2016 Democratic Thread

[StrangeSox]

I have to say, the couple of "Actually, this is Good for Clinton" takes I've seen are pretty funny.

 

http://shareblue.com/hillary-clintons-feat...h-conspiracies/

[bmags]

I've never passed out from dehydration and never drink water. Clinton probably has cancer.

[bmags]

If Assange was a hack we wouldn't know who he is.

Then why must I know who Ron Fournier is? This isn't fair.

[greg775]

This won't matter in a few days tops. It's not going to cause anyone who is planning on voting Clinton to suddenly consider voting Trump or being okay with him as president.

 

Crazy alternate theory: this was a brilliant staged plan to get the irredeemable comments out of the news cycle!

I agree. I despise Hillary, but wish her well health wise. Also, I have no reason to believe Hillary's doctor is lying. I mean why would a doctor lie? So she has pneumonia. That's scary. She needs to lay low for a week and get over it. But it's nothing to rip her for. Pneumonia can be a b**** for older people. I'm not trying to rip her saying she's old. My mom had it last winter and almost died. It's nasty s***, though from what I read Hillary's case isn't that bad.

[DrunkBomber]

You were right greg. Her pneumonia wasn't the bad case where you're on bed rest. My mom had pneumonia once, she ended up in the hospital. Oddly enough, it's how she met my dad. That's a bad case. Hillary's got better quick. Here she is sometime after she left an event after fainting due to pneumonia later: "I feel great."

 

Between stuff like this and Bill Clinton telling people at a rally that Make America Great Again is a racist term even though there are videos of him using it in three different campaigns, she is some how managing to Out-Trump, Trump.

[caulfield12]

Between stuff like this and Bill Clinton telling people at a rally that Make America Great Again is a racist term even though there are videos of him using it in three different campaigns, she is some how managing to Out-Trump, Trump.

 

Slightly different context.

 

Do all the Trump voters really want to have the price of their iphones and nearly every good at Wal-Mart increase by 45%? Because doing that will apparently bring back all those lost blue collar jobs that used to pay decent, liveable wages.

[StrangeSox]

An oral history of air force one on 9/11 (non partisan, just an interesting story)

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/201...-the-sky-214230

Edited September 12, 2016 by StrangeSox

[lostfan]

You were right greg. Her pneumonia wasn't the bad case where you're on bed rest. My mom had pneumonia once, she ended up in the hospital. Oddly enough, it's how she met my dad. That's a bad case. Hillary's got better quick. Here she is sometime after she left an event after fainting due to pneumonia: "I feel great."

 

Walking pneumonia. Bacterial infection, antiobiotics, she'll be fine after a few days.

[bmags]

If you think Assange is a hack after the Manning Leaks, Snowden assistance, DNC Leaks, etc. you're probably just biased.

 

HRC is a lifetime politician with skeletons in closets from all over the world who is pretending to be the people's champion. There's a lot of room for investigative journalism. She's also part of the administration that tried to use their international presence to indefinitely imprison Assange for his work so yes, he has added personal incentive to go at her.

 

In any case, after the FBI found she committed a felony and lied several times and still let her off, I think it's safe to assume she'll be fine regardless of Assange.

 

The FBI did not found she committed a felony, and I would encourage you to actually read that report.

 

As for the rest, sure, he may have set up an organization to do that. But you become a "hack" when your goal to promote government transparency seems to be narrowly focused to western governments and strangely absent on critical documents of, say, Russia. You become a hack when your twitter feed and personal comments express anti-semitism. You become a hack when you apparently are fine holding documents to dump at the right time (to hurt Clinton campaign and elect a very pro-transparency Trump), but are not fine reviewing the documents that you are holding to make sure you don't out homosexuals in countries where they could be murdered for it and release personal bank information for thousands of innocent people.

 

Why again wasn't wikileaks involved in the panama papers? Was it their commitment to transparency? Pretty weird.

 

Why didn't they publish emails that showed Syria sending a cash transfer to Russia? Was that also their commitment to transparency and not being pro-Russia hacks?

 

Maybe they didn't used to be hacks, but now are. But, I mean, I didn't even get to the tweets where they pulled emails from the DNC hack, had no idea what they menat, and tried to get them to sound ominous like when an aide asked to get a video copy of a segment from MSNBC, but their "twitter team" thought it meant they were asking to "pull the segment" as in, "don't air it".

 

Now, maybe I'm being unfair. The New York Times has some incredble work and sometimes has hack work.

 

But Wikileaks at some point needs to answer why it consistently fails to be transparent when the topic is Russian operatives and Oligarchs.

[bmags]

Walking pneumonia. Bacterial infection, antiobiotics, she'll be fine after a few days.

 

No, no, this is a scandal.

[StrangeSox]

Wiki leaks actively denounced the Panama papers as an anti Russian smear job.

 

I think Glen Greenwald is a sanctimonious ass with far too high of an opinion of himself and too narrow an understanding or interest in policy, but I wouldn't call him a hack or a stooge like Assange. Recognizing wikileaks for what they are these days isn't some sort of partisan thing, and plenty of other pro transparency groups including Snowden himself have called them out for their sloppy and reckless methods.

[StrangeSox]

Slightly different context.

 

Do all the Trump voters really want to have the price of their iphones and nearly every good at Wal-Mart increase by 45%? Because doing that will apparently bring back all those lost blue collar jobs that used to pay decent, liveable wages.

 

Those jobs aren't coming back anyway. We produce more in this country than ever before, but so much of it is automated. If tariffs drove production costs too high for foreign manufacturing, we'd just get more automated factories here that employ a small number of highly educated people.

 

That's not to say the status quo is a good thing, but a tariff war won't solve it.

[lostfan]

CNN's election coverage this year is the worst I've ever seen. I'm including Fox News in this because Fox doesn't really pretend to be something it's not (or at least they give the thinnest of pretenses that they're not the official communications arm of the RNC).

 

What are Hillary Clinton's policy proposals? What would she actually do if she was president? I'm asking rhetorically, but those questions have answers, and you wouldn't be able to answer them if you rely on CNN for president. But you will be able to see the latest Trump ramblings, a couple of pointless arguments over them, whatever Breitbart and Drudge are saying about Clinton that day, etc. (I would mention that they don't talk about Trump's policy proposals but he doesn't actually have any, and people have tried asking.)

[bmags]

Man this is brutal:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016...p-remembers-911

[bmags]

No way. no way you believe this:

 

"While I love my country, what Russia is doing is more noble than what the USA is doing when looking at this as a citizen of the world as opposed to a citizen of the USA."

 

By your very response, you believe that Assange is acting out of personal self interest, but an interest that your share "transparency".

 

Do you believe that Russia helps Snowden out of interest of transparency? What tears do you shed for those that try to bring transparency and actually get murdered, not just "fear they'll be imprisoned" like Greenwald but ... never have been.

 

Here - here is your most conservative estimate: https://cpj.org/killed/europe/russia/

 

56 Journalists killed.

 

There's also the Russians that tried to investigate this:http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439060/vladimir-putin-1999-russian-apartment-house-bombings-was-putin-responsible

 

All dead. Cept for that guy.

 

Great citizen of the world and pro-transparency org.

 

 

[bmags]

You are more concerned with the methods but aren't concerned about murder?

 

In other words, charging Snowden with stealing classified information is beyond the pale, but murdering people as long as they are targeted at Russian or Chinese targets is perfectly fine?

 

Journalists are disappearing from Hong Kong. Is China pro-transparency? They hack the US too.

[bmags]

By the way here is more insanity on the trump foundation:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how...db62_story.html

 

Fahrenholdt has been doing pretty difficult but classic journalistic legwork.

 

Very interesting stuff here:

First, he stopped giving his own money.

 

His contribution shrank to $35,000 in 2007.

 

Then to $30,000 in 2008.

 

Then to $0.

 

At the same time, Trump’s foundation began to fill with money from other people.

 

But in many other cases, his biggest donors have not wanted to say why they gave their own money, when Trump was giving none of his.

 

“I don’t have time for this. Thank you,” said Richard Ebers, a ticket broker in New York City who has given the Trump Foundation $1.9 million since 2011.

 

“No. No. No. I’m not going to comment on anything. I’m not answering any of your questions,” said John Stark, the chief executive of a carpet company that has donated $64,000 over the years.

 

Vince and Linda McMahon declined to comment.

Edited September 14, 2016 by bmags

[StrangeSox]

raBBit do you consider yourself unbiased?

[StrangeSox]

The US hegemony isn't exactly fantastic but lol if you think a Russian or Chinese one would be better in pretty much any conceivable way. You're wrapping around the horseshoe into full tankie territory now.

[StrangeSox]

By the way here is more insanity on the trump foundation:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how...db62_story.html

 

Fahrenholdt has been doing pretty difficult but classic journalistic legwork.

 

Very interesting stuff here:

First, he stopped giving his own money.

 

His contribution shrank to $35,000 in 2007.

 

Then to $30,000 in 2008.

 

Then to $0.

 

At the same time, Trump’s foundation began to fill with money from other people.

 

But in many other cases, his biggest donors have not wanted to say why they gave their own money, when Trump was giving none of his.

 

“I don’t have time for this. Thank you,” said Richard Ebers, a ticket broker in New York City who has given the Trump Foundation $1.9 million since 2011.

 

“No. No. No. I’m not going to comment on anything. I’m not answering any of your questions,” said John Stark, the chief executive of a carpet company that has donated $64,000 over the years.

 

Vince and Linda McMahon declined to comment.

 

I've been following his "Trump gave essentially no money to charity ever" stories for a couple of months now. He's the one who first shamed Trump into finally donating that $1M to the veterans' group he raised back when he skipped a primary debate.

[bmags]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend is how a lot of people convinced themselves that a lot of much worse people and actors are fine just because they are smaller.

 

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

https://twitter.com/Scott_Gilmore/status/77...src=twsrc%5Etfw

[StrangeSox]

Government is evil.

 

No one is unbiased. My bias is that I don't believe in bipartisanship. I am interested in solutions (not that I have them), I don't subscribe to ideologies. When news happens I'll know where you sit on the issue before you post a link to vox.com because you subscribe to one side of the aisle. I don't have that constraint.

 

Partisanship and ideology aren't the same thing, and if you don't think you're clearly tacking along some obvious ideological lines, you should reexamine. Your posts are shot through with some pretty hardcore libertarian and isolationist ideologies. Which is fine! Be honest with yourself and don't try to pretend that you're somehow above it all and just taking every atomized event on a completely rational and non-ideologically motivated basis. I think most of the posters here could make a decent generalized guess at where you'd stand on a given piece of news as well, or at least on any piece of news that touches on topics you've posted on previously--disdain for government in general, hardcore pro-capitalist, pro-Assange/Greenwald/etc. isolationist and anti-Western military, typical conservative views on American academia.

 

 

The US hegemony isn't exactly fantastic but lol if you think a Russian or Chinese one would be better in pretty much any conceivable way.

I never said that but you can keep putting words in my mouth.

While I love my country, what Russia is doing is more noble than what the USA is doing

 

You said Russia was more noble with regards to government transparency. They aren't; they're opportunistically helping someone who damages western countries in ways that benefit Russia--makes plenty of sense from a geopolitical standpoint, but it's not a noble stance and they're just as awful as the US government if not worse when it comes to these same issues.

Edited September 12, 2016 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

You're all over the place here so it's really hard to follow. You're making a lot of assumptions on what I do and don't believe. I take things on a case by case. Russia murdering journalists ins't relevant to the topic at hand. You can take the way Russia's murdering journos and write off everything they do as bad. If that's fair, then I could take the way our government drone bombs innocent Yemeni's all year long and how Yemeni's love cloudy days because our government won't run the drones through to murder their families and say every part of our government is bad. On that same level, if I said we had jounos here died unexpectedly you would say I am a loon conspiracy theorist. However, we have documents released exposing the CIA was trying to kill Jack Anderson. Some of Obama's harshest critics have died out of nowhere with strange circumstances. But our government could NEVER do wrong and it's just the CONSPIRACY THEORISTS who say that. Then when China/Russia come into play you eat up every claim of wrongdoing immediately.

 

Government is evil. It's one of the biggest killers in the world if not the biggest. Just because Russia's government is bad and worse than ours doesn't mean that's the case with each and every matter.

 

 

The only murder involved in what I was talking about was the potenital for Assange getting murdered. Your tangents aren't relevant to my argument.

 

 

No one is unbiased. My bias is that I don't believe in bipartisanship. I am interested in solutions (not that I have them), I don't subscribe to ideologies. When news happens I'll know where you sit on the issue before you post a link to vox.com because you subscribe to one side of the aisle. I don't have that constraint.

 

 

I never said that but you can keep putting words in my mouth.

 

Again, I take things case by case. I am not concerned with the inner workings of their governments. If our government continues to act woefully corrupt then I hope China and Russia continue to harbor the whistleblowers. I don't believe in American exceptionalism. I don't have any concern with American "enemies." My concerns are the growth and corruption that is engrained in this current form of our government.

 

This is exactly why people get asked what their ideology is. That way it can be handwaved away with simplicity and assumptions, and redirect away from the facts and issues at hand. Classic politics.

[StrangeSox]

can you expand on the dead Obama critics thing?