2016 Democratic Thread

[bmags]

Blago was just an idiot. I mean he barely even knew how to use a computer (watch the episodes of the Apprentice he was in). That being said I think his problem is that other people in the state didnt like him and it was an easy opportunity to go after him.

 

I think there is also the risk factor. When you give a presidential candidate a lot of money there is no guarantee that they will win. So its seen more as a "reward" for helping. Where as if you paid Blago it was a guarantee.

 

So many people went down around blago though, I think pay to play was the norm, I just don't think they proved it, and I totally see what ss2k5 is saying, and I do think that he would have accepted a quid pro quo, but it just was not an impressive case.

 

edit: I have more commas to use, if you need them,

Edited September 14, 2016 by bmags

[StrangeSox]

Jennifer Jacobs ✔ @JenniferJJacobs

ON KISSING: Ivanka kissed Dr. Oz & her dad. Oz commented on kiss. Trump said he kisses her "as often as I can," audience tells @FayCortez.

10:13 AM - 14 Sep 2016

 

[StrangeSox]

What's your point and why include in the Democrat thread?

 

Donald Trump has a long history of being super creepy about Ivanka including saying he'd like to bang her if she wasn't his daughter. It's creepy/funny. Note the sensualized look on her face and that they're staged next to a statue of two parrots f***ing.

 

It's in this thread because the Dem and Rep threads are supposed to primarily be partisan "safe spaces" where you're free to take shots at the other party. That's broken down a lot this year, but I'm still not going to fill the Rep thread with silly potshots at Trump/other GOP people. Same reason I posted the NC GOP letter here.

 

e.g. something like "HRC applauds more welfare to Israel" historically 'doesn't belong' in the Dem thread, and it was mostly greg that broke down these barriers.

Edited September 14, 2016 by StrangeSox

[DrunkBomber]

Im not sure if Hillary's strategy today is a good idea. She is accusing Trump of some serious stuff, likely some of it is true, however its all stuff that she has been implicated with too. Going after his charity and saying business deal with foreign entities could become a conflict for him. I know she's slumping pretty bad but shining a larger light on stuff that she is also doing doesnt seem like the best idea to me.

[StrangeSox]

The Clinton Foundation has been investigated repeatedly and wrong-doing hasn't really been found. They do lots of actual good and have less overhead than organizations like Red Cross.

 

Trump's appears to be grift from the top down like so many of his organizations.

[bmags]

Im not sure if Hillary's strategy today is a good idea. She is accusing Trump of some serious stuff, likely some of it is true, however its all stuff that she has been implicated with too. Going after his charity and saying business deal with foreign entities could become a conflict for him. I know she's slumping pretty bad but shining a larger light on stuff that she is also doing doesnt seem like the best idea to me.

 

Most of her slump is dems being demoralized. Typically rebounds when she "fights" back. Not sure you are right.

[DrunkBomber]

Most of her slump is dems being demoralized. Typically rebounds when she "fights" back. Not sure you are right.

The polls have taken a major shift since she abandoned discussing policy and exclusively goes after Trump. We havent even seen what Assange has yet. Im sure Ill get ridiculed for saying this but unless Trump does something devastating he is gonna win. Hes up 5 in Ohio, 2 in Florida and Nevada and these polls arent even affected by the dnc leaks yet. She's essentially running the exact campaign most people thought Trump would try to run.

 

All of her IT guys pleading the 5th certainly doesnt help either, and Cooper admitted he had full access to her server without clearance. Realistically the only outcome of this election that wouldnt be upsetting is if the dems replace Hillary with Bernie. I loath every aspect of his politics but at least he isnt involved in the mass corruption going on.

 

These hackers need to get GOP emails or something and blow this whole system up.

[RegionSox]

Fivethirtyeight.com still has 64% chance of winning. It also shows her being slightly ahead in Florida still.

 

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

[DrunkBomber]

Also, Im not trying to make this partisan. I dont for one second think the GOP isnt doing this s*** too. Im just surprised it doesnt bother more people. This system is so rigged and it is only going to get worse. There are some pretty serious claims of insider trading, pay to play and election fraud implied in these leaks and we cant even get the media to investigate it because they are also implicated.

 

[southsider2k5]

Trade bucketing is one of the original Clinton accusations.

[StrangeSox]

Assange already said he was going to release a bombshell during her dnc speech.

 

It's definitely not the first time he's claimed to have something and then fallen on his face.

 

Clinton is still up more than Obama was over Romney with a larger ev firewall. She's not invulnerable, but she still is sitting pretty comfortably.

Edited September 14, 2016 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Also, Im not trying to make this partisan. I dont for one second think the GOP isnt doing this s*** too. Im just surprised it doesnt bother more people. This system is so rigged and it is only going to get worse. There are some pretty serious claims of insider trading, pay to play and election fraud implied in these leaks and we cant even get the media to investigate it because they are also implicated.

 

If you're referring to those emails last night you posted, the "pay to play" was a term of art for the sec financial regulations and not what you're thinking.

 

What's the election fraud reference?

[DrunkBomber]

If you're referring to those emails last night you posted, the "pay to play" was a term of art for the sec financial regulations and not what you're thinking.

 

What's the election fraud reference?

I was talking about handing out Ambassador jobs to the highest bidder for pay to play. Ill try to find some stuff about election fraud but unless the media picks it up all that will likely be out there is other people interpretations, which is why I said implied instead of a smoking gun.

[Soxbadger]

The polls have taken a major shift since she abandoned discussing policy and exclusively goes after Trump. We havent even seen what Assange has yet. Im sure Ill get ridiculed for saying this but unless Trump does something devastating he is gonna win. Hes up 5 in Ohio, 2 in Florida and Nevada and these polls arent even affected by the dnc leaks yet. She's essentially running the exact campaign most people thought Trump would try to run.

 

All of her IT guys pleading the 5th certainly doesnt help either, and Cooper admitted he had full access to her server without clearance. Realistically the only outcome of this election that wouldnt be upsetting is if the dems replace Hillary with Bernie. I loath every aspect of his politics but at least he isnt involved in the mass corruption going on.

 

These hackers need to get GOP emails or something and blow this whole system up.

 

If Trump wins, everyone deserves what they get. I am pretty confident it wont make any difference in my life, but there are going to be plenty of people who will likely be much worse off.

 

The good and bad about part about freedom is that it gives people the freedom to make decisions that are against their own self-interest.

[bmags]

Also, Im not trying to make this partisan. I dont for one second think the GOP isnt doing this s*** too. Im just surprised it doesnt bother more people. This system is so rigged and it is only going to get worse. There are some pretty serious claims of insider trading, pay to play and election fraud implied in these leaks and we cant even get the media to investigate it because they are also implicated.

 

 

I don't understand why you think that is inappropriate. Should we ban our political orgs from interacting with media orgs?

[StrangeSox]

I was talking about handing out Ambassador jobs to the highest bidder for pay to play. Ill try to find some stuff about election fraud but unless the media picks it up all that will likely be out there is other people interpretations, which is why I said implied instead of a smoking gun.

 

I guess I just don't care about the ambassadors because it's been patronage since always, and aside from some key ones that are in critical countries, they don't actually matter.

 

[bmags]

If you can't prove impropriety after hacking the communications of an org and then just saying it's "implied" then that is the most incredible execution I could imagine. A full org, never putting anything to paper, executing a grand strategy to pull wool over the eyes of the country.

 

I'd like to know what people think would happen if they took your work organizations emails with the assumption you did something wrong. And took every out of context phrase or frustration and assigned absolute malice to it. You would be the guiltiest person of all guilty. These are remarkably tame.

 

[DrunkBomber]

http://projectpurge.com/article/updating-n...nsider-trading/

 

Please dont shoot the messenger with this source, I know its awful and its from a Trump fan but it was easier than trying to copy and paste numerous tweets and at least most of the stuff is in the same place. I admittedly dont know enough about a lot of this stuff to know how good/bad the information is so I am kind of at the mercy of random internet people. Hopefully some of you guys can give us a better idea if there is anything of substance in here.

 

I got a lot of info from a guy breaking it down on periscope last night and he went into a lot more detail than this link but I have no idea how to find that.

[DrunkBomber]

If you can't prove impropriety after hacking the communications of an org and then just saying it's "implied" then that is the most incredible execution I could imagine. A full org, never putting anything to paper, executing a grand strategy to pull wool over the eyes of the country.

 

I'd like to know what people think would happen if they took your work organizations emails with the assumption you did something wrong. And took every out of context phrase or frustration and assigned absolute malice to it. You would be the guiltiest person of all guilty. These are remarkably tame.

Im not an expert in this stuff so of course Im not gonna be the one to find a smoking gun, but to act like this stuff isnt relevant is kind of ridiculous. Is it that big of a deal to you that people discuss this because youre a Clinton fan?

[CrimsonWeltall]

Also, Im not trying to make this partisan. I dont for one second think the GOP isnt doing this s*** too. Im just surprised it doesnt bother more people. This system is so rigged and it is only going to get worse. There are some pretty serious claims of insider trading, pay to play and election fraud implied in these leaks and we cant even get the media to investigate it because they are also implicated.

 

 

Any context for what "hits" are in this email?

 

Surely I'm not supposed to believe that Fox News including Bill O'Reilly are in the pocket of the DNC.

[DrunkBomber]

Any context for what "hits" are in this email?

 

Surely I'm not supposed to believe that Fox News including Bill O'Reilly are in the pocket of the DNC.

Id imagine it just means the talking points are settled on in advance

[Soxbadger]

Im not an expert in this stuff so of course Im not gonna be the one to find a smoking gun, but to act like this stuff isnt relevant is kind of ridiculous. Is it that big of a deal to you that people discuss this because youre a Clinton fan?

 

Honestly the most relevant part of this should be these questions:

 

What is the motive of the hackers?

 

Why are the so worried about Hillary winning or conversely why are the trying so hard to help Trump win?

 

That really is what people should be asking. If this was happening to Trump I would say the same thing. I am not really a fan of foreign interference in American politics, and I am actually somewhat concerned that if these hacks are successful in influencing the US election what that will mean for future elections.

 

 

[DrunkBomber]

Honestly the most relevant part of this should be these questions:

 

What is the motive of the hackers?

 

Why are the so worried about Hillary winning or conversely why are the trying so hard to help Trump win?

 

That really is what people should be asking. If this was happening to Trump I would say the same thing. I am not really a fan of foreign interference in American politics, and I am actually somewhat concerned that if these hacks are successful in influencing the US election what that will mean for future elections.

Believe me I wish they could do it to Trump and the GOP but I also couldnt care less who got it or why. Our government is giving out high paying jobs paid by tax dollars to the highest bidder. Every citizen should be bothered by that.

[bmags]

Im not an expert in this stuff so of course Im not gonna be the one to find a smoking gun, but to act like this stuff isnt relevant is kind of ridiculous. Is it that big of a deal to you that people discuss this because youre a Clinton fan?

 

I guess I'm confused what you are talking about. I thought you are talking about the DNC leak.

 

The DNC is a political organization that raises money for party candidates. It can provide baseline strategy for party politicians. It polls and provides research available to its candidates. There is also OFA, which became a lot more powerful and has caused a split.

 

You are saying there is something really bad about fundraising and then setting up high fundraisers with ambassadorships, and I don't think that there is. It is less threatening then lots of fundraising with the explicit agreement thta you would not actually pass a bill you promised. Or agreement that you would never raise taxes, to that like. But our patronage laws largely work to keep people out of important appointed positions.

 

I would like if Clinton is elected and the country finally does implement a public financing system and amended first amendment to say that free speech does not cover political contributions.

 

But it is not illegal or controversial for a political group to try and try to implement communication plans to media anymore than PR for any other group.

 

Pay to play:

Hey, man, I'll support and pass through this new hospital plan if you give me 2500 and fundraise for me

 

Hey lady, I'll appoint you as new US senator if you drop charges against me

 

Not pay to play:

Hello, thank you for supporting my campaign, I think you'd be great at a posiiton as ambassador to Trinidad.

 

Controversial communication plan:

Hello, off the record, here are a bunch of complete lies showing this country has nuclear weapons and are threatening to use it. really urgent

 

Non controversial communication plan:

We plan to show off how our candidate is a champion of the working class.

 

Context is important. Actions are important. Actual impropriety and not the optics of impropriety are important.

[DrunkBomber]

I guess I'm confused what you are talking about. I thought you are talking about the DNC leak.

 

The DNC is a political organization that raises money for party candidates. It can provide baseline strategy for party politicians. It polls and provides research available to its candidates. There is also OFA, which became a lot more powerful and has caused a split.

 

You are saying there is something really bad about fundraising and then setting up high fundraisers with ambassadorships, and I don't think that there is. It is less threatening then lots of fundraising with the explicit agreement thta you would not actually pass a bill you promised. Or agreement that you would never raise taxes, to that like. But our patronage laws largely work to keep people out of important appointed positions.

 

I would like if Clinton is elected and the country finally does implement a public financing system and amended first amendment to say that free speech does not cover political contributions.

 

But it is not illegal or controversial for a political group to try and try to implement communication plans to media anymore than PR for any other group.

 

Pay to play:

Hey, man, I'll support and pass through this new hospital plan if you give me 2500 and fundraise for me

 

Hey lady, I'll appoint you as new US senator if you drop charges against me

 

Not pay to play:

Hello, thank you for supporting my campaign, I think you'd be great at a posiiton as ambassador to Trinidad.

 

Controversial communication plan:

Hello, off the record, here are a bunch of complete lies showing this country has nuclear weapons and are threatening to use it. really urgent

 

Non controversial communication plan:

We plan to show off how our candidate is a champion of the working class.

 

Context is important. Actions are important. Actual impropriety and not the optics of impropriety are important.

Its not even just ambassadorships, huge donations also bought Chairman of the FCC, a Secretary of Commerce and deputy attorney general. Is that not a problem to you?