Switch Theme:

Politics - USA  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Interesting bit from 538 on the use of data by the two campaigns. There's been a lot talked about the democrats technological edge pioneered by Howard Dean, and extended by Obama's two campaigns. But Trump seems to have little interest in any of that. I think the lack of experience is showing. From 538;

"John McCain hired only 15 data staffers in 2008, compared with Obama’s 131. To his credit, Mitt Romney increased the number of data hires to 87 in 2012. (Obama had 342)....

...Trump currently employs as few as two staffers dedicated to data, according to reports.... Hillary Clinton set out to assemble a data team three times the size of Obama’s formidable 2012 operation."

Jeb Bush's strategy of a hugely funded super-PAC controlling pretty much all of the campaign spend was going to be revolutionary or never repeated. He flopped, so it'll likely never be repeated. Marco Rubio ignored the ground game and focused on media, he flopped so we won't see that again either. Trump looked to say or do anything to get attention - in a crowded field if you're the only one anyone talks about you're half way to winning. He won the primary despite being Donald Trump, so look to see that strategy repeated in the future, at least in the primaries

But now in the general, the Clinton is doubling down on the data strategy, while Trump is largely ignoring it. In November we'll learn which strategy is called genius and which will never be seen again


 whembly wrote:
Unless, of course, you believe Trump is trying to get into a poo-fling war with the Clinton campaign. 'Cuz... ya know, Trump excels in flinging poo.


I think it isn't even a case of picking strategies. It's really just a matter of who Trump is, how he operates. A monkey doesn't stop and think about the situation, and then decide whether this time he should approach it by running away or throwing poo. He just acts in the moment. Trump seems the same, his nature is to fling poo, and so he flings poo. That there might be a different or better way to approach this probably wasn't even considered. From there it's really a matter of luck as to whether the circumstances fit his approach. In the crowded Republican field, playing to a Republican base that wasn't just angry but incredibly petty Trump's poo flinging worked great.

Not so sure it's a good strategy for the general.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
Hypothetical... if neither Clinton nor Trump gets to 270EV... does the Republican Congress really picks Trump, when they can probably control the agenda better with Johnson at the helm?


Remember in 1992 Perot took close to 20% of the vote but won exactly 0 votes in the electoral college. Having a 10 or 20% spread across all states allows you to play a spoiler role, but to win states you need strong support in specific states. A protest vote built up around Johnson* is probably going to have a similar spread to Perot.




*And remember Johnson hasn't actually been nominated. McAfee is also nominated, and could be the nomination in case Libertarians feel they need someone even crazier than Trump, just to keep the party tradition alive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 d-usa wrote:
A little history of Trump believing, or saying, crazy things:


I think you make a good distinction between believing and saying. I don't think Trump believes any of those things, because I don't believe Trump actually believes anything. It isn't even a case of lying, more just a complete indifference to truth. If it works for him, he'll say it, whether it's true is someone else's problem.

Man, remember when people were worried that Sarah Palin might be a Vice President...

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/25 02:35:32


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Colonel





This Is Where the Fish Lives

 sebster wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
A little history of Trump believing, or saying, crazy things:


I think you make a good distinction between believing and saying. I don't think Trump believes any of those things, because I don't believe Trump actually believes anything. It isn't even a case of lying, more just a complete indifference to truth. If it works for him, he'll say it, whether it's true is someone else's problem.

Man, remember when people were worried that Sarah Palin might be a Vice President...
While it's true that we probably can't be sure what he actually believes, but these are pretty mundane as far as conspiracy theories go and I think a surprising number of people believe them so it wouldn't really be a stretch if it turned out he did. I mean, he's been going on about the birtherism stuff for over five years.

And good Lord... Trump isn't smart, but he knows how to talk about stuff. This line about the Vince Foster thing is him at his best:
The Donald wrote:I don't bring [Foster's death] up because I don't know enough to really discuss it. I will say there are people who continue to bring it up because they think it was absolutely a murder. I don't do that because I don't think it's fair.
Of course, he did bring it up. He's really good at bringing stuff up while sounding like he isn't actually bringing it up. He's a salesman through and through.

 d-usa wrote:
"When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
While it's true that we probably can't be sure what he actually believes, but these are pretty mundane as far as conspiracy theories go and I think a surprising number of people believe them so it wouldn't really be a stretch if it turned out he did. I mean, he's been going on about the birtherism stuff for over five years.


Trump started with birtherism before the 2012 election, when he was flirting with the idea of running for the nomination. It was pretty clearly a tactical move. And while it didn't help him in 2008, it did raise help raise his position as a player in Republican politics, and give him that grounding for his 2016 run.

And yeah, my point isn't that we don't know what Trump does or doesn't believe - my point is that deep down the guy doesn't believe anything. Everything is in service to the Trump ego. People have noted its very hard to figure out where Trump stands on any issue, this is because the guy actually has no convictions, he will say or do whatever best suits him in that moment.

Your quote from Trump on the Vince Foster nonsense captures this perfectly. Trump is walking away from the accusation even as he's raising it. He even does it by talking about how he doesn't know if its true because he hasn't looked in to it. You can't lie if you don't if something is true or false, and Trump never knows if anything is true or false because he just doesn't give a gak.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/25 05:39:03


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 whembly wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
With a lot of the polls focusing on Trump vs Hillary, the numbers that might merit more attention as we get closer to November will be Trump vs Hillary vs Johnson.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pay-attention-to-libertarian-gary-johnson-hes-pulling-10-vs-trump-and-clinton/


The real question is this... does Johnson syphon off more #NeverTrump or #BernieBros??

'Cuz, I have no bloody clue.

Hypothetical... if neither Clinton nor Trump gets to 270EV... does the Republican Congress really picks Trump, when they can probably control the agenda better with Johnson at the helm?


The support core for both is 18 to 35 year-old angry white males who aren't all that interested in actual public policy, so it probably doesn't matter. (I read an interesting analysis, I forget where, that looked at Bernie supporters' actual position on issues based on exit polling, and it turns out they're to the right of Clinton.)

I've voted for Johnson in a general before, and I'd happily do so again if up to three Supreme Court appointments weren't potentially on the line. Avoiding three more Sotomayors is worth Making America Great Again.

   
Made in us
Proud Triarch Praetorian





Seaward wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
With a lot of the polls focusing on Trump vs Hillary, the numbers that might merit more attention as we get closer to November will be Trump vs Hillary vs Johnson.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pay-attention-to-libertarian-gary-johnson-hes-pulling-10-vs-trump-and-clinton/


The real question is this... does Johnson syphon off more #NeverTrump or #BernieBros??

'Cuz, I have no bloody clue.

Hypothetical... if neither Clinton nor Trump gets to 270EV... does the Republican Congress really picks Trump, when they can probably control the agenda better with Johnson at the helm?


The support core for both is 18 to 35 year-old angry white males who aren't all that interested in actual public policy, so it probably doesn't matter. (I read an interesting analysis, I forget where, that looked at Bernie supporters' actual position on issues based on exit polling, and it turns out they're to the right of Clinton.)

I've voted for Johnson in a general before, and I'd happily do so again if up to three Supreme Court appointments weren't potentially on the line. Avoiding three more Sotomayors is worth Making America Great Again.



I would like to read this interesting analysis where Bernie Supporters turn out to secretly be super conservatives.

I am sure it is a well rounded article that sheds light on the Bernie movement as a whole by contacting all of his supporters and questioning them in depth about their political stances.

I look forward to reading it when you find it!
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Seaward wrote:
The support core for both is 18 to 35 year-old angry white males who aren't all that interested in actual public policy, so it probably doesn't matter. (I read an interesting analysis, I forget where, that looked at Bernie supporters' actual position on issues based on exit polling, and it turns out they're to the right of Clinton.)


You read my post Well, you read a link I put in my post. Or you read the New York Times.

Anyhow, here's the article;
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/opinion/campaign-stops/do-sanders-supporters-favor-his-policies.html?rref=opinion&_r=0
"However, they were less likely than Mrs. Clinton’s supporters to favor concrete policies that Mr. Sanders has offered as remedies for these ills, including a higher minimum wage, increasing government spending on health care and an expansion of government services financed by higher taxes. It is quite a stretch to view these people as the vanguard of a new, social-democratic-trending Democratic Party."

So yeah, part of it is about falling in love with the idea of being part of a revolutionary movement, rather than any actual policy positions. But thinking those same folk will shift over to Trump to be part of his revolution/abuse comedy routine is still a really big stretch. Many Sanders supporters, particularly young Sanders supporters, may have been drawn in more by the anti-establishment vibe than his policy positions, but that doesn't mean they'll move across to the other anti-establishment guy. There is, after all, a very big difference between getting won over by an outsider saying he'll fight to get the money out of politics, and an outsider who says he'll fight to build a wall between the US and Mexico.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
I would like to read this interesting analysis where Bernie Supporters turn out to secretly be super conservatives.

I am sure it is a well rounded article that sheds light on the Bernie movement as a whole by contacting all of his supporters and questioning them in depth about their political stances.


They're not super-conservative. They're still liberal, just not as liberal as Clinton supporters. Which is interesting when you think about how quickly everyone simply assumed that Sanders strong left wing positions was the reason for this groundswell of support around him. Contrast that to Trump, where from day one we were happy to say his supporters were angry people frustrated by economic decline or racial issues or some other thing like that.

That doesn't mean I'm saying Sanders supporters are the same as Trump supporters, but it is interesting that for some reason for both Trump and Sanders we forgot one simple reality - every moderately successful campaign will attract a lot of different kinds of voters. We never considered that maybe people some portion of Trump supporters like him because they actually want a wall on the Mexican border, and at the same time we never considered that some portion of Sanders supporters might be more attracted to the idea of being part of a movement that's going to change politics forever! than they cared about his actual policy proposals.

I look forward to reading it when you find it!


Happy to oblige!
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/opinion/campaign-stops/do-sanders-supporters-favor-his-policies.html?rref=opinion&_r=0

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/05/25 07:04:35


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Proud Triarch Praetorian





No, they are super-conservative considering Clinton herself is a very conservative candidate. Clinton is liberal for the US, but in no way is she liberal in comparison to what other countries consider to be liberal.

Oh sweet, I see you have provided me an article which does not do what was claimed! So a small number of Bernie supporters are considered to be more to the right of Clinton, this does not make all Bernie supporters to the right of Clinton as was claimed.

"I am sure it is a well rounded article that sheds light on the Bernie movement as a whole by contacting all of his supporters and questioning them in depth about their political stances."

Still waiting on that article.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/25 07:27:33


 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 sebster wrote:
Seaward wrote:
The support core for both is 18 to 35 year-old angry white males who aren't all that interested in actual public policy, so it probably doesn't matter. (I read an interesting analysis, I forget where, that looked at Bernie supporters' actual position on issues based on exit polling, and it turns out they're to the right of Clinton.)


You read my post Well, you read a link I put in my post. Or you read the New York Times.

Anyhow, here's the article;
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/opinion/campaign-stops/do-sanders-supporters-favor-his-policies.html?rref=opinion&_r=0
"However, they were less likely than Mrs. Clinton’s supporters to favor concrete policies that Mr. Sanders has offered as remedies for these ills, including a higher minimum wage, increasing government spending on health care and an expansion of government services financed by higher taxes. It is quite a stretch to view these people as the vanguard of a new, social-democratic-trending Democratic Party."


Yep, that was it. Thanks.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Sheffield, City of University and Northern-ness

Seaward wrote:
 sebster wrote:
Seaward wrote:
The support core for both is 18 to 35 year-old angry white males who aren't all that interested in actual public policy, so it probably doesn't matter. (I read an interesting analysis, I forget where, that looked at Bernie supporters' actual position on issues based on exit polling, and it turns out they're to the right of Clinton.)


You read my post Well, you read a link I put in my post. Or you read the New York Times.

Anyhow, here's the article;
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/opinion/campaign-stops/do-sanders-supporters-favor-his-policies.html?rref=opinion&_r=0
"However, they were less likely than Mrs. Clinton’s supporters to favor concrete policies that Mr. Sanders has offered as remedies for these ills, including a higher minimum wage, increasing government spending on health care and an expansion of government services financed by higher taxes. It is quite a stretch to view these people as the vanguard of a new, social-democratic-trending Democratic Party."


Yep, that was it. Thanks.
Honestly, this doesn't surprise me that much. Sanders has a fairly large and vocal support base on Reddit, a website that also largely seems to profess liberalism and left-leaning policies, whilst actually being closer to libertarianism on a lot of things.

   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 Goliath wrote:
Honestly, this doesn't surprise me that much. Sanders has a fairly large and vocal support base on Reddit, a website that also largely seems to profess liberalism and left-leaning policies, whilst actually being closer to libertarianism on a lot of things.


They're not really close to anything, politically. Free college and legal (and preferably free, too) weed are their primary policy points, along with an intense but vague sense of getting the gakky end of the stick.

They swung from adoring fiercely small government Ron Paul to adoring Bernie "I'm not a communist, but I am an anti-capitalist who believes in the eventual revolution of the proletariat" Sanders. There's no consistent political ideology that allows that to happen.

I'd say they're more in favor of lost causes than anything.

(I'm talking about the Reddit crowd exclusively, by the way. I fully believe there are leftists who dig Sanders' socialism, just as there are Paulites who dig his brand of cranky libertarianism. They just don't mingle.)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/25 09:42:30


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Sheffield, City of University and Northern-ness

Ah, sorry, when I said that they profess liberalism but aren't I should have clarified that it's largely with social issues.

Reddit comes across as liberal, but it's only really on the surface. Supporting gay marriage, and being anti-Fox News and religion, but feminism is a cancer on society, and actually black people commit more crimes, and my right to bully and harass fat people is critical, and preventing me from doing so is censorship.

So I can completely understand why, considering the demographics that I have seen supporting Bernie, they might not actually support his policies.

Personally I'll stick my hand up as a leftist that supports his socialism and a number of his policies; if he can prompt a slight tempering of how right-wing america is compared to the rest of the world then I'm all for it, I just don't think that he'll be able to win the actual election, considering how much of a dirty word Socialism still seems to be in the US. So I'd much rather Hillary runs and wins the presidency, but Sanders puts up the good fight and makes socialism more palatable for the American public.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/25 09:55:41


   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




The real question to that, then, is whether or not he actually will make it more palatable, because he dodges declaring himself an outright socialist every time it's brought up in favor of calling himself a "democratic socialist," which his camp does its best to make sound like has nothing to do with, you know, socialism. On the other hand, no one's running the really heavy attack ads on him, because they don't need to, so his ideas are getting to go unchallenged.


I'm actually kind of sad he's not going to make it to the general, because I'd really like a good old-fashioned repudiation of socialism and reinforcement of American capitalist values, and we'd for sure get it once he was the nominee.
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

- Hillary was involved in Vince Foster's suicide
- Obama was born in Kenya
- vaccines cause autism
- thousands of Muslims celebrating 9/11
- Ted Cruz father was involved in JFK's assassination


Wait I thought it was Ted Cruz caused autism. I'm so confused...

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

I am tired of hearing head to head polling nation-wide. That doesn't even matter. The only question that matters is can Trump actually flip states that were Obama states? Specifically Ohio and Florida. if he can't flip those, then there is no point even talking about head-to-head polling because it is irrelevant.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Sheffield, City of University and Northern-ness

Looks like Mr Trump has been less than honest when it comes to his tax dealings...

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






He is not the only one though. I gone shady myself on a few tax years

Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog
Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.

Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Seaward wrote:
The real question to that, then, is whether or not he actually will make it more palatable, because he dodges declaring himself an outright socialist every time it's brought up in favor of calling himself a "democratic socialist," which his camp does its best to make sound like has nothing to do with, you know, socialism. On the other hand, no one's running the really heavy attack ads on him, because they don't need to, so his ideas are getting to go unchallenged.


I'm actually kind of sad he's not going to make it to the general, because I'd really like a good old-fashioned repudiation of socialism and reinforcement of American capitalist values, and we'd for sure get it once he was the nominee.



It's not dodging the question... he is a democratic socialist. He's been pretty damn clear from pretty much day one what that means. It means keeping our democratic system of electing officials. It means keeping "capitalism" and privately held companies in the economy. It means strengthening the social safety net. It means improving education, both in quality and availability.

That's pretty much it. He's not trying to overthrow the entire system and get a one-party state where the government decides every item that is sold in stores and which factories they want to make it. He's not looking to become "Chairman Sanders," because he's looking to become President Sanders.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Sheffield, City of University and Northern-ness

 Jihadin wrote:
He is not the only one though. I gone shady myself on a few tax years
Maybe. But are you basing a political campaign around going after companies that outsource and deny the american public taxes or work?

   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Dreadwinter wrote:
No, they are super-conservative considering Clinton herself is a very conservative candidate. Clinton is liberal for the US, but in no way is she liberal in comparison to what other countries consider to be liberal.


As I explained to that other guy over about a half dozen posts - who gives a gak what the rest of the world thinks? They could be fascist anarchists, it still doesn't change the fact that they don't vote in American elections.

In terms of American politics, Clinton is well to the left of centre, as Sanders just a little bit further left. Sanders supporters are, interestingly enough, not as far left as Sanders, averaged across the whole.

Oh sweet, I see you have provided me an article which does not do what was claimed! So a small number of Bernie supporters are considered to be more to the right of Clinton, this does not make all Bernie supporters to the right of Clinton as was claimed.


The hell? Where do you get small number from? Do you know how polling works? You seem to be attempting a defence in which you can deny any poll because it did not check with every single person who has declared themselves a Sanders supporter. Well do that, whatever, if you don't want to be a useful part of the conversation that's up to you.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

Incoming... Fireworks expected when the States Dept' IG releases a report:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CLINTON_EMAILS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-05-25-
Spoiler:
10-31-23
CLINTON FAULTED ON EMAILS BY STATE DEPARTMENT AUDIT
BY MICHAEL BIESECKER AND BRADLEY KLAPPER
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Hillary Clinton disregarded State Department cybersecurity guidelines by using a private email account and server, an internal audit found Wednesday. Her staff twice brushed aside specific concerns that she wasn't following federal rules.

The inspector general's review also revealed that hacking attempts forced then-Secretary of State Clinton off email at one point in 2011, though she insists the personal server she used was never breached. Clinton and several of her senior staff declined to be interviewed for the State Department investigation.

Earlier this month, Clinton, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, stressed that she was happy to "talk to anybody, anytime" about the matter and would encourage her staff to do the same.

The 78-page analysis, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, says Clinton ignored clear directives. She never sought approval to conduct government business over private email, and never demonstrated the server or the Blackberry she used while in office "met minimum information security requirements."

Twice in 2010, information management staff at the State Department raised concerns that Clinton's email practices failed to meet federal records-keeping requirements. The staff's director responded that Clinton's personal email system had been reviewed and approved by legal staff, "and that the matter was not to be discussed any further."

The audit found no evidence of a legal staff review or approval. It said any such request would have been denied by senior information officers because of security risks.

The inspector general's inquiry was prompted by revelations of Clinton's email use, a subject that has dogged her presidential campaign.

The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.

The review encompassed the email and information practices of the past five secretaries of state, finding them "slow to recognize and to manage effectively the legal requirements and cybersecurity risks associated with electronic data communications, particularly as those risks pertain to its most senior leadership."

But the failings of Clinton, who was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, were singled out as more serious.

"By Secretary Clinton's tenure, the department's guidance was considerably more detailed and more sophisticated," the report concluded. "Secretary Clinton's cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of these more comprehensive directives."

The State Department has released more than 52,000 pages of Clinton's work-related emails, including some that have since been classified. Clinton has withheld thousands of additional emails, saying they were personal.

Critics have questioned whether her server might have made a tempting target for hackers, especially those working with or for foreign intelligence services.

Separately from the State Department audit, the FBI has been investigating whether Clinton's use of the private email server imperiled government secrets. It has recently interviewed Clinton's top aides, including former chief of staff Cheryl Mills and deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin. Clinton is expected to be interviewed.

Clinton has acknowledged in the campaign that the homebrew email setup in her New York home was a mistake. She said she never sent or received anything marked classified at the time, and says hackers never breached the server.

The audit said a Clinton aide had to shut down the server on Jan. 9, 2011, because he believed "someone was trying to hack us." Later that day, he said: "We were attacked again so I shut (the server) down for a few min."

The next day, a senior official told two of Clinton's top aides not to email their boss "anything sensitive," saying she could "explain more in person."

On CBS' "Face the Nation" this month, Clinton said, "I've made it clear that I'm more than ready to talk to anybody, anytime. And I've encouraged all of (my staff) to be very forthcoming."

The audit said three of her closest State Department aides - Mills, Abedin and policy chief Jake Sullivan - declined interview requests.


More info I saw on my twittah:
'We were *attacked* again,' IT person said in 2011 (corrects 'hacked' to 'attacked,' as excerpt noted). https://t.co/F9scT8PaXM

— Ted Bridis (@tbridis) May 25, 2016

"non-Departmental advisor to Clinton who provided technical support to the Clinton email system" must be that Brian Paglino dude who has gotten immunity by the FBI... (edit: read the report in full... that was Jonathan Cooper).

Blows.Up.The.Clinton.Narratives.

EDIT: here's the link to the report:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2842429/ESP-16-03-Final.pdf

¯\_(ツ)_/¯





This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/05/25 19:59:05


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






 Goliath wrote:
 Jihadin wrote:
He is not the only one though. I gone shady myself on a few tax years
Maybe. But are you basing a political campaign around going after companies that outsource and deny the american public taxes or work?


So he becomes the trigger for IRS to use more scrutiny on everyone tax returns?

Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog
Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.

Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha


 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Seaward wrote:
The real question to that, then, is whether or not he actually will make it more palatable, because he dodges declaring himself an outright socialist every time it's brought up in favor of calling himself a "democratic socialist," which his camp does its best to make sound like has nothing to do with, you know, socialism. On the other hand, no one's running the really heavy attack ads on him, because they don't need to, so his ideas are getting to go unchallenged.


I'm actually kind of sad he's not going to make it to the general, because I'd really like a good old-fashioned repudiation of socialism and reinforcement of American capitalist values, and we'd for sure get it once he was the nominee.



It's not dodging the question... he is a democratic socialist. He's been pretty damn clear from pretty much day one what that means. It means keeping our democratic system of electing officials. It means keeping "capitalism" and privately held companies in the economy. It means strengthening the social safety net. It means improving education, both in quality and availability.

That's pretty much it. He's not trying to overthrow the entire system and get a one-party state where the government decides every item that is sold in stores and which factories they want to make it. He's not looking to become "Chairman Sanders," because he's looking to become President Sanders.


He has a history of radical, revolutionary, decidedly un-democratic statements. He has declared himself an anti-capitalist before, and has also gone on the record stating that he believes industry should ultimately be removed from private control and put into the hands of the people.

He has vocally supported every violent leftist overthrow he's ever been asked about, from the USSR to the Sandinistas, and he even served as an elector for a party that, in addition to many other sins, voiced "solidarity with Iran" while they were holding our hostages during the 1980 election.

If you believe he didn't believe all those things then and is dedicated to a capitalist society now, that's fine. But don't pretend there's not ample reason for people to believe otherwise. That's just naive.
   
Made in us
Proud Triarch Praetorian





 sebster wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
No, they are super-conservative considering Clinton herself is a very conservative candidate. Clinton is liberal for the US, but in no way is she liberal in comparison to what other countries consider to be liberal.


As I explained to that other guy over about a half dozen posts - who gives a gak what the rest of the world thinks? They could be fascist anarchists, it still doesn't change the fact that they don't vote in American elections.

In terms of American politics, Clinton is well to the left of centre, as Sanders just a little bit further left. Sanders supporters are, interestingly enough, not as far left as Sanders, averaged across the whole.

Oh sweet, I see you have provided me an article which does not do what was claimed! So a small number of Bernie supporters are considered to be more to the right of Clinton, this does not make all Bernie supporters to the right of Clinton as was claimed.


The hell? Where do you get small number from? Do you know how polling works? You seem to be attempting a defence in which you can deny any poll because it did not check with every single person who has declared themselves a Sanders supporter. Well do that, whatever, if you don't want to be a useful part of the conversation that's up to you.


I care clearly, you should too considering we are living on a planet with other people and it helps to show what the current political climate is like in the US vs the rest of the world.

You know that exit polling only involves a small number of people, correct? It even has a link to a definition of Exit Polling in the article where it says it is taken from a small portion of voters. Also considering this was only done in a select amount of states, kind of shows that again, it was a small portion.

Seaward has revised his argument as to be about reddit Bernie Supporters which commonly fall under the term Bernie Bros. Which I would agree with, many Bernie Bros dont seem to understand his policies and what they would bring about in the US. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of trying to paint all of his supporters to be Bernie Bros, when in fact it is just a vocal minority. Conservatives have the same issues on their side and I believe it is equally absurd to paint them all as ultra religious zealot wingnuts when that is clearly not the.case.

Be dismissive if you want, but you should probably understand exit polling before doing so.
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 Dreadwinter wrote:
Seaward has revised his argument as to be about reddit Bernie Supporters which commonly fall under the term Bernie Bros.


No, I haven't.

I was talking to Goliath, not you.

You'll note how my reply was right under his.

And I was responding to something he brought up.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

 Dreadwinter wrote:
 sebster wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
No, they are super-conservative considering Clinton herself is a very conservative candidate. Clinton is liberal for the US, but in no way is she liberal in comparison to what other countries consider to be liberal.


As I explained to that other guy over about a half dozen posts - who gives a gak what the rest of the world thinks? They could be fascist anarchists, it still doesn't change the fact that they don't vote in American elections.

In terms of American politics, Clinton is well to the left of centre, as Sanders just a little bit further left. Sanders supporters are, interestingly enough, not as far left as Sanders, averaged across the whole.

Oh sweet, I see you have provided me an article which does not do what was claimed! So a small number of Bernie supporters are considered to be more to the right of Clinton, this does not make all Bernie supporters to the right of Clinton as was claimed.


The hell? Where do you get small number from? Do you know how polling works? You seem to be attempting a defence in which you can deny any poll because it did not check with every single person who has declared themselves a Sanders supporter. Well do that, whatever, if you don't want to be a useful part of the conversation that's up to you.


I care clearly, you should too considering we are living on a planet with other people and it helps to show what the current political climate is like in the US vs the rest of the world.

You know that exit polling only involves a small number of people, correct? It even has a link to a definition of Exit Polling in the article where it says it is taken from a small portion of voters. Also considering this was only done in a select amount of states, kind of shows that again, it was a small portion.

Seaward has revised his argument as to be about reddit Bernie Supporters which commonly fall under the term Bernie Bros. Which I would agree with, many Bernie Bros dont seem to understand his policies and what they would bring about in the US. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of trying to paint all of his supporters to be Bernie Bros, when in fact it is just a vocal minority. Conservatives have the same issues on their side and I believe it is equally absurd to paint them all as ultra religious zealot wingnuts when that is clearly not the.case.

Be dismissive if you want, but you should probably understand exit polling before doing so.


Exit polls are important and carry weight with predictions and expectations because they reflect the opinions of people who were actually motivated enough to turn out and vote. The people who are turning out to vote in the primary are more likely to turn out and vote in the general than the people who didn't. You can poll anybody who answers the phone when the pollsters call, you can poll people who are likely voters because they have a history of turning out to vote and you can poll the people that have actually voted already.

People who voted < People registered to vote < People who are eligible voters

Just because exit polls have a smaller pool of people to poll doesn't mean they aren't an accurate reflection of the electorate. Local polls are the most meaningful because we vote by state and the state residents that are turning out to vote are the ones that will decide who wins the state and gains the state's electoral votes. What exit polls say about voters in a state like Ohio is very pertinent to the probable outcome in Ohio which is key to enough electoral votes to win the presidency so exit polls of Ohio voters are more important than a national poll of people that includes a larger number of respondents. You shouldn't dismiss exit polls, it showcases the opinions of the people showing up to vote and they're the people that decide who wins.

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in us
Colonel





This Is Where the Fish Lives

Seaward wrote:
He has a history of radical, revolutionary, decidedly un-democratic statements.
That's rich coming from the guy who supports Donald Trump.

He has declared himself an anti-capitalist before, and has also gone on the record stating that he believes industry should ultimately be removed from private control and put into the hands of the people.
I don't disbelieve you, but could you provide some sources for him supporting that? He supports worker-owned cooperatives and growing unions, but I've been unable to find anything where he says all industry should be taken from private control.

He has vocally supported every violent leftist overthrow he's ever been asked about, from the USSR to the Sandinistas, and he even served as an elector for a party that, in addition to many other sins, voiced "solidarity with Iran" while they were holding our hostages during the 1980 election.
I haven't been able to find him vocally supporting the violence of the USSR other than that one time he went there, which I've already explained to Whembly why that isn't what your derposphere thinks it was. If you have some information or quotes that back up your claim, feel free to share them with the class. As far as supporting the Sandinistas, yeah... He's never been coy about that. Of course, our government was arming the Contras at the same time, which I guess is totally cool because they were violent right-wing counter-revolutionaries. He did serve as an elector for the Socialist Workers Party during the Iranian hostage situation, but I haven't been able to find anything that shows he personally called for solidarity with the Iranian revolutionaries, so if it's out there, please share it with everyone.

If you believe he didn't believe all those things then and is dedicated to a capitalist society now, that's fine. But don't pretend there's not ample reason for people to believe otherwise. That's just naive.
It's naive to think that people's opinions don't change over the course of their lives and everyone who ever had an opinion will always have that opinion.

In various times throughout my youth, I believe in God, I fully supported the death penalty, I was against gay marriage, and I was against women in combat. Now, years later and many miles traveled since, I believe the total opposite of all of those things.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/25 20:25:34


 d-usa wrote:
"When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
That's rich coming from the guy who supports Donald Trump.

Trump's an idiot and a buffoon. I'd love to not have to vote for him this cycle, but that would require the Democrats to a) guarantee not to throw up anti-2nd Amendment/anti-capitalist/anti-individual liberty justice nominations, and b) guarantee not to continue doing their best to reduce defense readiness and capability. Neither of those things will happen.

But at least I'm perfectly willing to admit the massive flaws in the Republicans' nominee this year.

I don't disbelieve you, but could you provide some sources for him supporting that? He supports worker-owned cooperatives and growing unions, but I've been unable to find anything where he says all industry should be taken from private control.


I go with Politico on this one:

Politico wrote:And Sanders has long been unabashed about his socialist beliefs. “Nobody should earn more than $1 million,” he told the Burlington Free Press in 1974.

“I believe that, in the long run, major industries in this state and nation should be publicly owned and controlled by the workers themselves,” he wrote in 1976.

I suppose we then have to quibble about what he meant by 'major' industries.

I haven't been able to find him vocally supporting the violence of the USSR other than that one time he went there, which I've already explained to Whembly why that isn't what your derposphere thinks it was. If you have some information or quotes that back up your claim, feel free to share them with the class. As far as supporting the Sandinistas, yeah... He's never been coy about that. Of course, our government was arming the Contras at the same time, which I guess is totally cool because they were violent right-wing counter-revolutionaries. He did serve as an elector for the Socialist Workers Party during the Iranian hostage situation, but I haven't been able to find anything that shows he personally called for solidarity with the Iranian revolutionaries, so if it's out there, please share it with everyone.

I mean...let's be real, dude. He flew down as a guest of Ortega specifically to attend anti-American rallies, and reportedly joined in on the ""Yankees must die" chant.

As far as the Socialist Workers Party platform...sure, I suppose it's possible he didn't actually believe in their platform. I'd personally probably not throw my lot in with a fringe third party spouting anti-American rhetoric during a national crisis if I didn't believe said anti-American rhetoric, but hell, Bernie's belief that he can win the nomination shows us his mental calculus isn't exactly the average person's.

I'd be careful throwing around "derposphere," by the way; you're backing a candidate who thinks cervical cancer is caused by sexual repression and that children should be encouraged to touch each other's genitals. And that's before we even get into his weird rape fantasy essays.

In various times throughout my youth, I believe in God, I fully supported the death penalty, I was against gay marriage, and I was against women in combat. Now, years later and many miles traveled since, I believe the total opposite of all of those things.

Cool. If you were talking about the "people's revolution" as a youth and still making the occasional slip and mentioning the "people's revolution" on the campaign trail in your '80s, I'm a lot more skeptical that your beliefs have changed.
   
Made in us
Colonel





This Is Where the Fish Lives

Seaward wrote:
Trump's an idiot and a buffoon. I'd love to not have to vote for him this cycle, but that would require the Democrats to a) guarantee not to throw up anti-2nd Amendment/anti-capitalist/anti-individual liberty justice nominations, and b) guarantee not to continue doing their best to reduce defense readiness and capability. Neither of those things will happen.

But at least I'm perfectly willing to admit the massive flaws in the Republicans' nominee this year.
You actually think Trump wouldn't just decide to nominate whomever he wants to the Supreme Court? You're a fool if you think otherwise.

I go with Politico on this one:

Politico wrote:And Sanders has long been unabashed about his socialist beliefs. “Nobody should earn more than $1 million,” he told the Burlington Free Press in 1974.

“I believe that, in the long run, major industries in this state and nation should be publicly owned and controlled by the workers themselves,” he wrote in 1976.

I suppose we then have to quibble about what he meant by 'major' industries.
Okay, so you found something he said forty years ago and you think that he hasn't changed his mind since then. That's obviously a problem to you, but you'll be willing vote for the guy that supported Obama's call for stricter gun control after Newtown four years ago because you think he won't try to feth with our gun rights?

I mean...let's be real, dude. He flew down as a guest of Ortega specifically to attend anti-American rallies, and reportedly joined in on the ""Yankees must die" chant.

As far as the Socialist Workers Party platform...sure, I suppose it's possible he didn't actually believe in their platform. I'd personally probably not throw my lot in with a fringe third party spouting anti-American rhetoric during a national crisis if I didn't believe said anti-American rhetoric, but hell, Bernie's belief that he can win the nomination shows us his mental calculus isn't exactly the average person's.
You're right, he did fly to Nicaragua and if he were the Democratic Party's nominee, I would expect him to have his feet held to fire over it. In the same breath, the United States still actively supported the Contras despite the fact that it was illegal to do so. I actually think he's a reasonably smart guy but I wouldn't vote for him. The primary system is gakky, but he isn't losing because it's rigged against him, he's losing because he's not a good candidate.

I'd be careful throwing around "derposphere," by the way; you're backing a candidate who thinks cervical cancer is caused by sexual repression and that children should be encouraged to touch each other's genitals. And that's before we even get into his weird rape fantasy essays.
Backing which candidate? Sanders? Please show me where I have ever stated support for Sanders. You have the same problem as Whembly, where you think that when someone disagrees with you or debunks your bs, that means they like the opposite of what you like. Here's some shocking news for you, I voted for Marco Rubio in Virginia's primary. I don't support Sanders or Clinton or Trump, I just have a low tolerance for sweeping, baseless generalizations.

Cool. If you were talking about the "people's revolution" as a youth and still making the occasional slip and mentioning the "people's revolution" on the campaign trail in your '80s, I'm a lot more skeptical that your beliefs have changed.
Sure, you're entitled to believe whatever you want, just admit that you're doing it solely because your biased against left wing politicians. Trump changes what he believes on a fething daily basis so there is no way to know what he actually thinks. That's a pretty serious issue for a major party candidate.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/25 23:55:45


 d-usa wrote:
"When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Seaward wrote:
 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
That's rich coming from the guy who supports Donald Trump.

Trump's an idiot and a buffoon. I'd love to not have to vote for him this cycle, but that would require the Democrats to a) guarantee not to throw up anti-2nd Amendment/anti-capitalist/anti-individual liberty justice nominations, and b) guarantee not to continue doing their best to reduce defense readiness and capability. Neither of those things will happen.


Funny, I don't see Trump with his thin skin not putting in anti-individual liberty measures. Heck, one position he recently supported was trying to make it easier to sue the press for libel because they don't bow to him.

Plus, Trump would very much reduce defense readiness and capability. Giving out nukes and suggesting using them...That's really someone who cares about defense...
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Seaward wrote:
Cool. If you were talking about the "people's revolution" as a youth and still making the occasional slip and mentioning the "people's revolution" on the campaign trail in your '80s, I'm a lot more skeptical that your beliefs have changed.
Sure, you're entitled to believe whatever you want, just admit that you're doing it solely because your biased against left wing politicians. Trump changes what he believes on a fething daily basis so there is no way to know what he actually thinks. That's a pretty serious issue for a major party candidate.

Are you implying that HRC doesn't change her positions often?

Trump's being a politician for 5 minutes, so of course it's interesting to see him windmill all over the place.

Now HRC? She's a different breed.

She was to the right of Obama with respect to 2nd Amendment, and now she wants to overturn Heller...

She flip-flopped on Gay Marriage...

SHe was a hardliner against illegal immigration before she's for open border...

She's all over the map.

So, if you're going to ding Trump for political "expediencies"... then HRC's long list of switching positsions (and back!) is fair game too.



This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/05/26 00:39:51


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: