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.
BigWaaagh wrote: The knee-jerk "grab the old fart that has been waiting in line the longest" approach to party POTUS candidacy...McCain 2008...should be thrown out with the waste.
McCain, Dole, Clinton, etc. We need to amend the Constitution to prevent Senators from being elected President.
Well, Trump isn't a Senator. You must be pretty pleased right now.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Breotan wrote: Sure, let's go with unsubstantiated allegations. I mean it's not like he's given us enough actual reasons to despise him, right?
I've got a better question for you. Who in their right mind could trust a coke head (Fisher) to give sound advice on what sniffles means during flu season?
And here I thought the Clinton cough (death rattle) stuff was stupid...
sure it must be a cold that's lasting over 2 weeks now, I guess not even trump is rich enough to afford a trip to the doctors.
A "rich" white man doing the drug of choice for rich white men? unheard of, that never happens.
It's not just Fisher, others have opined that as well, and when mr sniffsalot makes his 3rd debate appearance it will be all but confirmed.
He is definitely using a speaking method for making sure his voice stays modulated correctly. I have watched a ton of his recent public speeches, he has been doing the sharp intake of breath before each long speaking peroid since the start. The difference is that people who haven't been watching his stump speeches are finally seeing him publicly talk outside of sound bites.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/11 03:45:34
Breotan wrote: Sure, let's go with unsubstantiated allegations. I mean it's not like he's given us enough actual reasons to despise him, right?
I've got a better question for you. Who in their right mind could trust a coke head (Fisher) to give sound advice on what sniffles means during flu season?
And here I thought the Clinton cough (death rattle) stuff was stupid...
Unsubstantiated allegations are par for the course; that's what's been done to Clinton for quite a while. It may be dirty but it's hardly worth any anger, unless you were up in arms about all the unsubstantiated accusations against Clinton too.
Being realistic, well substantiated accusations haven't shaken the faith of the faithful Trumpeteers in their hero.
Of course not. What choice do they have? Once they lose Trump nobody else will have them, so it means back under the rock from whence they crawled.
Chute82 wrote: 16 gop and 2 Dems.... Biggest problem is that we really need 3rd party candidate to get more air time. 2 party system have a monopoly with the major news networks and control the media.
6 Democrats. O'Malley, Webb and two people I can't remember also had a crack. Only three lasted until the primaries, and O'Malley barely lasted in those.
The problem is not giving more air time to third parties. They get a small minority of the vote, for the simple reason that their appeal is limited. I think a lot of people have to get realistic - the Green and Libertarian parties average less than 5% of the vote each cycle, not because they lack access, but because people see what they're selling and say 'meh'. The libertarians are at least addressing this, and looking to move in to the moderate conservative space the Republicans have given up, but the Greens are as crazy as ever.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spetulhu wrote: All good points. A last one might be that Hillary doesn't need to strike Trump down verbally because he's doing a perfectly good job of hanging himself. If she went on the attack over his blunt comments she'd look like the schoolyard bully pushing poor slow Donnie into a ditch.
Exactly. If she engages she either looks like a bully, which is likely to rally the Republican base, or she whiffs her attack and fails to knock Trump's horrible statements out of the park, which makes it look like it is something that can actually be debated.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Clinton is just bad at debating... there were moments served up on a silver platter for her to knock Trump out, and she simply wiff'ed.
You're missing the strategy. She isn't engaging with his stupid nonsense. She's letting it stand alone, because it turns out that's the best way to deal with it.
Compare to the 16 Republican opponents, who Trump steamrolled one after the next. First they ignored Trump, then when that didn't work they turned full circle and attacked him directly, at which point Trump just watched them come done to his level where he is most comfortable, and then he smashed them. Clinton is sidestepping that, she is managing to de-legitimise Trump, without directly engaging him. It's quite clever.
I came in to the debates thinking Clinton needed a knock out blow on Trump. Clinton and her team assessed it differently, and their strategy has worked. She avoided direct confrontation, and instead just gave Trump enough rope to hang himself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mitochondria wrote: Trump's tax situation just illustrates how generations of politicians have built a tax code custom built for the 1%.
Clinton will not change that.
You're completely ignorant on the policies of the candidates and the history of the political parties.
Clinton's tax plan calls for tax increases on the top 1%, Trump's tax plan calls for tax cuts for the top 1%. You might claim that's just talk, but political history proves that the tax strategy a candidate campaigns on is the one that delivers. Reagan and Bush campaigned just like Trump, promising big cuts at the top end of town, and both of them delivered. Obama campaigned on tax increases for the top income earners, and that's what he delivered.
What's more, Clinton has a plan to cut the carried interest loophole, even if she can't anything pass through congress. It's constitutionally iffy (Obama has rejected the strategy), but she is willing to watch it play out in the courts if she can't get anything through congress.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: If there's a strong shy vote for Trump, he could just swing it. It depends on how reliable the methodology is for the polling and how strong the effect of the shy voter is, the US and UK are culturally different, so it may not be a thing. If the more obnoxious the candidate, the more shy people are about declaring support, Trump could have a hidden swell of support come Election Day.
The argument for the shy vote is an interesting one. It does represent an unknown risk to Clinton that won't show in the polls. But the shy may possibly play the other way, it could produce an under-reporting of Clinton voters. The shy tory phenomenon described the tendency of people being polled to hide their tory intentions because the tories were seen as dorky and uncool. That description applies more to Clinton than to Trump.
It's possible that in this case the shy tory thing has morphed in to a desire to hide one's vote for Trump because it might make the voter appear as racist, but I think that's probably pretty dubious. Trump voters certainly don't appear shy, quite the opposite. And there's plenty of cover for Trump voters who don't want to associate with Trump's racism and bigotry - they can say they hate Clinton more, or that it's all about the Supreme Court etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
curran12 wrote: It looks like Paul Ryan is pulling away from Trump now as well. Not quite as aggressively as other GOP members, but certainly gives off the vibe that he want's nothing to do with Trump.
He's never wanted anything to do with Trump. He's always positioned himself as the sensible guy who was managing Trump.
The problem for Ryan was that it was purely for show, Trump never gave two gaks about any advice coming from Ryan. You could see that in the theatrics of their public meetings, when Ryan walked out claiming the meetings had been productive and he could now endorse Trump, while Trump walked out saying he was gonna keep doing as he'd been doing.
This happened because Ryan needs Trump more than Trump needs Ryan. Meanwhile Trump's net popularity within the party is +36, while Ryan is just +16. And Trump has a strong core of reliable voters among Republicans, with 34% having a very favourable view. In comparison Ryan is 13%.
Like it or not, the real strength in the Republican party is the new wave of populist Trump silliness. Ryan's old establishment style is withering on the vine.
I think it's a pretty big stretch to conclude that someone who did Coke in the 1980s could be assumed to have continued their habit for the next 30 years. People did lots of coke in the 80s. Almost all of them stopped. This is a thing.
The alternative is a guy doing coke heavily for 30 or more years, in to his 70s, without any real physical signs of damage, such as the collapse of the nasal passage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BigWaaagh wrote: What I'm hoping comes from this goatfeth of an election year is just the opposite. I hope the discord allows some of the young, less tarnished and less beholding talent to rise from within the party ranks, or maybe go Independent and break from party ranks altogether. The knee-jerk "grab the old fart that has been waiting in line the longest" approach to party POTUS candidacy...McCain 2008...should be thrown out with the waste.
Trump was the outside guy who wasn't tarnished by years in Washington. That's not really working out for anyone.
And people have to remember that Democrats had 6 candidates campaign for the Democratic nomination. O'Malley and Lessig were both in their 50s. People didn't give a gak, they got left miles behind.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote: sure it must be a cold that's lasting over 2 weeks now, I guess not even trump is rich enough to afford a trip to the doctors.
I've had a cold that's gone a little over two months. I hope no-one at work or in my private life has seen I've been sniffing for a couple of months, and assumed I am on cocaine. Or if they have, feth 'em, because they must be absolutely crazy.
This message was edited 12 times. Last update was at 2016/10/11 04:46:52
“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.
For my weird Ball Jointed Doll election, that debate offered so much, for memes, so much...
I enjoyed it, I still only give Trump a 55 to Hilary's 45, she wasn't bad, she isn't bad at debates persay, I felt she was lower energy this time around (the first I gave her a 60 to his 40).
Of course I loved the "you'd be in jail" line, how could I not?
I don't think the debate put Trump in a good position, I mean anything can happen, yes, but it's still a real uphill battle for him, and it pains me to say it but it's true.
Make Dolls Great Again
Clover/Trump 2016
For the United Shelves of America!
Sebster: "Trump was the outside guy who wasn't tarnished by years in Washington. That's not really working out for anyone.
And people have to remember that Democrats had 6 candidates campaign for the Democratic nomination. O'Malley and Lessig were both in their 50s. People didn't give a gak, they got left miles behind."
It's not an "outside guy" that I'm all that interested in seeing as being the beneficiary of this election debacle. I don't kid myself with some fantasy notion that an outsider is what politics needs. What politics needs is quality politicians who'll put country before party and special interests. If my plumbing is a mess I don't hire an electrician out of spite, I find the plumbing talent necessary to get the job done. Trump is showing how out of his depth, inappropriate and inadequate he is every minute and it only reinforces my view on this particular matter.
Yes, it's true there were other Dem candidates technically running, but people "didn't give a gak" because their...the other candidates'...political chops have the depth of a wading pool. The only viable option besides Sanders or HRC was Martin O'Malley. Lessig? Please! The same can be said for the GOP and it's motley crew of also-rans. Lots of bodies doesn't mean lots of attractive options.
My point in my original statement was about this election hopefully shaking up the status quo enough in order for talent within the party ranks to feel and become empowered enough to be allowed to rise on merit, not seniority or even strict party loyalty and adherence.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/10/11 06:23:30
BigWaaagh wrote: It's not an "outside guy" that I'm all that interested in seeing as being the beneficiary of this election debacle. I don't kid myself with some fantasy notion that an outsider is what politics needs.
Cool, thanks for clarifying that.
Yes, it's true there were other Dem candidates technically running, but people "didn't give a gak" because their political chops have the depth of a wading pool. The only viable option besides Sanders or HRC was Martin O'Malley. Lessig? Please! The same can be said for the GOP and it's motley crew of also-rans. Lots of bodies doesn't mean lots of attractive options.
Sure, but I think you're making a big assumption that the system is shutting out talent, rather than consider the talent isn't there in the first place. The mix of skills needed to be a good president are pretty rare. There's just never been a time in politics anywhere that you could say 'wow there's like a dozen guys who are viable candidates that would be just great at running the country'. It's wonderful when you get 2.
I think the real trick is that when you don't have a great candidate, at least make sure you get a 'do no harm' candidate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rainbow Dash wrote: I enjoyed it, I still only give Trump a 55 to Hilary's 45, she wasn't bad, she isn't bad at debates persay, I felt she was lower energy this time around (the first I gave her a 60 to his 40).
This kind of thing will never cease to bewilder me. Trump got hammered in the first campaign because he became listless. Not because he blathered a string of idiotic nonsense, but because his energy was down.
In the second debate he had more energy, so people decide he was the winner. But he blathered even crazier bs, but that just doesn't matter because 'energy'.
It's like the actual fething policies and things a person will do in office don't even matter.
Of course I loved the "you'd be in jail" line, how could I not?
Because democracy is an important thing that people must work to preserve.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/11 06:31:12
“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.
BigWaaagh wrote: It's not an "outside guy" that I'm all that interested in seeing as being the beneficiary of this election debacle. I don't kid myself with some fantasy notion that an outsider is what politics needs.
Cool, thanks for clarifying that.
Yes, it's true there were other Dem candidates technically running, but people "didn't give a gak" because their political chops have the depth of a wading pool. The only viable option besides Sanders or HRC was Martin O'Malley. Lessig? Please! The same can be said for the GOP and it's motley crew of also-rans. Lots of bodies doesn't mean lots of attractive options.
Sure, but I think you're making a big assumption that the system is shutting out talent, rather than consider the talent isn't there in the first place. The mix of skills needed to be a good president are pretty rare. There's just never been a time in politics anywhere that you could say 'wow there's like a dozen guys who are viable candidates that would be just great at running the country'. It's wonderful when you get 2.
I think the real trick is that when you don't have a great candidate, at least make sure you get a 'do no harm' candidate.
quote]
ME: It's true, I do assume there's more to the talent pool than we typically see. God help us if there isn't! I also assume, or I should say, I believe from my casual observation that the politics of politics keeps the biggest cherries for the senior politicos. There are exceptions...Bill Clinton, for example...who use opportunity to their advantage, make a move and stand out, but it seems to me those situations are, indeed, the exception and not the rule. IMHO, this election cycle is a mega-opportunity for individuals to stand out and get noticed outside of what I perceive to be the norm of the party hierarchical machine.
I screwed up the Quote edit on this, in too big of a hurry to get back to Cubs game that's in extra innings. Go Cubs!!!! -Ah, feth, they just lost. Goodnight Gracie!...just dated myself a bit there.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/10/11 07:07:53
whembly wrote: I don't buy it... he'll max out at 40% of the EV.
IF you start to throw around acronyms like EV might be worth remembering it comes from EXPECTED value. Expected!=what will happen as any poker player in the world can tell you. You can have expected value of 10,000,000$ yet run on huge loss.
Therefore until it's voted and done his chances are >0% even if EV is zero or lower...
BigWaaagh wrote: ME: It's true, I do assume there's more to the talent pool than we typically see. God help us if there isn't! I also assume, or I should say, I believe from my casual observation that the politics of politics keeps the biggest cherries for the senior politicos. There are exceptions...Bill Clinton, for example...who use opportunity to their advantage, make a move and stand out, but it seems to me those situations are, indeed, the exception and not the rule. IMHO, this election cycle is a mega-opportunity for individuals to stand out and get noticed outside of what I perceive to be the norm of the party hierarchical machine.
I think the US system, more than most, gives an opportunity for individuals to stand out. One of the advantages of the endless campaign, I guess, it means there's plenty of news time for any talented young candidates to get out and get themselves noticed. You get some party faction behind you, and then you get your shot, with a convention speech, or a State of the Union reply, or something else like that. If you've got talent and you take your chance then it's like Obama at the 2004 convention, if you don't got it, then it's more like Bobby Jindal's State of the Union reply in 2009.
It seems that right now, both sides have a lot more Jindals than they do Obamas.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: IF you start to throw around acronyms like EV might be worth remembering it comes from EXPECTED value. Expected!=what will happen as any poker player in the world can tell you. You can have expected value of 10,000,000$ yet run on huge loss.
Therefore until it's voted and done his chances are >0% even if EV is zero or lower...
EV meant Electoral Votes. As in, 538 electoral votes that decide the next president, allocated to the states, and assigned to the winner of the vote in each state (plus a couple of bits of weirdness).
Whembly is saying that he thinks Trump can't exceed 40% of the electoral votes. It isn't a great argument, but not for the reasons you outlined. Thing is, there is no reason to pick 40% as any kind of hard figure, except that's where Trump happens to be right now, if you give him every state he is currently leading in, so Arizona and everything to the right of that, he'll pick up around 200 votes, a bit shy of whembly's 40% figure. But there's a clutch of states that could swing one way or the other with some pretty small moves in the polls. If Trump can gain a bit over 3 points then Iowa, Ohio, North Carolina and Florida all move back in his favour, and that'd bring him fairly close to the 270 EV needed to win. Trump's problem, though, is that close is still losing, to actually win he'd have to grab Nevada and Colorado, and that'd require something more like a 7% swing. That's becoming less likely by the day, and by the time the tax scandal, bragging about groping and bizarre debate performance settle down the numbers will probably be even further against Trump.
So uh yeah, Trump is a strong outsider now. A Trump win would probably require some combination of strong polling gains in the next three weeks, and more than few bits of weirdness and lucky breaks on election day. It just isn't because there's any kind of 40% ceiling on his EV.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/10/11 08:10:01
“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.
tneva82 wrote: IF you start to throw around acronyms like EV might be worth remembering it comes from EXPECTED value. Expected!=what will happen as any poker player in the world can tell you. You can have expected value of 10,000,000$ yet run on huge loss.
Therefore until it's voted and done his chances are >0% even if EV is zero or lower...
EV = electoral vote, not expected value.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
During Sunday's debate, Donald Trump once again said he doesn't know whether Russia is trying to hack the U.S. election, despite Friday's statement by the U.S. intelligence community pointing the finger at Putin -- and despite the fact that Trump was personally briefed on Russia's role in the hacks by U.S. officials.
A senior U.S. intelligence official assured NBC News that cybersecurity and the Russian government's attempts to interfere in the 2016 election have been briefed to, and discussed extensively with, both parties' candidates, surrogates and leadership, since mid-August. "To profess not to know at this point is willful misrepresentation," said the official. "The intelligence community has walked a very thin line in not taking sides, but both candidates have all the information they need to be crystal clear."
On Sunday, Trump disputed the idea there was any hack at all. "I notice, anytime anything wrong happens, they like to say the Russians are — [Hillary Clinton] doesn't know if it's the Russians doing the hacking. Maybe there is no hacking," Trump told moderator Martha Raddatz of ABC News. "But they always blame Russia. And the reason they blame Russia because they think they're trying to tarnish me with Russia. I know nothing about Russia."
It's the second time in two debates that Trump has declined to acknowledge that the hacks, mostly on Democratic targets, are real, much less that Russia is behind them.
"I don't think anybody knows it was Russia that broke into the DNC. She's saying Russia, Russia, Russia, but I don't -- maybe it was. I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China," he told NBC's Lester Holt on Sept. 26. "It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, OK?"
But weeks prior to the first debate, Trump had already been told privately by the intelligence community that the Russians were implicated.
On August 17, Trump got the first of the private briefings from U.S. intelligence officers to which he and Hillary Clinton are entitled as the major party presidential nominees.
As NBC News previously reported, classified materials prepared for the first briefing and examined by NBC News showed U.S. officials had drawn "direct links" between Vladimir Putin's government and the recent hacks and e-mail leaks.
"It's common practice for all things in the briefing book to be used in the briefing," said one U.S. official.
Since then, said an intelligence official, Trump and Clinton have had a second briefing, and their transition teams have received additional briefings on the Russian hack.
A little more than 48 hours before Sunday's debate, the intelligence community and the Department of Homeland Security went public with their conclusion that the hack originated in the Kremlin, issuing a joint statement.
"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations."
The statement added, "We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.
Updated | I am Sidney Blumenthal. At least, that is what Vladimir Putin—and, somehow, Donald Trump—seem to believe. And that should raise concerns not only about Moscow’s attempts to manipulate this election, but also how Trump came to push Russian disinformation to American voters.
An email from Blumenthal—a confidant of Hillary Clinton and a man, second only to George Soros at the center of conservative conspiracy theories—turned up in the recent document dump by Wikileaks. At a time when American intelligence believes Russian hackers are trying to interfere with the presidential election, records have been fed recently to Wikileaks out of multiple organizations of the Democratic Party, raising concerns that the self-proclaimed whistleblowers group has become a tool of Putin’s government. But now that I have been brought into the whole mess—and transformed into Blumenthal—there is even more proof that this act of cyberwar is not only being orchestrated by the Russians, but that they are really, really dumb.
The evidence emerged thanks to the incompetence of Sputnik, the Russian online news and radio service established by the government controlled news agency, Rossiya Segodnya.
The documents that Wikileaks unloaded recently have been emails out of the account of John Podesta, the chairman of Clinton’s election campaign. Almost as soon as the pilfered documents emerged, Sputnik was all over them and rapidly found (or probably already knew about before the Wikileaks dump) a purportedly incriminating email from Blumenthal.
The email was amazing—it linked Boogie Man Blumenthal, Podesta and the topic of conservative political fevered dreams, Benghazi. This, it seemed, was the smoking gun finally proving Clinton bore total responsibility for the terrorist attack on the American outpost in Libya in 2012. Sputnik even declared that the email might be the “October surprise” that could undermine Clinton’s campaign.
To understand the full importance of the story—and how much Putin and his Kremlin cronies must have been dancing with delight—I have to quote the top few paragraphs:
In a major revelation from the second batch of WikiLeaks emails from Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta it was learned that Hillary's top confidante Sidney Blumenthal believed that the investigation into Benghazi was legitimate because it was "preventable" and the result of State Department negligence.
In an email titled "The Truth" from Hillary's top confidante Sidney Blumenthal, the adviser writing to undisclosed recipients said that "one important point that has been universally acknowledged by nine previous reports about Benghazi: The attack was almost certainly preventable" in what may turn out to be the big October surprise from the WikiLeaks released of emails hacked from the account of Clinton Campaign Chair John Podesta.
Then came the money quote: "Clinton was in charge of the State Department, and it failed to protect U.S. personnel at an American consulate in Libya. If the GOP wants to raise that as a talking point against her, it is legitimate," said Blumenthal, putting to rest the Democratic Party talking point that the investigation into Clinton's management of the State Department at the time of the attack was nothing more than a partisan witch hunt.
Those words sounded really, really familiar. Really familiar. Like, so familiar they struck me as something I wrote. Because they were something I wrote.
The Russians were quoting two sentences from a 10,000 word piece I wrote for Newsweek, which Blumenthal had emailed to Podesta. There was no mistaking that Blumenthal was citing Newsweek—the magazine’s name and citations for photographs appeared throughout the attached article. The Russians had carefully selected the “of course” paragraph, which mentions there were legitimate points of criticism regarding Clinton and Benghazi, all of which had been acknowledged in nine reports about the terror attack and by the former Secretary of State herself. But that was hardly the point of the story, “Benghazi Biopsy: A Comprehensive Guide to One of America’s Worst Political Outrages.” The piece is about the obscene politicization of the assault that killed four Americans, and the article slammed the Republican Benghazi committee which was engaged in a political show trial disguised as a Congressional investigation—the tenth inquiry into the tragedy.
Here is the real summation of my article, which the Russians failed to quote:
The historical significance of this moment can hardly be overstated, and it seems many Republicans, Democrats and members of the media don’t fully understand the magnitude of what is taking place. The awesome power of government—one that allows officials to pore through almost anything they demand and compel anyone to talk or suffer the shame of taking the Fifth Amendment—has been unleashed for purely political purposes. It is impossible to review what the Benghazi committee has done as anything other than taxpayer-funded political research of the opposing party’s leading candidate for president. Comparisons from America’s past are rare. Richard Nixon’s attempts to use the IRS to investigate his perceived enemies come to mind. So does Senator Joseph McCarthy’s red-baiting during the 1950s, with reckless accusations of treason leveled at members of the State Department, military generals and even the secretary of the Army…The consequences, however, are worse than the manipulation of the electoral process. By using Benghazi for political advantage, the Republicans have communicated to global militants that, through even limited attacks involving relatively few casualties, they can potentially influence the direction of American elections.
Of course, this might be seen as just an opportunity to laugh at the incompetence of the Russian hackers and government press—once they realized their error, Sputnik took the article down. But then things got even more bizarre.
This false story was only reported by the Russian controlled agency (a reference appeared in a Turkish publication, but it was nothing but a link to the Sputnik article). So how did Donald Trump end up advancing the same falsehood put out by Putin’s mouthpiece?
At a rally in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania, Trump spoke while holding a document in his hand. He told the assembled crowd that it was an email from Blumenthal, whom he called “sleazy Sidney.”
“This just came out a little while ago,’’ Trump said. “I have to tell you this.” And then he read the words from my article.
“He’s now admitting they could have done something about Benghazi,’’ Trump said, dropping the document to the floor. “This just came out a little while ago.”
The crowd booed and chanted, “Lock her up!”
This is not funny. It is terrifying. The Russians engage in a sloppy disinformation effort and, before the day is out, the Republican nominee for president is standing on a stage reciting the manufactured story as truth. How did this happen? Who in the Trump campaign was feeding him falsehoods straight from the Kremlin? (The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment).
The Russians have been obtaining American emails and now are presenting complete misrepresentations of them—falsifying them—in hopes of setting off a cascade of events that might change the outcome of the presidential election. The big question, of course, is why are the Russians working so hard to damage Clinton and, in the process, aid Donald Trump? That is a topic for another time.
For now, though, Americans should be outraged. This totalitarian regime, engaged in what are arguably war crimes in Syria to protect their government puppet, is working to upend a democracy to the benefit of an American candidate who uttered positive comments just Sunday about the Kremlin's campaign on behalf of Bashar al-Assad. Trump’s arguments were an incomprehensible explication of the complex Syrian situation, which put him right on the side of the Iranians and Syrian,s who are fighting to preserve the government that is the primary conduit of weapons used against Israel.
So no, Mr. Putin, I’m not Sidney Blumenthal. And now that you have been exposed once again, get the hell out of our election. And Mr. Trump—you have some explaining to do.
This story has been updated to include information about Donald Trump's speech in Pennsylvania and a request for comment from the Trump campaign.
get's "better" by the day.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Yeah, Trump is openly spewing Russian disinformation and advocating using strong man tactics against his political opponent in violation of American jurisprudence, but it's cool because he is against Sharia law, Benghazi, Supreme Court, etc.
Did anyone notice how Trump came to Russia's defence (again) in the second debate. Intelligence seems firm that the Russians were the source of the hack, when confronted about this in the debate, Trump said something like "we don't know the Russians did this. We don't even know there was a hack."
Why?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/11 14:29:45
Dunno. In the first debate, he blamed some 400 lb guy in a basement somewhere. Maybe someone mentioned to him that those guys are part of his core voting block...
Because the CIA and security services are part of the supposedly discredited "establishment" that Trump has set out to challenge and overthrow, so he can't possibly admit they might be right about something, doubly so since in this case he is already on record as supporting the Russians and asking for them to hack the Democrats.
Well, for some reason he's going out of his way to ingratiate himself to the Putin administration. I'd really like to understand why this is so. Owed money? Wants to do business in Russia?
I know I've been after thus Russian connection for a while, but it seems the press doesn't want to press the issue. To me, it's the number 1 disqualifier for his candidacy, and that's even after hearing about the rapey stuff (which IMO is also disqualifying, but not as serious to national security as the Russian connection)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/11 14:45:38
jasper76 wrote: Did anyone notice how Trump came to Russia's defence (again) in the second debate. Intelligence seems firm that the Russians were the source of the hack, when confronted about this in the debate, Trump said something like "we don't know the Russians did this. We don't even know there was a hack."
Why?
I noticed that as well. Going to go out on a limb here and say the Secretary of State may know where the attacks came from.
jasper76 wrote: Did anyone notice how Trump came to Russia's defence (again) in the second debate. Intelligence seems firm that the Russians were the source of the hack, when confronted about this in the debate, Trump said something like "we don't know the Russians did this. We don't even know there was a hack."
Why?
I noticed that as well. Going to go out on a limb here and say the Secretary of State may know where the attacks came from.
'
An article I read quoted an intelligence official saying that both candidates were briefed on the hack, and that there should be no lack of clarity about the matter.
At this point there's no doubt that Trump is Putin's man.
Wait, I misread that. I'm going to edit my post. Sorry. That's what I get for reading the clickbait headline and posting, and then reading the rest of the article. My bad.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
jasper76 wrote: Well, for some reason he's going out of his way to ingratiate himself to the Putin administration. I'd really like to understand why this is so. Owed money? Wants to do business in Russia?
I know I've been after thus Russian connection for a while, but it seems the press doesn't want to press the issue. To me, it's the number 1 disqualifier for his candidacy, and that's even after hearing about the rapey stuff (which IMO is also disqualifying, but not as serious to national security as the Russian connection)
There's lots of stuff in the press regarding Trump's ties to the Kremlin.
I also assume, or I should say, I believe from my casual observation that the politics of politics keeps the biggest cherries for the senior politicos. There are exceptions...Bill Clinton, for example...who use opportunity to their advantage, make a move and stand out, but it seems to me those situations are, indeed, the exception and not the rule. 
