Octopus Overlords

El Guapo wrote:

Lol. I'm less worried about Russia undermining the Democratic process than I am Americans now.

Drumpf is right, the election is getting rigged. It just seems that it's being rigged in his favour.

I find it more equivalent to a lawyer in a criminal trial saying something he knows will be overruled by objection, but saying it anyway since the jury can never "unhear" it.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:

Donald Trump’s campaign manager on Thursday grudgingly conceded that a story her candidate pushed on the trail about the FBI predicting an indictment for Hillary Clinton was baseless, but said that the political damage to the Democratic nominee was already done.

Working as intended.

YellowKing wrote:I find it more equivalent to a lawyer in a criminal trial saying something he knows will be overruled by objection, but saying it anyway since the jury can never "unhear" it.

Except the jury never hears "objection" or the judge sustaining the objection.

What's the point of correcting misinformation, no one is going to believe the correction anyway, seems to be her position.

Lol. Totally awful and they just keep showing their complete disdain for reality. I find that personally offensive.

It's like the marketing department at a major corporation, except completely unrestrained by regulation/law.

GreenGoo wrote:

YellowKing wrote:I find it more equivalent to a lawyer in a criminal trial saying something he knows will be overruled by objection, but saying it anyway since the jury can never "unhear" it.

Except the jury never hears "objection" or the judge sustaining the objection.

What's the point of correcting misinformation, no one is going to believe the correction anyway, seems to be her position.

Lol. Totally awful and they just keep showing their complete disdain for reality. I find that personally offensive.

It's like the marketing department at a major corporation, except completely unrestrained by regulation/law.

I guess the actual acts themselves, no matter how awful, seem less important to some people than if you are upfront about those acts or not. They can get away with anything at this point, and they know it. Hell, they are playing to that fact...just put it out there, loudly. As long as you own it, you can pretty much do or say anything apparently.

Zarathud wrote:Because Republicans and Bernie Bros are whiny assholes.

Don't ever change. In my world, I like to believe you posted that just for me.

RunningMn9 wrote:

Smutly wrote:Then why did Debbie Wasserman Schultz immediately resign?

Because the DNC wants the Democrats that were in Bernie's camp to vote for Clinton. Sacrifices must be made at that altar.

To the Bernie camp, seeing her essence instantly enveloped into Clinton campaign was not the proper use of the sacrifice skill. For optics, that was about the worst thing you could do.

GreenGoo wrote:This. Bernie, unlike Reps opposing Drumpf, had a substantial base from which to gather support. Opposing Bernie made the DNC and Bernie's supporters "enemies". If they could be appeased by a resignation, great. She can always return to the fold in another capacity.

Of course they haven't been appeased. Not completely. Not even with Bernie trying to get them to support Hillary. They want their free stuff and Hillary is the reason they're not going to get it.

For the record I support them getting *some* of their free stuff.

I know you don't count, but if you did, this would be an example of the hostile attitude that is seeing youth turning their backs partisan politics.

LordMortis wrote:To the Bernie camp, seeing her essence instantly enveloped into Clinton campaign was not the proper use of the sacrifice skill. For optics, that was about the worst thing you could do.

Maybe but it is expected and normal behavior in our system. Our first past the post Presidential system forces them to build coalitions before the election. Much like how Trump found a segment of disaffected and angry racists and merged them with people who should be ashamed of themselves.

malchior wrote:

LordMortis wrote:To the Bernie camp, seeing her essence instantly enveloped into Clinton campaign was not the proper use of the sacrifice skill. For optics, that was about the worst thing you could do.

Maybe but it is expected and normal behavior in our system. Our first past the post Presidential system forces them to build coalitions before the election. Much like how Trump found a segment of disaffected and angry racists and merged them with people who should be ashamed of themselves.

If the reason for the sacrifice was to expel charges of exclusion and collusion, then it's a failure of normal behavior that will not be soon forgotten by young voters who are voting in their 1st, 2nd, or even 3rd presidential election. It gives credence to all of republican noise centered on the idea that Clinton is the head of a party is built on exclusion and collusion, which then builds over time to become synonymous oligarch and corruption, which is the stuff young voters are trying to break away from most. The attempt to break away is the stuff they put Obama in office on and to a lesser extent the stuff they re elected him on.

LordMortis wrote:To the Bernie camp, seeing her essence instantly enveloped into Clinton campaign was not the proper use of the sacrifice skill. For optics, that was about the worst thing you could do.

I never meant to imply that they were good at it. I was just answering the question as to why she was fired. I just can't get worked up that the Democratic National Committee went out of their way to prevent a non-Democrat from winning their party's nomination. I'm surprised it took more than "Uh...no, you can't run for the nomination of our Party, because you aren't a member of our Party...why do we even have to explain that to you?"

I don't think that Bernie's supporters are being understanding enough of the realities of a non-Democrat trying to secure the nomination of the Democratic Party.

RunningMn9 wrote:

LordMortis wrote:To the Bernie camp, seeing her essence instantly enveloped into Clinton campaign was not the proper use of the sacrifice skill. For optics, that was about the worst thing you could do.

I never meant to imply that they were good at it. I was just answering the question as to why she was fired. I just can't get worked up that the Democratic National Committee went out of their way to prevent a non-Democrat from winning their party's nomination. I'm surprised it took more than "Uh...no, you can't run for the nomination of our Party, because you aren't a member of our Party...why do we even have to explain that to you?"

I don't think that Bernie's supporters are being understanding enough of the realities of a non-Democrat trying to secure the nomination of the Democratic Party.

While I sympathize with the plight of Democrats here (the beef makes perfect sense, why would you let anyone in a club that doesn't pay due and do their time), I empathize with disenfranchised more, even if I think their energy is better served getting educated on and staying involved at he local level and ousting partisan politics there and letting that snowball into regional levels. At the same time, I won't lament the implosion of the democrats nearly (but not quite) as much as I'm not lamenting the implosion of the republicans (so long as neither party manages to take the whole country with them).

LordMortis wrote:
I know you don't count, but if you did, this would be an example of the hostile attitude that is seeing youth turning their backs partisan politics.

Shrug. They can hide in a safe zone where they don't have to listen to my opinion.

They can still have some of the free stuff though. Just not all of it.

LordMortis wrote:I empathize with disenfranchised more

I empathize with them right up to the point that I don't believe they have the right to just co-opt another political party like that in order to have their way.

The Republicans in this election have allowed it by having a non-Republican win the nomination on a swell of support from people that aren't Republicans. As a result, the party is now Republican in name only.

RunningMn9 wrote:The Republicans in this election have allowed it by having a non-Republican win the nomination on a swell of support from people that aren't Republicans. As a result, the party is now Republican in name only.

I am rather inclined to doubt that. I think the republicans have been courting this swell for decades and invited them to the table in 2007 (aka Tea Party) to increase their voting numbers.

I think the democrats are in the same process. Only the Dems set the table in 2011 (aka Occupy and soon to be amplified by inviting BLM to the table as well).

GreenGoo wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

Lol. I'm less worried about Russia undermining the Democratic process than I am Americans now.

Drumpf is right, the election is getting rigged. It just seems that it's being rigged in his favour.

I think this is what happens when even the people in charge start claiming the system is rigged, everyone starts trying to manipulate things in their side's favor. Trump, his party's nominee, claims the election is rigged! How did he get nominated then? That's not important, I'm sure the conspirators have a clever reason for that. The important thing is his supporters believe it, so his supporters in whatever job they have with whatever power they have, attempt to compensate by trying to rig things in his favor. Then people against Trump try to compensate by doing what they can in Hliary's favor.

It's a tug of war of cheating and manipulation. It's dangerous because those of us trying to operate within the system by the rules can see how even Presidential nominees no longer have any respect for the very system they are participating in. If the guy at the top doesn't care, why would we expect the people at the bottom to care?

And that's what we call the opposite of leadership.

LordMortis wrote:I am rather inclined to doubt that. I think the republicans have been courting this swell for decades and invited them to the table in 2007 (aka Tea Party) to increase their voting numbers.

This swell isn't from the Tea Party.

RunningMn9 wrote:

Smutly wrote:Then why did Debbie Wasserman Schultz immediately resign?

Because the DNC wants the Democrats that were in Bernie's camp to vote for Clinton. Sacrifices must be made at that altar.

Weak sauce. Of course they do, but the "Oops! You caught us..." so here's your obligatory firing of appeasement would not, predictably, get them very far with Bernie voters. They forced her to resign because they knew the Bernie Sanders crowd would see this as "unfair" and "corrupt".

WTF?

OF COURSE BERNIE SANDERS SUPPORTERS WOULD SEE THAT AS UNFAIR AND CORRUPT.

That's not what makes something "unfair" or "corrupt".

Again, no one suggested that the firing would work to appease Bernie's supporters. I'm simply pointing out that she wasn't fired because OMG UNFAIRNESS AND CORRUPTION!?!

RunningMn9 wrote:WTF?

OF COURSE BERNIE SANDERS SUPPORTERS WOULD SEE THAT AS UNFAIR AND CORRUPT.

That's not what makes something "unfair" or "corrupt".

Again, no one suggested that the firing would work to appease Bernie's supporters. I'm simply pointing out that she wasn't fired because OMG UNFAIRNESS AND CORRUPTION!?!

Let's all just stare at these definitions for a few seconds.

un·fair (adjective)
1) not based on or behaving according to the principles of equality and justice.
example: "at times like these the legal system appears inhumane and unfair"
synonyms: unjust, inequitable, prejudiced, biased, discriminatory; More
2) unkind, inconsiderate, or unreasonable.
example: "you're unfair to criticize like that when she's never done you any harm"
synonyms: inconsiderate, thoughtless, insensitive, selfish, spiteful, mean, unkind, unreasonable; More
3) not following the rules of a game or sport.
synonyms: unsportsmanlike, unsporting, dirty, below the belt, underhanded, dishonorable
"unfair play"

cor·rupt (adjective)
1. having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.
example: "unscrupulous logging companies assisted by corrupt officials"
synonyms: dishonest, unscrupulous, dishonorable, unprincipled, unethical, amoral, untrustworthy, venal, underhanded, double-dealing, fraudulent, bribable, criminal, illegal, unlawful, nefarious; More
2. (of a text or a computer database or program) made unreliable by errors or alterations.
(verb)
1. cause to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.
example: "there is a continuing fear of firms corrupting politicians in the search for contracts"
2. change or debase by making errors or unintentional alterations.
example: "Epicurus's teachings have since been much corrupted"
synonyms: alter, tamper with, interfere with, bastardize, debase, adulterate

Do we agree with these definitions?

This should be fun.

No.

Pedantic much, Smutly?

Why don't you define what the word "is" means, while you're at it?

Berne Bros are whiny crybabies. Watching Trumpistas defend them is the bizzaro result of their obsession with Hillary.

Anatomy of a Leak.

Great story about the Bret Baier story about how Clinton was facing indictment over the Clinton Foundation, which he subsequently apologized for.

RunningMn9 wrote:No.

Okay. I think we are getting somewhere. How about this one?

is (verb)
1) third person singular present of be

El Guapo wrote:Anatomy of a Leak.

Great story about the Bret Baier story about how Clinton was facing indictment over the Clinton Foundation, which he subsequently apologized for.

When a source intentionally misleads you and you embarrass yourself on the national stage based on the source's info, is it really unethical to out the source to the world? What's to protect? He played you and your trust in him for a chump.

He absolutely should hang his FBI source out to dry on this. I hope he does. I'm making an assumption on the source, but who else would have seemingly credible information on an investigation?

RunningMn9 wrote:

Smutly wrote:Then why did Debbie Wasserman Schultz immediately resign?

Because the DNC wants the Democrats that were in Bernie's camp to vote for Clinton. Sacrifices must be made at that altar.

IMHO, also because she's an idiot.

Pyperkub wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:

Smutly wrote:Then why did Debbie Wasserman Schultz immediately resign?

Because the DNC wants the Democrats that were in Bernie's camp to vote for Clinton. Sacrifices must be made at that altar.

IMHO, also because she's an idiot.

Yes, this too.

Giuliani is changing his tune about learning about the FBI announcement on Hillary's e-mails from "any current FBI agent or any current member of the Department of Justice." In other words, the leaked goes through former FBI agents and Justice Department members. That's still not right.

Anonymous Bosch wrote:According to CBS News, the FBI has reportedly found emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server on Weiner's notebook -- and they are not duplicates of those already found in the server probe (though it remains to be seen if/how they're related to the Clinton server scandal, or how many new messages were found)

According to NBC News, virtually all of the emails are duplicates and/or of a private nature.

My FB feed is already filling with folks talking how it is impossible they reviewed 635000 emails in a week, etc. That's why you don't open your trap in the first place.

malchior wrote:My FB feed is already filling with folks talking how it is impossible they reviewed 635000 emails in a week, etc. That's why you don't open your trap in the first place.

They know it doesn't involve reading them and comparing them by eye, right?

No, of course they don't.

Thr biggest complainer is an IT email administrator. It took *all* my restraint. All of it.

malchior wrote:Thr biggest complainer is an IT email administrator. It took *all* my restraint. All of it.

That's somebody who doesn't know how on earth to do his job.

Edward Snowden just tweeted that an old laptop could do the comparison in hours to a day.

gbasden wrote:

malchior wrote:Thr biggest complainer is an IT email administrator. It took *all* my restraint. All of it.

That's somebody who doesn't know how on earth to do his job.

He is honestly fine at his job. He just lives in the parallel universe. It isn't like he thought about...hey...if i did this could i do it in a week? Someone told him it was impossible. And the outrage began and oh btw Hillary is evil and all that.

malchior wrote:Thr biggest complainer is an IT email administrator. It took *all* my restraint. All of it.

Does he work for a big company? I"d be willing to post as HR and letting him know his incompetence is duly noted.

malchior wrote:

gbasden wrote:

malchior wrote:Thr biggest complainer is an IT email administrator. It took *all* my restraint. All of it.

That's somebody who doesn't know how on earth to do his job.

He is honestly fine at his job. He just lives in the parallel universe. It isn't like he thought about...hey...if i did this could i do it in a week? Someone told him it was impossible. And the outrage began and oh btw Hillary is evil and all that.

Whoa! Imagine if all programmers acted like that. "Well boss, I'd like to help but someone told me that job was impossible to do in a week. Sorry hombre."

So Comey essentially became "the story" of the final weeks of the election for this? Couldn't they have just ran the email check real quick before he put out a statement that could change the election irreversibly? Jeebus.

The counter-argument is that the unruly masses within the FBI would have leaked the laptop discovery and no announcement from the FBI would have looked like a cover up protecting Hilary.

And quite frankly that argument worked on me. It WOULD have been much, much worse if the laptop news had been leaked without an official announcement from the FBI. And if it was followed a few days later by "yes, we have the laptop, no we found nothing, case closed" the shit would have really hit the fan.

Could the letter have been worded better? Absolutely. Would the election have been harmed if he had kept it to himself until after it was investigated? Only if the rest of the FBI kept their mouths shut, and given the evidence of the other leaks, that was probably too much to ask.