General US Politics

[blah the Prussian]

That makes sense, I suppose. I hadn't been following this situation much at all and wasn't aware that these allegations were a consistent thing. I am somewhat reminded of Casey Affleck who had the best handling of this I've seen in that he never denied it and settled out of court. 

[Etrurian emperor]

Right. So now we know Assange and Wikileaks were acting like rats last election we can safely dismiss any good intentions on their part. Having good intentions and willingly enabling a Trump win don't mix, all the more so should they be pro Russian too.

They likely just wanted revenge against the US for forcing their leader to live in a closet and now they have it. 

[SullyMcGully]

So in the end, the ultimate belief as to why Trump won is because Wikileaks and Russia prioritized digging up dirt on Clinton over Trump? Seems the real fix here would have been to nominate candidates who didn't have a bunch of shady dealings in their past. Is it too much to ask for an honest president every few decades?

[Slumber]

6 hours ago, Res said:

Until as recently as last month he was still denying the allegations (and rumors have been floating around for years; I had heard enough to avoid his show) and he only wrote the apology once his hand was forced, and his ship was already sinking. His claims of self-reflection ring hollow with that knowledge.

It was better written than most, but it was the absolute bare minimum.

The funny thing is, if he acknowledged these claims and made a public apology 2-3 years ago when they started surfacing, he likely would have avoided a lot of the backlash that a lot of these recent sexual harassment/assault claims have been generating. Now he's another big name that's gonna get tossed around like Spacey and Weinstein.

Not saying it would have made his actions any less shitty, but he likely wouldn't have had to have cancelled his tours, a movie, and any other public appearances.

Just goes to show that your past is gonna catch up with you, and you're gonna wear yourself out running from it.

Edited November 14, 2017 by Slumber

[Tryhard]

28 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

So in the end, the ultimate belief as to why Trump won is because Wikileaks and Russia prioritized digging up dirt on Clinton over Trump? Seems the real fix here would have been to nominate candidates who didn't have a bunch of shady dealings in their past. Is it too much to ask for an honest president every few decades?

Wishful thinking, but Trump probably won because of many reasons, to narrow it down to one is more than likely wrong.

An area of concern is that we can't trust Wikileaks to be non-partisan if they do this sort of thing, which is kind of the thing they present themselves as independent whistle blowers. There's nothing to really say that Wikileaks didn't have GOP emails as well and decided not to release them as was a concern during the election.

[eclipse]

Assange is stuck in a really small space no thanks to the US.  I think that would make him anti-US, instead of impartial.  Wikileaks is a cool idea, but it MUST be a neutral source to be trusted.

[blah the Prussian]

28 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Wishful thinking, but Trump probably won because of many reasons, to narrow it down to one is more than likely wrong.

An area of concern is that we can't trust Wikileaks to be non-partisan if they do this sort of thing, which is kind of the thing they present themselves as independent whistle blowers. There's nothing to really say that Wikileaks didn't have GOP emails as well and decided not to release them as was a concern during the election.

This. The Russia/Wikileaks narrative will likely be paraded around for a while by Clinton Democrats, but it will ignore the other factors leading to her defeat, most of which were more significant.

[Lord Raven]

2 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

So in the end, the ultimate belief as to why Trump won is because Wikileaks and Russia prioritized digging up dirt on Clinton over Trump? Seems the real fix here would have been to nominate candidates who didn't have a bunch of shady dealings in their past. Is it too much to ask for an honest president every few decades?

I’m not gonna lie; this is a really crappy argument. Clinton had shady dealings that absolutely pale in comparison to Trump.

It’s more complicated than that. As it stands now, it looks like a great part of the reason for the loss is a targeted propaganda campaign that suppressed voters and ultimately bred an “us vs them” mentality that Trump was more than happy to groom and Clinton didn’t participate in nearly as much as Trump.

I mean, this narrative is pushed around a lot but she beat Bernie in the primaries quite fairly and by a significant margin.

Edited November 14, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Phoenix Wright]

13 hours ago, Res said:

As a note on that article: Clinton was impeached and Louis CK has been rightly dropped by FX and HBO, had his premier canceled and, thankfully, I've seen a lot of outlets reject his so-called 'apology'. So I'm not sure either of them has normalized anything.

That being said; sure, there's abuse of power everywhere (and yes, there are a few female celebrities in positions of power who've also been accused), from politics to entertainment to religion; has been for decades, and a lot of it has been wrongly tolerated for too long. I'm not sure why Weinstein was finally a tipping point (this is the first time I've really felt public tide turning), but I'm glad, and I hope it means the end of careers for lots of people. 

his apology seemed pretty genuine to me? as opposed to folks like roy moore or kevin spacey.

[Slumber]

1 hour ago, blah the Prussian said:

This. The Russia/Wikileaks narrative will likely be paraded around for a while by Clinton Democrats, but it will ignore the other factors leading to her defeat, most of which were more significant.

I really, really just want Clinton to go away. If she tries to run again, I'm pretty certain we'll have to suffer another 4 years of Trump. As much as all this information is good to shed light on the scumminess involved with this past election, I also fear that it will embolden Hillary again. "I've finally got my chance!" she'll say once again after 12 years of saying it.

Democrats really need to get rid of the "corporate democrat" image. They'll keep losing middle America.

Edited November 14, 2017 by Slumber

[Zasplach]

8 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

I’m not gonna lie; this is a really crappy argument. Clinton had shady dealings that absolutely pale in comparison to Trump.

It’s more complicated than that. As it stands now, it looks like a great part of the reason for the loss is a targeted propaganda campaign that suppressed voters and ultimately bred an “us vs them” mentality that Trump was more than happy to groom and Clinton didn’t participate in nearly as much as Trump.

I mean, this narrative is pushed around a lot but she beat Bernie in the primaries quite fairly and by a significant margin.

It's difficult to draw conclusions about an election without a least some measure of time and research.  There has been a movement on both sides to polarize into separate uncompromising camps, of that I think there can be little argument.  But I think I could make as just a much an argument that Trump won the presidency because of the pendulum nature of the American political system.  Basically the 20% of the nation who decide elections (about 80% of people seem to be pretty entrenched in terms of party support) figured we had a Democrat President for eight years, so the appropriate response is a Republican president.  The reason why the country feels so screwy right now is because Democrats as party have done an inept job at winning local races and contesting for governorships and  control of state legislatures, allowing Republicans to gerrymander districts and limit liberal's relative political might(doesn't help that many are concentrated in cities).  On the positives for Democrats, it looks like they will start contesting better for those seats if Virginia is a template.  

But on the other hand, we may just be in a cycle where the only national power the Democrats can have is the Presidency and Republicans will basically control the house and the Senate.  Remember, the Democrats basically controlled both houses of Congress unimpeded from 1954-1994,  

5 minutes ago, Slumber said:

I really, really just want Clinton to go away. If she tries to run again, I'm pretty certain we'll have to suffer another 4 years of Trump. As much as all this information is good to shed light on the scumminess involved with this past election, I also fear that it will embolden Hillary again. "I've finally got my chance!" she'll say once again after 12 years of saying it.

Democrats really need to get rid of the "corporate democrat" image. They'll keep losing middle America.

Eh, she's too proud to go away, but she has no chance of being the Democratic candidate  in 2020, that so rarely happens in American political history, I can only think of 3 examples in American history (Henry Clay 1824, 1832, 1840 William Jennings Bryan 1896 and 1900, and Addlai E Stevenson in 1952 and 1956 and Stevenson was a sacrificial lamb offered at the alter of Eisenhower).  The Democrats have a difficult line to walk though, the corporate part of the party is what I suspect draws in many of the new converts to the left, upper-middle class Americans with college degrees that had classically been a swing group with a slight lean to the right.  They need to run candidates that can win in individual districts.  The national elections just need to run a middle of the road candidate that excites the base because of personality and can win middle-America with moderate policies. 

[Lord Raven]

Given the current DNC leadership I don’t think Clinton will run again at all. I wouldn’t exactly vote for Trump to spite Clinton in 2020 but I would be fucking furious. It’s not like the Democrats ran John Kerry in 2008 or 2016, Jimmy Carter in the 80s or Dukakis in 1992 (apologies if I’m getting the 1988 republican nominee confused with 1984) even though Kerry has the Iran Deal under his belt as SoS.

@Zasplach When I say “suppression” I’m referring to a demographic too indifferent to or against both candidates to vote. However the goal of the propaganda — straight from Putin himself — was division and to delegitimize the process rather than trying to get Trump elected. Him saying he wouldn’t accept the results of the election if he lost in the final two debates would’ve ensured that in the case of his loss it would still create heavy pushback against Clinton.

Edited November 14, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Zasplach]

2 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

 

@Zasplach When I say “suppression” I’m referring to a demographic too indifferent to or against both candidates to vote. However the goal of the propaganda — straight from Purim himself — was division and to delegitimize the process rather than trying to get Trump elected. Him saying he wouldn’t accept the results of the election if he lost in the final two debates would’ve ensured that in the case of his loss it would still create heavy pushback against Clinton.

The Russians have been trying really hard, since it and the US became 'mortal' enemies in the 40's, to delegitimize the whole American system.  It's hard to pin down, but there's a general belief that the Soviets attempted to enflame racial tensions in the 60's by trying to make it seem to middle-America that MLK was a communist (clearly a lie) and make it seem to the Civil Rights protesters that the US government had a hand in King's assassination.  Now the means of getting out misinformation are so much more readily available (draw backs to the internet), but the real difference seems to be the American people's willingness to believe that the system is broken.  The fact that we all seem to be living in a 'post-factual' world where anything that contradicts your beliefs can be shucked aside as 'fake news' seems to play into this problem. Both sides seem to be stuck in their own echo chambers and there seems to a hardening on both sides.  

I feel sorry for Americans who were fooled by tweets that told them they could vote on the internet or convinced people that there was no real choice in the election, but those things weren't and aren't true.  There was a choice, a choice between two flawed candidates, but ultimately there was a choice.  Maybe I'm just too much of a cynic or maybe my beliefs are too esoteric and stupid, but the lesser of two evils theory will always apply to my vote.  I held my nose and voted for Mrs. Clinton, if others couldn't do that, then they made their decision by not participating.  

Our country seems to be at breaking point, both sides seem in a feverish pitch to destroy themselves and each other, if we can't come to some agreement about how we're all going to get along, I don't see much hope.

[eclipse]

5 minutes ago, Zasplach said:

I feel sorry for Americans who were fooled by tweets that told them they could vote on the internet or convinced people that there was no real choice in the election, but those things weren't and aren't true.  There was a choice, a choice between two flawed candidates, but ultimately there was a choice.  Maybe I'm just too much of a cynic or maybe my beliefs are too esoteric and stupid, but the lesser of two evils theory will always apply to my vote.  I held my nose and voted for Mrs. Clinton, if others couldn't do that, then they made their decision by not participating.  

Our country seems to be at breaking point, both sides seem in a feverish pitch to destroy themselves and each other, if we can't come to some agreement about how we're all going to get along, I don't see much hope.

The issue with voting is that certain states are really entrenched.  For example, a Trump supporter in Hawaii (lol) would be SOL because Hawaii has generally voted blue.

I'm all for voting for who you think should be president, even if the vote amounts to nothing, thanks to the electoral college.

As for the two parties, the word "compromise" absolutely must re-enter general use.  There's a time and place to do the team-cheering thing, but the welfare of America as a whole must come first.

[Johann]

3 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Given the current DNC leadership I don’t think Clinton will run again at all. I wouldn’t exactly vote for Trump to spite Clinton in 2020 but I would be fucking furious. It’s not like the Democrats ran John Kerry in 2008 or 2016, Jimmy Carter in the 80s or Dukakis in 1992 (apologies if I’m getting the 1988 republican nominee confused with 1984) even though Kerry has the Iran Deal under his belt as SoS.

I'm under the impression that the DNC is prepping Cory Booker, and people like him. I'd really like someone like Gavin Newsom, but I think he's running for governor of CA.

3 hours ago, eclipse said:

The issue with voting is that certain states are really entrenched.  For example, a Trump supporter in Hawaii (lol) would be SOL because Hawaii has generally voted blue.

I'm all for voting for who you think should be president, even if the vote amounts to nothing, thanks to the electoral college.

As for the two parties, the word "compromise" absolutely must re-enter general use.  There's a time and place to do the team-cheering thing, but the welfare of America as a whole must come first.

Electoral College is definitely one of the major problems with US elections. Would be nice if we had preferential voting.

 

Edited November 15, 2017 by Johann

[Shoblongoo]

6 hours ago, eclipse said:

Assange is stuck in a really small space no thanks to the US.  I think that would make him anti-US, instead of impartial.  Wikileaks is a cool idea, but it MUST be a neutral source to be trusted.

...imma go with we didn't turn him anti-US; he was anti-US at the outset and that was his purpose all along. Our intelligence service has been warning for years that Wikileaks is a Russian counterintelligence operation masquerading as an international watchdog group.  You never found it just the slightest bit suspicious that this group supposedly existing to promote transparency in government only ever stole-and-released state secrets embarrasing to the United States and its allies, or tending to undermine the efficacy of liberal democracy??? Never so much as a peep on the extralegal dealings of Russian oligarchs or corruption in Venezuela--nothing that would expose unclean hands amongst our geopolitical foes???

Edited November 15, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[eclipse]

2 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

...imma go with we didn't turn him anti-US; he was anti-US at the outset and that was his purpose all along. Our intelligence service has been warning for years that Wikileaks is a Russian counterintelligence operation masquerading as an international watchdog group.  You never found it just the slightest bit suspicious that they only ever released state secrets embarrasing to the United States and its allies and tending to undermine the government efficacy of liberal democracy. Never do much as a peep on the extralegal dealings of Russian oligarchs or corruption in Venezuela--nothing that would expose unclean hands amongst our geopolitical foes???

It also depends on what type of audience he wanted, among other things.  Or maybe the other governments would gladly trample on laws and have him killed, and he's smart enough to know that.  Or a bunch of other things.  Regardless, Wikileaks is not neutral, and by virtue of that, I don't fully trust it.

[Shoblongoo]

5 minutes ago, eclipse said:

It also depends on what type of audience he wanted, among other things.  Or maybe the other governments would gladly trample on laws and have him killed, and he's smart enough to know that.  Or a bunch of other things.  Regardless, Wikileaks is not neutral, and by virtue of that, I don't fully trust it.

...I'm inclined to believe the intelligence assessments. I'm also thinking at this point that given the communications between Trunp Jr. and Wikileaks that were just disclosed + admitted to--the most serious of which is that Wikileaks told Trump Jr. they wanted Donald Trump himself to tweet out specific attacks on Hillary and Podesta before they dumped pertinent documents + Trump then went out and made those tweets--this may be the most monumentally scandalous development in the Russia Investigation to date. As accepting the assessment that Wikileaks is a front group for Russian Intelligence; that would literally make Donald Trump and his son accessories to espionage against the United States.

[Johann]

16 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

...imma go with we didn't turn him anti-US; he was anti-US at the outset and that was his purpose all along. Our intelligence service has been warning for years that Wikileaks is a Russian counterintelligence operation masquerading as an international watchdog group.  You never found it just the slightest bit suspicious that they only ever released state secrets embarrasing to the United States and its allies and tending to undermine the government efficacy of liberal democracy. Never do much as a peep on the extralegal dealings of Russian oligarchs or corruption in Venezuela--nothing that would expose unclean hands amongst our geopolitical foes???

This is correct. The long term goal was/is to weaken US influence aboard, regardless of who won the election.

[eclipse]

3 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

...I'm inclined to believe the intelligence assessments. I'm also thinking at this point that given the communications between Trunp Jr. and Wikileaks that were just disclosed + admitted to--the most serious of which is that Wikileaks told Trump Jr. they wanted Donald Trump himself to tweet out specific attacks on Hillary and Podesta before they dumped pertinent documents + Trump then went out and made those tweets--this may be the most monumentally scandalous development in the Russia Investigation to date. As accepting the assessment that Wikileaks is a front group for Russian Intelligence; that would literally make Donald Trump and his son accessories to espionage against the United States.

I'm going to wait and see.  It'll definitely paint Assange in an even tinier corner, should this be true.  So glad I never donated to them!

[Lord Raven]

4 hours ago, Zasplach said:

The Russians have been trying really hard, since it and the US became 'mortal' enemies in the 40's, to delegitimize the whole American system.  It's hard to pin down, but there's a general belief that the Soviets attempted to enflame racial tensions in the 60's by trying to make it seem to middle-America that MLK was a communist (clearly a lie) and make it seem to the Civil Rights protesters that the US government had a hand in King's assassination.  Now the means of getting out misinformation are so much more readily available (draw backs to the internet), but the real difference seems to be the American people's willingness to believe that the system is broken.  The fact that we all seem to be living in a 'post-factual' world where anything that contradicts your beliefs can be shucked aside as 'fake news' seems to play into this problem. Both sides seem to be stuck in their own echo chambers and there seems to a hardening on both sides.  

I feel sorry for Americans who were fooled by tweets that told them they could vote on the internet or convinced people that there was no real choice in the election, but those things weren't and aren't true.  There was a choice, a choice between two flawed candidates, but ultimately there was a choice.  Maybe I'm just too much of a cynic or maybe my beliefs are too esoteric and stupid, but the lesser of two evils theory will always apply to my vote.  I held my nose and voted for Mrs. Clinton, if others couldn't do that, then they made their decision by not participating.  

Our country seems to be at breaking point, both sides seem in a feverish pitch to destroy themselves and each other, if we can't come to some agreement about how we're all going to get along, I don't see much hope.

I agree. Politics should be about addressing the needs of constituents through compromise, understanding, and pragmatism and voting the “lesser of two evils” is pragmatic.

[SullyMcGully]

The electoral college was a brilliant idea when America began and loyalty to state was greater than loyalty to nation. However, in a post-Civil War, post-state supremacy world, it deserves reconsideration. That said, I find myself doubting that such reconsideration would come from a government where both sides have something to gain from keeping Hawaii blue and Alabama red.

[Slumber]

20 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

The electoral college was a brilliant idea when America began and loyalty to state was greater than loyalty to nation. However, in a post-Civil War, post-state supremacy world, it deserves reconsideration. That said, I find myself doubting that such reconsideration would come from a government where both sides have something to gain from keeping Hawaii blue and Alabama red.

Ultimately, the republicans are the ones who have something to gain from the electoral college. Democrats usually win the popular vote, and population-dense areas are almost universally blue. Getting rid of arbitrary lines and making each vote equal would help the democrats and hurt republicans. Rural areas getting disproportionate representation in the electoral college is what skews things a lot, and it will likely always help the republicans comparatively.

It just happened to be that the electoral college did a better job in the past at representing the country as a whole. I believe both Al Gore and John Kerry were screwed by it, but Hillary was where the disparity was most noticeable, hence why it's a bigger talking point these days(Though if I'm remembering correctly, there was a big stink about it with Gore because it was so close and Jeb Bush in Florida). As the country gets more urbanized, and small towns in the middle of nowhere don't boom nearly as much as cities, the disparity will continue to grow, helping only the republicans.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Slumber

[Johann]

23 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

The electoral college was a brilliant idea when America began and loyalty to state was greater than loyalty to nation. However, in a post-Civil War, post-state supremacy world, it deserves reconsideration. That said, I find myself doubting that such reconsideration would come from a government where both sides have something to gain from keeping Hawaii blue and Alabama red.

One of the ways it can be overruled is by having individual states awarding their EC votes to the winner of the popular vote. If enough states do this, then the EC is rendered irrelevant due to those states having the majority of the vote. As it stands, only a handful of states and Washington DC are on board, which are largely blue.

[Shoblongoo]

Electoral college sucks, but it's not going anywhere. I just don't see any political path to getting rid of it--it would require too many states to go against their own interests in having influence in presidential elections disproportionately greater than their populations. Which they aren't going to do.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Shoblongoo