civil Rights Act

DigitalChaos
07-06-2016, 03:42 PM
it's no different in severity from someone pressing send on an email.

there is the apologist line!
Yeah, that's all it is. she just hit the send button! No federal laws were broken, not even the laws intended to mandate transparency for the lowly citizens. No consquences are even possible that risked the lives of people either! /s

oh wait, that happened... because Hillary had the power to do all of that with the click of a button. So what do you want to do? Give her more power!

allegro
07-06-2016, 03:44 PM
"but emails disclosed in the report made it clear that she worried that personal emails could be publicly released under the Freedom of Information Act."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/state-department-hillary-clinton-emails.html


but emails disclosed in the report made it clear that she worried that personal emails could be publicly released under the Freedom of Information Act. In November 2010, her deputy chief of staff for operations prodded her about “putting you on State email” to protect her email from spam. Mrs. Clinton declined. She replied that while she would consider a using a separate address or device, “I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”

Emails to or from her daughter or husband etc. are PERSONAL and are not subject to FOIA.

We younger people generally have separate work and personal accounts. My boss, who is 70, can't seem to handle having more than one email address so he combines everything in one account. (I have at least 5 email accounts, 3 of which I use all the time. This would certainly give my boss a stroke.)


No consquences are even possible that risked the lives of people either!
There is absolutely zero evidence that anything that happened, anything, while HRC was SoS would be any different had she used a Gov't server, since the Gov't servers are equally unsecured, regularly hacked and for shit. And they were using cell phones. And the newest report showed the she was not the one issuing commands on the ground, and a lack of budgeted funds and a giant clusterfuck of culture-appropriate concerns probably caused the Libya building to not be properly secured.

DigitalChaos
07-06-2016, 03:46 PM
Emails to or from her daughter or husband etc. are PERSONAL and are not subject to FOIA.
good thing she wasn't using that personal email server for anything but personal communications. If she did, it would imply that her FOIA circumvention also applied to FOIA applicable comms and then she might get caught and investigated by the FBI or something.

implanted_microchip
07-06-2016, 03:47 PM
there is the apologist line!
Yeah, that's all it is. she just hit the send button! no federal laws were broken, not even the laws intended to mandate transparency for the lowly citizens. /s

Oh good god how on Earth do you function if you go to a butterfly garden do you just see hundreds of examples of civil liberty violations do you pour bowls of Cheerios only for them to spell out "Hillary Clinton should be indicted" does the weaving of the linen inside of your socks form ancient Sanskrit writings telling you "blind people should be allowed to drive" do you buy bananas while drunk and resent that they had the nerve to be shaped like something as healthy as firearms

You are seriously claiming that if someone is upset about a confirmed rapist -- a rapist; not alleged, not even assault, but just out and out rape -- or that if someone is upset about flat-out execution of somebody for no apparent reason -- but isn't upset about a person sending emails that may or may not have been done knowingly violating rules is some hypocrite "too far gone" because you're just so goddamned pure in your brilliance and it makes you look like a fucking lunatic

DigitalChaos
07-06-2016, 03:49 PM
Oh good god how on Earth do you function if you go to a butterfly garden do you just see hundreds of examples of civil liberty violations do you pour bowls of Cheerios only for them to spell out "Hillary Clinton should be indicted" does the weaving of the linen inside of your socks form ancient Sanskrit writings telling you "blind people should be allowed to drive" do you buy bananas while drunk and resent that they had the nerve to be shaped like something as healthy as firearms

You are seriously claiming that if someone is upset about a confirmed rapist -- a rapist; not alleged, not even assault, but just out and out rape -- or that if someone is upset about flat-out execution of somebody for no apparent reason -- but isn't upset about a person sending emails that may or may not have been done knowingly violating rules is some hypocrite "too far gone" because you're just so goddamned pure in your brilliance and it makes you look like a fucking lunatic
quoting this so I can go back to it the next time you complain about institutional privilege

implanted_microchip
07-06-2016, 03:52 PM
quoting this so I can go back to it the next time you complain about institutional privilege

I'm glad that archiving statements by strangers on the internet so you can lord over some ideal of hypocrisy you subscribe to and impose upon others as if you're a purer, better person because you identify with a fringe set of political views is what you consider a constructive use of your life to such an extent that you want people to know about it

allegro
07-06-2016, 03:54 PM
good thing she wasn't using that personal email server for anything but personal communications. If she did, it would imply that her FOIA circumvention also applied to FOIA applicable comms and then she might get caught and investigated by the FBI or something.
Look at the entire quote, it's obvious we are missing some of the data. Her deputy chief of operations wanted even her PERSONAL account on a STATE server to "avoid spam." She didn't want her personal email on a State server, because anything on a State server is subject to FOIA.

You don't like her, so you are what we call in law "reaching."

Even the CIA director's personal email account is on AOL (https://www.wired.com/2015/10/hacker-who-broke-into-cia-director-john-brennan-email-tells-how-he-did-it/).

But it was shown that HRC's staff went to great lengths to make backups of the server of the non-personal records.

implanted_microchip
07-06-2016, 03:58 PM
You don't like her, so you are what we call in law "reaching."


Well obviously then allegro you're a hypocrite too deeply lost and can never get mad about rape or murder again

DigitalChaos
07-06-2016, 03:59 PM
You don't like her, so you are what we call in law "reaching."

return to here (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/3669-2016-Presidential-Election?p=308088#post308088) and tell me which of those I am reaching on too. I am merely keeping a standard regardless of political party.
You know where I stand on the OPM hack too. None of this should be allowed. People should be punished for this shit, not rewarded with more power.

allegro
07-06-2016, 04:03 PM
return to here (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/3669-2016-Presidential-Election?p=308088#post308088) and tell me which of those I am reaching on too. I am merely keeping a standard regardless of political party.
You know where I stand on the OPM hack too. None of this should be allowed. People should be punished for this shit, not rewarded with more power.

She didn't get more power; in my opinion, she merely thought it was allowed because she saw other SoSs before her do it (or what she thought were separate servers) e.g. Rice and Powell. Nobody in D.C. trusts the Government servers and they know that there's not much they can do to change it without a, haha, Act of Congress, and since the Republicans have been CUTTING funds, not adding (SEE ALSO TSA CUTS, and now they're allegedly automating the TSA and boy that should make us safer, eh?). In my opinion, if I was HRC, I'd have done the same damned thing. This isn't fucking Watergate.

allegro
07-06-2016, 04:05 PM
Well obviously then allegro you're a hypocrite too deeply lost and can never get mad about rape or murder again
Yeah, that's me, I'm lost and I don't know anything. But, boy, that DigitalChaos, he's got it all figured out. Including drumming up criminal charges even when the law doesn't define them as criminal charges. If I fart, I can be arrested for nuclear emissions. No, that's not law but my crazy hippy neighbor says so, so off I go to prison.

I'll bring a can of Glade.

DigitalChaos
07-06-2016, 04:09 PM
She didn't get more power; in my opinion
Not yet. Look what thread you are posting in.

allegro
07-06-2016, 04:11 PM
Not yet. Look what thread you are posting in.
Remember that there is a Balance of Power.

* Executive Branch: Executes the Laws, Enforces the Laws

* Legislatives Branch: Creates the Laws

* Judicial Branch: Interprets the Law, Applies the Laws

aggroculture
07-06-2016, 05:52 PM
Were you as dismissive of these things going unpunished:
- Wall Street fraud that caused the financial crisis
- The torture that was implemented by our politicians and military
- The various war crimes of the Bush presidency

No, I am still outraged that shit has gone unpunished. It's good to see Tony Blair sweat a little today from the Chilcot Report. IF ONLY the US had the guts to do a Chilcot on Dubya and Cheney. But yeah, not going to happen. Let's get mad about emails sent from home instead of from work! Things that matter.

Frozen Beach
07-07-2016, 11:25 AM
Comey is getting grilled by the house oversight committee

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AGkTUzSFwg

allegro
07-07-2016, 11:33 AM
Comey is getting grilled by the house oversight committee

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AGkTUzSFwg

Mr. Cooper is right: Comey is a lifelong Republican who is doing his job, and Clinton wouldn't be treated any differently even is she wasn't running for President because the laws have to be observed; this committee is now interested in "transparency in the election" which is far beyond the scope of the FBI's job and it's a partisan bunch of crap. That's not Comey's job. A lot of these guys are hypocrites, plain and simple.

GulDukat
07-07-2016, 01:39 PM
Comey is getting grilled by the house oversight committee

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AGkTUzSFwg
Been watching for hours. All this proves is what a bunch of assholes the Republicans are.

DF118
07-07-2016, 02:15 PM
Thank you so much for your time Mr Director. I think I speak for us all when I say how grateful we are for your years of service. Now answer our questions you bastard. What are you, useless? Also, should Hillary be president, yes or no?

***

I like it how they're trying to define and re-define "criminal intent".

Mantra
07-07-2016, 05:00 PM
People of lesser privilege have been punished for intel mishandling even though they had no intent. (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/kristian-saucier-investigation-hillary-clinton-223646)

To me, this is kind of a strange argument.

The people you are referring to have mostly been prosecuted for unjustifiable reasons. So invoking their punishment as an argument for why Hillary should be prosecuted doesn't really make sense, because neither Hillary NOR those people should be facing charges. You don't rectify the injustice of Chelsea Manning's imprisonment by getting Hillary in trouble too. You fix it by releasing Chelsea.

aggroculture
07-07-2016, 05:21 PM
I hope that Obama pardons Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden before he steps down.
I can see why he would wait until after the election: after then, what's his excuse? He should have embraced them as valuable truth-tellers from beginning.

allegro
07-07-2016, 06:44 PM
I hope that Obama pardons Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden before he steps down.
I can see why he would wait until after the election: after then, what's his excuse? He should have embraced them as valuable truth-tellers from beginning.
Sadly, I hope he does it sooner than later (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/chelsea-manning-rushed-to-hospital-after-trying-to-take-life-a7122971.html).

implanted_microchip
07-09-2016, 03:23 PM
Guess who likes Hillary's health care platform

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/sanders-praises-clinton-health-care-plan-225328

onthewall2983
07-11-2016, 08:35 AM
The Washington Times: Pence has "95% chance of being Trump's VP pick", according to insiders (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/10/donald-trump-likely-choose-indiana-gov-mike-pence-/)