US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4562

On July 29 2016 08:11 FiWiFaKi wrote:


Come on, this was done purely to get more Bernie supports to like Hillary. It has nothing to do with being uplifting and happy.

I wish you didn't try to defend Hillary and the DNC to the bone when she really doesn't deserve it.



A strategy to get eyes off of the things in the emails, and sadly I think it's working a bit. At the end of the day, I don't really think it matters if it was Russia, if it was some guy in his basement, a Trump supporter in the US, etc. We should judge the leaks at face value regardless of the source.

@travis I agree. Yes, this election I do support Trump, and yes, the Bernie supporters are hurting Hillary's chances, but it's not a justification to remove them, and find other people and pay them to take their seat... Not to mention, specifically calling out to minorities. It's disgusting and propaganda at it's best. And you oblivious Hillary supporters have little issue with it because you don't like Trump, come on, evaluate what you're doing.

On July 29 2016 08:13 farvacola wrote:

yes, all U.S. democrats look like Plansix and necessarily agree with establishment tactics....come on dude, there's way more nuance here than you're pretending and it's all because Plansix and the convention seem to have riled you up.

Literally every convention since television became popular has been nothing more than a mainline, inherently populist demonstration of what constitutes the party line in preparation for what is arguably the singularly most influential vote in US politics. Sure, there's a little more ridiculousness this year given the rise of Sanders, but this is really not some revelatory "oh the humanity" type demonstration unless you're like GH and those who bought something not being sold.

On July 29 2016 08:19 TheLordofAwesome wrote:

Are you saying that you think Guccifer 2.0 is not a russian spy?

The first, most easy to spot one, is the use of “)))” instead of a standard smile emoticon in the Guccifer 2.0 blog post. Using a single or multiple “)” instead the usual “” is very common for Russians, given the awkward way one needs to type the colon in a Russian keyboard.

Man, I'm not a pupil at school.

On July 29 2016 08:31 TheLordofAwesome wrote:

No, it's much more than grammar and emoticon usage. There is a whole list of very bizarre things about Guccifer 2.0.

1) Agreed to an interview right after announcing himself in a blog post. This by itself is very unusual.

2) Guccifer 2.0 claimed to be Romanian, but when a journalist asked him to speak in Romanian, he in broken Romanian, then switched languages.

3) He claimed that he had accessed the DNC emails. This is plausible. What is not plausible is the truly ridiculous claim that he KNEW, without a doubt, that he was the only person to have hacked the DNC emails.

On July 29 2016 08:26 FiWiFaKi wrote:


Yeah, it is a bit silly, but it's what people will eat up. The Trump message really got to me, and I thought news have always been absolute crap, especially when it was something subjective, but now... I dunno. I'm more likely to believe the opposite when reading the news now. Just seeing how easy it's to place pawns wherever you want to say what you want them to say.

I've made my opinion that Trump would be good for America, and just because all media and almost all posters on the internet (recently me too I suppose, since an objective argument became impossible here for quite some time) became people just trying to trick you into voting for their nominee, listening to other people is futile at this point. So there is very little that Trump can do at this point for me to not support him, and likewise for Hillary.

I still feel proud of the money I made on a bet with a friend that Trump would win the primaries like three weeks for the primaries began. I wont lie though, I did expect Trump to be beaten in a landslide by Hillary, and at times I was doubting supporting him, but he's really convinced me since the primaries ended.

edit: I didn't know much about DWS until this debacle, but I wasn't aware that she was massive disliked or anything?

On July 29 2016 08:28 travis wrote:


well unless we see elected democratic representatives speak out about it then I have to assume that this behavior is something that as a whole the democratic party condones and thus it is something that being a democrat represents

As for more nuance, go ahead and explain the 'more nuance' to me, because I don't get it. It seems to me that allowing dissent from your voters is inherently democratic and silencing dissent is specifically non-democratic.

I don't really care about the white noise machine, or video/sound editing, panning cameras away, whatever other shit they want to do to project a certain image. But taking the seats away from the delegates is wrong.

On July 29 2016 08:31 FiWiFaKi wrote:
How does it being the Russians have anything to do with the content of the emails?

I just don't understand why there's any attention brought to it, especially more than on the emails themselves. Also, talk about demonizing your fellow nations (at least some of the media articles)... And then go complain about Trump and his dislike for muslim immigration, sigh.

On July 29 2016 08:45 farvacola wrote:

Choosing a political affiliation is a component of what constitutes the substance of membership, and therein lies the nuance.

Take me, for example. At the end of the day, I despise what DWS and the establishment party represents. I think Hillary has made a large number of terrible mistakes, but is also a very skilled politician and government administrator who knows how to direct federal agencies to do the sorts of things I personally approve of, mostly social safety net type stuff. I was an ardent Sanders supporter throughout his primary candidacy, and though his relationship with the Democratic Party is not exactly close, I firmly believe that his brand of politics is exactly where the party needs to go.

Personally, my experiences with Republican policy only further reinforce the importance of my identification with Democrats, if not for purely pragmatic reasons of harm reduction. I find the presidential election overblown and have far more experience with state and local elections and their results; there the choice to vote Democrat seems even easier to me. Republicans in Michigan are literally tearing this state apart with their business-like approach to government (thanks Rick Snyder!). Shit just gets cut without a second thought by the very red state legislature, and it leads to stuff like numerous successful federal lawsuits mostly involving blatant abuses of due process rights, terrible public services (the roads in Michigan are seriously a fucking joke), Flint, and an overall statewide decay that puts an enormous strain on the few economic resources available, namely higher ed, which, you guessed it, has its budget cut all the time.

So yeah, feel free to draw blanket, ultimately immature inferences based on fairly shallow demonstrations of PR amateurishness by Democrats, just know that there are literally millions of Democrats who don't condone that kind of behavior and yet still identify with the party.

On July 29 2016 08:45 farvacola wrote:

Voting for a particular candidate or party line hinges on far more than singular actions by members of that party at what amounts to a glorified PR event. There are local, state, and federal Democrats who do a host of things that I support, and there are also plenty who do the converse. Choosing a political affiliation is a component of what constitutes the substance of membership, and therein lies the nuance.

Take me, for example. At the end of the day, I despise what DWS and the establishment party represents. I think Hillary has made a large number of terrible mistakes, but is also a very skilled politician and government administrator who knows how to direct federal agencies to do the sorts of things I personally approve of, mostly social safety net type stuff. I was an ardent Sanders supporter throughout his primary candidacy, and though his relationship with the Democratic Party is not exactly close, I firmly believe that his brand of politics is exactly where the party needs to go.

Personally, my experiences with Republican policy only further reinforce the importance of my identification with Democrats, if not for purely pragmatic reasons of harm reduction. I find the presidential election overblown and have far more experience with state and local elections and their results; there the choice to vote Democrat seems even easier to me. Republicans in Michigan are literally tearing this state apart with their business-like approach to government (thanks Rick Snyder!). Shit just gets cut without a second thought by the very red state legislature, and it leads to stuff like numerous successful federal lawsuits mostly involving blatant abuses of due process rights, terrible public services (the roads in Michigan are seriously a fucking joke), Flint, and an overall statewide decay that puts an enormous strain on the few economic resources available, namely higher ed, which, you guessed it, has its budget cut all the time.

So yeah, feel free to draw blanket, ultimately immature inferences based on fairly shallow demonstrations of PR amateurishness by Democrats, just know that there are literally millions of Democrats who don't condone that kind of behavior and yet still identify with the party.

(this all applies to Republicans too, by the way. There are plenty of people with the inverse of my experience, and they similarly do not fall under a blanket sown from what went on at the RNC)

On July 29 2016 09:14 GreenHorizons wrote:


If you were an ardent supporter of Bernie you would know that he shared the understanding that the Republican party was mostly a media/democrat creation. Without Democrats the Republican party wouldn't exist. It's just because of the dichotomy created by the party/media that either can continue in their current forms.

As for the millions of Democrats who don't condone that type of stuff aren't very vocal (if they plan on supporting that establishment)

I'm sure millions of people didn't agree with segregation, but that doesn't mean disagreeing in silence made them any less responsible than the people who silently agreed.

On July 29 2016 09:20 farvacola wrote:

I'll see if I can figure out a better way to say what I mean. In the meantime, I'll just point out that power within the party is actually a complicated game, and given the relative success of minority factions (Tea Party, Sanders), I think it'd be a mistake to say that the people in charge of the conventions are a good representation of the parties at large. The leader of the party was just sacked after all.

On July 29 2016 09:24 TMagpie wrote:


This viewpoint is fairly naive and shortsighted. I usually expect better from you, or at least something entertaining.