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.

 sebster wrote:
And then he goes and makes his announcement 11 days before the election.

As I said above, did he? Or was it one of the Republicans who leaked it.

As for the non payment. Do you think it was the most sensible move to antagonise someone who probably knows most of your secrets at this point?

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
As I said above, did he? Or was it one of the Republicans who leaked it.

That's his sidestep, yeah. That he didn't make it public. But sending a memo to Republicans and then acting surprised when one of them makes it public is ridiculous. I don't even blame the Republican leaker in this, honestly I'd be surprised if it wasn't leaked by every single one of them. You give something like that to any politician on the planet days before the election and damn straight they are going to leak it. But until the FBI actually looked at the emails, if they then found something relevant to emailgate, there was no need to tell anyone... unless you want to impact the election, or are bowing to pressure from people who want to impact the election.

As for the non payment. Do you think it was the most sensible move to antagonise someone who probably knows most of your secrets at this point?

Fabrizio has been working with Republican candidates for a long time, and likely wants to work with future Republican candidates for a long time to come. It's his livelihood. But betraying his employer he would be telling any future Republican candidates that he is not a man to be trusted.

Trump on the other hand... Trump doesn't give a gak. Whether he wins or loses in November, he's basically done with the Republican party. He needs no friends, certainly not from a pollster he's never really listened to anyway.

 sebster wrote:

Fabrizio has been working with Republican candidates for a long time, and likely wants to work with future Republican candidates for a long time to come. It's his livelihood. But betraying his employer he would be telling any future Republican candidates that he is not a man to be trusted.

Trump on the other hand... Trump doesn't give a gak. Whether he wins or loses in November, he's basically done with the Republican party. He needs no friends, certainly not from a pollster he's never really listened to anyway.

You kind of contradicted yourself there. If Trump really is going to jump ship then is Fabrizio going to lose stock with the Republican party? And has he betrayed his employer. An employer is someone who pays his bills, Trump hasn't so its not as if Fabrizio is coming out of the blue.

What surprises me, people think Trump is trustworthy, yet he has a reputation of not paying his bills/dues. I don't know what the welfare state is like over there, but I could see Trump cancelling all welfare cheques if there's no money in the pot.

 AndrewC wrote:
You kind of contradicted yourself there. If Trump really is going to jump ship then is Fabrizio going to lose stock with the Republican party?

Yes, he will lose stock if he reveals Trump secrets. Not because he damaged Trump, but because he has shown he is not to be trusted with campaign secrets. It means any politician planning a campaign in the future will be uncertain if he might betray them as well, if he has a dispute.

It's really the golden rule of staying employed as campaign staffer - show you will never reveal where the bodies are

What surprises me, people think Trump is trustworthy, yet he has a reputation of not paying his bills/dues. I don't know what the welfare state is like over there, but I could see Trump cancelling all welfare cheques if there's no money in the pot.

Trump lies with abandon, and chooses to decline payment if the whim suits him. And yet plenty of people think he's more trustworthy. It is the most incredible thing.

I'm amused how how quickly its been glazed over that a rational person wouldn't make anything of the FBI declaration. Its largely taken for granted that the Republicans will freak out over any non-evidence with Hillary's name on it and focus has shifted elsewhere.

Granted it's Slate, but according to a group of computer scientists, a Trump server has been communication with a Russian bank.

Fun fact for the day. There has been 560,000 article written about Hillary Clinton's emails between March 2015 and September 2016. When it was discovered that stafffers in the Bush administration were conducting official business over a private server, that produced 325 stories.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I'm amused how how quickly its been glazed over that a rational person wouldn't make anything of the FBI declaration. Its largely taken for granted that the Republicans will freak out over any non-evidence with Hillary's name on it and focus has shifted elsewhere.

"FBI announce re-opening investigation into Clinton emails." It sounds terrible, and it's all a lot of low information voters are going to hear.

It isn't a re-opening, because Comer coming out and saying he doesn't think there was anything to be prosecuted doesn't actually close an investigation (nor was Comer's much publicised announcement actually meaningful in any way, because it isn't up to the FBI to decide what can and can't be prosecuted).

It isn't even a continuing of the investigation, because there's no warrant to read those emails, and no indication there's anything in them that wasn't already in emails uncovered, that is relevant to the investigation, or relevant or interesting in any way. It's just an acknowledgement that in the course of another investigation some emails have been found that might be relevant to the Clinton emailgate thing.

But those second two points that show how much of a non-story this is take time to explain, and that's not how politics works.

Yup. People would rather take the headline and believe it. Then whine for the next four years about how terrible our politicians are. The government we deserve, indeed.

 sebster wrote:
Fun fact for the day. There has been 560,000 article written about Hillary Clinton's emails between March 2015 and September 2016. When it was discovered that stafffers in the Bush administration were conducting official business over a private server, that produced 325 stories.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I'm amused how how quickly its been glazed over that a rational person wouldn't make anything of the FBI declaration. Its largely taken for granted that the Republicans will freak out over any non-evidence with Hillary's name on it and focus has shifted elsewhere.

"FBI announce re-opening investigation into Clinton emails." It sounds terrible, and it's all a lot of low information voters are going to hear.

As well as supposedly high information voters with a raging hate-boner.

 Henry wrote:
As well as supposedly high information voters with a raging hate-boner.

True that. I wonder if there should be a second category besides low information voters. "High information but crazy/deceived voters". Not very catchy...

The Buzzfeed article indicates that a lot of Republican voters (more so than Democrats) are living in a high false information world.

It has become a vicious circle of confirmation bias.

Bloomberg did a poll, and it asked the Republican respondants an interesting question about the Trump and Ryan split;
Some harsh words have been exchanged between Republicans Paul Ryan and Donald Trump. Which person’s view better matches your own view of what the Republican Party should stand for? Paul Ryan or Donald Trump?

Trump got 51%, Ryan got 33%, with 15% not sure. It's Trump's party now. It was probably never Ryan's party, or the party of anyone like him, they were just able to run the show while the nationalist populists were failing to figure out how dominant they were in the Republican base.
https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rpooBV0UlG4k/v0

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Buzzfeed article indicates that a lot of Republican voters (more so than Democrats) are living in a high false information world.

It has become a vicious circle of confirmation bias.

Yeah, I remember back in the ACA debate there was a very pronounced dynamic. You could see people arguing for ACA, getting their points largely from left leaning media, they were familiar with both the arguments for and against ACA and that allowed them to see the complaint being made and give with some kind of substantial response. But the folks arguing against the ACA, getting their talking points from the right wing were well versed in the attacks against ACA, but they seemed to have never seen the arguments for ACA at all. And they didn't seem to be able to actually take the argument in when it was presented to them, in fact the most common response when seeing a counterpoint was to disappear for a day or a week, then come back making the exact same point as before. They seemed to be existing entirely in a bubble of negative information about ACA, and when they came to a place with non-negative information they just didn't know what to do.

One recent example of this bubble effect was in the third debate. Chris Wallace did a really good job as host, the questions were evenly put, and he managed the two candidates well to make sure each was pretty evenly and while the focus showed a mild conservative bent it wasn't much. But in the middle of all that he dropped an amazingly gak question, in which he asked about economic plans, but included a little editorial about how Obama's stimulus had led to really low growth. I don't think Wallace was trying to lead the audience, I think he just really didn't know how one sided his understanding of the issue was, because even with best intentions he still lives in the FOX News bubble.

 sebster wrote:
Yeah, I remember back in the ACA debate there was a very pronounced dynamic. You could see people arguing for ACA, getting their points largely from left leaning media, they were familiar with both the arguments for and against ACA and that allowed them to see the complaint being made and give with some kind of substantial response. But the folks arguing against the ACA, getting their talking points from the right wing were well versed in the attacks against ACA, but they seemed to have never seen the arguments for ACA at all. And they didn't seem to be able to actually take the argument in when it was presented to them, in fact the most common response when seeing a counterpoint was to disappear for a day or a week, then come back making the exact same point as before. They seemed to be existing entirely in a bubble of negative information about ACA, and when they came to a place with non-negative information they just didn't know what to do.

I think the really interesting thing about this is how polls about each part of what the ACA did showed higher support than polls about "Obamacare". It was a rather horrifying demonstration of how a lot of the right-wing opposition had nothing to do with factual policy issues and everything to do with reflexive "OBAMA IS SATAN" rage.

 sebster wrote:

 Henry wrote:
As well as supposedly high information voters with a raging hate-boner.

True that. I wonder if there should be a second category besides low information voters. "High information but crazy/deceived voters". Not very catchy...

May I suggest "mis-information voters" - voters who actually look at lots of news, but get it from highly biased sources who feed them a skewed version of reality that conforms to their own biases.

You could also call them "wilfully misinformed voters" but it's more of a mouthful.

Nice article on the election.

http://www.stonekettle.com/2016/10/pragmatism.html

 sebster wrote:
Bloomberg did a poll, and it asked the Republican respondants an interesting question about the Trump and Ryan split;
Some harsh words have been exchanged between Republicans Paul Ryan and Donald Trump. Which person’s view better matches your own view of what the Republican Party should stand for? Paul Ryan or Donald Trump?

Trump got 51%, Ryan got 33%, with 15% not sure. It's Trump's party now. It was probably never Ryan's party, or the party of anyone like him, they were just able to run the show while the nationalist populists were failing to figure out how dominant they were in the Republican base.
https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rpooBV0UlG4k/v0

I think Ryan's problem might be the same as Hillary's problem.

They are both heavy on policy, and know policy matters inside and out. But it's hard to make policy sexy, especially when you are competing against emotions and flashy catch phrases.

Explaining a policy would take just as long as explaining why "build a wall" doesn't do anything to address the fact that immigration is flat, that it's not Mexicans, and that they are not coming over the southern border. By the time you explain either policy or the failure in a catch phrase you have lost the attention span of the average voter who just follows sound bites and catch phrases.

 sebster wrote:

Yeah, I remember back in the ACA debate there was a very pronounced dynamic. You could see people arguing for ACA, getting their points largely from left leaning media, they were familiar with both the arguments for and against ACA and that allowed them to see the complaint being made and give with some kind of substantial response. But the folks arguing against the ACA, getting their talking points from the right wing were well versed in the attacks against ACA, but they seemed to have never seen the arguments for ACA at all. And they didn't seem to be able to actually take the argument in when it was presented to them, in fact the most common response when seeing a counterpoint was to disappear for a day or a week, then come back making the exact same point as before. They seemed to be existing entirely in a bubble of negative information about ACA, and when they came to a place with non-negative information they just didn't know what to do.

You just need to read Whembly's posts to see that. That he does it on purpose just shows he's really no better than the "corrupt Democrats" he keeps posting with his "self-made facts".

That's really the same tactics here in Right-Wing medias; just swarming the mediasphere with plenty of false information, so that people can't see anything else. And they fething believe it without asking, while arguing they are "critical" against left-leaning media (or just dismissing them as being "biased"). They get trapped in their own delusions.

That's enough for someone to lose hope in humanity when you keep reading that kind of self-inflicted trainwreck.

Wiki emails show DOnna Brazile fed more questions to HRC during debates, and that her mole was one of the moderators Roland Martin. The DNC should ban the CNN from ever hosting a debate again, but they won't.

A March 12 email exchange shows Brazile stating that she received a town hall question from Roland Martin, a TV One host who co-moderated a March 13 town hall with CNN’s Jake Tapper.

A March 5 email shows that she shared a question with Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and communications director Jennifer Palmieri that was to be asked in a March 6 debate hosted by CNN in Flint, Mich.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/31/donna-brazile-shared-additional-debate-questions-with-clinton-campaign-identified-her-tipster/#ixzz4OkpnwMg6

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/31/donna-brazile-shared-additional-debate-questions-with-clinton-campaign-identified-her-tipster/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Granted it's Slate, but according to a group of computer scientists, a Trump server has been communication with a Russian bank.

Oh no the machines are rising! Where is John Conner???

I though town hall debates were questions from the audience? So how could they know the questions before hand.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I though town hall debates were questions from the audience? So how could they know the questions before hand.

CNN knows who they invited to the audience they know what one question each audience member wants to ask so they choose the people they will call on beforehand. CNN wants people to ask good questions so they pick people beforehand to avoid stupid questions or Nathalie crazy questions. The candidates aren't supposed to know the questions because the candidates are supposed to have to think on their feet and answer honestly. Tipping off a candidate to allow that candidate to prep for specific questions undermines the whole point of the format.

Exactly. The fix was in against Bernie, yet the old fart still gave her a run for her money.

sirlynchmob wrote:


the worst surprise attack in US history was pearl harbor, 9/11 is second, maybe even 3rd after little bighorn.

The US declared war against a country over one individual, when a simple extradition would have sufficed.

I'd put the Tet Offensive up there, but that wasn't US soil, just US and Vietnamese soldiers. Not sure. So 9/11 would be 3rd or 4th, depending on how you count it, but your point still stands.

Also, no one was going to extradite Bin Laden and his compadres. He was protected by Al Quaeda, and moved from camp to camp. Hide and Seek Champion for 10 years, remember. That's Trump level of revisionist history, there!

 kronk wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


the worst surprise attack in US history was pearl harbor, 9/11 is second, maybe even 3rd after little bighorn.

The US declared war against a country over one individual, when a simple extradition would have sufficed.

I'd put the Tet Offensive up there, but that wasn't US soil, just US and Vietnamese soldiers. Not sure. So 9/11 would be 3rd or 4th, depending on how you count it, but your point still stands.

Also, no one was going to extradite Bin Laden and his compadres. He was protected by Al Quaeda, and moved from camp to camp. Hide and Seek Champion for 10 years, remember. That's Trump level of revisionist history, there!

Kind of hard to see Little Bighorn as a surprise attack since Custer was the attacker, and in scale, no where near the lives lost on 9/11.

Well it was a surprise to him!

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Granted it's Slate, but according to a group of computer scientists, a Trump server has been communication with a Russian bank.

I actually believe this... I mean, c'mon he was always guarded about his response towards Russia (just about the only thing!).

I just wished Slate has more than "a retired FBI agent anonymously stated..." source.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sarouan wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Yeah, I remember back in the ACA debate there was a very pronounced dynamic. You could see people arguing for ACA, getting their points largely from left leaning media, they were familiar with both the arguments for and against ACA and that allowed them to see the complaint being made and give with some kind of substantial response. But the folks arguing against the ACA, getting their talking points from the right wing were well versed in the attacks against ACA, but they seemed to have never seen the arguments for ACA at all. And they didn't seem to be able to actually take the argument in when it was presented to them, in fact the most common response when seeing a counterpoint was to disappear for a day or a week, then come back making the exact same point as before. They seemed to be existing entirely in a bubble of negative information about ACA, and when they came to a place with non-negative information they just didn't know what to do.

You just need to read Whembly's posts to see that. That he does it on purpose just shows he's really no better than the "corrupt Democrats" he keeps posting with his "self-made facts".

That's a lotta horse gak there mang...

The PPACA is a fething disaster and does nothing, nothing what the cheerleaders said it would do.

If anything, the criticisms of the PPACA were vindicated ages ago.

Not convinced by the Trump/Russia thing above

see : https://twitter.com/randomvariable/status/793250224315756544

elsewhere :

http://static.parastorage.com/services/wix-labs-pdf-viewer-statics/1.29.0/libs/pdfjs/web/viewer.html?file=http://media.wix.com/ugd/8aaaef_5da9d5f6e463489494070ed849d0db8b.pdf#page=1

"On a scale from 0 to 100, where0 means there is no chance and 100 means it is a certainty, what are the odds that Donald Trump would authorize the use of a nuclear weapon against ISIS or another foreign enemy at some point in his presidency, if he is elected president?"

63% of Clinton and 22% of Trump voters think this will happen.

A nuclear weapon.

On a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 means there is no chance and 100 means it is a certainty, what are the odds that the U.S. would have race riots in major cities at some point in his presidency, if Donald Trump is elected president?

averages to 65% of the voters think this would happen.

 reds8n wrote:

63% of Clinton and 22% of Trump voters think this will happen.

Further proof of the self-delusion of Trump supporters, as the man has actually asked why nukes can't be used, and wants them given to more countries.

 d-usa wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Bloomberg did a poll, and it asked the Republican respondants an interesting question about the Trump and Ryan split;
Some harsh words have been exchanged between Republicans Paul Ryan and Donald Trump. Which person’s view better matches your own view of what the Republican Party should stand for? Paul Ryan or Donald Trump?

Trump got 51%, Ryan got 33%, with 15% not sure. It's Trump's party now. It was probably never Ryan's party, or the party of anyone like him, they were just able to run the show while the nationalist populists were failing to figure out how dominant they were in the Republican base.
https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rpooBV0UlG4k/v0

I think Ryan's problem might be the same as Hillary's problem.

They are both heavy on policy, and know policy matters inside and out. But it's hard to make policy sexy, especially when you are competing against emotions and flashy catch phrases.

Explaining a policy would take just as long as explaining why "build a wall" doesn't do anything to address the fact that immigration is flat, that it's not Mexicans, and that they are not coming over the southern border. By the time you explain either policy or the failure in a catch phrase you have lost the attention span of the average voter who just follows sound bites and catch phrases.

If they can't explain policy in a 'simple' way, then they're not good politicians.

Your FDR was a master at getting the policy aims and goals across to the American public, and in the UK, our own David Lloyd George had the knack of getting complicated stuff to the public without dumbing it down and winning their support.

 whembly wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Granted it's Slate, but according to a group of computer scientists, a Trump server has been communication with a Russian bank.

I actually believe this... I mean, c'mon he was always guarded about his response towards Russia (just about the only thing!).

I just wished Slate has more than "a retired FBI agent anonymously stated..." source.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sarouan wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Yeah, I remember back in the ACA debate there was a very pronounced dynamic. You could see people arguing for ACA, getting their points largely from left leaning media, they were familiar with both the arguments for and against ACA and that allowed them to see the complaint being made and give with some kind of substantial response. But the folks arguing against the ACA, getting their talking points from the right wing were well versed in the attacks against ACA, but they seemed to have never seen the arguments for ACA at all. And they didn't seem to be able to actually take the argument in when it was presented to them, in fact the most common response when seeing a counterpoint was to disappear for a day or a week, then come back making the exact same point as before. They seemed to be existing entirely in a bubble of negative information about ACA, and when they came to a place with non-negative information they just didn't know what to do.

You just need to read Whembly's posts to see that. That he does it on purpose just shows he's really no better than the "corrupt Democrats" he keeps posting with his "self-made facts".

That's a lotta horse gak there mang...

The PPACA is a fething disaster and does nothing, nothing what the cheerleaders said it would do.

If anything, the criticisms of the PPACA were vindicated ages ago.

Criticisms of the ACA included that it would balloon the deficit (it didn't), crash the Economy (it's going pretty well) and death panels would murder your grandma (this may have happened, have you checked up on her lately?). I remember the arguments well.

The criticisms of the ACA were not vindicated at all. It remains a useful, if flawed, piece of legislation, which could be much improved if Republicans could tackle the issues in good faith, instead of putting forward a 58th repeal bill with no replacement plan even proposed.

"This'll put an end to that Zodiac business! Can't be the Zodiac AND the singing backstage wraith!"