6 ms·

Do you think anybody actually believes "giving voters truthful information is bad?" Do you think the issue might be a little more nuanced than that?

by lobf 9y ago

pdx 9y ago
Don't know. Why are we not talking about servers in closets and smashed blackberries and bleach-bit? Why, instead, are we talking about those mean old Russians! Why are we not talking about the Democratic primary rigging? Seems like that's a subject that even liberals should like to talk about (at least half of them), but again, it's Russia Russia Russia. Seems like there are some folks who would rather change the subject to Russia Russia Russia.
- akhilcacharya 9y ago
  There was no primary rigging. The fact that you think this is the result of Russian propaganda, because it works.
  - unabridged 9y ago
    >There was no primary rigging. No vote tampering or anything to that level. But the emails show how embedded the party leadership is with the media and how much they can use their influence. I believe pushing the superdelegate count everyday for months before even the first primary is one of the worst things I've seen.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      Media including committed superdelegates in primary election delegate counts is not at all new (having a candidate that isn't a sitting President or Vice President gain such a strong commitment before a single primary vote is cast is unusual, especially when they don't have similar runaway support in the electorate.)
    - lobf 9y ago
      Oh my goodness, are you telling me that the party was more behind the decades-long member who had spent her time building alliances and relationships over the guy who joined the party a few months before?
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  There was no primary rigging, and Clinton didn't win the election. You're free to talk about her email server all you like, but she's not in power. So we focus on the people who are in power and how they got there.
unabridged 9y ago
The leadership of the democratic party believes the people should not see their internal memos. The candidate for the democratic party didn't want transcripts of her speeches to donors made public. So yes, I believe there are plenty of politicians who don't want truthful information made public if it doesn't create the correct optics. Giving out true information is not propaganda, its journalism.

Do you think anybody actually believes "giving voters truthful information is bad?" Do you think the issue might be a little more nuanced than that?

by lobf 9y ago

Do you think anybody actually believes "giving voters truthful information is bad?" Do you think the issue might be a little more nuanced than that?

pdx 9y ago

Don't know. Why are we not talking about servers in closets and smashed blackberries and bleach-bit? Why, instead, are we talking about those mean old Russians! Why are we not talking about the Democratic primary rigging? Seems like that's a subject that even liberals should like to talk about (at least half of them), but again, it's Russia Russia Russia. Seems like there are some folks who would rather change the subject to Russia Russia Russia.

akhilcacharya 9y ago
There was no primary rigging. The fact that you think this is the result of Russian propaganda, because it works.
- unabridged 9y ago
  >There was no primary rigging. No vote tampering or anything to that level. But the emails show how embedded the party leadership is with the media and how much they can use their influence. I believe pushing the superdelegate count everyday for months before even the first primary is one of the worst things I've seen.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Media including committed superdelegates in primary election delegate counts is not at all new (having a candidate that isn't a sitting President or Vice President gain such a strong commitment before a single primary vote is cast is unusual, especially when they don't have similar runaway support in the electorate.)
  - lobf 9y ago
    Oh my goodness, are you telling me that the party was more behind the decades-long member who had spent her time building alliances and relationships over the guy who joined the party a few months before?
s73ver_ 9y ago
There was no primary rigging, and Clinton didn't win the election. You're free to talk about her email server all you like, but she's not in power. So we focus on the people who are in power and how they got there.

unabridged 9y ago

The leadership of the democratic party believes the people should not see their internal memos. The candidate for the democratic party didn't want transcripts of her speeches to donors made public. So yes, I believe there are plenty of politicians who don't want truthful information made public if it doesn't create the correct optics. Giving out true information is not propaganda, its journalism.