Jump to content

IPBoard Styles©Fisana

Photo

The DNC Trainwreck


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Selena

Selena

    Odinsdottir

  • Admin
  • 17,867 posts
  • Location:Behind you.
  • Gender:Female
  • Sweden

Posted 24 July 2016 - 10:11 PM

So, we've made a full circle this election cycle. The Republicans started off as a hot mess, but quickly turned into a lockstep legion after it was clear that Drumpf was going to get the most votes. Now, heading into the general election, the DNC is turning into an uncontrolled dumpster fire.

 

Wikileaks published emails from DNC officials, the highlights of which include:

 

- Clean and obvious bias against the Sanders campaign

- Potential plans to "out" Sanders as an atheist to win more votes with southerners

- A dislike of Sanders staffers / voters / delegates

- Confirmation that they were indeed paying people to troll Sanders voters online

- Clinton's "concessions" to progressives are just to maintain order; she's going to ignore them all once elected.

 

- Indications of potential money laundering

- Confirmation that they exert control over the news media

- Confirmation that printed news articles in major publications have to be approved by the DNC first

- Criticizing the DNC or its officials is met with swift "correction" and possible discipline

- Confirmation that news anchors are "silenced" by their bosses if they dissent

 

 

Positive highlights:

 

- Pablo is the fucking best

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying the RNC isn't a corrupt piece of shit, too. It is. The RNC tried to pull the same shit with Jeb Bush and Rubio - to push them up front despite voter disapproval. (Un)fortunately, the RNC is so fractured after years of internal strife that they lacked the fangs to actually maintain control over their predetermined plans. Thus, Drumpf. 

 

The silver lining to the whole Drumpf fiasco is that -- at the very very least -- the voters got a clear say in things. Would Bernie have won if not for the DNC's meddling? I don't know. Maybe not. It would've been close. But this whole thing has definitely made the DNC look awful right before we head into the convention. It has shaken the faiths of long-time Democrats. Lots of voters are talking about leaving the party. 

 

 

 

And the DNC's response? Schultz resigns.... and is then immediately given a campaign leadership position by Clinton. It is "honorary," and mostly focuses on helping mainstream Democrats win in local elections, but still. Coupled with Clinton picking a semi-centrist Vice President rather than a progressive, this indicates that Clinton either:

 

1) Does not give a shit about a huge chunk of liberal voters

2) Is completely blind / does not understand that chunk of voters

 

But DNC officials had nothing nice to say about Bernie or his supporters in those emails, so I imagine it's probably the first one. 

 

 

 

 

None of this was genuinely surprising to me, but it is infuriating and disgusting nonetheless. 



#2 Sir Turtlelot

Sir Turtlelot

    Svartifeldr

  • Members
  • 5,193 posts
  • Location:Death Star
  • Gender:Machine
  • Antarctica

Posted 25 July 2016 - 12:42 AM

Honestly, prior to all this bullshit I think I had finally convinced myself to just bite the bullet and vote for Clinton, because anything is better than Drumpf. While I still stand by that sentiment, this whole fiasco could have cost the Dems my vote in November, for president anyways.

 

Frankly, I don't think any of this should come as a surprise to us, as most of the progressives and Bernie supporters saw plenty of foul play during the primary season, however, actually seeing all of this in black and white just makes it all the more insulting and infuriating. That coupled with the DNC's insulting views of different minority groups, and the extent they were willing to go to discredit Bernie, especially the religious bit, has me disgusted.

 

At this point, I am legitimately considering voting third party, something I typically claim to never do for presidential elections due to the sheer pointlessness of it. As much as I would love to vote for Jill Stein, it really is a wasted vote here in Indiana, as we are a heavily red-leaning state, and she's not even on the ballot but instead available as a write-in. Gary Johnson on the other hand is on the ballot, and could manage to find a lot of appeal from many disgruntled Republicans and Democrats alike. While I don't personally agree with him on a good number of issues, there are still some things I find appealing about him, especially his progressive stance on social issues. Granted, I do need to do a good deal more research on him, he seems like a potentially good alternative to Hillary or Drumpf.

 

The way I look at is like this, Bernie beat out Hillary in our primary, so I'm going to assume she probably won't fair much better when you add in the conservative vote as well. Couple that with the DNC leaks, and Hillary is really not looking very favorable, whereas Drumpf won his primary in my state, though he only had roughly half the vote, which means there's half that could potentially go else where. On top of that, Drumpf's moronic fuckface of a running mate has done an excellent job at royally pissing off both sides of the aisle with his Religious Freedom law, effectively making us into the next Mississippi in terms of civil rights issues regarding LGBT. The ONLY downside of getting rid of Pence means that he won't be around to lose his reelection bid, something that many of us foresaw happening.

 

Now don't get me wrong, the likelihood of any third party winning is still highly unlikely, but in regards to my home state, Johnson may have a shot it, if only a very very VERY slim one. And on a personal note, I would like nothing more to stick it to both RNC and DNC by electing a third party, even if only for a few states.

 

 

 

The counterargument to all of this, however, is again a.) A Drumpf presidency and b.) The SCOTUS seats up for grabs this presidency. So with those in mind, along with all the shit I typed up above, I have a lot to think over between now and November.



#3 Jasi

Jasi

    Hooray for Zoidberg!

  • Members
  • 2,348 posts
  • Location:NYC
  • Gender:Female
  • United States

Posted 25 July 2016 - 08:11 AM

And the DNC's response? Schultz resigns.... and is then immediately given a campaign leadership position by Clinton. It is "honorary," and mostly focuses on helping mainstream Democrats win in local elections, but still. Coupled with Clinton picking a semi-centrist Vice President rather than a progressive, this indicates that Clinton either:
 
1) Does not give a shit about a huge chunk of liberal voters
2) Is completely blind / does not understand that chunk of voters
 
But DNC officials had nothing nice to say about Bernie or his supporters in those emails, so I imagine it's probably the first one. 

 
 
The DNC almost unapologetically does not care about far left voters. Far left voters are a minority across the country. We (20-somethings) have a slanted perspective of this. Hillary's VP choice is clearly aimed at drawing in more moderate voters, not trying to please Bernie people, and truthfully that's the more strategic choice. If a Bernie person votes for Drumpf or a third party over the VP choice, they were never going to vote for Hillary anyway. The VP basically does nothing once elected. I wouldn't take any nominee's VP choice as a sign of anything other than who they think they need to win over. Hillary doesn't think she needs to win over people on the far left, and from where I sit, that makes sense.
 
Hillary's statement about Schulz to me reads clearly like a polite face-saving statement in the wake of a resignation in disgrace. "Thanks for all your hard work in organizing this convention. My friend will transition from one of the most powerful people in the DNC to this made-up position on my payroll." It's hardly a glowing endorsement. Edit: i don't really understand why she won't distance herself more but I don't see this as endorsement exactly.
 
And finally it's no surprise that people in the DNC preferred a lifelong Democrat to someone who just joined the party in 2015 in order to have the best possible shot at being elected. I'm not denying that it's bias, but just saying that's expected and normal in basically any political system. 
 
I feel very meh toward all of this because I've felt completely powerless in politics for years and years. Really doesn't change my vote at all.

Edited by Jasi, 25 July 2016 - 11:47 AM.


#4 Twinrova

Twinrova

    The Fallen

  • Members
  • 14,738 posts
  • Location:Rova Scotia
  • Gender:Female
  • Romania

Posted 25 July 2016 - 12:36 PM

Yeah I'm not surprised by this at all. I don't like Hillary but I'm voting for her regardless because it's more important to me to stick it to Drumpf and do anything I can in my power to make sure he stays far, far away from the Presidency. Seeing people say they're going to vote third party instead of Hillary over this scares me, it's not going to work and it's just going to help Drumpf win. :/



#5 Selena

Selena

    Odinsdottir

  • Admin
  • 17,867 posts
  • Location:Behind you.
  • Gender:Female
  • Sweden

Posted 25 July 2016 - 12:48 PM

Those are very practical, grounded statements. 

 

I am in no way surprised that the DNC pushed back against Bernie. As you said, he was never really a Democrat, and they felt like he was hijacking their platform. I've definitely been aware of that from the start of the primaries. In fact, concerning the email leak, the DNC's bias against Bernie is the issue I probably care about the least. That's like being upset that rain is wet. Of course they didn't want him running.

 

Clinton, I agree, is a strategist at heart. In fact, she is probably one of the best strategists in government. 

 

She has an entire team analyzing statistics, poll numbers, and statements that could give them an edge with every demographic. She carefully crafts the image she wants to present. She makes plans well in advance (again evidenced by the emails) so that she can be ready for a confrontation ahead of time. Where other candidates are all passion and charisma, Clinton is all about time-tested strategies. Indeed, her choice for VP and her decision to move to center is a sound strategy. It has worked many times in previous elections. It is the rational decision.

 

 

 

Here's where I disagree on some things:

 

The DNC almost unapologetically does not care about far left voters. Far left voters are a minority across the country. We (20-somethings) have a slanted perspective of this. Hillary's VP choice is clearly aimed at drawing in more moderate voters, not trying to please Bernie people, and truthfully that's the more strategic choice. If a Bernie person votes for Drumpf or a third party over the VP choice, they were never going to vote for Hillary anyway.

 

The "far left" didn't have a big voice throughout the back half of 20th century, sure. But they need to start caring about the far left. It is growing. The first warning shot to conventional politics was Obama's first election -- his platform was more progressive than Clinton's. There was growing discontent in the voter ranks as he started to drift more toward the center, and the response to big programs, like healthcare reform, has been lukewarm at best.

 

Obama had at least been another rank-and-file Democrat. This time, Clinton ran against a self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist. He was a fringe member of the far left from a state that has almost no impact on major elections. He started with almost no support base. This should have been an easy primary season. Candidates like Sanders have traditionally had to drop out shortly after starting. This primary was much rockier than anticipated.

 

 

 

As I said, Clinton is definitely a strategist. She makes rational choices based on what worked in previous elections. She's conventional.... in an election season that is highly unconventional. This season has been dominated by voices crying out against the entrenched establishment (on both sides). Clinton's choices may be purely strategic, but they're also demonstrating that she's not in touch (or ignoring) public sentiment. Continuing to ignore the far left could be dangerous. If not in this election, then in future ones. They're operating on the assumption that independent voters are all centrists. That may have been the case in previous decades, but it doesn't necessarily apply now. 

 

The email leaks only cement this, and makes it look like the Democrats have poor digital security -- hardly the impression you want after the other email scandal. The hacker may have been doing it to bolster support for Drumpf, maybe they really were evil mysterious Russians, but the reason for the hacking doesn't really matter. The Democrats look incompetent and corrupt either way, and it's ultimately their own fault.

 

The Bernie or Bust people, though perhaps too passionate for their own good, are right about one thing: If Clinton loses, it will be her own fault. It's not the job of discontent voters to rally together for someone they dislike. It's the job of the candidate to bring the party together, and Clinton keeps taking little steps to continually annoy the more liberal half of the Democratic voter base. No single choice is awful, but together they start to add up.

 

 

 

 

 

The comment about 20-somethings is interesting, from historical standpoint. 

 

My grandma was alive during the Roosevelt era and got to attend big political meetings during that time. To her, the Democratic Party has been completely off the rails for the last 50+ years. The leaders today are pretty conservative from her perspective. Bernie is popular with the young vote, sure, but what about the people who were old enough to remember the party before it shifted center? She's an ardent Bernie supporter -- probably more than most young people -- and doesn't have many nice things to say about Clinton (or her husband). Especially in the wake of the email leaks.

 

Maybe all that's old becomes new again. Either way, from her long view of things, the party was finally on the verge of self-correcting after many decades of inefficiency (1970s through 1980s) or conservative leadership (1990+). She's hoping there will be a miracle on the convention floor, like with Roosevelt, but if not, she's hoping the passionate 20-somethings will continue the movement.

 

 

 

 

I will probably still vote for Clinton. I don't like any of the third party candidates, either. And I definitely detest Drumpf and his racist insanity. Still, something will need to be done about the Democratic Party when this is all over. The post-election political fights may end up being more important than the actual election. Remain a Democrat and try to fix it by getting more involved? Reshape the party by voting for Berniecrats to replace sitting Democrats? Seek out a more suitable third party? I don't know. But I am definitely among the malcontent (for many reasons).

 

sorry for longpost



#6 wisp

wisp

    Boobie Administrator

  • Admin
  • 14,042 posts
  • Location:in ur base killin ur mans
  • Gender:Knarrarbringa
  • South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

Posted 25 July 2016 - 01:46 PM

I will probably comment at more length when I'm not working, but I agree with a lot of what Lena is saying, especially this part:

 

If Clinton loses, it will be her own fault. It's not the job of discontent voters to rally together for someone they dislike. It's the job of the candidate to bring the party together, and Clinton keeps taking little steps to continually annoy the more liberal half of the Democratic voter base. No single choice is awful, but together they start to add up.

 

I think it's unhelpful and detrimental to the entire political process for voters to get mad and blame each other when someone like Bush or Drumpf gets elected because otherwise left-leaning voters went for a third-party candidate. Give us a better Democrat and we'll probably vote for that person. Blaming each other for preferring a third option does nothing but remove the responsibility of making better decisions from the people who are competing to run the country. They're supposed to work FOR us. ALL of us. The third-party candidates often seem like the only ones who are willing to actually do that.



#7 FŽanen

FŽanen

    Timeless

  • Members
  • 1,410 posts
  • Location:Cat Land, NY
  • Gender:Male
  • United States

Posted 25 July 2016 - 02:29 PM

The unfortunate reality is that the first-past-the-post system and the electoral college practically necessitate a two-party system. Most FPTP using countries do have more than two parties that actually have some traction, but the votes can end up terribly disproportionate.

 

The other sad reality is that because of the Electoral College, only some votes really matter in the presidential election. If you're a liberal in Texas or a conservative in California, you can vote for Donald Duck without concern that it will effect what color the state goes, because it's pretty much a foregone conclusion. This isn't my opinion - it's the view of most mainstream political scientists who've studied electoral trends in more depth than I frankily even understand.

 

So many people look at this mess we're in and blame individuals and organizations, and to an extent there is plenty of blame to be given there (frankly everybody in the DNC complicit with this travesty need to be ousted yesterday), but at the heart of it all I see an electoral system that just doesn't work. And to change that we'd need constitutional amendments, which in this day and age is a damn tall order. Believe me, if there's ever a plausible campaign to instate a different voting system I will rally for it more vigorously than I do for most political issues.

 

Ultimately, if you ask who I endorse for President my answer is nuanced. Out of all the candidates I actually still like Hillary the best. Johnson's civil positions are generally pretty great, but with a Republican Congress in power I just can't get behind his economic policies. With Democrats in power I might think twice, he could be a moderating force, but odds are that's not happening this election. Stein...I agree with more of what she says economically, but she's only held a fairly minor political position in her lifetime. Lots of ideals, not a lot of hands-on experience, especially in the area of foreign policy.

 

In the end barring something utterly catastrophic Clinton or Drumpf will  be the next president. That's the choice we have, like it or not. Now, as I said above, for voters in deeply red or blue states I honestly can't speak against voting third party - in the end, and I hate this fact, it doesn't matter. Protest vote to your heart's content. But in a higher-stakes state like Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina or Florida? I'm sorry, but it's down to you which of these two people will be our president. There isn't a third option any more than you can order dim sum at an Italian restaurant. The system sucks, but until we can find a way to change it we have to play with the hand we're dealt.



#8 Selena

Selena

    Odinsdottir

  • Admin
  • 17,867 posts
  • Location:Behind you.
  • Gender:Female
  • Sweden

Posted 25 July 2016 - 02:42 PM

You know a political system is bad when Florida Man gets to decide the outcome.

 

 

But yes, third party votes up here in Washington wouldn't be a big deal. It only matters with swing states.



#9 Jasi

Jasi

    Hooray for Zoidberg!

  • Members
  • 2,348 posts
  • Location:NYC
  • Gender:Female
  • United States

Posted 25 July 2016 - 03:00 PM

Now, as I said above, for voters in deeply red or blue states I honestly can't speak against voting third party - in the end, and I hate this fact, it doesn't matter. Protest vote to your heart's content.

 

I don't know. It just makes me think of the pro-Brexit voters who thought that it wouldn't really happen and said on the news the next day that they regretted their votes. Are blue/red states really such a sure thing? How many Drumpf voters are just hiding for fear of being mocked? 

 

 

I think it's unhelpful and detrimental to the entire political process for voters to get mad and blame each other when someone like Bush or Drumpf gets elected because otherwise left-leaning voters went for a third-party candidate. Give us a better Democrat and we'll probably vote for that person. Blaming each other for preferring a third option does nothing but remove the responsibility of making better decisions from the people who are competing to run the country. They're supposed to work FOR us. ALL of us. The third-party candidates often seem like the only ones who are willing to actually do that.

 

 

If I place blame on the Bernie or Bust movement, it's because I find the idea atrociously short-sighted. Voting for Jill Stein in the 2016 presidential election won't change a single thing in this country. You may as well light your ballot on fire. If you really want to affect change, participate in our political system in that will actually change things, like by voting in lower-level elections (House and Senate, state, local) for people that represent the kinds of things Bernie does. You can vote for Hillary and still do that, and I think it's very wise to do so. This is not the hill for progressives to die on. Voting for Drumpf, or not voting, or voting third party, will not help Bernie's political goals get met in any way (unless your goal is speeding up a people's revolution, in which case, you could argue that voting for Drumpf might accelerate that). 



#10 Selena

Selena

    Odinsdottir

  • Admin
  • 17,867 posts
  • Location:Behind you.
  • Gender:Female
  • Sweden

Posted 25 July 2016 - 03:28 PM

Yes, I am terrified that the diehard Bernie people will just tune out from this point on.

 

Everyone makes such a big deal about the presidency, but the real power is in Congress. State officials also play a major role in local services and local programs. Even if a third party president were to get in office -- or possibly even if Bernie were to get into office -- they'd have scant support from Congress at best. Everything would be deadlocked. Putting so much faith in Bernie is a mistake. People have elevated him above what he can actually do, and now that he's not living up to their impossible standards, he's getting booed at and insulted.

 

You have to start from the ground up, then target the presidency. It's the only efficient way. But it takes time and effort. Two things that nobody likes. Especially when they're looking for an instant miracle after getting stuck with a Clinton v. Drumpf race.

 

 

 

 

Frankly, the general public (including myself) is 100% responsible for getting stuck with this shitty race to begin with. Only a tiny fraction of the population participates in the political system beyond voting -- and people barely manage to do that. Voting is the tip of the democratic iceberg. You're meant to be going to meetings, pitching ideas, championing new candidates in local elections if you hate your incumbents, etc. So many people think that disconnected leaders will fix things on their behalf. Democracy is only healthy when the majority of the population gets involved on a regular basis.

 

Yes, that is difficult in the age of media and big corporate donors. But if we've learned anything from this election, passionate grassroots movements can gain considerable traction. The internet is a powerful tool. I will strive to do better. And I will hope people don't tap out just because Clinton is the nominee.

 

 

 

I would very much prefer a preferential voting system, if only for the presidency. As with anything, it's a matter of trying to figure out how to champion change in a way that's substantial. Too many people -- again including myself -- think that internet activism is enough. Internet activism can be useful if the masses really get involved, but for the most part, it's just whining online. I don't know. I don't have good answers right now. I'm trying to focus on the post-election situation. This election has really tested my loyalties. 



#11 Egann

Egann

    The Right Stuff

  • Members
  • 4,169 posts
  • Location:Georgia
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 July 2016 - 07:53 PM

And we are surprised because? I've been saying for some time that neither party is actually worth anything and that blind party loyalty will just kill the nation.
 
So, now it's time for me to put on my prediction hat. This forum is pretty darn liberal, right? Hillary will make you not vote for her.
 
Clinton's troubles started in earnest when Comey suggested to not press charges on the email scandal even though he admitted there was proof of wrongdoing... because it was obviously not malicious. Anyone with a brain can translate this to Clinton made some kind of threat on Comey's kids or something.
 
Now, let's not forget that someone inside the DNC had to leak those emails to Wikileaks. We know this because password encryption is a thing and if the DNC had any evidence of a hack they would love to make Watergate Jr. People in the DNC hate Hillary enough that they are willing to leak their own dirty laundry to stop her from getting to the Presidency. If I had to guess, some superdelegates got threatened, as well, played face to protect their own interests...and leaked select emails after the fact to damage Clinton.
 
Now, fast forward to this October. You are Hillary Clinton. You are doing things so awful that people inside your own party have tried to stop you from getting to the Presidency by compromising their own party's reputation. That's a desperate act if ever there were one. You've probably threatened or bribed pollsters to cover for you, so you look neck and neck, but that's going to end soon; they have to get the polls close to the election right to be credible afterwards. Your internal polls say you have little to no chance.
 
Hillary is many things, but a graceful loser she is not. She's shown a propensity for scandal, too. I don't know what's going to happen, but this October will be genuinely awful, and we will be very blessed indeed if no one dies.
 
I've said before that I thought Drumpf intended to throw the election. I don't know if he can physically do that, anymore.

Edited by Egann, 25 July 2016 - 07:58 PM.


#12 canas is back

canas is back

    The best dang dark magic user evah

  • Members
  • 1,793 posts
  • Location:back in Bakersfield,ca
  • Gender:Male
  • NATO

Posted 25 July 2016 - 09:23 PM

Honestly the same is holding fairly true for republicans for their nominee, he might turn the normally staunchly red utah into voting for johnson or clinton, and has similarly disenfranchised a lot of republicans, which the party was already doing well enough on it's own.



#13 JRPomazon

JRPomazon

    The finest version of Myself

  • Members
  • 15,804 posts
  • Location:Massachusetts
  • Gender:Male
  • United States

Posted 25 July 2016 - 11:09 PM

So the question here is whether or not the DNC and the RNC have screwed up so poorly that a third party might actually become a valid contender in this year's election. Both the old houses are crumbling, the only reason anyone (pardon the hyperbole) will vote for either candidate is to screw over the other. I don't think it's too impossible for Johnson or Stein to do well enough to at least get to the debate.

 

But like Lena was saying, this all depends on people moving past the Slacktavism approach to politics and actually do more than just share a link on facebook. If Bernie Sanders has done anything, it's bring awareness to the broken state of our political system and given people a means to voice and even act on their dissatisfaction. We might be heading towards rock bottom but at least the only way left to go is up from that point on.



#14 Jasi

Jasi

    Hooray for Zoidberg!

  • Members
  • 2,348 posts
  • Location:NYC
  • Gender:Female
  • United States

Posted 26 July 2016 - 07:56 AM

And we are surprised because? I've been saying for some time that neither party is actually worth anything and that blind party loyalty will just kill the nation.
 

 

For the record almost everyone posting in this thread has explicitly said that they're not surprised, and we've all been saying that both parties are guilty.

 

 

 

Now, let's not forget that someone inside the DNC had to leak those emails to Wikileaks. We know this because password encryption is a thing and if the DNC had any evidence of a hack they would love to make Watergate Jr. 

 

"evidence of a hack" is already out there and being investigated: https://www.washingt...c8b3_story.html


Edited by Jasi, 26 July 2016 - 07:56 AM.


#15 Selena

Selena

    Odinsdottir

  • Admin
  • 17,867 posts
  • Location:Behind you.
  • Gender:Female
  • Sweden

Posted 26 July 2016 - 12:24 PM

 

So the question here is whether or not the DNC and the RNC have screwed up so poorly that a third party might actually become a valid contender in this year's election.

 

 

 

 

Within the framework of how our election system, third parties aren't really viable unless they outright replace an existing party. Independent third parties usually don't last very long. Most big party changes happen as a result of fusion between a major party and a third one.  This is a good overview of historical parties. The US has had many different political parties in the past -- which have gone extinct. It usually takes decades for the transition to happen.

 

If both major parties keep screwing the pooch, we could theoretically see them replaced with a Progressive Party and the Tea Party, with old moderates left in the fringe. Or a total reformations of the existing parties. The RNC has already lost most of its influence due to infighting between GOP and Tea Party conservatives. The same can happen with the Democrats if Bernie's progressive movement takes flight.

 

So, if people keep electing progressives into office -- whether or not an official Progressive Party is formed -- then you could see a huge transformation when they inevitably take over the left and/or fuse back in. If Clinton had run a fusion ticket this year, then that process could have gotten started already. The DNC was lauding that they were running "the most progressive platform in history" last night to try an appease the Bernie people, but the emails already show that the platform is non-binding and she has little desire to actually follow through. It doesn't seem like she'll be appointing many progressives to cabinet positions if she gets elected. The DNC hasn't yet been pushed to the point where it feels like they need to make concessions. Several more years of unrest and progressives getting into Congress will change that.

 

So, this election? No. 
 

Going forward? Very much yes.

So long as the hardcore Bernie people don't dissolve into a puddle of aimless rage. Emotions are raw because it's the convention. We'll see how his die-hard supporters react once this presidential election is over.

 

 

 

And we are surprised because?

What Jasi said. Nobody's surprised.

 

As I mentioned a little earlier, the contents of the emails are disappointing but not surprising in the least. The thing vexing me isn't corruption in the DNC, which was always obvious, but rather their response to the whole situation. By ignoring the progressives and treating them with disdain, they have triggered an inevitable schism within the party. Maybe not this year, but certainly in the years to come. Especially if -- god help us all -- Drumpf wins and everyone on the left starts blaming each other. Mainline Democrats can't afford to ignore progressives anymore, and they keep making decisions that only lead to further discord. 



#16 Egann

Egann

    The Right Stuff

  • Members
  • 4,169 posts
  • Location:Georgia
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 July 2016 - 09:34 PM

 

And we are surprised because? I've been saying for some time that neither party is actually worth anything and that blind party loyalty will just kill the nation.
 

 

For the record almost everyone posting in this thread has explicitly said that they're not surprised, and we've all been saying that both parties are guilty.

 

 

 

Now, let's not forget that someone inside the DNC had to leak those emails to Wikileaks. We know this because password encryption is a thing and if the DNC had any evidence of a hack they would love to make Watergate Jr. 

 

"evidence of a hack" is already out there and being investigated: https://www.washingt...c8b3_story.html

 

 

So, this post took some time to put together because it's kinda important to get these details right. Generally, I post these conspiracy theory things more to get people to think and to do their own research more than because I think it's literally true. In the above case I literally did zero research, and it showed because you proved me wrong.

 

But I am intrigued. Shall we follow the rabbit hole?
 

 

Your Washington Post article mentions a cyber security firm--ThreatConnect. ThreatConnect actually has a reasonably detailed series of several blog posts about this event. They, for instance, retrace the hacker's proxy network back to a Russian telenet company. The Russian telenet company server has no record of the access, therefore ThreatConnect concluded the hacker had a duplicate machine of the telenet company's server. In other words, a Kremlin hack group. A private hacker doesn't have access to equipment like that. SOURCE.

 

ThreatConnect also believes Guccifer 2.0--a hacker personality who claims to be the source of the leaked emails--is a Russian propaganda figurehead. SOURCE.

 

So, we found our source, right? Not so fast.

 

We know Guccifer has leaked some opposition resource and donor information documents. These have been mostly single documents which recently escalated to folders. This is consistent with a foreign intelligence department vetting documents before authorizing their public release. The wikileaks collection was a massive 20,000 emails. I seriously doubt this content was vetted, so I seriously doubt a national intelligence agency was behind it's release. It's more consistent with a whistle-blower grabbing an entire directory and posting it.

 

DNC staffer Seth Rich was shot and killed. Not saying we have our smoking gun or know our leak, but this is starting to make a pattern.

 

I appear to not be the only one thinking in these terms, either. The last line in the Washington Post article is this:

 

“Since the documents have been posted anonymously, there is no clear way to prove their origin,” Buratowski said. But he said it was “notable” that time and date stamps were missing in places one would expect to see them. “This could suggest that the content was copied and pasted into non-original documents.”

 

It is also possible, researchers said, that someone else besides the Russians were inside the DNC’s network and had access to the same documents.

 

Note the last line does not necessarily imply forceful entry. What we're likely looking at here is three parties; the DNC, the Russians, and a Leaker. Early in June the DNC noticed the compromised and kicked the Russians out, and the Russians begin this Guccifer 2.0 thing to redeem some PR and political value out of their now dried intelligence well. Meanwhile, the leaker knows the DNC's computer has been compromised and sends Assange the leak material, knowing both that Assange will hold and drop it as a bomb during the convention...and that the hack has provided cover.






Copyright © 2020 Your Company Name