2016 Democratic Thread

[StrangeSox]

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

It looks like standard pr of pushing your message, every organization political or not will try to do this

[CrimsonWeltall]

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

 

I guess I don't understand what would be scandalous about that then.

[DrunkBomber]

It looks like standard pr of pushing your message, every organization political or not will try to do this

I know, thats what bothers me. The lack of transparency has gotten out of control.

[DrunkBomber]

I guess I don't understand what would be scandalous about that then.

I just meant that it may be why the msm hasnt picked up the hacked email story yet.

[bmags]

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?

 

I guess no. I don't see it as a problem, because I assume the way to fix it is that a new administration would not be able to appoint anyone who had raised or donated money to them. Are we saying any of these people are unqualified for the position?

 

What is the solution that would make you happy? Do you think there are some huge pool of really deserving commerce secretaries sitting around that don't get a shot because they don't have money to pay to get in?

 

For better or worse, fundraising is a huge part of our political process which we have decided is okay, and if that is the case, the fundraisers are a pretty large part of the political team that we vote in.

 

Look at this guys resume:

http://www.allgov.com/officials/s%C3%A1nch...fficialid=29202

 

Seems like a pretty appropriate choice.

 

Changing our constitution would solve the look of impropriety here, but I would guess the outcomes we receive are minimal. We all would probably just move to HEY LOOK HOW CORRUPT THEY ARE THEY ARE APPOINTING PEOPLE WHO GAVE SPEECHES FOR THEM.

[StrangeSox]

I know, thats what bothers me. The lack of transparency has gotten out of control.

Lack of what transparency? Pr organizations try to get favorable coverage, this is for politicians organizations charities businesses whatever.

[StrangeSox]

I guess no. I don't see it as a problem, because I assume the way to fix it is that a new administration would not be able to appoint anyone who had raised or donated money to them. Are we saying any of these people are unqualified for the position?

 

What is the solution that would make you happy? Do you think there are some huge pool of really deserving commerce secretaries sitting around that don't get a shot because they don't have money to pay to get in?

 

For better or worse, fundraising is a huge part of our political process which we have decided is okay, and if that is the case, the fundraisers are a pretty large part of the political team that we vote in.

 

Look at this guys resume:

http://www.allgov.com/officials/s%C3%A1nch...fficialid=29202

 

Seems like a pretty appropriate choice.

 

Changing our constitution would solve the look of impropriety here, but I would guess the outcomes we receive are minimal. We all would probably just move to HEY LOOK HOW CORRUPT THEY ARE THEY ARE APPOINTING PEOPLE WHO GAVE SPEECHES FOR THEM.

 

Heck of a job, brownie shows the problem of incompetent patronage

 

[DrunkBomber]

I guess no. I don't see it as a problem, because I assume the way to fix it is that a new administration would not be able to appoint anyone who had raised or donated money to them. Are we saying any of these people are unqualified for the position?

 

What is the solution that would make you happy? Do you think there are some huge pool of really deserving commerce secretaries sitting around that don't get a shot because they don't have money to pay to get in?

 

For better or worse, fundraising is a huge part of our political process which we have decided is okay, and if that is the case, the fundraisers are a pretty large part of the political team that we vote in.

 

Look at this guys resume:

http://www.allgov.com/officials/s%C3%A1nch...fficialid=29202

 

Seems like a pretty appropriate choice.

 

Changing our constitution would solve the look of impropriety here, but I would guess the outcomes we receive are minimal. We all would probably just move to HEY LOOK HOW CORRUPT THEY ARE THEY ARE APPOINTING PEOPLE WHO GAVE SPEECHES FOR THEM.

I dont know what the solution is but I dont think everyone saying its fine and we shouldnt be bothered by it is the answer. People not caring is what let it get to this point in the first place and it is likely to just keep getting worse. I just wish people would be a little more consistent. If this happened to Trump or even just the RNC this would be dominating the news today. Instead were getting reports that Hillary is in perfect health, Trump is overweight and bought a statue of himself and that his foreign business ties may be a conflict if he is President. The only info theyve mentioned from these leaks so far is the funny stuff Colin Powell said. Whether you think the details in these emails is a big deal or not it is important enough to be mentioned on the news.

[StrangeSox]

"This point" being ambassadors being patronage is from the very start, and before the late 19th and early 20th century civil service reforms that was the entire government. It's actually a lot better than it was historically.

 

That part is really a dog bites man story. If that's too cynical for you so be it, but that's the way things are and I don't find a reason to be upset about it.

[DrunkBomber]

In other news someone on CNN said that the GOP was hacked too so hopefully we will get to see that as well.

[bmags]

Heck of a job, brownie shows the problem of incompetent patronage

But is this a patronage issue? Seems like a "put people who care about the job" issue

 

it sounds like we are having an institutional issue that we are blaming on actors. If we cleaned this up would outcomes be better?

 

Isn't deeper issue our institution requires 75% fundraising time, not that people spent all this time fundraising, not this appointing fundraisers?

[StrangeSox]

There's some assuming your own conclusions going on there.

[StrangeSox]

But is this a patronage issue? Seems like a "put people who care about the job" issue

 

it sounds like we are having an institutional issue that we are blaming on actors. If we cleaned this up would outcomes be better?

 

Isn't deeper issue our institution requires 75% fundraising time, not that people spent all this time fundraising, not this appointing fundraisers?

 

True, incompetent hires don't only come from patronage.

 

[Quin]

Guys.

 

The NRA gives money to politicians. Scandal?

[StrangeSox]

Guys.

 

St. Jude's Children's Hospital sends out press releases to media outlets in order to promote their message. Corruption?

[greg775]

How dare CBS protect Hillary by editing comments.

 

https://radio.foxnews.com/2016/09/13/video-...rotect-hillary/

 

So now the networks get a scoop yet they want Hillary as President so badly they censor their own interview. For the life of me, I don't know why CBS wants Hillary as president so badly. CBS has some explaining to do!

[Quin]

Good one!

 

It's the same level as this, unless there's more that just hasn't come out.

 

Donors and fundraisers get ambassadorships. Sometimes it's a seemingly random celebrity. Is it unsavory? Yeah. But it's not corrupt or a scandal.

[caulfield12]

How dare CBS protect Hillary by editing comments.

 

https://radio.foxnews.com/2016/09/13/video-...rotect-hillary/

 

So now the networks get a scoop yet they want Hillary as President so badly they censor their own interview. For the life of me, I don't know why CBS wants Hillary as president so badly. CBS has some explaining to do!

 

With Trump drawing higher ratings and much more coverage, why would they want Clinton?

 

Bigger point, there's a much higher likelihood of war or some random conflict escalating with Trump, and that will play for even higher ratings.

Edited September 15, 2016 by caulfield12

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

 

I've mentioned this before, but it's plausible that there's just not any dirt there. You just had the Colin Powell emails released, they were pretty tame. Anything Trump says privately can't be any worse than what he says publicly. And there's just not enough history there to pull anything (politically speaking). Trump was the Kardashians of the 80's and 90's. It's all out there at this point. He's been a public figure for too long.

[CrimsonWeltall]

I've mentioned this before, but it's plausible that there's just not any dirt there. You just had the Colin Powell emails released, they were pretty tame. Anything Trump says privately can't be any worse than what he says publicly.

 

I don't think that's plausible. Even normal journalists are regularly able to dig up dirt on him. I'm sure hackers could find something (tax records, shady business dealings, explicitly racist emails).

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't think that's plausible. Even normal journalists are regularly able to dig up dirt on him. I'm sure hackers could find something (tax records, shady business dealings, explicitly racist emails).

 

Reports on his business history are out there already.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Reports on his business history are out there already.

 

Sure, we know about things like not paying contractors and having his products made overseas, but an email that's very explicit about those things would be really bad for him among blue collar workers.

 

Imagine an email where Trump laughs and tells a project manager not to pay workers ("they can sue me") or says that American workers suck because they're too expensive compared to Chinese workers.

[Jenksismyhero]

Sure, we know about things like not paying contractors and having his products made overseas, but an email that's very explicit about those things would be really bad for him among blue collar workers.

 

Imagine an email where Trump laughs and tells a project manager not to pay workers ("they can sue me") or says that American workers suck because they're too expensive compared to Chinese workers.

 

I have to believe he has said those things publicly at some point in the past.

[StrangeSox]

I have to believe he has said those things publicly at some point in the past.

 

haha oh absolutely he has, just yesterday he said he didn't feel sorry for the people at his rally's economic conditions because he works hard, he called Iowans stupid, he's regularly said he'll never forgive his supporters if he loses, etc.

[southsider2k5]

With Trump drawing higher ratings and much more coverage, why would they want Clinton?

 

Bigger point, there's a much higher likelihood of war or some random conflict escalating with Trump, and that will play for even higher ratings.

 

Which is crazy, because with pretty much every conflict or failed nation state going on around the world right now, Hillary was in favor of bombing it at some point.