4 ms·

> all the stuff that's "leaked" looks pretty reasonable to me. If I understand correctly, the only point of this leak was to demonstrate that the hack actually

by fab13n 10y ago

> all the stuff that's "leaked" looks pretty reasonable to me. If I understand correctly, the only point of this leak was to demonstrate that the hack actually happened. The damaging stuff has been given to Wikileaks, which knows better how to maximise its impact. Depending on WL and the leaker's agenda, they'll release it before or after the DNC convention: some people would rather have Sanders as a Dem candidate, some others would rather have an undermined Clinton being trounced by Trump. France faced a similar situation in 2012: DSK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominique_Strauss-Kahn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominique_Strauss-Kahn) was bound to win the presidency, except that he could neither keep his dick in his pants, nor bother to get consent before shoving it down people's throats. His campaign exploded before the left-wing primary, because he allegedly raped a maid in New York's Sofitel; but the right-wing government had an ongoing investigation on pimping charges, linked to Lille's Carlton, which was scheduled to go public after the primary. Had he been bust by the French investigation, rather than prematurely in New York, French then-president Sarkozy would have very likely been re-elected.

evgen 10y ago
The problem with this read is that Sanders will never be the dem candiate (even if Hillary drops dead tomorrow the backup is Uncle Joe and maybe Sen. Warren) and Hillary could emulate the Cheetoh Jesus' claim and shoot someone dead on 5th avenue and she is still going to be the next US president. Releasing to WL is also a good move if the leak were to have come direclty from the Clinton camp, as there are few information sources more biased and discredited among the general public than WL.
- fab13n 10y ago
  I admit I don't know enough about Democratic party rules to guess who would replace a busted Clinton candidacy. Common sense would dictate that a candidate who came close second would be chosen, but common sense doesn't necessarily apply here indeed. As for Clinton being the next president, I'd be surprised if she were. Based among others on PG's "It's Charisma, stupid" [http://www.paulgraham.com/charisma.html http://www.paulgraham.com/charisma.html], more recently Scott Adams' perspectives, US history, and the mounting anti-establishment sentiments empowered by Internet bypassing centralised media, I expect Trump to tune his public persona for a target wider than Tea Party voters, then to thoroughly beat her. It sounds very bold, until you remember that this country chose Bush Jr. against Kerry, who was vastly more likeable, competent, and seemingly honest than HRC. I'm also doubtful about the public at large being influenced by a WL apparent origin: I'm afraid the general public hasn't yet learned to mind and evaluate sources. That's a digital native reflex, we're still a minority, and we're rather sympathetic towards WL.
  - evgen 10y ago
    "Scott Adams' perspectives"? Seriously, what particular insight to you think that particular MRA douche brings to bear here? You just need to look at the polling data to see where things are going to go; there are not enough angry white bros left to make a difference in the election at this point. The only question is the degree of impact on down-ticket races that the upcoming beat-down of Trump will have. The Senate is going to flip control, but at the speed at which Trump is crashing to earth I think the House may be in play.
    - nikcheerla 10y ago
      The prediction markets say something like 75% Clinton to 25% Trump. Either you know something they don't (and are about to make a lot of money) – or you probably shouldn't be making predictions with that degree of confidence. Especially considering how unpredictable the elections have been thus far.
    - fab13n 10y ago
      Just looking at the polling data is exactly what did the many pundits who completely failed to predict the GOP primary outcome (as well as Sanders' excellent performance). By contrast, Adams predicted what would happen, why how and when, with striking accuracy, all of that before it happened, when traditional pundits struggle to even fit the facts in a narrative retrospectively. Polls are good to predict more of the same, this election is different (and would have been even more so, had the DNC been impartial between candidates). Calling him a "MRA douche" is an ad hominem attack, a sign that you're short in rational arguments. I believe it also happens to be false. Finally, those who think Trump will be elected don't expect angry white bros to multiply by magic; they expect Trump to appeal to a much wider demographic. Angry white bros are whom you need to seduce to steal the GOP from its elite, and boy has he done it skillfully. Given the limited memory and attention span of many electors, many people believe he has the skill to completely reposition himself. I would like to stress the difference between acknowledging populist skills and endorsing someone as a great potential president, but such nuances are usually lost to angry people, whether they're white bros or not.

by fab13n 10y ago

evgen 10y ago

The problem with this read is that Sanders will never be the dem candiate (even if Hillary drops dead tomorrow the backup is Uncle Joe and maybe Sen. Warren) and Hillary could emulate the Cheetoh Jesus' claim and shoot someone dead on 5th avenue and she is still going to be the next US president. Releasing to WL is also a good move if the leak were to have come direclty from the Clinton camp, as there are few information sources more biased and discredited among the general public than WL.

fab13n 10y ago
I admit I don't know enough about Democratic party rules to guess who would replace a busted Clinton candidacy. Common sense would dictate that a candidate who came close second would be chosen, but common sense doesn't necessarily apply here indeed. As for Clinton being the next president, I'd be surprised if she were. Based among others on PG's "It's Charisma, stupid" [http://www.paulgraham.com/charisma.html http://www.paulgraham.com/charisma.html], more recently Scott Adams' perspectives, US history, and the mounting anti-establishment sentiments empowered by Internet bypassing centralised media, I expect Trump to tune his public persona for a target wider than Tea Party voters, then to thoroughly beat her. It sounds very bold, until you remember that this country chose Bush Jr. against Kerry, who was vastly more likeable, competent, and seemingly honest than HRC. I'm also doubtful about the public at large being influenced by a WL apparent origin: I'm afraid the general public hasn't yet learned to mind and evaluate sources. That's a digital native reflex, we're still a minority, and we're rather sympathetic towards WL.
- evgen 10y ago
  "Scott Adams' perspectives"? Seriously, what particular insight to you think that particular MRA douche brings to bear here? You just need to look at the polling data to see where things are going to go; there are not enough angry white bros left to make a difference in the election at this point. The only question is the degree of impact on down-ticket races that the upcoming beat-down of Trump will have. The Senate is going to flip control, but at the speed at which Trump is crashing to earth I think the House may be in play.
  - nikcheerla 10y ago
    The prediction markets say something like 75% Clinton to 25% Trump. Either you know something they don't (and are about to make a lot of money) – or you probably shouldn't be making predictions with that degree of confidence. Especially considering how unpredictable the elections have been thus far.
  - fab13n 10y ago
    Just looking at the polling data is exactly what did the many pundits who completely failed to predict the GOP primary outcome (as well as Sanders' excellent performance). By contrast, Adams predicted what would happen, why how and when, with striking accuracy, all of that before it happened, when traditional pundits struggle to even fit the facts in a narrative retrospectively. Polls are good to predict more of the same, this election is different (and would have been even more so, had the DNC been impartial between candidates). Calling him a "MRA douche" is an ad hominem attack, a sign that you're short in rational arguments. I believe it also happens to be false. Finally, those who think Trump will be elected don't expect angry white bros to multiply by magic; they expect Trump to appeal to a much wider demographic. Angry white bros are whom you need to seduce to steal the GOP from its elite, and boy has he done it skillfully. Given the limited memory and attention span of many electors, many people believe he has the skill to completely reposition himself. I would like to stress the difference between acknowledging populist skills and endorsing someone as a great potential president, but such nuances are usually lost to angry people, whether they're white bros or not.