Interesting, I wonder what world Clinton would have picked either of the two, including the other non-traditional candidates.
I imagine that it'd happen if Trump had cleaned his act up when going face to face with Clinton, and his "business acumen" had been drawing a lot of voters to him.
You may be joking, but honestly most Politicians are sales people with better vocabulary. So, I am sure Steve Ballmer would be a better running mate than Bill Gates.
this is disgusting. This is really the only press these emails are getting? There is main stream corruption in these emails, law breaking, lobbyist, ambassador appointments based on CASH, colluding and democracy being flushed down the drain and this is what they report on?
Im particularly interested in the contents of the leaks but definitely not through the lens of /r/the_donald. That place is a cess pool of Trump worshipping shit posters.
Honest question; did you look at the commentary there? I was very curious, and am about as far as you can get from any sort of Trump supporter. Some of the quotes had some meat to them and deserved more investigation, some were clearly inconspicuous things taken heavily out of context.
Now, if you were to tear apart the suggestion that there is not more to offer there than is discussed in OP, that'd be very fair, but that doesn't seem to be your response. (which reads more knee jerk). Shutting down opposition as "cess pool of X" is what lead us to a situation wherein the opposition is pushed so far underground that we're surprised when it gains traction.
I'm actually kinda bothered by this whole thread; since in the interim of my writing this post, the original was flagged to removal. For posterity, it featured a link to r/the donald/ discussing some other contents of the podesta emails. I thought it was valuable if for no other reason than to understand how that element of that group presents ideas and is looking at this scenario. Frankly, I find the response I've seen here (insult, remove, shut down) as being just as frightening as some of the stuff I'd read there.
I encourage everyone to go on "cesspools of the opposition" and learn about them; this doesn't mean you have to agree, like, or even feel positively about what you read; I simply and truly see no other path to any sort of coming together or understanding without openness and questioning.
I look at that subredddit once in a week or so, and I agree with the other persons' opinion. Some of the quotes might have meat in them, but you should have the patience to wade through a bunch of (((, MAGA, Cuck, and other Trump slogans.
It's a matter of credibility. /r/the_donald exists solely to attack Hillary and spin Donald's scandals. Without moderation this thread would devolve into baseless accusations and personal attacks, which have nothing to do with the posted topic.
I guess the problem I pose, however, is that a number of IRL trump supporters I've spoken to actually think of it as a legitimate source of some sort of thought. This makes it a very dangerous line to walk to moderate out inclusion of thoughts that _are in fact influencing people_ and thus as opposition _we should really be aware of_ (the overarching questions of "who draws that line"/what is acceptable at any given point in time/exposure to distasteful ideals/slippery slope towards echo chambers).
I see why the people who would argue not even alluding to the firsthand datasource would take that stance, but I would hope that a combination of critical thinking and community-guided discourse would allow exposure to distasteful ideas without having them "leak" or be shut down entirely.
Simply, flagging to deletion sits way too hard on one side of that continuum for my tastes. I would hope HN could remove the personal attacks and accusations but while still allowing for an informed discussion on the root cause and dogma; what surprised me in this chain was that the non-flagged top level response to OP was more of what you say in terms of personal attacks/accusations than the OP was, which is what motivated me to speak up.
I didn't click on this specific link but I have frequented this sub out of curiosity. As others have mentioned, there are decent comments from some but it is too painful for me to wade through the rest. It really isn't a great place to converse about the subject because there is really only one acceptable view point. This is all a bit of a generalization but sums up my experience there. While it is hard to completely eliminate bias in any forum/publication, the_donald doesn't even attempt to try. That is ok. It is their safe place to talk about their God King. It just isn't very valuable to those looking for good information.
I read each of the emails linked in the top of the post (I didn't read through the comments) spoiledtechie posted, and honestly I just don't see a lot there. There's a lot of ugly sausage-making type stuff, but nothing from there jumps out to me as something I'm bothered by mainstream media not reporting. The problem with trying to use /r/the_donald to follow the dump is that so much of what's posted is crap, that it doesn't really add much value over wading through the whole archive myself.
Incidentally Fox News currently has a story on an email from the Politco reporter to Podesta from one of the previous dumps on their front page right now. It's moderately interesting, but it's not some ground breaking accusation. What do you feel like is the single biggest revelation from the dumps that main stream media is ignoring?
The real story is that he considers women, military officers, Hispanics, and blacks to be "food groups". Good god, but the press would have a FIELD DAY if a Republican labeled such groups with that term. Remember "binders full of women"?
Of course, they're thinking in terms of strategy--in the old days, you'd balance the ticket geographically or politically (and so very different people like JFK and LBJ would run together) but now you do the same but with respect to identity politics. Fun times!
It's only a story if you have nothing to do with politics at all. Pandering to constituencies is all part of the game, and looking at them like any other marketing exercise comes with it.
Republicans do the exact same thing. The core "food groups" are evangelical christians, corporate types, gun people, defense industry people, small business people. All of these groups drive voter turnout. There are also "borderline" groups that flirt with both parties as their interests collide. This includes some labor unions (especially where their interests overlap others, like defense), regionally important ethnic/religious affiliated groups (catholics, orthodox jewish communities, cubans, etc) and others. This scales down to the local elections. If you want to be the mayor in a small town, you target the firefighter union + key ministers + senior centers.
Make no mistake, this dynamic has always been there.
A few months ago Bill Gates said he didn't want to be president. To be honest I think he should keep on working on the Gates Foundation and keep on eliminating diseases. http://time.com/money/4251493/bill-gates-reddit-ama/
Did she? Or were these just some names on the "first cut" list that one of her advisors sent to her?
If you actually read the email, it's the latter.
Quite a lot of the reporting on the Podesta emails conflates what Hillary Clinton thinks and does, and what her staff thinks and does. The press does that because it makes the reporting more interesting. (But less accurate.)
"John Podesta Sent Hillary Clinton a List of Names" is not as compelling a headline.
43 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 95.4 ms ] threadHILLARY IN BED WITH TECH LEADERSHIP QUID PRO QUO STARBUCKSGHAZI.
I imagine that it'd happen if Trump had cleaned his act up when going face to face with Clinton, and his "business acumen" had been drawing a lot of voters to him.
Also lol @ how Bernie is his own category
And at the bottom of the list.
All those "I'm so great at business" arguments kind of pale next to "I am the richest man in the country after I built my business from the ground up"
Disgusting.
For an IN DEPTH look at what the emails really show: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/583hpd/new_wiki...
Now, if you were to tear apart the suggestion that there is not more to offer there than is discussed in OP, that'd be very fair, but that doesn't seem to be your response. (which reads more knee jerk). Shutting down opposition as "cess pool of X" is what lead us to a situation wherein the opposition is pushed so far underground that we're surprised when it gains traction.
I'm actually kinda bothered by this whole thread; since in the interim of my writing this post, the original was flagged to removal. For posterity, it featured a link to r/the donald/ discussing some other contents of the podesta emails. I thought it was valuable if for no other reason than to understand how that element of that group presents ideas and is looking at this scenario. Frankly, I find the response I've seen here (insult, remove, shut down) as being just as frightening as some of the stuff I'd read there.
I encourage everyone to go on "cesspools of the opposition" and learn about them; this doesn't mean you have to agree, like, or even feel positively about what you read; I simply and truly see no other path to any sort of coming together or understanding without openness and questioning.
I see why the people who would argue not even alluding to the firsthand datasource would take that stance, but I would hope that a combination of critical thinking and community-guided discourse would allow exposure to distasteful ideas without having them "leak" or be shut down entirely.
Simply, flagging to deletion sits way too hard on one side of that continuum for my tastes. I would hope HN could remove the personal attacks and accusations but while still allowing for an informed discussion on the root cause and dogma; what surprised me in this chain was that the non-flagged top level response to OP was more of what you say in terms of personal attacks/accusations than the OP was, which is what motivated me to speak up.
Incidentally Fox News currently has a story on an email from the Politco reporter to Podesta from one of the previous dumps on their front page right now. It's moderately interesting, but it's not some ground breaking accusation. What do you feel like is the single biggest revelation from the dumps that main stream media is ignoring?
Anyway: obviously this would have been better titled “John Podesta Considered…” or “Hillary’s Campaign Considered…”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-...
Of course, they're thinking in terms of strategy--in the old days, you'd balance the ticket geographically or politically (and so very different people like JFK and LBJ would run together) but now you do the same but with respect to identity politics. Fun times!
Republicans do the exact same thing. The core "food groups" are evangelical christians, corporate types, gun people, defense industry people, small business people. All of these groups drive voter turnout. There are also "borderline" groups that flirt with both parties as their interests collide. This includes some labor unions (especially where their interests overlap others, like defense), regionally important ethnic/religious affiliated groups (catholics, orthodox jewish communities, cubans, etc) and others. This scales down to the local elections. If you want to be the mayor in a small town, you target the firefighter union + key ministers + senior centers.
Make no mistake, this dynamic has always been there.
I don't think you have quite realized where we are at now.
If you actually read the email, it's the latter.
Quite a lot of the reporting on the Podesta emails conflates what Hillary Clinton thinks and does, and what her staff thinks and does. The press does that because it makes the reporting more interesting. (But less accurate.)
"John Podesta Sent Hillary Clinton a List of Names" is not as compelling a headline.