E-Mail Dump

Postby drawscore » Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:36 pm

As everyone who is not living in a cave knows by now, Wikileaks got into e-mail accounts of the Democratic National Committee, and released about 20,000 of them, with a promise of more to come.

Obviously, this e-mail dump will not help Democrats, but how much will it hurt? Can Hillary Clinton overcome the damage, and defeat Donald Trump, or will she be done in by the revelations? It's already cost Debbie Wasserman Schultz her job as the DNC chair. (But she was immediately hired by the Clinton campaign, which the Trump campaign characterized as one crook hiring another.)

More than that, has Wikileaks gotten in to IRS and State Department e-mails, and if so, do they have plans to publish prior to the election in November?

I always thought of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange (sp) as a liberal, but the release of information certainly does not help liberals. Then, again, he might be a Bernie Sanders supporter, and put the e-mails out there to hurt Hillary Clinton. Conspiracy theories abound.

This could be interesting to watch as it unfolds.

Drawscore
Last edited by drawscore on Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: E-Mail Dump

Postby Jason Toddman » Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:40 pm

If I understand correctly, it was the Russians who got into the email accounts; they simply used Wikileaks to publish them online. Afaik Wikileaks didn't do any of the actual hacking.
In any case, the Russians would be doing this for their own purposes. They think they can get away with more if trump wins; all the more reason to ensure that Trump never does. I don't like Hillary, but at least she has some experience. A Trump presidency would be an unmitigated disaster.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: E-Mail Dump

Postby drawscore » Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:56 pm

The Democrats say it was the Russians, but they deny it, and, afaik, Wikileaks denies it, as well.

But the Russian government is leftist, the Democrats are leftist, so what would be the reason? When the Dems said it was the Russians, did they speculate as to why?

It doesn't make sense. A left wing Clinton administration would be more friendly to Russia, than a right wing Trump administration. So why would the Russians want to fire a torpedo at the Clinton campaign?

And a Trump presidency would be a disaster? Didn't they say the same thing about Reagan in 1980? If I recall, Reagan's presidency was quite successful. There were a few bumps, like Iran-Contra, but the economy was good.

Drawscore

Re: E-Mail Dump

Postby Jason Toddman » Tue Jul 26, 2016 8:26 pm

The Democrats say it was the Russians, but they deny it, and, afaik, Wikileaks denies it, as well.
Right... since when have denials been proof of innocence? When Hillary denies something, do you believe her?

But the Russian government is leftist, the Democrats are leftist, so what would be the reason? When the Dems said it was the Russians, did they speculate as to why?
What makes you think the Russian government is leftist? Are you mistaking modern Russia for the old Soviet union, or what?

It doesn't make sense. A left wing Clinton administration would be more friendly to Russia, than a right wing Trump administration. So why would the Russians want to fire a torpedo at the Clinton campaign?
Because Trump has openly praised Putin and dissed NATO, while Putin and Clinton have a previous acrimonious history.

And a Trump presidency would be a disaster? Didn't they say the same thing about Reagan in 1980?
Who is they, exactly? Be specific.

If I recall, Reagan's presidency was quite successful. There were a few bumps, like Iran-Contra, but the economy was good.
After the Carter years, anything was an improvement, but it came at a cost of record (for the time) federal spending deficits, trickle-down economics that clearly don't work unless you're a millionaire, and the beginning of government by the few for the few. And the economy was all gumdrops and ice cream, or did you forget that the recession of 1982 was the worst up to that time since the Great Depression?
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: E-Mail Dump

Postby Domination » Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:46 am

'Not living in a cave', I don't care who gets elected for us elections.
Woah, don't mind if I do.

Re: E-Mail Dump

Postby drawscore » Wed Jul 27, 2016 7:22 pm

>>>What makes you think the Russian government is leftist? Are you mistaking modern Russia for the old Soviet union, or what?<<<

Putin IS the old Soviet Union. He's a former KGB agent, who has stated that he would prefer a return to the communist government of the past.

Drawscore

Re: E-Mail Dump

Postby Jason Toddman » Wed Jul 27, 2016 7:40 pm

There's leftist, and there's full-blown communism. Communism is no more like our American left than Nazism is like our American right - though lately it seems like the Tea Party is doing its damnedest to close that gap! To say nothing of trump. If the DNC couldn't get a socialist democrat like Bernie Sanders, you can be sure Hillary - who is well to the right of Sanders - has no love for Putin either.
If anyone likes and supports Putin, it's Trump. He sees himself as a strongman and likes and wishes to emulate other strongmen. That's why he is always voicing support for people like Putin and quotes people like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Kim il Jung, Assad, Erdogan and other notorious dictators.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: E-Mail Dump

Postby drawscore » Thu Jul 28, 2016 4:59 pm

TiedDancer wrote:The only part of this that is remotely significant is Putin's desire to return to the past. In the past, the socialist system of government in the USSR was incredibly unfair and unbalanced. Party officials and leaders received huge sums from industry and the government while the regular citizens had next to nothing. Drawing the line that Democrats and Soviet Union era politicians are the same is stretch at best, but in reality they couldn't be further apart.


The left often says that the reason socialism has not worked in the past, is because the wrong people have been in charge. It is alaso said by both sides, that "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

There was a story going around that Snopes called a "legend." I'll reserve judgment on that assessment, as Snopes is run by a husband and wife team out of California, who lean heavily toward the Democrats.


"An economics professor said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. The class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said "O.K., we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would receive an A.

After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too, so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the third test rolled around, the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame, and name calling, all resulted in hard feelings, and no one would study for anyone else. All failed to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder it is to succeed, the greater the reward when success is attained. But when a government takes all the reward away, no one will try, or succeed."


Snopes might call it a "legend," but if you think about it, it's certainly plausable.

Drawscore

Re: E-Mail Dump

Postby wataru14 » Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:50 pm

...and that professor's name? Albert Einstein.

Is this what we're being reduced to? Internet forwards? Why don't you post the one about the Marine who punched the evil atheist professor in the face? Or the one that asks, "why do we still got monkeys?"

Re: E-Mail Dump

Postby Lake Lover » Fri Jul 29, 2016 1:43 am

Shame on Wikileaks for publishing e-mails which reveal the duplicity of Wasserman Schultz. What right do we, the citizens, have to know the truth? Does not a high ranking politico have the God given right to work to subvert the will of lower ranked members of her own party in order to elect her choice for office? How dare we, lowly laboring struggling citizens that we are, have any inkling that our decisions should in any way be taken into consideration by the Wasserman Schultzes of our party. She was paid by the Democrat National Committee to try to manipulate and control the delegates. Wasn't that her sole purpose within the party?

I have no answers, only questions. But fear not, Hillary put Wasserman Shultz in a less public position in her campaign. Oh, one more question comes to mind: shouldn't we have a penitentiary to house those trouble makers who have the temerity to tell us the truth? We can't take the truth.

Re: E-Mail Dump

Postby MisterBones » Fri Jul 29, 2016 5:29 am

So we don't have the right to know our government is corrupt as all hell?
I have ocs or whatever

Re: E-Mail Dump

Postby drawscore » Fri Jul 29, 2016 4:17 pm

Did You Know:

That after the 2008 campaign, Hillary Clinton wanted the nomination in 2016, so what better way to get it, than to have the co-chair of her campaign, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, as the chair of the DNC. In order to get her there, Hillary would have to get the then current chair, to step down, and recommend Wasserman Schultz for the position. The DNC chair at the time, was Hillary's selection for VP, Tim Kaine.

Ya think that might be payback for that favor eight years ago?

Drawscore

Re: E-Mail Dump

Postby wataru14 » Fri Jul 29, 2016 4:54 pm

The coronation of Hillary Clinton was ordained as soon as she bowed out in favor of Obama. I would put money on the DNC telling her that is she let Obama get the nomination without contesting, she would be guaranteed to get it in 2016. They just got really sloppy in the rigging of the vote.