7 ms·

so you did not care about the content of the DNC campaign mails? And you are asserting an order of events that hasn't be established... is that what ran in your

so you did not care about the content of the DNC campaign mails? And you are asserting an order of events that hasn't be established... is that what ran in your mind?

eli 6y ago
What was newsworthy in the campaign emails that justified dumping a guy’s whole inbox?
- px43 6y ago
  The illegal coordination between the Hillary campaign and the DNC was kind of a big deal, and did trigger a wave of corruption getting flushed out of the DNC. I voted for Hillary in 2016, she was by far the better candidate, but I also seeded the fuck out of those Podesta emails because DNC corruption is absolutely inexcusable.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    It wasn't illegal; DNC is a private org and sets its own rules. Name someone who went to jail over the content of the emails? The emails do demonstrate that the party game is rigged (i.e. parties have favorites and tilt the scales in their favor). That's not only legal, it's intended---the point of parties is to coalesce political power. The GOP demonstrates why the DNC is set up to tilt scales. GOP has fewer mechanisms to filter the popular vote in the party than the DNC does, and as a result, there was no backstop to Candidate Trump.
    - briantakita 6y ago
      So all this talk about Democracy is just one big show...
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - shadowgovt 6y ago
        Democratic elections are how we choose between the candidates sponsored by the parties. Hypothetically, there's nothing actually stopping those elections from choosing someone outside the party, but when we're talking in election over a population of 350 million people, even getting an individual's name in front of the voters such that they think to write them in requires a level of organization on par with a national party. Popular votes also inform, but do not single-handedly control, who the parties sponsor. But the story of the parties themselves is a story of slowly widening democratic representation. The DNC system was even more tilted towards party insiders before the McGovern election. It's been pulling in popular vote over the decades, but it's not a mobocracy. I wouldn't be surprised if the RNC, after Trump, modifies its rules to add some kind of backstop against a television celebrity having so easy a path to the Presidency over career politicians.
        briantakita 6y ago
        Given the obvious election fraud caught on camera, forensic evidence, voter roll issues, intimidation of poll watchers, lack of transparency, & the lack actionable oversight that we saw in the 2020 election, is there any hope to reform the corrupt political system or even to ascertain "the consent of the governed"? If you add a backstop against political outsiers gaining office, only insiders who are under control of entrenched politicrats (who have no interest in reform), corrupt actors & revolving door beurcracats/lobbyists can win a significant political position. Thats a lot of words to say the whole system is rotten and any narrow window of reform is quickly shut... As George Carlin said: It's a big club, and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club. And by the way, it's the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe
        shadowgovt 6y ago
        > is there any hope to reform the corrupt political system or even to ascertain "the consent of the governed"? A shared interpretation of reality would be a good start. Most of the things you named in your first sentence happened at such low counts that they had functionally zero impact on the outcome of the election. For starters, there has been no instance of obvious election fraud caught on camera, no forensic evidence that has gone unchallenged, voter roll issues, while chronic, were being addressed for years leading up to the election, intimidation of poll watchers was in the eye of the beholder, and transparency was extraordinary (they had counts live-streamed). Actionable oversight also exists, but excludes "tossing the entire result of a state election," for obvious reasons (most of the actionable oversight is of the form "Screwing with elections is a federal crime and you do a lot of time for it"). There was a commission to look into instances of fraud in the 2016 election, and it concluded in 2018 that there were a handful of actionable events but the end result was the outcome was unchanged. The 2020 election's results were even wider than the difference in the 2016 outcome. It may not be unwise to appoint a commission to investigate the election results, but my money's personally on an outcome in 2022 similar to the outcome in 2018. (... and Carlin was a great entertainer but not a political scientist).
  - rendall 6y ago
    > .. did trigger a wave of corruption getting flushed out of the DNC Sadly, it resulted in only a shuffle of players around the board. Wasserman-Schultz has plenty of congressional committee and leadership appointments. Donna Brazile was rewarded with Wasserman-Schultz's old gig at the helm of the DNC for leaking debate questions to Clinton
  - eli 6y ago
    It wasn’t illegal, surprising, or even a particularly big deal that the DNC was leery of Sanders and had friends in the Clinton camp. If anything it’s remarkable that there was no there there. All those emails and there was barely anything that, even out of context, looked really bad. In the public imagination the hacked emails got conflated with the “Clinton email server”. The point was just to muddy the water. I wonder if the Russians dumped the whole inbox rather than selected messages because they couldn’t find any really bad ones.
- rendall 6y ago
  You missed the part where Donna Brazile gave Presidential Debate questions to Hillary Clinton? Or the collusion between the DNC and NYT/WaPo to kneecap Sanders' campaign? The DNC strategy to promote Trump over the other GOP candidates? Edit: Downvote if you must, but the question was what was newsworthy about the DNC Wikileaks release. Is it incorrect or that you don't like it?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- thakoppno 6y ago
  the part that stands out to me is that the Clinton campaign and the media coordinated to elevate the candidacy of Trump, believing that he’d be easier to defeat in a general election
  - eli 6y ago
    An email said they wanted to elevate Trump, Cruz and Ben Carson. At the time those seemed like the easiest people to beat. That’s the big scandal? I guess that’s newsworthy in a very inside-baseball kind of way but I don’t think it justifies posting someone’s whole inbox online.
    - monocasa 6y ago
      The big scandal is the knowledge that third way democrats have moved so far to the right, that they need fascist-lite candidates on the right to contrast themselves with, to the point that they gave material support to the farthest right wing components of the republican party. The major message for two presidential campaigns has been "we must do everything possible to defeat Trump, and by that we mean not voting for progressives" is BS when the third wayers had a major hand in putting him in the White House to begin with, and their long term strategy more or less requires similar tactics in the future.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

so you did not care about the content of the DNC campaign mails? And you are asserting an order of events that hasn't be established... is that what ran in your mind?

eli 6y ago

What was newsworthy in the campaign emails that justified dumping a guy’s whole inbox?

px43 6y ago
The illegal coordination between the Hillary campaign and the DNC was kind of a big deal, and did trigger a wave of corruption getting flushed out of the DNC. I voted for Hillary in 2016, she was by far the better candidate, but I also seeded the fuck out of those Podesta emails because DNC corruption is absolutely inexcusable.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  It wasn't illegal; DNC is a private org and sets its own rules. Name someone who went to jail over the content of the emails? The emails do demonstrate that the party game is rigged (i.e. parties have favorites and tilt the scales in their favor). That's not only legal, it's intended---the point of parties is to coalesce political power. The GOP demonstrates why the DNC is set up to tilt scales. GOP has fewer mechanisms to filter the popular vote in the party than the DNC does, and as a result, there was no backstop to Candidate Trump.
  - briantakita 6y ago
    So all this talk about Democracy is just one big show...
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      Democratic elections are how we choose between the candidates sponsored by the parties. Hypothetically, there's nothing actually stopping those elections from choosing someone outside the party, but when we're talking in election over a population of 350 million people, even getting an individual's name in front of the voters such that they think to write them in requires a level of organization on par with a national party. Popular votes also inform, but do not single-handedly control, who the parties sponsor. But the story of the parties themselves is a story of slowly widening democratic representation. The DNC system was even more tilted towards party insiders before the McGovern election. It's been pulling in popular vote over the decades, but it's not a mobocracy. I wouldn't be surprised if the RNC, after Trump, modifies its rules to add some kind of backstop against a television celebrity having so easy a path to the Presidency over career politicians.
      - briantakita 6y ago
        Given the obvious election fraud caught on camera, forensic evidence, voter roll issues, intimidation of poll watchers, lack of transparency, & the lack actionable oversight that we saw in the 2020 election, is there any hope to reform the corrupt political system or even to ascertain "the consent of the governed"? If you add a backstop against political outsiers gaining office, only insiders who are under control of entrenched politicrats (who have no interest in reform), corrupt actors & revolving door beurcracats/lobbyists can win a significant political position. Thats a lot of words to say the whole system is rotten and any narrow window of reform is quickly shut... As George Carlin said: It's a big club, and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club. And by the way, it's the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe
        shadowgovt 6y ago
        > is there any hope to reform the corrupt political system or even to ascertain "the consent of the governed"? A shared interpretation of reality would be a good start. Most of the things you named in your first sentence happened at such low counts that they had functionally zero impact on the outcome of the election. For starters, there has been no instance of obvious election fraud caught on camera, no forensic evidence that has gone unchallenged, voter roll issues, while chronic, were being addressed for years leading up to the election, intimidation of poll watchers was in the eye of the beholder, and transparency was extraordinary (they had counts live-streamed). Actionable oversight also exists, but excludes "tossing the entire result of a state election," for obvious reasons (most of the actionable oversight is of the form "Screwing with elections is a federal crime and you do a lot of time for it"). There was a commission to look into instances of fraud in the 2016 election, and it concluded in 2018 that there were a handful of actionable events but the end result was the outcome was unchanged. The 2020 election's results were even wider than the difference in the 2016 outcome. It may not be unwise to appoint a commission to investigate the election results, but my money's personally on an outcome in 2022 similar to the outcome in 2018. (... and Carlin was a great entertainer but not a political scientist).
- rendall 6y ago
  > .. did trigger a wave of corruption getting flushed out of the DNC Sadly, it resulted in only a shuffle of players around the board. Wasserman-Schultz has plenty of congressional committee and leadership appointments. Donna Brazile was rewarded with Wasserman-Schultz's old gig at the helm of the DNC for leaking debate questions to Clinton
- eli 6y ago
  It wasn’t illegal, surprising, or even a particularly big deal that the DNC was leery of Sanders and had friends in the Clinton camp. If anything it’s remarkable that there was no there there. All those emails and there was barely anything that, even out of context, looked really bad. In the public imagination the hacked emails got conflated with the “Clinton email server”. The point was just to muddy the water. I wonder if the Russians dumped the whole inbox rather than selected messages because they couldn’t find any really bad ones.
rendall 6y ago
You missed the part where Donna Brazile gave Presidential Debate questions to Hillary Clinton? Or the collusion between the DNC and NYT/WaPo to kneecap Sanders' campaign? The DNC strategy to promote Trump over the other GOP candidates? Edit: Downvote if you must, but the question was what was newsworthy about the DNC Wikileaks release. Is it incorrect or that you don't like it?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
thakoppno 6y ago
the part that stands out to me is that the Clinton campaign and the media coordinated to elevate the candidacy of Trump, believing that he’d be easier to defeat in a general election
- eli 6y ago
  An email said they wanted to elevate Trump, Cruz and Ben Carson. At the time those seemed like the easiest people to beat. That’s the big scandal? I guess that’s newsworthy in a very inside-baseball kind of way but I don’t think it justifies posting someone’s whole inbox online.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    The big scandal is the knowledge that third way democrats have moved so far to the right, that they need fascist-lite candidates on the right to contrast themselves with, to the point that they gave material support to the farthest right wing components of the republican party. The major message for two presidential campaigns has been "we must do everything possible to defeat Trump, and by that we mean not voting for progressives" is BS when the third wayers had a major hand in putting him in the White House to begin with, and their long term strategy more or less requires similar tactics in the future.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]