|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 27 2016 00:21 Velr wrote:
Did Russia hack the DNC to expose them to strenghten the GOP?
Thats not a straw, thats a big deal.
Clinton being in the White House would be christmas every day for every intelligence agency that is working against America. Full access to everything.
The Democrats cry boogie man every time Hillary gets compromised because of her own incompetence. Now its just the DNC thats incompetent.
|
If Hillary wants to win over the Bernie supporters what she needs to do is accept the Bernie platform to a certain extent, and publicly apologize for the attitudes of the DNC and how they utterly failed to be impartial. She should also give hope that the new leadership will be impartial and be more democratic. I'm confident that none of these things will happen, they are just gonna play 'lets pretend nothing happened' which will come off as unauthentic to anyone who isn't a solidified HRC supporter.
|
On July 27 2016 00:26 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 00:21 Velr wrote:
Did Russia hack the DNC to expose them to strenghten the GOP?
Thats not a straw, thats a big deal. Clinton being in the White House would be christmas every day for every intelligence agency that is working against America. Full access to everything. The Democrats cry boogie man every time Hillary gets compromised because of her own incompetence. Now its just the DNC thats incompetent.
Trump being in the White House would be 4 years of either nothing good happening to the USA or shit going to shit in the USA.
Americans are fucked up by this election, literally they're picking their poison.
|
On July 27 2016 00:27 biology]major wrote:
If Hillary wants to win over the Bernie supporters what she needs to do is accept the Bernie platform to a certain extent, and publicly apologize for the attitudes of the DNC and how they utterly failed to be impartial. She should also give hope that the new leadership will be impartial and be more democratic. I'm confident that none of these things will happen, they are just gonna play 'lets pretend nothing happened' which will come off as unauthentic to anyone who isn't a solidified HRC supporter.
Hillary has already won over the vast majority of Bernie supporters.
Their platform was never far apart on anything but trade, her position was just a bit less extreme ($12 minimum wage instead of 15 for example) and a lot of it got put into the Democratic platform anyway (tho that doesn't mean much).
No she is not going to apologize for the DNC and nor should she. When you come in as a complete outsider and try to subvert a party for your own goals then you are not going to get a free ride.
Welcome to reality.
|
On July 26 2016 23:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I am a bit surprised that people don't react a bit stronger at the fact that most experts think Russia is behind the DNC leak. The fact that Putin seems to be able to use his intelligence services to help Trump should be one hell of a huge red light for everyone.
I don't know, it seems huge to me, maybe I am wrong.
Basically complaining that people aren't blaming the Russians hard enough.
|
On July 27 2016 00:31 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 00:27 biology]major wrote:
If Hillary wants to win over the Bernie supporters what she needs to do is accept the Bernie platform to a certain extent, and publicly apologize for the attitudes of the DNC and how they utterly failed to be impartial. She should also give hope that the new leadership will be impartial and be more democratic. I'm confident that none of these things will happen, they are just gonna play 'lets pretend nothing happened' which will come off as unauthentic to anyone who isn't a solidified HRC supporter. Hillary has already won over the vast majority of Bernie supporters. Their platform was never far apart on anything but trade, her position was just a bit less extreme ($12 minimum wage instead of 15 for example) and a lot of it got put into the Democratic platform anyway (tho that doesn't mean much). No she is not going to apologize for the DNC and nor should she. When you come in as a complete outsider and try to subvert a party for your own goals then you are not going to get a free ride. Welcome to reality.
I don’t think she loses anything from apologizing and gains a lot. I expect something along those lines in the coming days.
|
On July 27 2016 00:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 00:10 xDaunt wrote:On July 27 2016 00:04 Doodsmack wrote:On July 27 2016 00:03 xDaunt wrote:On July 27 2016 00:00 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 26 2016 23:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I am a bit surprised that people don't react a bit stronger at the fact that most experts think Russia is behind the DNC leak. The fact that Putin seems to be able to use his intelligence services to help Trump should be one hell of a huge red light for everyone.
I don't know, it seems huge to me, maybe I am wrong. I suspect there's three reasons people aren't reacting: 1) They're not hearing about it through their personal media pipeline. 2) They don't view it as a red flag because they buy into some measure of the Putin-love Trump pushes despite his other statements on Russia. 3) They believe all the "experts" are having their opinions fabricated by a leftist or pro-Clinton agenda. How about 4) They understand that the real story is in the content of the emails? I get you don't want attention to be diverted from the content of the emails but I find it hard to believe you wouldn't think Russian intervention in our election is a big deal. First, it is entirely speculative that the Russian government sanctioned this. I'll wait for the intelligence report before I make any conclusions. Second, it doesn't really surprise me that the Russians may be stirring up shit using the same tactics that our own intelligence services use. Third, and most importantly, it's not like this stuff is a bunch of baseless propaganda that's being spread around. Whoever did this has done a tremendous service to the Democrat Party and country as a whole. I understand the need for Hillary and her cohort to deflect the damning content of the emails, but what they should be doing is spending more time owning up to some big mistakes that have been made so as to satisfy the progressive wing of the party. In fairness, even the DNC has been better on this than the posters here. I love how they still are skeptical/rationalizing Bill but they are taking a bunch of supposition as fact on this Russian thing. I'm not really seeing how saying there is a "bromance" explains how Putin would benefit from a Trump presidency over Clinton either? If Hillary is a continuation of Obama's FP (probably more hawkish), Putin doesn't seem to have any major concerns.
I was going to wait to see how the rest of the convention played out before saying anything, but I have a real suspicion that the Democrats have developed a very bad case of tone-deafness. As just an example, all of the liberal elites and media made a big point of poo-pooing the "dark tone" of Trump's speech. But I think that it is pretty clear now looking at recent polls that he got the tone right and connected with his target audience. I think that liberals are making a similar mistake with this email thing. Republicans are going to shit on them no matter what, so what they think is irrelevant. However, the progressive/Bernie wing of the party does matter. They need to be active and engaged so as to draw their friends and peers in to vote for Hillary. The present reaction from Democrats to this email story is not going to motivate the progressive base properly.
But hey, be my guest and keep on the current trajectory!
|
On July 27 2016 00:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 00:31 Gorsameth wrote:On July 27 2016 00:27 biology]major wrote:
If Hillary wants to win over the Bernie supporters what she needs to do is accept the Bernie platform to a certain extent, and publicly apologize for the attitudes of the DNC and how they utterly failed to be impartial. She should also give hope that the new leadership will be impartial and be more democratic. I'm confident that none of these things will happen, they are just gonna play 'lets pretend nothing happened' which will come off as unauthentic to anyone who isn't a solidified HRC supporter. Hillary has already won over the vast majority of Bernie supporters. Their platform was never far apart on anything but trade, her position was just a bit less extreme ($12 minimum wage instead of 15 for example) and a lot of it got put into the Democratic platform anyway (tho that doesn't mean much). No she is not going to apologize for the DNC and nor should she. When you come in as a complete outsider and try to subvert a party for your own goals then you are not going to get a free ride. Welcome to reality. I don’t think she loses anything from apologizing and gains a lot. I expect something along those lines in the coming days.
Yeah what Bernie Sanders did, by giving a complete and heartfelt endorsement of HRC, even after what DNC did to him took some major guts (what's the right word for what he did?). The least she could do is apologize, to unify the party.
|
On July 27 2016 00:24 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 00:09 Introvert wrote:
Stewart and Colbert are audience ego strokers, not comedians. Or at least, not very good ones. That's why they are popular. And the views of people who could be generously lumped into "entertainment" are generally liberal, at least outwardly. But that's a discussion for another time. Honestly I like what they do as much as the next guy, I have some good laughs watching their shit, but it's not really fair or informative. They rip on Republicans / Trump as hard as fuck but email scandals / leaks? Not a word? Come on.. Also Colbert makes me think he does coke the way he scratches his nose, not sure if that's on purpose or. Still, when you consider how dumb Trump being president would be, I guess it's OK
Oddly enough, that's actually a false statement:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0sbxKzI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XncICaw.jpg)
http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5
Fox News viewers are consistently some of the least-informed audiences (and this has been known for years), whereas Daily Show viewers and viewers of other news sources are far, far better informed.
|
I mean besides the hacking accusation there is the Manaford connection to Russia, Trump working to weakening the GOP platform with regards to Ukraine, stuff like this:
https://twitter.com/bentaub91/status/757426864445071360?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
and so on.
A picture certainly emerges. That Republicans of all people choose to be nonchalant over Russia trying to influence an election in this way is kind of nuts but nothing surprises me anymore.
|
On July 27 2016 00:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 00:10 xDaunt wrote:On July 27 2016 00:04 Doodsmack wrote:On July 27 2016 00:03 xDaunt wrote:On July 27 2016 00:00 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 26 2016 23:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I am a bit surprised that people don't react a bit stronger at the fact that most experts think Russia is behind the DNC leak. The fact that Putin seems to be able to use his intelligence services to help Trump should be one hell of a huge red light for everyone.
I don't know, it seems huge to me, maybe I am wrong. I suspect there's three reasons people aren't reacting: 1) They're not hearing about it through their personal media pipeline. 2) They don't view it as a red flag because they buy into some measure of the Putin-love Trump pushes despite his other statements on Russia. 3) They believe all the "experts" are having their opinions fabricated by a leftist or pro-Clinton agenda. How about 4) They understand that the real story is in the content of the emails? I get you don't want attention to be diverted from the content of the emails but I find it hard to believe you wouldn't think Russian intervention in our election is a big deal. First, it is entirely speculative that the Russian government sanctioned this. I'll wait for the intelligence report before I make any conclusions. Second, it doesn't really surprise me that the Russians may be stirring up shit using the same tactics that our own intelligence services use. Third, and most importantly, it's not like this stuff is a bunch of baseless propaganda that's being spread around. Whoever did this has done a tremendous service to the Democrat Party and country as a whole. I understand the need for Hillary and her cohort to deflect the damning content of the emails, but what they should be doing is spending more time owning up to some big mistakes that have been made so as to satisfy the progressive wing of the party. In fairness, even the DNC has been better on this than the posters here. I love how they still are skeptical/rationalizing Bill but they are taking a bunch of supposition as fact on this Russian thing. I'm not really seeing how saying there is a "bromance" explains how Putin would benefit from a Trump presidency over Clinton either? If Hillary is a continuation of Obama's FP (probably more hawkish), Putin doesn't seem to have any major concerns. lol. There's a difference between protesting against Hillary being nominated and for Trump winning. Folks who have given in to the notion that it's a zero-sum binary choice are one of the reasons folks have to take to the street in the first place.
We don't know (yet) that Russian intelligence was behind the hack, but Putin really wants Trump to be president. Based upon Trump's own statements, it is likely that a President Trump would at least weaken NATO, and perhaps destroy it altogether. It's difficult to overstate how much Putin wants to get rid of NATO. If he can bring about its dissolution, that would be the crowning Russian foreign policy achievement since winning WWII.
|
On July 27 2016 00:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 00:24 Incognoto wrote:On July 27 2016 00:09 Introvert wrote:
Stewart and Colbert are audience ego strokers, not comedians. Or at least, not very good ones. That's why they are popular. And the views of people who could be generously lumped into "entertainment" are generally liberal, at least outwardly. But that's a discussion for another time. Honestly I like what they do as much as the next guy, I have some good laughs watching their shit, but it's not really fair or informative. They rip on Republicans / Trump as hard as fuck but email scandals / leaks? Not a word? Come on.. Also Colbert makes me think he does coke the way he scratches his nose, not sure if that's on purpose or. Still, when you consider how dumb Trump being president would be, I guess it's OK Oddly enough, that's actually a false statement: http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5 Fox News viewers are consistently some of the least-informed audiences (and this has been known for years), whereas Daily Show viewers and viewers of other news sources are far, far better informed.
No I mean, I've watched a few of Colbert's most recent videos on youtube (granted, that's probably not enough to make a real opinion), so far as I've seen, he's just dissing Trump. Which is nice and all, but it's a far cry from something that John Oliver does for example. JO really goes out of his way to check sources, get facts straight, dig up dirt and expose the whole sordid mess.
I watched Colbert a few times and all he does is just make (funny enough) jokes really.
|
On July 27 2016 00:41 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 00:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 27 2016 00:24 Incognoto wrote:On July 27 2016 00:09 Introvert wrote:
Stewart and Colbert are audience ego strokers, not comedians. Or at least, not very good ones. That's why they are popular. And the views of people who could be generously lumped into "entertainment" are generally liberal, at least outwardly. But that's a discussion for another time. Honestly I like what they do as much as the next guy, I have some good laughs watching their shit, but it's not really fair or informative. They rip on Republicans / Trump as hard as fuck but email scandals / leaks? Not a word? Come on.. Also Colbert makes me think he does coke the way he scratches his nose, not sure if that's on purpose or. Still, when you consider how dumb Trump being president would be, I guess it's OK Oddly enough, that's actually a false statement: http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5 Fox News viewers are consistently some of the least-informed audiences (and this has been known for years), whereas Daily Show viewers and viewers of other news sources are far, far better informed. No I mean, I've watched a few of Colbert's most recent videos on youtube (granted, that's probably not enough to make a real opinion), so far as I've seen, he's just dissing Trump. Which is nice and all, but it's a far cry from something that John Oliver does for example. JO really goes out of his way to check sources, get facts straight, dig up dirt and expose the whole sordid mess. I watched Colbert a few times and all he does is just make (funny enough) jokes really.
Oh I definitely like John Oliver's process a lot more too.
|
John Oliver has good material, his delivery just isn't quite there for me.
|
On July 27 2016 00:35 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 00:33 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2016 00:31 Gorsameth wrote:On July 27 2016 00:27 biology]major wrote:
If Hillary wants to win over the Bernie supporters what she needs to do is accept the Bernie platform to a certain extent, and publicly apologize for the attitudes of the DNC and how they utterly failed to be impartial. She should also give hope that the new leadership will be impartial and be more democratic. I'm confident that none of these things will happen, they are just gonna play 'lets pretend nothing happened' which will come off as unauthentic to anyone who isn't a solidified HRC supporter. Hillary has already won over the vast majority of Bernie supporters. Their platform was never far apart on anything but trade, her position was just a bit less extreme ($12 minimum wage instead of 15 for example) and a lot of it got put into the Democratic platform anyway (tho that doesn't mean much). No she is not going to apologize for the DNC and nor should she. When you come in as a complete outsider and try to subvert a party for your own goals then you are not going to get a free ride. Welcome to reality. I don’t think she loses anything from apologizing and gains a lot. I expect something along those lines in the coming days. Yeah what Bernie Sanders did, by giving a complete and heartfelt endorsement of HRC, even after what DNC did to him took some major guts (what's the right word for what he did?). The least she could do is apologize, to unify the party.
Bernie also sent out an email to supporters after yesterday informing them that the heckling/booing is harmful to the progressive movement and isn’t accomplishing what they want. He is making an active effort and I expect HRC make an equal effort.
NPR did point out that this is how conventions used to be. Some of them took weeks to produce a nominee. Its only since the 70s that they became more “publicly viewable”.
|
can we not link businessinsider, thats like posting buzzfeed as a credible source.
|
On July 27 2016 00:46 VayneAuthority wrote:
can we not link businessinsider, thats like posting buzzfeed as a credible source.
Business news in general is really shitty for politics.
|
Buzzfeed does some reasonable reporting. And at they are up front that they pay for it with bad online facebook quizzes and 10 ten lists.
|
buzzfeed admits they have all the crap so they can fund the actual journalism, which is pretty solid. it's better than huffpo which dooesn't really distinguish b/w the two
|
On July 27 2016 00:46 VayneAuthority wrote:
can we not link businessinsider, thats like posting buzzfeed as a credible source.
It's polling data from a third party, i.e. a university poll where you can actually read the original reports. They're linked in the article. Here: http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2012/confirmed/
Please don't poison the well 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
