PDA

View Full Version : Is Assange just a Putinist Shill?


Kimon
07-24-2016, 07:56 PM
Wikileaks is up to its typical saboteur antics yet again. This time leading to the downfall of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, much to the delight of Bernie supporters. This leak however doesn't really reveal anything new. We all already knew that Debbie Wasserman Schultz (and the DNC) preferred Hillary over Bernie. That preference s hardly surprising. Bernie Sanders is, after all, not really a Democrat. That preference didn't however determine or tilt the outcome. The RNC didn't want Trump, but more people voted for him. Had Bernie had more support amongst Dem voters the same would have been true for him. This leak thus only really seems to serve one purpose, to intentionally make it more difficult to bring those Bernie voters into the fold, to convince them to vote for Hillary instead of Trump (or Jill Stein). So what really is Assange trying to do here? Was this leak done for the sake of transparency, or to serve Russian interests?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/clinton-campaign-blames-russia-wikileaks-sanders-dnc-emails

Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, said on Sunday that “experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, [and are] releasing these emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump”.

“I don’t think it’s coincidental that these emails are being released on the eve of our convention here,” he told CNN’s State of the Union, alluding to the party’s four-day exercise in unification which is set to take place this week in Philadelphia.

“This isn’t my assertion,” Mook said. “This is what experts are telling us.”

In a statement, the Clinton campaign repeated the accusation: “This is further evidence the Russian government is trying to influence the outcome of the election.”

And this is far from Assange's only link to the Russians...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/opinion/how-julian-assange-is-destroying-wikileaks.html

There’s no doubt that WikiLeaks, which Mr. Assange founded in 2006, has been a boon for global civil liberties. The problem is that the project is inseparable from the man. Mr. Assange has made little secret about his skepticism toward Western democracy and his willingness to work with autocratic governments like Vladimir V. Putin’s Russia. His personal politics undermines WikiLeaks’ neutrality — and the noble cause for which WikiLeaks used to stand. What we need is a WikiLeaks without the founder of WikiLeaks.

Yet, even back then, observers and media partners felt that Mr. Assange had more in mind than transparency, that there was an ideology behind his idea. Over time, that ideology has become increasingly apparent, through his regular public statements and his stint as a host for a Russian state-controlled TV network.

One element of Assange-think has been clear from early on: There is no such thing as a legitimate secret. The public is entitled to share any knowledge governments hold. Only complete transparency can stop and prevent conspiracy. Therefore, editing information by the government — redacting sensitive material, for example — equals manipulating it.

If you believe it is illegitimate for a government to keep secrets, it’s a quick jump to assume that a government that holds secrets is illegitimate itself — and that a system that maintains this illegitimacy, namely democracy, isn’t half as good as most people think. In other words: Like any other system, democracy stinks.

Julian Assange uses WikiLeaks to push the wrongheaded conclusion that whatever is published on the platform has a rotten core. Yet often Mr. Assange is simply leaking for the sake of leaking, producing intelligence porn.

What scandal, for instance, lay in the contents of the former C.I.A. chief John O. Brennan’s personal email account that justified WikiLeaks’s publishing them in full? The underlying scandal, it would seem to Mr. Assange, is that these are evil people who must be exposed. Don’t trust anyone, everybody who keeps secrets is bad, regardless of the reasons they keep them or what values they stand for.

And it’s particularly bad, in Mr. Assange’s view, if those people represent Western democracy: In his simplistic reading, the West is hypocritical because it stands for civil liberties, and all secrets are antithetical to liberty. No wonder he got a show on Russian television — his viewpoint puts him nicely in line with Mr. Putin’s ideological agenda.

Should Trump be sending the thank you note to Assange, or to his handlers in Moscow?

Terez
07-24-2016, 08:16 PM
Bernie Sanders is, after all, not really a Democrat.
Neither are a good number of voters upon whom Democrats depend to win elections.

The downfall of DWS has been inevitable for a long time now. I'm glad we got a final push, not that I think much will change.

Kimon
07-24-2016, 08:33 PM
Neither are a good number of voters upon whom Democrats depend to win elections.

The downfall of DWS has been inevitable for a long time now. I'm glad we got a final push, not that I think much will change.

I still don't see the point of the animosity towards her. She obviously needed to fall on her sword, but it still strikes me as unreasonable pique on the part of both Bernie and Jeff Weaver. But if they required a sacrificial lamb, then fine, so be it. Unfortunately, I think that it's still not enough. maybe never will be enough. I think that Hillary made a mistake choosing Kaine, but not because of anything wrong with Kaine himself, simply because I think that he's becoming yet another excuse for Bernie supporters in convincing themselves to not vote for Hillary. Maybe even Elizabeth Warren couldn't have changed that. Maybe those same voters who are finding Kaine, a mainstream Dem, unacceptable, would have simply found Warren a traitor if she joined Hillary's ticket.

I think all this leads to one result - Trump as president. And I think that this is the result that both Putin and Assange want. Maybe Assange is just being used, but it is hard to explain away why wikileaks has never gone after Russia, but always seems intent on embarrassing America. It is likewise hard to explain why Assange worked for RT, or why he talked Snowden into fleeing to Russia instead of Ecuador.

Terez
07-24-2016, 09:05 PM
The only reason Bernie got so much support in the first place is because Hillary is such a terrible candidate. If anything leads to President Trump, it's that.

Kimon
07-24-2016, 09:21 PM
The only reason Bernie got so much support in the first place is because Hillary is such a terrible candidate. If anything leads to President Trump, it's that.

Hillary is not as natural a politician as her husband, or as Obama, but her policies are the same as theirs. I don't get why so many have such a problem with her. She was an effective first lady, an effective senator, an effective Sec. of State. Blaming her for Benghazi was irrational. Blaming her for voting for the Iraq Authorization was likewise irrational. She had just been elected senator from New York. She had to vote in favor. Blame Bush for cooking the books. Don't blame the dems that believed the CIA and Colin Powell. The private email server was a mistake, but a pretty insignificant one. Certainly nothing criminal. And I think the hostile opposition to free trade this late is anachronistic and irresponsible. I think she'd be a good president. Unfortunately that anti-trade sentiment is going to get Trump elected. I wished we would have learned from Brexit, but it certainly doesn't look like that was remotely the case.

GonzoTheGreat
07-25-2016, 03:49 AM
Hillary is not as natural a politician as her husband, or as Obama, but her policies are the same as theirs.Now that's some "damning her with faint praise"!

Maybe some people are just plain tired of having only varieties of right wing semi-libertarian policies to pick from.

Davian93
07-25-2016, 07:33 AM
Hillary is an awful, awful candidate...if the GOP had picked even an average opponent, she'd likely lose by 10 points. Nobody likes her...likability is a major issue for any politician and even half of her own party pretty much despises her.

DWS is likely the worst party chair in recent memory...and Hillary (once again showing her tonedeafness) actually made her her "honorary campaign chair" of her Presidential campaign as a parting gift. Seriously Hillary, all you did was piss off all the people that already dont like her and essentially prove that the party chair (who is supposed to be neutral in a party primary) has been and will always be in your pocket. Stupid as hell to do it immediately like that but once again, Hillary has zero grasp of how things look (see her email issue as another great example of this)

Terez
07-25-2016, 10:29 AM
Hillary knows how it looks. She just doesn't care. That's part of what makes her a terrible candidate.

Davian93
07-25-2016, 11:07 AM
Hillary knows how it looks. She just doesn't care. That's part of what makes her a terrible candidate.

Yup. And that's why I really despise voting for her. Thank you for having Hitler run against her and me moving to an actual swing state in time for the election where my vote actually matters.

Davian93
07-25-2016, 11:31 AM
Hillary knows how it looks. She just doesn't care. That's part of what makes her a terrible candidate.

My friend's daughter is a delegate in Philly right now. She's getting a lot of crap for being a Bernie loyalist from the Hillaryites.

And this decision is massively fracturing the party at the worst possible time. Hello President Trump.

Kimon
07-25-2016, 11:44 AM
My friend's daughter is a delegate in Philly right now. She's getting a lot of crap for being a Bernie loyalist from the Hillaryites.

And this decision is massively fracturing the party at the worst possible time. Hello President Trump.

You guys know that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was her campaign manager back in '08, right? Still don't see what the big deal is here. Are you guys really bothered by this more than Tim Kaine?

Davian93
07-25-2016, 11:49 AM
You guys know that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was her campaign manager back in '08, right? Still don't see what the big deal is here. Are you guys really bothered by this more than Tim Kaine?

Of course I know that. The point is that the party chair is supposed to be neutral, not in the pocket of one of the candidates. Its garbage and the emails show how much garbage it was. Did she need DWS in her pocket to win? No, not at all. But Hillary did it anyway. Same with the private email server. No reason to do it but she did it anyway. It just feeds into the image of her as a corrupt, secretive paranoid freak. There was zero reason for it.


On Kaine...don't even get me started on that. Hillary and Kaine would have been a great GOP ticket 20-30 years ago. Now they're the "best the Dems have to offer"?!? What a freaking joke. Its yet another complete betrayal of the progressive movement and one that looks more and more like it's gonna bite her in the ass come November when she just assumes that the Left will vote for her over Trump rather than stay home.

Never underestimate the stupidity of the voting public. It sure as hell seems like Hillary is doing that with her actions.

Not only that, the timing for this move was incredibly stupid. It will be the lead story all day today and destroy any semblance of a "unified front" going into the Convention. S-M-R-T, Hillary.


On a side note, DWS was about as good a campaign manager for Hillary as she's been a DNC chair for the Dems the last several years. She's completely incompetent yet keeps getting work somehow. Maybe Hillary's decision making isn't the best there, eh?

GonzoTheGreat
07-25-2016, 12:17 PM
On Kaine...don't even get me started on that. Hillary and Kaine would have been a great GOP ticket 20-30 years ago. Now they're the "best the Dems have to offer"?!? What a freaking joke. Its yet another complete betrayal of the progressive movement and one that looks more and more like it's gonna bite her in the ass come November when she just assumes that the Left will vote for her over Trump rather than stay home.

Never underestimate the stupidity of the voting public. It sure as hell seems like Hillary is doing that with her actions.By now, I'm ceasing to be surprised at the Democrat ability to snatch a resounding defeat from the jaws of inevitable victory.

Davian93
07-25-2016, 12:18 PM
By now, I'm ceasing to be surprised at the Democrat ability to snatch a resounding defeat from the jaws of inevitable victory.

Well after Gore somehow screwed up...nothing surprises me.

Speaking of Gore, the idiot refuses to endorse Clinton because he feels she isn't strong enough on climate change. You know, because Trump will be a better option there.

What an ass.

Terez
07-25-2016, 12:45 PM
Well after Gore somehow screwed up...nothing surprises me.

Speaking of Gore, the idiot refuses to endorse Clinton because he feels she isn't strong enough on climate change. You know, because Trump will be a better option there.

What an ass.
In principle I sympathize because at some point we have to stop accepting 'not as bad as the GOP' as good enough, especially when it comes to climate change where our window is rapidly closing.

In practice, Gore's only relevance these days is as a climate activist. He can't betray his base or he won't be relevant to anything at all.

Davian93
07-25-2016, 12:47 PM
In principle I sympathize because at some point we have to stop accepting 'not as bad as the GOP' as good enough, especially when it comes to climate change where our window is rapidly closing.

In practice, Gore's only relevance these days is as a climate activist. He can't betray his base or he won't be relevant to anything at all.

Sadly, I think that window is already closed and we're completely screwed long-term thanks to the last 30 years of idiocy.

But hey, at least those quarterly profits for Big Oil were really good, eh?

Kimon
07-25-2016, 12:51 PM
On Kaine...don't even get me started on that. Hillary and Kaine would have been a great GOP ticket 20-30 years ago. Now they're the "best the Dems have to offer"?!? What a freaking joke. Its yet another complete betrayal of the progressive movement and one that looks more and more like it's gonna bite her in the ass come November when she just assumes that the Left will vote for her over Trump rather than stay home.


Kaine was a mistake, but Bill Clinton was president 20 years ago. Hillary and Tim Kaine are not more conservative than her husband. Nor any more conservative than Obama. I get why Republicans don't like her, but this hostility amongst so many dems (the Bernie crowd) is really odd. Being a free trader doesn't make you a conservative. The progressive movement encapsulates a lot of issues. Why does Bernie get a pass on gun control, but Hillary doesn't on free trade?

Davian93
07-25-2016, 12:54 PM
Kaine was a mistake, but Bill Clinton was president 20 years ago. Hillary and Tim Kaine are not more conservative than her husband. Nor any more conservative than Obama. I get why Republicans don't like her, but this hostility amongst so many dems (the Bernie crowd) is really odd. Being a free trader doesn't make you a conservative. The progressive movement encapsulates a lot of issues. Why does Bernie get a pass on gun control, but Hillary doesn't on free trade?

And you'll recall that Bill won by running as a Center Right "Third Way" candidate instead of as a Democrat.

My hatred of her is more about the HOW of what she does rather than what's she's doing. She just reeks of shadiness and she always has. She's her husband without the charisma. Nobody likes her and that'll destroy any chance she ever had of building any sort of consensus.

Is she worse than Trump? God no. And that's why I'll vote for her but she's pretty much the worst possible choice the Dems could have made in an election year where they should win by 15%.

Kimon
07-25-2016, 12:59 PM
And you'll recall that Bill won by running as a Center Right "Third Way" candidate instead of as a Democrat.

And he was the best president during my lifetime. I like Obama too, but then Obama negotiated the TPP and TTIP. This is why the Bernie crowd reminds me of the Tea Party. They demand complete purity or else treat you as an enemy of the movement. Obviously different people will have different issues that they think are of primary importance, but unless these Bernie voters really disliked Obama, why would they have a problem with Hillary? Sure they preferred Bernie, but don't burn the house down just because you now need to compromise on one issue.

Davian93
07-25-2016, 01:02 PM
And he was the best president during my lifetime. I like Obama too, but then Obama negotiated the TPP and TTIP. This is why the Bernie crowd reminds me of the Tea Party. They demand complete purity or else treat you as an enemy of the movement. Obviously different people will have different issues that they think are of primary importance, but unless these Bernie voters really disliked Obama, why would they have a problem with Hillary? Sure they preferred Bernie, but don't burn the house down just because you now need to compromise on one issue.

I agree...and its why I hate zealots on either side.

I would also agree that Clinton was easily the best candidate of my lifetime. Granted I was born in 81 so the list is pretty shitty but I'd probably rank them as follows:

1. Bill Clinton
2. Barack Obama
3. Bush Sr
4. Ronnie Reagan
5. Bush Jr

Clinton was probably the best president since Truman all things considered. But she's not her husband and if her name wasn't Clinton, she never would have made it out of a law firm in Little Rock let alone become a Senator, SecState and then presidential candidate of the Dems.

FWIW, I think Bernie is probably the 2nd worst possible choice the Dems could have made this time around...for completely different reasons than I think for Hillary though.

Kimon
07-25-2016, 01:04 PM
And you'll recall that Bill won by running as a Center Right "Third Way" candidate instead of as a Democrat.

My hatred of her is more about the HOW of what she does rather than what's she's doing. She just reeks of shadiness and she always has. She's her husband without the charisma. Nobody likes her and that'll destroy any chance she ever had of building any sort of consensus.

Is she worse than Trump? God no. And that's why I'll vote for her but she's pretty much the worst possible choice the Dems could have made in an election year where they should win by 15%.

This one word encapsulates why she is in trouble. I still think the Bernie crowd refuses to give Trump enough credit. He is charismatic. Far more so than Hillary or Bernie. The Republicans came together, the fact that the dems still haven't, along with Trump's skill as a con man strikes me as the difference in this election.

Davian93
07-25-2016, 01:12 PM
This one word encapsulates why she is in trouble. I still think the Bernie crowd refuses to give Trump enough credit. He is charismatic. Far more so than Hillary or Bernie. The Republicans came together, the fact that the dems still haven't, along with Trump's skill as a con man strikes me as the difference in this election.

Trump's entire career is built on being a showman. He exudes charisma. Its always "on" for him. That's why he's so bloody dangerous. He's your classic strongman. I'd put Hillary winning at 50/50 right now...at best. He will destroy her in the debates...because its a Show, not a real debate. He'll bluster, talk over her, using short talking points and she'll having nothing to come back with.

On average, people are stupid...very very stupid. I say that because I'm an arrogant, stuck up, intellectual who is used to being the "smartest person in a room" on any given day. (Note: I know how that sounds and I dont care, I'm sick of idiots) I'm that asshole that tested in the 99% percentile in everything every single time. That said, people are incredibly stupid regardless of what they think and they fall for his act.

Hillary was an incredibly stupid decision by the DNC elite and it'll likely bite them in the ass big time. Sadly, they likely lose the Senate again too (well, they likely wont win a majority and that's all that matters)...so there's a good chance of having Trump in charge and a GOP led house and senate. Day 1 will be "eliminating the filibuster". Day 2 will be nominating/approving the most far right wing SCOTUS candidate on earth...someone who makes Scalia look like Thurgood Marshall.

The apes will be running things by 2018...after the great atomic wars have destroyed human civilization. Upside...at least maybe that'll put us on a path for Cochran to invent Warp Drive in time for the Vulcans to find us in a few more decades, eh?

Davian93
07-25-2016, 01:43 PM
I look forward to Southpaw's inevitable massive rebutal post here...

Rand al'Fain
07-25-2016, 01:55 PM
*insert laughter of one who is not amused here*
Trump far right? Trump has flip-flopped from both parties several times. He's shown to be both enemies and friends with the Clintons. He has not announced one policy of being fiscally responsible.

What Trump is, and Clinton is too, is an authoritarian that admires people like Putin and Erdogan. Even to the point of having a creepy obsession with them that nearly trumps (no pun intended) his creepy comment about dating his own daughter.

Me? I won't vote for either one. Had Clinton been anyone else, she would have been charged for negligence. Trump? Don't get me started.

I'll vote 3rd party over those two any day.

Davian93
07-25-2016, 01:58 PM
*insert laughter of one who is not amused here*
Trump far right? Trump has flip-flopped from both parties several times. He's shown to be both enemies and friends with the Clintons. He has not announced one policy of being fiscally responsible.

What Trump is, and Clinton is too, is an authoritarian that admires people like Putin and Erdogan. Even to the point of having a creepy obsession with them that nearly trumps (no pun intended) his creepy comment about dating his own daughter.

Me? I won't vote for either one. Had Clinton been anyone else, she would have been charged for negligence. Trump? Don't get me started.

I'll vote 3rd party over those two any day.

Regardless of his personal opinions, he's running as a Fascist/Nationalist candidate. That's "far right" in case you were unaware.

Kimon
07-25-2016, 02:21 PM
What Trump is, and Clinton is too, is an authoritarian that admires people like Putin and Erdogan. Even to the point of having a creepy obsession with them that nearly trumps (no pun intended) his creepy comment about dating his own daughter.


Trump is far too authoritarian and far too friendly with Putin. How has Hillary demonstrated either of those qualities?

Had Clinton been anyone else, she would have been charged for negligence. Trump? Don't get me started.

This is far too ex post facto. Using a private email server was paranoid, but it wasn't negligent, nor was it in any way criminal. If people want to use it as an example of why she's near Nixon level paranoid, fine. But let's not pretend that it was in any way criminal when she set it up. If there was anything that was actually bad in those emails both the Republicans and Assange would have leaked it to the whole world. Like Benghazi, like Whitewater, like Vince Foster, like Monica Lewinsky, like all the silly witch-hunting of the Clintons, this was much ado about nothing. All that is however why she is so paranoid...

Now, contrast that with Trump University. That was a real crime - fraud. People don't like Hillary, but as much as they want to paint her as a criminal, all the accusations against her still are transparently ridiculous.

Davian93
07-25-2016, 02:24 PM
Trump is far too authoritarian and far too friendly with Putin.

Very interesting that the Russian hack of the DNC servers was released at the worst possible time. Some might consider that a deliberate interference in the internal affairs of the United States by a foreign power. Given how friendly the two seem, you almost wonder if Trump's team (or Trump personally) had anything to do with it.

Up there with Reagan's team and their backdoor deal with Iran in the lead up to the 1980 election.

No way its possible, right? Right?

Kimon
07-25-2016, 02:36 PM
Very interesting that the Russian hack of the DNC servers was released at the worst possible time. Some might consider that a deliberate interference in the internal affairs of the United States by a foreign power. Given how friendly the two seem, you almost wonder if Trump's team (or Trump personally) had anything to do with it.

Up there with Reagan's team and their backdoor deal with Iran in the lead up to the 1980 election.

No way its possible, right? Right?

What, you mean things like this?

http://www.politifact.com/global-news/article/2016/may/02/paul-manafort-donald-trumps-top-adviser-and-his-ti/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/opinion/campaign-stops/is-trump-obsessed-with-putin-and-russia.html

Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign chairman, has a history of representing heinous dictators, including Viktor Yanukovych of Ukraine, a Kremlin puppet who was deposed by revolution in 2014.

Manafort has ties to Oleg Deripaska, who made a shocking fortune in the aluminum business through his Kremlin connections and, as Michael Isikoff, chief investigative journalist for Yahoo News, reported in April, “for years was barred from entering the United States over allegations of ties to organized crime.”

Isikoff wrote that investigators in the Cayman Islands questioned Manafort “in connection with” a $26.2 million investment from Deripaska for a failed telecommunications project in Ukraine. Isikoff said Manafort had “multiple business deals” with “another pro-Putin oligarch, Dmitri Firtash.”

And, as was the original point of this thread, I think that Assange has obvious links to Putin too.

Davian93
07-25-2016, 02:37 PM
I'm sure its all a coincidence...no way the Right Wing of the US would vote/support a guy that is clearly 100% in it to sell the US for money and destroy our democracy.

Terez
07-25-2016, 03:05 PM
Kaine was a mistake, but Bill Clinton was president 20 years ago. Hillary and Tim Kaine are not more conservative than her husband. Nor any more conservative than Obama.
Hillary is far more conservative than Obama. Problem is, she had a great deal of influence on his administration.

Why does Bernie get a pass on gun control, but Hillary doesn't on free trade?
Impact. The kind of gun control laws that are feasible under the Constitution are far less helpful than badly negotiated trade deals are damaging to ordinary Americans.

Davian93
07-25-2016, 03:13 PM
To be fair on gun control, Bernie's views are also similar to that of his constituents so its fairly understandable that he held them.

Much akin to Kirstin Gillibrand's views while she was a Representative and how they changed once she became a Senator. No one hammered her on them since she is merely representing the people who voted for her there.



Overall, I dont understand how Hillary doesn't grasp that DWS is political poison right now. It leaves the options of she is literally an idiot or she's so arrogant she think's she's already won.

Neither are good possibilities. How the hell is DWS even at the Convention on camera at this point? Someone needs to lock her in a room and throw away the key until its over.

Kimon
07-25-2016, 03:20 PM
Hillary is far more conservative than Obama. Problem is, she had a great deal of influence on his administration.


Perception is not always reality.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/

To see how these different issues fit together to form an overall political ideology, we usually use three metrics: one based on congressional voting record, one based on public statements and one based on fundraising.

Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview, Clinton’s record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats in her final term in the Senate. She was more liberal than 85 percent of all members. Her 2008 rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Barack Obama, was nearby with a record more liberal than 82 percent of all members — he was not more liberal than Clinton.

Clinton also has a history of very liberal public statements. Clinton rates as a “hard core liberal” per the OnTheIssues.org scale. She is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and barely more moderate than Bernie Sanders. And while Obama is also a “hard core liberal,” Clinton again was rated as more liberal than Obama.

here have been a few issues on which Hillary Clinton has taken more centrist positions. She, of course, voted for the Iraq War (she now says that was a mistake). Clinton has been mostly pro free trade (although she hasn’t said much of anything on the Trans-Pacific Partnership). And she has been against marijuana legalization, and seemingly remains so.

That position on marijuana is dumb, the other two make sense. The free trade deals are unpopular, but still in America's best interest. That's why Obama negotiated them. That's why Bill realized he couldn't turn against NAFTA after he inherited it. The Iraq War vote was clearly mistaken in retrospect, but not within the moment. Libya could however be pointed to as another example. But hawk/dove is not a conservative/liberal issue. There are hawks and doves in both parties, neither stance is progressive or conservative. The same is true of free trade.

Impact. The kind of gun control laws that are feasible under the Constitution are far less helpful than badly negotiated trade deals are damaging to ordinary Americans.

I disagree, strongly, but then this issue clearly matters to me far more than free trade. And we once had far more pragmatic gun laws. The change was not due to anything intrinsic within the Constitution, it was due to Scalia.

Davian93
07-25-2016, 03:23 PM
Gore FINALLY endorses Hillary.

I guess her views on climate change shifted enough in the past 8 hours for him to change his mind.

Terez
07-25-2016, 05:29 PM
Overall, I dont understand how Hillary doesn't grasp that DWS is political poison right now. It leaves the options of she is literally an idiot or she's so arrogant she think's she's already won.

Neither are good possibilities. How the hell is DWS even at the Convention on camera at this point? Someone needs to lock her in a room and throw away the key until its over.
Obviously Hillary isn't an idiot. From what I know about her, she values loyalty to her (and Bill) above all else, except in situations she deems politically untenable. She clearly thinks she can get away with this politically, so personal loyalty wins.

Kimon
07-25-2016, 09:58 PM
That was a a damn good speech by Cory Booker. Both he and Sarah Silverman have done a really fine job before a pretty tough crowd.

GonzoTheGreat
07-26-2016, 04:47 AM
Trump far right?
Perhaps a more accurate way of describing him is: Trump is far wrong.

Rand al'Fain
07-26-2016, 11:05 AM
Perhaps a more accurate way of describing him is: Trump is far wrong.

That works.

Kimon
04-13-2017, 06:38 PM
Sad that it has taken this long for a formal declaration, but...

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-04-13/cia-director-blasts-wikileaks-as-hostile-intelligence-service

CIA Director Mike Pompeo blasted WikiLeaks, singling out the group’s founder Julian Assange as leader of a hostile force that threatens the U.S.

“It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is -- a non-state hostile intelligence service” often aided by nations such as Russia, Pompeo said Thursday in his first public speech since becoming head of the Central Intelligence Agency. “WikiLeaks walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks like a hostile intelligence service.”

The group has encouraged followers to pursue jobs at the CIA in order to pilfer intelligence, Pompeo told the audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. He denounced Assange, who calls himself a champion of transparency in government, as a “narcissist” and a “fraud -- a coward hiding behind a screen.”

Unfortunate that Moreno won the recent election in Ecuador, or else we likely now would be negotiating Assange's extradition back to America to face espionage charges.

Terez
04-14-2017, 04:00 AM
Just read this thread from the beginning. Good times.

Davian93
04-14-2017, 09:28 AM
Just read this thread from the beginning. Good times.

I hate that I was 100% right on what would happen with Hillary and then Trump winning.

tworiverswoman
04-14-2017, 10:34 PM
Actually, there are an appalling number of eerily prescient posts in this thread.

Since the election, I've become addicted to following the Trump news (though it's rare I can bring myself to listen to more than 10 seconds of one of his speeches. I'm sure he has bags of charisma, but it doesn't work on people who despise him). But it's deeply distressing how his core followers still think of us as "snowflakes."

Are they somehow IGNORANT of how the dominoes keep falling in the Trump administration? How many of his inner crowd are under investigation? How many have had to recuse themselves or "belatedly" file for "Agent of a foreign government" status? They still think of this as "fake news" and I don't understand it. If FOX outright LYING to them?

GonzoTheGreat
04-15-2017, 04:46 AM
They have faith in the Christian sense:
Hebrews|11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

The fact that Trump's integrity and competence can not be seen, that it is merely hoped for, is, for them, no reason at all not to believe in it.