***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[RustyShackleford]

You're the one ignoring all the information provided by these leaked emails... not I

So the only objective conclusion to everything in regards to the leaked emails were... the Russians are influencing US elections?

So you don't care about all the details surrounding...

“severely backwards”

“self-righteous” whiners

“needy Latinos”

“FOB” (Friends of Bill)

“WJC VIPs” (William Jefferson Clinton VIPs),

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, sometime in the future with energy that’s as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”

"So, you need both a public and a private position.”

“Obviously, I’m kind of far removed because the life I’ve lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy,

“an expectation of a quid pro quo benefits in return for gifts.”

“[Qatar] Would like to see WJC ‘for five minutes’ in NYC, to present $1 million check that Qatar promised for WJC’s birthday in 2011,

And as a Bernie supporter you're NOT at all upset about this Podesta email?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/07/leaked-podesta-emails-show-bernie-was-right.html

Ah nah nothing to be upset about... let's just keep talking crap about the idiot Trump and all the stupid things he says on the daily.

What should I be upset about exactly?

And miss me with that strawman, like we don't have policy discussions in here.

And I never said the content of the emails should be ignored. I'm telling you we shouldn't ignore the motivation for these leaks.

 

[whywesteppin]

The way I see it, information is [almost] always good.

But... it's obvious Assange is leaking this information with an agenda. Does that mean it's no longer useful? No, it doesn't. But it puts him in a position where his impartiality may be jeopardized. If he's timing the release of his information, that's borderline. If he's releasing some things but not other things, then I think we do need to call his objectivity into question.

There are other major flaws behind this, as people have touched on. And I think anyone reading the leaks needs to do so with the following two things in mind:

First is that it's difficult to put a leak into perspective, at least for random kids on the internet. I mean I'm sure you could go through my 100,000s of emails from the past decade and find many lines or paragraphs that sound awful (maybe I'm just an awful person). But we need to be cautious.

A good exercise would be to hack and release the emails of 100 different politicians from both parties and then scour them for unsavory details and see if there is a meaningful difference.

Second is that the leaks aren't equally covering all the relevant issues. Do Assange's leaks address systemic racism, police bias/brutality, economic inequality, xenophobia, etc.? Is that stuff present in DNC emails? I don't know, I haven't read them all. But I'd be curious if what's hidden in the emails is as bad as what Hillary's opponent has been saying publicly for the past year.

 

[Master Zik]

zero experience in politics

in our pay-to-play political system, this is a plus

If it's a pay to play political system and he has zero experience with that (which is a lie if we're specifically talking about pay to play) how is it a plus?

Means he has less political 'commitments' / might actually rep public interests

If you don't have experience at something that's not a good thing.

Donald not having political comittments and waiting to see if he'll have the public's interests completely ignores him having his own interests.

Worse off there's the rumors from his own campaign he won't even be doing his job and we'll have to worry about Pence running the show and his republican political commitments.

 

[sundoobie]

The way I see it, information is [almost] always good.

But... it's obvious Assange is leaking this information with an agenda. Does that mean it's no longer useful? No, it doesn't. But it puts him in a position where his impartiality may be jeopardized. If he's timing the release of his information, that's borderline. If he's releasing some things but not other things, then I think we do need to call his objectivity into question.

There are other major flaws behind this, as people have touched on. And I think anyone reading the leaks needs to do so with the following two things in mind:

First is that it's difficult to put a leak into perspective, at least for random kids on the internet. I mean I'm sure you could go through my 100,000s of emails from the past decade and find many lines or paragraphs that sound awful (maybe I'm just an awful person). But we need to be cautious.

A good exercise would be to hack and release the emails of 100 different politicians from both parties and then scour them for unsavory details and see if there is a meaningful difference.

Second is that the leaks aren't equally covering all the relevant issues. Do Assange's leaks address systemic racism, police bias/brutality, etc.?

Or Clinton can just go on National TV and say listen the HRC campaign worked with the DNC together against Bernie. Yeah it's not fair but I am next up.. Obama said so.

Or Clinton can release and explain to us about those paid Wall St. speeches so we know exactly her positions with powerful banks.

Can't be that hard to be honest? Right?

 

[RustyShackleford]

-She beat Bernie fair, she won the popular vote by over 3 million, and one every minority dominated or diverse state. The DNC didn't decide Hillary was going to be the nominee, minorities did.

-Her stance on Wall St. is pretty clear. She wants regulations, but not on the level of Warren and Sanders.

 

[ben roethlisberger]

For the life of me I can't figure why people think Trump is going to have altruistic intentions if he wins.

Really? You can't figure it out?

It's the same reasons why people believe the same of Hilary.

 

[RustyShackleford]

No one is relying on Hillary being altruistic.

 

[RIP sleazyy]

RustyShackleford

-Comey is a Republican heading a independent government organization. What higher ups does he answer to? Definitely not Obama, and Obama even said that he would charge Clinton if the FBI recommended it. And I'm going to stop this strawman right now. I have freely and opnely admitted her behavior was stupid, arrogant and irresponsible. That doesn't make it criminal, that doesn't mean a prosecutor will be able to get a conviction. So no matter how many "FBI agents" you cite, it doesn't change that.

I don't know who he answers to, but IMO he didn't come to the conclusion to not pursue charges against her on his own. When people within the FBI, who would know better than you and I about the situation, are upset that no charges were brought it should make you think harder about the situation. She mishandled classified info which is a crime. Therefore criminal. But she skated on it.

-Did you pay attention during the primaries? It was Trump getting most of the positive coverage. Not Hillary, not Bernie, but Trump. The media helped his rise and legitimized him because they couldn't stop talking about him.

When the FBI was getting close to their decision, the media was ll over it. When she had a bad week, the media was all over it. When she lost states to Bernie, the media was all over it. The media has always been fixated on Trump, the thing is that they have flipped from positive coverage to harshly negative. Partly because they are digging deeper into his past and finding more stuff. Hillary has been in the media's spotlight for over two decades, all the "dirt" they have seemingly found on her has come our over a longer period of time. We are just getting the Trump coverage in one large shot

Not much attention to the TV coverage, I was following loosely online. I wouldn't even call Trump's coverage positive, he was just getting a lot of coverage.

We need to have the Hillary coverage just like the Trump coverage. Just because the dirt has been out or been collected over time doesn't mean it shouldn't be covered currently or revisited. That's what journalists are supposed to be there for. Trump's discriminatory housing practices were known before this election but they sure as hell came back during this election cycle.

-And regarding the Democratic side. Let us first remember Hillary was a overwhelming favorite in the race (more than 200 over Bernie. Bernie was always going to be disadvantage because he was unknown. That is not some big media conspiracy. It seems like your argument, and Bernie's at the time, was that the media was helping his campaign. Not that they were actively against it, they weren't spreading his message. But on the flip side, isn't that Bernie's job? He cried about the media costing him, and at the same time barely campaign in some states.

I find it funny that people will post post Wikileaks info like that proves media collusion, but never stop to look at the content those journalist posted about the candidates. For example Maddow and Haynes where big Sanders supporters that were talking shots at Clinton daily. The Nation, Atlantic, Free Republic, Mother Jones, MSNBC, and all "liberal" news outlets had people pushing for Bernie over Hillary.

And when the media did turn to Bernie and was like "Ummmm, your economic plans are gonna cost a lot and the GOP won't work with you" he took it as an attack, when it was a important policy discussion. At some point everyone on the left has to come to terms that Hillary washed Bernie fairly. The DNC did show a ridiculously unprofessional level of favoritism but he would have still caught the "L". She took he race more seriously than him, she out maneuvering him in campaigning, she could explain her policies better, she could perform just as well with him in a debate, and she won over minorities. And let that be a lesson to the next progressive that runs, not as some baseless charge against Hillary.

-I gave Bernie nearly 2 grand, and sat through a damb caucus in Nevada. You have any idea how ******* nuts people in Nevada are famb? I did that for Bernie, and if he runs again I will do it again. But I have my issues with how the man campaign and pushed his message. Those things are more important to discuss than this idea that some "conspiracy" costed him the nomination. Especially when has been proven the Clinton machine can be beaten.

Bernie being unknown was definitely not helped by severe lack of coverage. The media will help spread Trump's messages and Hillary's messages but Bernie is supposed to go all in himself? You open;y admit they showed favoritism to Hillary. That in itself takes fairness out of the equation. I don't think it's a conspiracy, it's plain as day things were tilted out of his favor from the jump.

His economic plans were def **** though I agree with that

 

[ben roethlisberger]

No one is relying on Hillary being altruistic.

You are relying on her being honest and making good on her campaign promises. True or false?

 

[whywesteppin]

SunDoobie, I see where you're coming from, and I wish we could have had substantive discussion about policies regarding regulating wall street, election reform, foreign policy, etc.

But instead she is on stage with a bumbling idiot who is more eager to discuss Rosie O'Donell's weight or the size of his ****. And, when he is actually engaged in a real discussion, his utter ignorance and his reliance on simple-minded and disproven theories becomes obvious.

It's a shame. It would be like the Broncos (my team) making it to the Super Bowl, and their opponent spends the whole 60 minutes sending streakers on the field and trying to win the game on a technicality.

And, last thing, I feel there is some fatigue now over leaks and emails regarding Hillary. I mean what is the smoking gun people are hoping for? That she arranged a murder? That she approved a plan to infect the homeless to test out a new drug and in turn got paid? That she purposefully caused major traffic congestion to embarrass her political opponents? That she has a history of sexually harassing her male interns and then bragged about it to friends? The leaks have largely been composed of her playing politics, sometimes dirty, and all the stuff against her is the other side playing politics, sometimes dirty, to try to take her out.

As for the 2 specific issues you raised:

1) I don't think she needs to say the DNC rigged the election, but I do think she should call for reforms to the nomination process.

2) I personally never saw the interest in what she said in paid private speeches. I mean if we could, we should see what every politician says in every private conversation, but we can't. So instead we judge them by their actions and what they say publicly. From what has been leaked, I haven't seen an obvious secret plan in Hillary's Wall St speeches (something like, "Now donate so I can become President, and then I will undertake a series of clandestine operations to take over the world, and then appoint you all princes in my new empire." Not, "I think free trade is great and I envision a prosperous future for the world."). So I don't need to know what she whispers to Bill about her dreams for the world before they fall asleep.

No one is relying on Hillary being altruistic.

You are relying on her being honest and making good on her campaign promises. True or false?

One of Trump's biggest arguments for his candidacy is that he is going to be a selfless president because he already has money and power, so he will only use the presidency to help out the average American.

It's such BS on so many levels.

Hillary and her supporters haven't used that simple-minded and incredibly naive argument as a key pillar of her candidacy.

 

[RustyShackleford]

-You don't know who he answers to so it is conjecture to assume that someone else made him come to that conclusion. I'm sorry, but I;m not going to agree with your position when you're admitting you don't even know who would force their hand. And FBI agents have political leanings too. It is not like all of them that are experts in the legal dealings regarding the information came out and said Hillary has to be charged.

-What she did was not criminal. Maybe it should be, but that was Comey's point, none of the laws on the books would have given a prosecutor a chance to get a conviction. So please, stop telling me how criminal her acts were.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-clinton-email-legal-analysis-20160705-snap-story.html

Federal law makes it a crime for a trusted U.S. official to “knowingly and willfully” disclose or transmit secret information to an “unauthorized person.” A second law makes it a crime to “remove” secret documents kept by the government or to allow them to be stolen through “gross negligence.”

Neither law applies clearly or directly to what FBI Director James B. Comey described Tuesday as Hillary Clinton’s “extremely careless” handling of classified emails that were sent through her private system when she was the secretary of State.


“It’s just not a crime under current law to do nothing more than share sensitive information over unsecured networks,” said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas. “Maybe it should be, but that's something for Congress to decide going forward.”

Comey made clear, Vladeck said, that “however much we might want federal law to make her carelessness a crime, nothing she did falls within the letter of the relevant federal criminal statutes.”

illary Clinton also used the department’s secure email system for transmitting classified information, but the FBI found that some of the regular communications with her staff on the personal server involved facts and details that she should have known were classified. In a few cases, the emails bore markings to indicate they contained classified information.

However, investigators did not find evidence she knowingly or intentionally disclosed government secrets or that she exposed secrets through gross negligence. Clinton’s apparent interest was in maintaining her privacy.

In the end, Comey, a deputy attorney general under President George W. Bush, said Clinton’s careless conduct fell short of a crime because there was no evidence of “clearly intentional and willful mishandling” of classified information and no sign of “disloyalty” or an effort to “obstruct justice.”

“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,” Comey said.

-The media, especially the cable media is not here to be fair and balance There job is to get ratings. Trump gets them rating so for good or bad, they focused on him this cycle.

There are tons of alternative news outlets where people could read a other opinions on the races. Hillary is the favorite and bigger name, of course she will get more coverage my default.

And spreading your message is literally what campaigning about. Clinton game planned the use of the media to her advantage, while Bernie sat back and got pissed they were giving him equal time. I mean if you want to go down this road, where is the liquor pour out for Martin O'Malley

 

[RustyShackleford]

No one is relying on Hillary being altruistic.

You are relying on her being honest and making good on her campaign promises. True or false?

What does that have to do with her being altusitic?

Her picking a progressive Supreme Court Justice has nothing to do with altruism, her believing in basic Keynesian and nothing to do with altruism, her wanting the country to get to universal coverage has nothing to do with altruism.

So I don't even know what you're getting at.

-Where as Trump completely flipped on his tax policy, within the election one election cycle. Dude went from a demand side Keynesian to a supply-side neoclassical. He already tipped his hand he is out for himself, so believe he isn't, is hoping he will be altruistic

Comparing Trump and Clinton in this area is another false equivalency

 

[aepps20]

McCain is a clown. He tipped his hand on the Supreme Court.

 

[seandon23]

And spreading your message is literally what campaigning about. Clinton game planned the use of the media to her advantage, while Bernie sat back and got pissed they were giving him equal time. I mean if you want to go down this road, where is the liquor pour out for Martin O'Malley

Poor O'Malley dude never had a chance lmao

 

[ben roethlisberger]

al·tru·ism
ˈaltro͞oˌizəm/
noun
the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.

Is that not the point of the entire campaign spectacle? To ensure the public that he or she is going to look out for their best interests above all else?

Other than political party allegiance, most people vote for which candidate makes them feel good about him or her. And that "feel goodness" is more about persuasion than it is about truth, ideas or integrity.

Both candidates are equal in that regard.

 

[RIP sleazyy]

I'm not asking you to agree, but just knowing the shadiness of the FBI and Clintons in general and their behind the scenes actions makes me personally question the motives when he came out and said how wrong and improper the situation was yet decided to not do a single thing about it. Ignoring her technically not breaking any laws, the wiping of the emails was in violation of the FRA but wasn't investigated afaik. Comey even said himself he believed she violated this act.

I think it definitely should be criminal and congress needs to get on that. That "intent" BS helped her slide.

Majority of people do not get their news or info from alternative outlets, it's the big few news stations and outlets and they weren't covering Bern. Most people don't even look for more info beyond what they see on TV. My immediate family didn't even know dude existed until I started telling them about him and they saw him speak for Hillary. And they all came to the conclusion that if they knew who he was they probably would have been riding with him. I can agree that's partially his fault as well, son got kinda lazy and seemed discouraged towards the end.

We not gon speak on O'Malley right now

Rusty I appreciate that we can disagree with each other and keep things civil. You a real *** dude.

 

[whywesteppin]

that's what i want ultimately is reforms.

trump has made it clear he took advantage of the laws because he could. and i kind of agree with his thinking, not from his perspective, but from society/government's perspective. we don't fix things by blaming individuals. we fix things by fixing the system. which is opposite of the thought process of the average Republican but that's another discussion.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I'm not asking you to agree, but just knowing the shadiness of the FBI and Clintons in general and their behind the scenes actions makes me personally question the motives when he came out and said how wrong and improper the situation was yet decided to not do a single thing about it. Ignoring her technically not breaking any laws, the wiping of the emails was in violation of the FRA but wasn't investigated afaik. Comey even said himself he believed she violated this act.

I think it definitely should be criminal and congress needs to get on that. That "intent" BS helped her slide.

Majority of people do not get their news or info from alternative outlets, it's the big few news stations and outlets and they weren't covering Bern. Most people don't even look for more info beyond what they see on TV. My immediate family didn't even know dude existed until I started telling them about him and they saw him speak for Hillary. And they all came to the conclusion that if they knew who he was they probably would have been riding with him. I can agree that's partially his fault as well, son got kinda lazy and seemed discouraged towards the end.

We not gon speak on O'Malley right now

Rusty I appreciate that we can disagree with each other and keep things civil. You a real *** dude.

You lucky brah, I was just about to lose my cool and ask you if your grandma every been a victim of armed robbery.

And my mans Martin aka Young Carcetti aka Baltimore Blanco can't get no air time . Dat Clinton Machine got to you too famb

 

[wubalubadubdub]

Just reading through the last few pages. If you don't think the Hillary case was a coordinated effort to get her and her people off free, it's hard for me to find you objective. Just admit the outcome was predetermined and that you're okay with it because trump would be significantly worse. The way immunity was handed out is laughable. You give immunity to little fish to get big fish, you don't give immunity to the entire ocean

add the destruction of evidence. Commey helped cover it up i don't care what party he belongs to.

You can argue that the server issue itself isn't that serious, but people having no faith in the justice dept. Anf FBI doing proper investigations is a big deal

 

[RustyShackleford]

Just reading through the last few pages. If you don't think the Hillary case was a coordinated effort to get her and her people off free, it's hard for me to find you objective. Just admit the outcome was predetermined and that you're okay with it because trump would be significantly worse. The way immunity was handed out is laughable. You give immunity to little fish to get big fish, you don't give immunity to the entire ocean

add the destruction of evidence. Commey helped cover it up i don't care what party he belongs to.

Thank you for adding nothing to the discussion.

 

[RIP sleazyy]

that's what i want ultimately is reforms.

trump has made it clear he took advantage of the laws because he could. and i kind of agree with his thinking, not from his perspective, but from society/government's perspective. we don't fix things by blaming individuals. we fix things by fixing the system. which is opposite of the thought process of the average Republican but that's another discussion.

I like how you think.

 

[RustyShackleford]

al·tru·ism
ˈaltro͞oˌizəm/
noun
the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.

Is that not the point of the entire campaign spectacle? To ensure the public that he or she is going to look out for their best interests above all else?

Other than political party allegiance, most people vote for which candidate makes them feel good about him or her. And that "feel goodness" is more about persuasion than it is about truth, ideas or integrity.

Both candidates are equal in that regard.

Hmmmm, nah.

The point of a cmapaign is to win over voters by presenting solution to the issues facing the country. At the end of the day most presidential candidates give some idea of how they are going to tackle differenrt issues, and if Congress allows, they try their best to follow through. Not just some sense of altrusim that make them so that, they want to get reelected.

-As a thought exercise:

The only way Hillary can keep all her promises is if she has a liberal Democratic supermajoirty. The only way Trump can keep his if he has a conservative GOP supermajorty.

And would be the consequences of either of those things happening. In Hillary's world the lower classes get the most of help, in Trump's world the upper classes get the most help. Especially people just like Trump.

Still liviing in these made up worlds: Hillary Clinton would have to do a flip flop to screw her base (i.e vetoing things a Supermajorty Congress sent to her), all Trump has to do is follow through with his plans to screw his base, hell even if he doesn't get everything he wants he just sign whatever Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell sends to him.

Add to that the Democratic base generally votes for their self interest, where as because of the large amoung of poor white in the GOP base, a large part of the GOP base votes against their self interest.

Hillary keeping with her platform if she has the chance is not her being altruistic. Trump going against his platform to help the lil man would require him being altrusitic

They are not the same

 

[Belgium]

GOP gonna GOP

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...clintons-presidency.html?mid=twitter-share-di

 In an interview  touting fellow Republican Senator Pat Toomey, McCain pledges that he and his party will continue the Supreme Court blockade throughout Clinton’s term. “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up,” McCain said. “I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered.”

Edit: already walked back his comments 

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...pledge-to-block-clinton-supreme-court-nominee

 

[RustyShackleford]

GOP gonna GOP
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...clintons-presidency.html?mid=twitter-share-di

 In an interview
 touting fellow Republican Senator Pat Toomey, McCain pledges that he and his party will continue the Supreme Court blockade throughout Clinton’s term. “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up,” McCain said. “I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered.”

Not even surprised at this **** boy behavior anymore

 

[Master Zik]

No one is relying on Hillary being altruistic.

You are relying on her being honest and making good on her campaign promises. True or false?

You not talking about the same kind of altruism in comparison to what was brought up about Donald

Then again this does tie in to this come save us falsehood ppl have about the presidency. The Democratic branches of government are there for a reason but w/e.

When you buy in to the concept of Donald's I'm the only one that can save you though I can see how easily you can be fooled.