The US Election 2016, Part IV

[Rosbjerg]

Previous thread here.

 

I found an interesting article from New York Magazine- Democracies End

 

Quoting Plato's Republic and 5 regimes, the warning that tyranny springs from an overflow of democracy in a climate of inequality, he draws parallels to the current political climate of the western world.

 

 

... When elites are despised and full license is established to do “whatever one wants,” you arrive at what might be called late-stage democracy.

 

There is no kowtowing to authority here, let alone to political experience or expertise. The very rich come under attack, as inequality becomes increasingly intolerable. Patriarchy is also dismantled: “We almost forgot to mention the extent of the law of equality and of freedom in the relations of women with men and men with women.” Family hierarchies are inverted: “A father habituates himself to be like his child and fear his sons, and a son habituates himself to be like his father and to have no shame before or fear of his parents.” In classrooms, “as the teacher ... is frightened of the pupils and fawns on them, so the students make light of their teachers.” Animals are regarded as equal to humans; the rich mingle freely with the poor in the streets and try to blend in. The foreigner is equal to the citizen.

 

And it is when a democracy has ripened as fully as this, Plato argues, that a would-be tyrant will often seize his moment.

 

 

and last post from previous thread.

 

Bruce, I like you. But there is thing thing you do that just annoys the absolute HELL out of me. And you just did it now. It's the notion you put forward that if someone is taking a position contrary to yours then either 1) They don't understand the facts, concept, what you are saying.  2) They are reacting from emotion, bias, lack of intellectual sophistication, etc.

 

I realize you are a man than enjoys a good debate and believe me so do I. But a good debate does not follow when your opening statement is a polite admonition that the opposing viewpoint is rooted in stupidity. Even in the rare occasions that it actually is. 

 

As far as the illegality of the media acting in concert with the DNC to destroy a candidate... it's not illegal. It is dishonest. The NPR came close when they ran a story that Bernie Sanders had dual citizenship with Israel ( a country he had never even visited at that time). And by the way, nothing Wikileaks has released has been denied. As Namutree pointed out. Had the DNC just fulfilled it's function and not taken a hand there would have been nothing to release. 

 

[Longknife]

Who are you guys voting for?  Psychopath or Sociopath?

[Guard Dog]

Who are you guys voting for?  Psychopath or Sociopath?

Which was which again?

 

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

and last post from previous thread.

 

Bruce, I like you. But there is thing thing you do that just annoys the absolute HELL out of me. And you just did it now. It's the notion you put forward that if someone is taking a position contrary to yours then either 1) They don't understand the facts, concept, what you are saying.  2) They are reacting from emotion, bias, lack of intellectual sophistication, etc.

 

I realize you are a man than enjoys a good debate and believe me so do I. But a good debate does not follow when your opening statement is a polite admonition that the opposing viewpoint is rooted in stupidity. Even in the rare occasions that it actually is. 

 

As far as the illegality of the media acting in concert with the DNC to destroy a candidate... it's not illegal. It is dishonest. The NPR came close when they ran a story that Bernie Sanders had dual citizenship with Israel ( a country he had never even visited at that time). And by the way, nothing Wikileaks has released has been denied. As Namutree pointed out. Had the DNC just fulfilled it's function and not taken a hand there would have been nothing to release. 

 

Okay I apologize if that is the impression I created, I dont think every opposing view to mine is rooted in stupidity

 

But this serious accusation you making that the media is complicate in dishonesty is simply not true

 

Are you suggesting CNN was biased towards Sanders during the many  months of the candidacy race? I watch CNN extensively and there was no bias towards him or attempts to destroy him 

[Longknife]

Guard Dog, remember that time (those times) I said Bruce argues in bad faith, is incapable of conceding his initial views, doesn't actually know or pay attention to any of the facts beyond a face-value level, does not actually read/process the posts with opposing views and only "debates" to gain feel-good points where he can feel like his judgements are correct and his morals are good?

I'd be the last person to call you an idiot for even bothering with him, just figured I should remind that this would not be the first time someone called Bruce out on the exact stuff you just said. (different words and interpretations, same problem)

[Hastur]

I don't know you Bruce, but I might as well like you too. However, while I respect your devotion and love of the flavor of cool aid that the liberal establishment is serving, it just doesn't pass the smell test to turn this issue into an indictment of Trump, Assange, or the Russians. No amount of slight of hand or mental gymnastics will change the fact that the emails depict shady activities in the Democratic party. Sure, there's probably some of the same going on with Republicans, but that's the problem. If people are just now realizing the fix is in, at least they're finally seeing things as they are. Turns out the tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists really did uncover a conspiracy. Most of the stuff in the emails depict a dog bites man sort of news event. Some of it is remarkable, though.

[BruceVC]

I don't know you Bruce, but I might as well like you too. However, while I respect your devotion and love of the flavor of cool aid that the liberal establishment is serving, it just doesn't pass the smell test to turn this issue into an indictment of Trump, Assange, or the Russians. No amount of slight of hand or mental gymnastics will change the fact that the emails depict shady activities in the Democratic party. Sure, there's probably some of the same going on with Republicans, but that's the problem. If people are just now realizing the fix is in, at least they're finally seeing things as they are. Turns out the tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists really did uncover a conspiracy. Most of the stuff in the emails depict a dog bites man sort of news event. Some of it is remarkable, though.

But no one is denying this wasnt  an issue and there was bias towards Clinton from some members of the DNC

 

Thats why Debbie Wasserman resigned. But to suggest the global media houses, and thats what CNN is, are complicate in some dishonesty against Sanders is surly going too far ? 

 

Unless there is real evidence ?

[Longknife]

 

I don't know you Bruce, but I might as well like you too. However, while I respect your devotion and love of the flavor of cool aid that the liberal establishment is serving, it just doesn't pass the smell test to turn this issue into an indictment of Trump, Assange, or the Russians. No amount of slight of hand or mental gymnastics will change the fact that the emails depict shady activities in the Democratic party. Sure, there's probably some of the same going on with Republicans, but that's the problem. If people are just now realizing the fix is in, at least they're finally seeing things as they are. Turns out the tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists really did uncover a conspiracy. Most of the stuff in the emails depict a dog bites man sort of news event. Some of it is remarkable, though.

But no one is denying this wasnt  an issue and there was bias towards Clinton from some members of the DNC

 

Thats why Debbie Wasserman resigned. But to suggest the global media houses, and thats what CNN is, are complicate in some dishonesty against Sanders is surly going too far ? 

 

Unless there is real evidence ?

 

 

Bruce not one thread ago you were praising Donna Brazile as the new DNC chair to be, and you can't figure out how someone working with CNN going to replace the old corrupt chair is questionable? You haven't seen this or this or the one where TIME asks them to review an article before publishing? You've never heard the Clintons are huge donors to CNN?

 

Ignorance is a choice.

[Wrath of Dagon]

http://www.brookings...&_hsmi=32073053

 

More information about Russian interference in the US election, the part below I find particularly interesting

 

The leaked DNC emails have already cost Debbie Wasserman Schultz her chairmanship of the DNC. Julian Assange threatened in a June interview that the leaks would lead to Hillary Clinton’s arrest. There is certainly nothing close to that in this batch of emails, and there is reason to doubt the validity of Assange’s claim; he has wildly exaggerated about the content of leaks in the past and there are strategic reasons to lead major leaks with the most damaging information. But we are almost certain to see a number of leaks aimed at damaging Hillary Clinton over the coming weeks and months.

This means, put simply, that actors outside the U.S. are using criminal means to influence the outcome of a U.S. election. That’s a problem.

The question before us now is how to construct a response to mitigate damage to our democratic institutions.

When our own government refuses to keep our politicians honest, we have to outsource it to the Russians. Foreigners - doing the jobs Americans won't do.

[Longknife]

 

http://www.brookings...&_hsmi=32073053

 

More information about Russian interference in the US election, the part below I find particularly interesting

 

The leaked DNC emails have already cost Debbie Wasserman Schultz her chairmanship of the DNC. Julian Assange threatened in a June interview that the leaks would lead to Hillary Clinton’s arrest. There is certainly nothing close to that in this batch of emails, and there is reason to doubt the validity of Assange’s claim; he has wildly exaggerated about the content of leaks in the past and there are strategic reasons to lead major leaks with the most damaging information. But we are almost certain to see a number of leaks aimed at damaging Hillary Clinton over the coming weeks and months.

This means, put simply, that actors outside the U.S. are using criminal means to influence the outcome of a U.S. election. That’s a problem.

The question before us now is how to construct a response to mitigate damage to our democratic institutions.

When our own government refuses to keep our politicians honest, we have to outsource it to the Russians. Foreigners - doing the jobs Americans won't do.

 

 

 

In Soviet Russia, government cares about YOU!

[Wrath of Dagon]

In Soviet US, the government selects the voters.

[Guard Dog]

 

http://www.brookings...&_hsmi=32073053

 

More information about Russian interference in the US election, the part below I find particularly interesting

 

The leaked DNC emails have already cost Debbie Wasserman Schultz her chairmanship of the DNC. Julian Assange threatened in a June interview that the leaks would lead to Hillary Clinton’s arrest. There is certainly nothing close to that in this batch of emails, and there is reason to doubt the validity of Assange’s claim; he has wildly exaggerated about the content of leaks in the past and there are strategic reasons to lead major leaks with the most damaging information. But we are almost certain to see a number of leaks aimed at damaging Hillary Clinton over the coming weeks and months.

This means, put simply, that actors outside the U.S. are using criminal means to influence the outcome of a U.S. election. That’s a problem.

The question before us now is how to construct a response to mitigate damage to our democratic institutions.

When our own government refuses to keep our politicians honest, we have to outsource it to the Russians. Foreigners - doing the jobs Americans won't do.

 

Well that's actually the media's job. Not the government. You do NOT want the government getting involved in elections. But when the media is a willing participant in the conspiracy THEN we outsource to the Russians!

[Wrath of Dagon]

Well that's actually the media's job. Not the government. You do NOT want the government getting involved in elections. But when the media is a willing participant in the conspiracy THEN we outsource to the Russians!

It becomes the government's job when the politician breaks the law, like Hilzilla. But the press is certainly not doing their jobs either, unless you accept that their job is to be Democrat party operatives, in which case they're doing great.

[Guard Dog]

 

Well that's actually the media's job. Not the government. You do NOT want the government getting involved in elections. But when the media is a willing participant in the conspiracy THEN we outsource to the Russians!

It becomes the government's job when the politician breaks the law, like Hilzilla. But the press is certainly not doing their jobs either, unless you accept that their job is to be Democrat party operatives, in which case they're doing great.

 

Well that's just it. Sabotaging candidates is not illegal for the DNC. The only ones they actually answer to are the members of the democrat party itself. Technically they do not even need to have primary elections. They can have a closed door meeting and just walk out on that stage and say "Wrath of Dagon" is our nominee. So what they are doing is certainly dishonest and abusive of the trust of Democrat voters and certainly a violation of their own rules. But none of it is criminal.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I was talking about her other law breaking, not just the unethical behavior on display here. And actually certain things are illegal in politics, I'm not an expert in that law. For example if you take donations in support of party activities, but in fact use it for a specific candidate, that could be fraud and could be against election law, not sure.

 

David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog Jul 25

If this election doesn't convince voters why government ought to be small, then we're doomed.

[Bokishi]

 

http://www.brookings...&_hsmi=32073053More information about Russian interference in the US election, the part below I find particularly interestingThe leaked DNC emails have already cost Debbie Wasserman Schultz her chairmanship of the DNC. Julian Assange threatened in a June interview that the leaks would lead to Hillary Clinton’s arrest. There is certainly nothing close to that in this batch of emails, and there is reason to doubt the validity of Assange’s claim; he has wildly exaggerated about the content of leaks in the past and there are strategic reasons to lead major leaks with the most damaging information. But we are almost certain to see a number of leaks aimed at damaging Hillary Clinton over the coming weeks and months.This means, put simply, that actors outside the U.S. are using criminal means to influence the outcome of a U.S. election. That’s a problem.The question before us now is how to construct a response to mitigate damage to our democratic institutions.

When our own government refuses to keep our politicians honest, we have to outsource it to the Russians. Foreigners - doing the jobs Americans won't do.

Seriously, don't be corrupt and there will be nothing to leak.

[Guard Dog]

I was talking about her other law breaking, not just the unethical behavior on display here. And actually certain things are illegal in politics, I'm not an expert in that law. For example if you take donations in support of party activities, but in fact use it for a specific candidate, that could be fraud and could be against election law, not sure.

 

David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog Jul 25

If this election doesn't convince voters why government ought to be small, then we're doomed.

No, it's not fraud. Donations to any group (other than non-profit) can be used at the discretion of the group. They can use that money to support candidates, get Debbie Wasserman-Schultz a perm, whatever. Now as for the other corruption Clinton is engaged in, that is a different story.

Edited July 26, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Hastur]

It used to be that I could sympathize with the exasperated "How can you vote for Trump!?!" question. I mean, I try not to be overbearing about my politics, but, just like my faith, I'm not going to hide it. So I would try to explain that a lot of Republicans are not at all happy with Trump but we can't support the Democratic agenda and we're hoping that Trump's policy outlook won't be entirely bad but we're certain that Hillary's will be worse at any rate. Of course, when my ignorant liberal friends complain about how conservative Trump is and how he wants to set up a Christian theocracy or whatever nonsense, I try to explain, with utmost patience, that Trump is not a 'conservative.' He's not even really a Republican. He's a Trumpian demagogue.

 

Now, however, I don't see how Democrats can point the finger at us. I mean, this is finally a "yeah, but so are you!" argument I can actually understand. I respect that some people support the Democratic ticket, and I know part of supporting the Clinton candidacy is pretending that she's great and that she's the victim of a vast right wing conspiracy and other non-sense, but do yourselves a favor and don't believe your own press releases. It's one thing to say, as a friend recently did, that's she's just "an old grandma that doesn't understand technology" before all of the facts came out. It's entirely different now.

 

I respect that some people want to make Trump into the ultimate boogeyman, but I just don't get it. Trump is considerably less frightening than Hillary. His corruption is personal and incidental. Her corruption is systemic and focused. Trump will undoubtedly do foolish things out of whim and incontinence. Clinton will do corrupt things out of malice and machination.

 

With that said, while in real life I will continue to tell folks that I'm voting for Trump, I will confide in you, being strangers, that I have decided to vote for Johnson. I am not a 'conservative.' I am a 'liberal' in the correct sense of the term and while I don't agree with all of the Libertarian platform, I could certainly stomach it better than what we've been getting lately from both parties. I'll see what happens in four years, but for right now I'm not voting the Republican Presidential ticket for the first time in my adult life.

[BruceVC]

It used to be that I could sympathize with the exasperated "How can you vote for Trump!?!" question. I mean, I try not to be overbearing about my politics, but, just like my faith, I'm not going to hide it. So I would try to explain that a lot of Republicans are not at all happy with Trump but we can't support the Democratic agenda and we're hoping that Trump's policy outlook won't be entirely bad but we're certain that Hillary's will be worse at any rate. Of course, when my ignorant liberal friends complain about how conservative Trump is and how he wants to set up a Christian theocracy or whatever nonsense, I try to explain, with utmost patience, that Trump is not a 'conservative.' He's not even really a Republican. He's a Trumpian demagogue.

 

Now, however, I don't see how Democrats can point the finger at us. I mean, this is finally a "yeah, but so are you!" argument I can actually understand. I respect that some people support the Democratic ticket, and I know part of supporting the Clinton candidacy is pretending that she's great and that she's the victim of a vast right wing conspiracy and other non-sense, but do yourselves a favor and don't believe your own press releases. It's one thing to say, as a friend recently did, that's she's just "an old grandma that doesn't understand technology" before all of the facts came out. It's entirely different now.

 

I respect that some people want to make Trump into the ultimate boogeyman, but I just don't get it. Trump is considerably less frightening than Hillary. His corruption is personal and incidental. Her corruption is systemic and focused. Trump will undoubtedly do foolish things out of whim and incontinence. Clinton will do corrupt things out of malice and machination.

 

With that said, while in real life I will continue to tell folks that I'm voting for Trump, I will confide in you, being strangers, that I have decided to vote for Johnson. I am not a 'conservative.' I am a 'liberal' in the correct sense of the term and while I don't agree with all of the Libertarian platform, I could certainly stomach it better than what we've been getting lately from both parties. I'll see what happens in four years, but for right now I'm not voting the Republican Presidential ticket for the first time in my adult life.

Hastur I may not  necessarily agree with everything you say but you make some interesting  points in a constructive manner and I appreciate the effort you put into your posts 

 

I hope you stay and continue to be active, we dont seem to keep many new members on the Off Topic section

[Guard Dog]

Heck even I don't agree with the LP and Gary Johnson on everything. But I will say this, after voting for him I won't have any problems with the guy in the mirror. 

[Hastur]

I hope you stay and continue to be active, we dont seem to keep many new members on the Off Topic section

Wow, thanks man. I'm kind of an internet nomad, but I appreciate the warm welcome.

 

I might not ever get you to vote Republican, but if I ply you with enough mead I might get you to sing Kumbaya with me. We'll probably be off-key, but we'll be sauced so we won't care.

[Longknife]

Hillary officially the nominee vs. Trump.

 

Anyone know any good suicide methods?

[Guard Dog]

I always figured if i had to go I'd drink myself out. 

[Zoraptor]

The US does. It's either death by Trump or death by Hillary and you get to choose your poison.

 

Pretty much sums up the DNC when their attempt at acclamation voting has a lot of loud 'noes', which are promptly ignored by both the chair and the media (well, CNN. I was just watching them for the lols, honest!). I think I'll try and catch at least some of Bill's speech too, he used to be absolute natural teflon but he's been going a bit Prince Philip lately and managing to effortlessly and randomly antagonise people. I must also find out when Hillary's accepting, so I can make sure to check Wikileaks' for simultaneous new releases.

 

And Bernie is going back to being an independent senator, not a democrat one. Speaks volumes.

Edited July 26, 2016 by Zoraptor

[Longknife]

And Bernie is going back to being an independent senator, not a democrat one. Speaks volumes.

 

Though it leaves many more questions.

 

I consider my senses for people pretty sharp, and Bernie has never looked comfortable endorsing Hillary, and yet he's doing it. There are reasons one might do it, but we simply have no idea what was going through his head the past ~2 weeks or so. Doesn't matter now, really, but I can't shake the thought that he's planning something, but that whatever his game is, I have my doubts it'll even pay off at this point.

 

Anyways, apparently people are already staging a walk-out. It'll be interesting to hear the crowd when Hillary speaks, not to mention Wikileaks sounds like they've got serious dirt on her.