Octopus Overlords

Leaked e-mails show DNC officials planned anti-Trump Protests. Discuss sending DNC interns to attend to ensure they don't own a 'bad picture'.

Leaked e-mails show DNC officials constructing anti-Bernie narrative, bolstering Bernie's prior claim that the DNC leadership used its power to prevent a fair and transparent process from taking place. Also bolstering Trumps assertion of a 'rigged' system and corruption in American politics.

Leaked e-mails detail plan by DNC to plant fake Trump ads.

Should be more interesting revelations over time.

Wasserman Schultz reportedly 'quarantined' and will not have a speaking role at convention.

Bernie Sanders camp saying someone has to be held accountable for the Wikileak e-mails.

And yet they're still a better choice than Trump.

p.s. read the craigslist ad. it's clearly intended to be a fake, parody ad pointing out Trump's trouble with women. Considering Trump's behavior on twitter and in debates, seems like a great lampooning.

Campaign shenanigans? Say it ain't so!

Not to minimize the specifics here, the leaked emails do substantiate several specific claims, but this kind of stuff happens every cycle at every campaign. When Sanders' camp complained, I just assumed it was mostly true. When the Trump camp said the DNC sent protestors I thought, "You think? OMG, issue the kriminal supina! :rolleyes:"

And no doubt Clinton's opposition will take the opportunity to rubberband it way out of proportion.

Bernie is a whiny crybaby over the DNC. Of course they were going to support Hillary over an outsider--that's politics.

Obama beat her anyway. It's Bernie's own fault he couldn't rise to the challenge. Trump's not going to play fair either.

The emails have been scoured for days now, and there are no real bombshells.

More interesting is that the emails weren't uncovered by Wikileaks hackers but were provided to them by Russia, suggesting that Putin wants to see Trump as president.

LawBeefaroni wrote:Campaign shenanigans? Say it ain't so!

Not to minimize the specifics here, the leaked emails do substantiate several specific claims, but this kind of stuff happens every cycle at every campaign. When Sanders' camp complained, I just assumed it was mostly true.

+1.

That said, I'm always glad when dirty dealing reaches the light of day. I'd love to see Trump's skeletons but truth is he's so disorganized that I suspect there isn't much there. Not from any ethical stance (lol?) but because he's incompetent.

I'm far, far more bothered by wikileaks publishing credit card numbers and social security numbers of Democratic donors

It's not good by any account, but this actually made me cringe:

It might may (sic) no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist,” Marshall wrote in a message to several DNC communications directors.

Peeps? Who the f- writes like that in an email. These are political staff members and they're sending email with "peeps" in it? I know I shouldn't be surprised but I'm astounded at the general unprofessional tone (not to minimize the strategy to go after Bernie's religion in any way).

Do you think the Wikileaks will have an impact on who Bernie Sanders' supporters vote for? While the cynics may have already knew/guessed the DNC was supporting Hillary, 'the movement' under Bernie probably won't appreciate it much and expected more an assumed impartial political party. Or do you disagree?

edit: grammar

I haven't seen the polls/data to know. I mean, has anyone put together a questionnaire to determine if Sanders supporters hate the DNC more than they hate the idea of President Trump?

Smoove_B wrote:It's not good by any account, but this actually made me cringe:

It might may (sic) no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist,” Marshall wrote in a message to several DNC communications directors.

Peeps? Who the f- writes like that in an email. These are political staff members and they're sending email with "peeps" in it? I know I shouldn't be surprised but I'm astounded at the general unprofessional tone (not to minimize the strategy to go after Bernie's religion in any way).

Using someone's atheism against them strikes me similar as the "clinging to their guns and religion" attack Obama's did (except in this case, it was merely discussed).

Though I will say I was disturbed at how Sanders would avoid mentioning his Jewish heritage except when asked about it directly (as opposed to his mentioning his Polish heritage.)

Smutly wrote:Do you think the Wikileaks will have an impact on who Bernie Sanders' supporters vote for?

I'm guessing that depends on Bernie Sanders.

Was anyone under the impression that the DNC was making it fair for someone who is not technically a member of their Party to win their Party's nomination?

Smutly wrote:Do you think the Wikileaks will have an impact on who Bernie Sanders' supporters vote for? While the cynics may have already knew/guessed the DNC was supporting Hillary, 'the movement' under Bernie probably won't appreciate it much and expected more an assumed impartial political party. Or do you disagree?

edit: grammar

It has to have some impact, but I doubt it will be a very large one. It likely will be negligible. Trump doesn't stand for the ideals that Bernie supporters were fighting for, and many of those ideals have been included in the Democratic platform.

The question is going to be how much damage Sanders did with his #NeverHillary smear campaign. Will his supporters vote for the party that is campaigning on at least some of their views, or is their distaste for the woman at the top of the ticket too much to overcome? Regardless, a Sanders supporter that either votes third party or stays home is in effect a vote for Trump. We will see how hard Sanders pushes that fact Monday night.

Also, despite these leaked emails, Sanders has made real changes to the party. Besides the party platform, he also got them to significantly cut down on the power of the super delegates. It's too early to tell, but it looks like Sanders revolution has gone about as well as it could have so far.

Meh, you can find polls to support whoever you want. I'm sure I could find one showing Theodore Roosevelt in the lead if I looked hard enough.

It's too early for polls to matter.

Zarathud wrote:Bernie is a whiny crybaby over the DNC. Of course they were going to support Hillary over an outsider--that's politics.

Obama beat her anyway. It's Bernie's own fault he couldn't rise to the challenge. Trump's not going to play fair either.

You're right. It's business as usual, there's nothing to see here, and DWS will reach the other side unscathed.

Smutly wrote:Do you think the Wikileaks will have an impact on who Bernie Sanders' supporters vote for?
edit: grammar

Yes, but I don't think it will change the election outcome.

Smoove_B wrote:It's not good by any account, but this actually made me cringe:

It might may (sic) no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist,” Marshall wrote in a message to several DNC communications directors.

Peeps? Who the f- writes like that in an email. These are political staff members and they're sending email with "peeps" in it? I know I shouldn't be surprised but I'm astounded at the general unprofessional tone (not to minimize the strategy to go after Bernie's religion in any way).

Always makes me think of Stavros the Kebab Shop Owner, one of Harry Enfield's more famous sketch comedy characters from back in the day (though he's probably more familiar to most Americans as the voice behind Travelocity's Roaming Gnome).

Smutly wrote:Trump leads in latest USC Dornsife / LA Times Presidential Election Poll.

Wow, he must have really scared people. Which is weird. He's not very scary.

Call me after the election. We'll know by then if people let fear rule them or if they settled down.

Smutly wrote:Do you think the Wikileaks will have an impact on who Bernie Sanders' supporters vote for?

I think the more likelier impact would potentially be lower turnout (or they'll be less likely to volunteer), but I don't think very many people will change *who* they support over this.

of course, the election being 3.5 months away, there'll be time for emotions to cool.

Smutly wrote:Trump leads in latest USC Dornsife / LA Times Presidential Election Poll.

That poll showed Trump in the lead every day since early July except for a single day. So the fact that he is in the lead now isn't exactly newsworthy.

Edit to add that comparing the latest numbers to when the RNC started, and Trumps convention bounce is at 2 points. That's... not great.

Defiant wrote: I think the more likelier impact would potentially be lower turnout (or they'll be less likely to volunteer)

For the record I included "stay at home" as one of the options bernie supporters would likely take given the emails. It's hard to imagine those emails pushing people into Trump's camp.

RunningMn9 wrote:

Smutly wrote:Do you think the Wikileaks will have an impact on who Bernie Sanders' supporters vote for?

I'm guessing that depends on Bernie Sanders.

Was anyone under the impression that the DNC was making it fair for someone who is not technically a member of their Party to win their Party's nomination?

Not that I agree with what the DNC did, but Bernie is a bit of a whiner. He's never been a Democrat until he decided to run for President, which is a little hypocritical.

I guess it's no surprise as that's how politics is done... but damn us if we don't demand better.

Btw, some updates:
Wikileaks has posted some anti-semitic crap on Twitter.
People at the DNC are angry about the leaks and Bernie supporters chanted "roll call vote" at the welcome ceremony.
DWS out as chair, and immediately hired by Hill-dog, of course.

Yeah, I'm not suggesting that I think what the DNC did was awesome, I'm just saying that it's not news to me. Sanders isn't a Democrat. Of course the DNC is rigged towards Democrats, and towards establishment candidates. If you want to know why, it's to avoid the clusterfuck that is the Republican Party.

cheeba wrote:I guess it's no surprise as that's how politics is done... but damn us if we don't demand better.

I agree, but man, Trump is 1 election vote away from becoming the president of the US. I'm not sure the bar has ever been lower. And while there is an implicit knock at the Republican base, since they are the ones who put him there, I really just mean it as an indication of how little is demanded or expected in politics right now.

OK, someone please answer this question - What is it with Democrats and their email?

Why are so many Democrats having issues with their email's getting compromised and hacked?

If computer security is an issue with Democrats, why aren't more Republican's emails being
hacked and published by wikileaks?

They're conservatives. They still prefer to communicate via carrier pigeon.

Why indeed?

GreenGoo wrote:

cheeba wrote:I guess it's no surprise as that's how politics is done... but damn us if we don't demand better.

I really just mean it as an indication of how little is demanded or expected in politics right now.

I think it shows how the general population has grown to truly hate your average politician. Jeb, Hillary, Barrack, Cruz, Rubio, Kerry, et al. It's a call for anyone "but" a politician.

JSHAW wrote:OK, someone please answer this question - What is it with Democrats and their email?

Why are so many Democrats having issues with their email's getting compromised and hacked?

If computer security is an issue with Democrats, why aren't more Republican's emails being
hacked and published by wikileaks?

I believe some Republican PACs (not the RNC) got hacked as well.

As to why only Democrat emails got released, you would have to ask Putin. It completely eludes me as to why he might want to help Trump. /sarcasm

I hadn't been following this as closely as I should. Is there any evidence that this goes beyond emails, or was it all just chatter?

em2nought wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

cheeba wrote:I guess it's no surprise as that's how politics is done... but damn us if we don't demand better.

I really just mean it as an indication of how little is demanded or expected in politics right now.

I think it shows how the general population has grown to truly hate your average politician. Jeb, Hillary, Barrack, Cruz, Rubio, Kerry, et al. It's a call for anyone "but" a politician.

I can understand that. I know I'm sick of shoddy auto repairs. The next time I need my car worked on, I'm taking it to a dentist!

tgb wrote:I hadn't been following this as closely as I should. Is there any evidence that this goes beyond emails, or was it all just chatter?

We know the media acted improperly and have a way-too-close relationship with the DNC.

The media who fawned over Trump in the GOP primary? They're whores for a story. Whoever the source.

Zarathud wrote:The media who fawned over Trump in the GOP primary? They're whores for a story. Whoever the source.

That doesn't mean what you apparently think it does.

fawn 1 (fôn)
intr.v. fawned, fawn·ing, fawns
1. To exhibit affection or attempt to please, as a dog does by wagging its tail, whining, or cringing.
2. To seek favor or attention by flattery and obsequious behavior.

Zarathud wrote:The media who fawned over Trump in the GOP primary? They're whores for a story. Whoever the source.

Wait, what? Are you talking about the same media like The Huffington Post which attaches (or did, not sure if they're still doing it) disclaimers to every Trump article calling him a "serial liar” and “rampant xenophobe"? They give him too much coverage, granted, but it's largely negative.

I really don't see any defense for a journalist sending an entire article to the DNC prior to publishing. Again, it's not a big surprise, but we deserve this shit media we've got if we don't demand better.

For every Huffington there's a Breitbart though.

hepcat wrote:For every Huffington there's a Breitbart though.

I'll see your Breitbart and raise you a Salon.