The Gaming Den

SlyJohnny wrote:and now you're blaming any dissent on the intervention of foreign intelligence agencies and their clever plan to destroy truth and democracy by whistleblowing.

Hacking into someone's servers is not, by any stretch of the definition, whistleblowing. A DNC staffer copying some emails and coming forward to say 'hey, my bosses are engaged in unethical favoritism' would be whistleblowing. This case is espionage by a foreign power with the intent to deliberately influence the internal political deliberations of a sovereign state. While such moves are hardly uncommon - the CIA pulls this kind of crap too - it's still disturbing.

The most important take away from this hacking-based info dump is not that the DNC wasn't quite as impartial with regards to the Sanders campaign as they ought to have been - that has claimed the scalp of Wasserman-Schultz, which ought to be plenty of culpability - but that Putin really, really wants Donald Trump to be present, a fact that ought to weigh heavily on the minds of all voters.

People's heads roll not for guilt, but for the appearance of guilt. I'm happy to see Schultz resign for entirely unrelated reasons, but I have yet to see anything in the leak that suggests she actually did anything worthy of blame, and at least one example of her exercising a wholly unnecessary level of restraint.

Schultz is getting the axe because wikileaks took a series of not-at-all incriminating emails (in which the DNC discussed the Sanders' campaign belligerence and suggested - but ultimately rejected - the idea of going forward to the press with that information) and titled those largely uninteresting emails something absurd like "DNC calls Sanders a poopyhead," and enough people were stupid enough to fall for it that someone's head had to roll. That's pretty much it.

Well yeah. I was just trying to note that, even under the most generous interpretation of the level of scandal this actually is, the head of Schultz is a more than sufficient pound of flesh to extract.

Generally 'someone important resigned' is about the best you can hope for when it comes to non-electoral consequences of a political scandal. Everything else inevitably gets buried beneath bureaucratic maneuvering and piles of legal skullduggery. If anything the choice of Schultz to offer herself up shows the relative discipline of the democrats compared to the Trump campaign, which goes through this bizarre thrashing of multiple different denials whenever something goes wrong for them.

DSMatticus wrote:People's heads roll not for guilt, but for the appearance of guilt. I'm happy to see Schultz resign for entirely unrelated reasons, but I have yet to see anything in the leak that suggests she actually did anything worthy of blame, and at least one example of her exercising a wholly unnecessary level of restraint.

Schultz is getting the axe because wikileaks took a series of not-at-all incriminating emails (in which the DNC discussed the Sanders' campaign belligerence and suggested - but ultimately rejected - the idea of going forward to the press with that information) and titled those largely uninteresting emails something absurd like "DNC calls Sanders a poopyhead," and enough people were stupid enough to fall for it that someone's head had to roll. That's pretty much it.

This. I've had so many arguments with dumb people about this...

I noticed during the RNC that a lot of the republicunt speakers were talking about their feelings:

It feels like the economy is taking a nose dive.
It feels like the Democrats have kicked the middle class to the curb.
It feels like we're constantly surrounded by danger.
It feels like Barack Obama is a muslim.

It seemed like they were all very careful to use the word "feel" in their descriptions of the state of the union, and I wonder if this specific verbiage is a deliberate attempt at branding by the Trump Campaign. I remember reading a portion of the playbook for Trump University reps where it said: "You are not selling a product, you are selling a feeling", which is rule #1 in marketing, insofar as I understand marketing, being a guy who hits things with wrenches for a living.

It's really disturbing that my family is rotten with Trump supporters, and they have become completely impervious to facts and basically just plug their ears and recite bullshit talking points: "LALALA take our guns LALALA national debt LALALA war on christmas LALALA Islamic terrorism!"

How do you win against that? The average American knows fuck all about civics and policy. Their eyes glaze over when you cite statistics and facts, but they cheer when Trump tells them he's gonna make their dicks four inches bigger and give them all a plates full of titties and guns. Maybe Trump is the President that we deserve : (

In this thread, SlyJohnny is being so stupid that Frank and DSMatticus and Kaelik all agree on something (that being that SlyJohnny is a fucking moron).

Also the Dems should absolutely use "Putin wants Trump to be our president" as part of their campaign.

It is important to note that Bernie Sanders, having personally considered the fact that some people in the DNC didn't like him and discussed doing mean things to him and ultimately decided not to, had this to say:

Bernie Sanders wrote:We need leadership in this country which will improve the lives of working families, the children, the elderly, the sick and the poor. We need leadership which brings our people together and makes us stronger – not leadership which insults Latinos, Muslims, women, African-Americans and veterans – and divides us up.

By these measures, any objective observer will conclude that – based on her ideas and her leadership – Hillary Clinton must become the next president of the United States. The choice is not even close.

I have waffled back and forth as to whether Bernie Sanders was being a net positive by bringing important progressive issues to the forefront or a net negative by enforcing the narrative that the entire political system is corrupt (which fuels Naderist "might as well vote for George W Bush" fantasies). But last night he came to the National Convention and said exactly what he needed to say. He pressed the party on issues that are important while still clearly and effectively making the call for unity that we so desperately need right now.

-Username17

John Oliver covered the whole 'feels' thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNdkrtfZP8I

Promises aren't worth the paper that they're printed on.

name_here wrote:The Trump-Putin thing is more extensive than I'd have expected

And it's just gotten worse, as Trump as now called upon the Russians to publicize any emails they might have hacked from Hillary's email server. This is borderline treason, and exposes Trump to the possibility of criminal changes at least as serious as anything Hillary ever theoretically faced regarding her emails.

I thought, after months of this, that nothing Trump could do would shock me anymore. I was wrong.

So I was prompted to do some extremely light internet searches, and it looks like right before the convention, 30% of Clinton supporters were unwilling to vote for Obama, and right after, 20%, and then by the election, most of them did. Clinton spent that time campaigning for Obama.

Right now all I can find is that back in April 25% of Sanders supporters said they wouldn't vote for Clinton.

Don't actually have all the polls and the wordings of the question, but I suspect that if Sanders spends the next few months campaigning, we should expect most of them to vote.

Though of course, butthurt Clinton fans will keep whining about it until the end of time, just like people just old enough to not be "youth vote" in 2010 will blame an entire generation of voters for being flaky until they die of old age.

Josh_Kablack wrote:Ahh, schadenfreude

Man is that Popick guy wishy-washy.

Anyone read Matt Taibbi? I tend to like what he writes, mostly about financial-scandal-related topics.

Here's his article about the leaked emails:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/fe ... gn-w430814

Doesn't that sort of shoot themselves in the foot though?

I mean sure they get Hillary in, and while they have promised to redistribute money back to the state committees, aren't they risking some of their seats because this may have hindered several of these state level campaigns?

The Senate, which is currently 54 Rep vs 45 Dem, alone has 34 seats up for grabs this November with 24 of those currently being held by the Republicans so the Democrats should be really trying to get at least 5 of the Rep seats so they can snag control there.

In the House, which is 247 Rep vs 186 Dem, all 435 seats are being voted on and the Dems need to gain 31 seats to get control there.

Just hope this doesn't come around to bite them in the arse.

phlapjackage wrote:Anyone read Matt Taibbi? I tend to like what he writes, mostly about financial-scandal-related topics.

Here's his article about the leaked emails:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/fe ... gn-w430814

Matt Taibbi is a national treasure. I have no idea why he's at the Rolling Stone instead of literally anywhere else, but he's a damn good journalist.

The man sure can write.

But, like, the reason you don't see him outside rolling stone is that they are an independent publication and all the rest of your media is owned by a small group of arms manufacturers and Rupert Murdock (or at least, enough of it to have control).

sendaz wrote:Doesn't that sort of shoot themselves in the foot though?

I mean, yes, but sometimes the DNC decides that nominating Clinton is more important than winning congress. I'm sure Frank will tell you why that is a just and right decision that must be made for the good of all any minute now.

Pseudo Stupidity wrote:

phlapjackage wrote:Anyone read Matt Taibbi? I tend to like what he writes, mostly about financial-scandal-related topics.

Here's his article about the leaked emails:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/fe ... gn-w430814

Matt Taibbi is a national treasure. I have no idea why he's at the Rolling Stone instead of literally anywhere else, but he's a damn good journalist.

I wouldn't say this one was a good example of talent. His article felt like it was mostly puff and pointing to the real substantive articles. The actual article goes in better depth. It sounds like the justification is that the money is going to various national registries that should help all down ballot races, but clearly that was not made transparent and it is a bit bullshit. Obviously the Dems need to do a better job on down ballot and this may be one reason they aren't.

phlapjackage wrote:Anyone read Matt Taibbi? I tend to like what he writes, mostly about financial-scandal-related topics.

Here's his article about the leaked emails:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/fe ... gn-w430814

I didn't make it all the way through that piece of shit. If you can go ten paragraphs talking about the Hillary Victory Fund without noting that it is in fact wholly uninteresting that 99% of the money earmarked for trans-state funding of battleground state races was still in the state of origin and that the entire "1%" number is absolutely meaningless, you are intending to deceive rather than to inform.

The entire concept of the Hillary Victory Fund is to get maximum benefit from the separate donation limits for state and national parties. That is, you can donate to the Democratic National Committee, and you can donate to the California Democratic Party, and you can donate to the Ohio Democratic Party, and all three of those connected but slightly distinct agents can spend your donated moneys on fighting close races in Ohio. You in essence have several times the donation limit for influencing important swing elections if the different state parties agree to work closely with each other to do that.

Now the targeted races for this discussion are generally in November. So having the money be almost entirely unallocated in fucking May is completely uninteresting. The Hillary Victory Fund "scandal" thus did not and could not have any merit in May. That is not a thing that could happen, because the financial obligations were (and for the most part still are) in the future. The "scandal," such as there was any there there at all, was that the DNC had been precused of pre-crime. Having the DNC discuss various means of trying to defuse this "scandal" is again wholly uninteresting. Obviously they discussed a lot of possible ways to fight back. Because obviously.

I don't really know Matt Taibbi. But if that's a sample of his editorial style, fuck him. The reason you don't see that shit anywhere but Rolling Stone is that the linked piece was a factually challenged hatchet job that would be embarrassing if it was on Fox News.

-Username17

See guys, the fact that they transferred money that should have been donated to the California and Ohio state parties, but then immediately within seconds took it back to the DNC national party is totally not a scandal at all. In fact, it's so much not a scandal, that if it didn't happen we should be mad, because the entire purpose of the Hillary Victory Fund all along was to devote all the money that you could donate to the California state fund to getting Hillary Clinton elected President, and they definitely didn't lie multiple times about how that wasn't it's purpose. And besides it's totally the case that all that money that they transferred temporarily to the state parties and then immediately took back for the DNC could totally be spent on down ballot elections in Ohio later, and definitely totally won't be spent on Clinton at all, and you definitely can't get mad at all until November, nevermind that they sent the money to the state parties and then immediately transferred it back to the DNC funds, nevermind that they have a bunch of state heads pissed off about it, that's irrelevant, the money will totally all be spent on down ballot elections.

And we know that's true because Frank Trollman said so without even reading the article, and he is the most objective never ever shilling person that has ever existed.

Kaelik wrote:See guys, the fact that they transferred money that should have been donated to the California and Ohio state parties, but then immediately within seconds took it back to the DNC national party is totally not a scandal at all. In fact, it's so much not a scandal, that if it didn't happen we should be mad, because the entire purpose of the Hillary Victory Fund all along was to devote all the money that you could donate to the California state fund to getting Hillary Clinton elected President, and they definitely didn't lie multiple times about how that wasn't it's purpose.

No you dumb piece of shit. The entire purpose of the Hillary Victory Fund was to get several piles of money transferred to the Democratic National Committee who then pinky swore they were going to spend that money on targeting key races in various states in the future. After they'd been identified as being key battleground races that hadn't yet been identified.

The purpose of the Bernie Victory Fund was exactly the same, and if it had gotten large amounts of money into it would have done the same thing. Except the Sanders campaign fucked up its filing paperwork for donations and ended up having to send a bunch of money back to maxxed out donors rather than filter them into the central committee like they were supposed to.

I got ten paragraphs through Taibbi's hatchet job and he still hadn't even mentioned that the financial obligations of the Hillary Victory Fund were in the future (and are fucking still in the future, for that matter). The Hillary Victory Fund could only have failed to live up to its remit if the funds had all been spent - which they were not. So long as the DNC is still financially solvent at the moment, which it is, it is epistemically impossible to claim that the Hillary Victory Fund failed to follow through on what it claimed it was going to. Because its purported purpose was to help fight a battle that has not yet been fought. That is bullshit. If you bury the lead that deep, you're a liar. If, as seems highly likely, you never mention that incredibly important point at all, you're a double liar. Fuck that guy.

-Username17

Wouldn't spending "$8.6 million for web advertising that mostly looks indistinguishable from Clinton campaign ads," be considered using Hillary Victory Fund money to fund Hillary instead of down ticket races?


Matt Taibbi is a fantastic writer and journalist, just because he did an article on how the DNC showed favor to Clinton doesn't mean he's Satan. It's titled "DNC Leak Shows Mechanics of a Slanted Campaign," not "Hillary Clinton Steals Money From State Parties." He didn't bury the lead because the article wasn't about the fund you turdburger. He uses it as an example and thus talks about it for a while, but the bulk of the article is that the DNC tried to help Hillary and make Sanders look bad.

Stop licking Hillary's taint so much; she won and we're all fucking voting for her. You're making it harder to pull the lever for her by being so asstastic about everything.