The 2016 Sleazy Elitist Democratic Presidential Candidates

[Mal Shot First]

"The best argument for a Clinton presidency is that she's virtually guaranteed to be a capable steward of the status quo, at a time of relative stability and safety. There are criticisms to make of Hillary Clinton, but the grid isn't going to collapse while she's in office, something no one can say with even mild confidence about Donald Trump."

And just to add to that: Like I said, it's not like we have only these two choices. Unfortunately, the house is on fire and I don't think it's the right time to experiment with alternative extinguishing agents.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

Clinton will almost certainly win, and the country will almost certainly be better off (internationally, especially--unless you genuinely believe Zhirinovsky's assertion that Putin will nuke the US if anyone other than Trump is elected) if she wins. If/Once she does win, though, I'd like to see some corner of the Democratic constituency continuing to show their dissatisfaction with their having been strong-armed into getting behind her. Whether or not the DNC rigged the primaries to push through the candidate they preferred, this summer's WikiLeaks release showed they were at least willing to manipulate and disenfranchise some of their own base, and the Clinton campaign actively rewarded the chairperson of the DNC *after* the WikiLeaks release by bringing her onto the campaign following her resignation from the DNC.

The Democrats who argue that Clinton is a capable politician will continue to butt heads with the Democrats who question her competence. She certainly has what I'd call a presidential bearing, and she is able to discuss policy sanely, calmly, and intelligently. These things will serve her well. She has also made some pretty questionable choices while serving the US government, however, and those who question her competence are likely to continue to bring those things up.

For some of these things, some of her supporters may feel the inclination to say, "But that was X years ago." They may check themselves when they realize how similar that may feel to the Trump supporters' defense of Trump's hot mic gaffe. They may also feel the inclination to downplay them--they already are, in fact--but this is a potential slippery slope. Once a body starts downplaying things, it becomes more and more open to downplaying bigger and bigger things. It's probably best just to acknowledge Clinton's role in some of her more questionable actions as US Senator and Secretary of State, suggest she's learned her lesson, and focus on her pretty liberal US Senate voting record. It's a more liberal record, as I mentioned in the other thread, than either Obama's or Kerry's.

In short, I encourage the Democrats who feel they are being coerced through scare tactics to vote for Clinton to continue to make it known that they don't feel this is OK and that they expect better from their party in the future. The more complacent they are, the more likely the Democratic party is to continue feeling out just how far they can push their constituency in any number of directions. I mean, look at how far the US Republican Party has pushed its base.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

Also, from what I understand, it will never again be OK to vote for a third party candidate ever. It's been characterized by the Big Two as dangerous experimentation since the early nineties, and it appears as though it will continue to be characterized thus.

Of course, at this point, the characterization may be apt. The Big Two may have made it so that there will never again be another valid choice--even if it's true that all the registered voters who won't be voting could pool together enough votes to beat the Big Two's candidates pretty handily, and even if that sound thrashing could have been made even sounder by the registration of previously unregistered voters. (It would, of course, be unlikely for this huge mass of people all to go in for one candidate.)

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

Things might change if the US Republican Party implodes. And it might. It probably won't, though. It has too much steam behind it and is connected too deeply to corporate concerns.

[Jubbers]

[Space Tycoon]

I always loved that Simpson's sketch. Especially the shot at Ross Perot.

Funny thing is that Perot actually had a good chance during his initial third party run--until he quit, claiming "Republican dirty tricks." His numbers were actually very good up until that point, and they never came back.

[Space Tycoon]

I always thought Perot would have been an...interesting politician.

You can draw comparisons with Trump, sure. A plain-speaking, rightish-leaning billionaire financing his own campaign against the failed policies of both parties, etc.

However, I can think of two main differences: first, Perot's campaign was truly independent; second, I don't seem to recall Perot exploiting hate or fear to the extent that Trump has. Extreme dissatisfaction, sure. Social divisiveness, not so much.

Perhaps my memory is clouded. The nineties were an odd decade.

[Adam54]

Things might change if the US Republican Party implodes. And it might. It probably won't, though. It has too much steam behind it and is connected too deeply to corporate concerns.

It's also connected too deeply to religious gun nuts. Therein lies the splinter point.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

And the pro-lifers. Don't forget the pro-lifers.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

Though I suppose most of those fall under the "religious" rubric.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

The religious have a monopoly on being pro-life, of course, and there are plenty of left-leaning people who are both religious and pro-choice.

[Scotia]

Could the alt right splinter from the Republican party? I mean, Trump will lose but his followers are not simply going to disappear or go away quietly. Are Trump's disenfranchised motivated and coordinated enough to form a party for themselves?

I will give it to him thou, he can rile up an audience. Albeit, an audience of I'll informed angry white people. He appeals on an emotional level to these folks because once some sober thought is introduced what is left is just a dirty hatred of the political institution itself. Joining the establishment appears inconsistent with what the alt right message is all about. Time will tell if it's a passing notion or a real movement with legs.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

This video was tough to watch:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... cuted.html

[Mal Shot First]

Not that I'm disputing the legitimacy of the leaked e-mails, but it is a fair point to say that the information could have easily been falsified. If it's in a digital format, there's really nothing to keep someone from going in there and changing the content.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

In this case, the two people interacting was what made it tough to watch. Kelly and Brazile kept assuring each other they respected one another, but they were both dealing with a pretty touchy subject. There's shadiness within the (potentially falsified) documents, but there's also shadiness attached to the manner in which those documents were obtained. It gives both parties something to be edgy about.

I've started thinking about this thread as the "Democrat stuff" thread and the other thread as the "Republican stuff" thread, though it occurs to me the threads' titles can be a bit leading. I should probably make it clearer when I post here and in the other place that I'm not necessarily using my post to back up the threads' titular claims.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

I see some saying that Assange's credibility has been shot solely because his organization is publishing material, this time around, that is unflattering to Clinton. Some even claim he is now "working for" Fox News. (They may be saying the Fox News thing in jest. I don't necessarily always pick up on political humor since I don't follow politics all that closely.) I don't know that I see any ideological change on the WikiLeaks end. Instead, I see a group continuing to put out classified info against the wishes of the organism that classified it.

Assange is appearing on Fox News--and is even answering viewer questions there--a lot these days, but is he turning down interviews with left-leaning media entities and refusing to answer viewer questions there, or is it just the case that Fox News is giving him more of a platform (or, maybe, less of a hostile platform) than he's getting from left-leaning media entities? Is it more that he's just speaking when spoken to?

The timeline on the release of certain info could mean something. Did WikiLeaks hold off on publishing any of the documents until just now for political reasons, or was any delay the result of vetting sources and combing through the documents in an attempt to make sure, to the best of their ability, that nothing fake was sneaked in?

Was it designed as a genuine October surprise, and was it intended to try to hurt Clinton's chances? I'm not sure. It could potentially be argued that the WikiLeaks folks held off on releasing the bulk of things until after it looked to them like Trump's chances were completely shot. There's not much there to indicate that Assange or anyone else at WikiLeaks wants Trump as president. Maybe the intention was to discredit Clinton, but not to such a degree that she would lose the presidency.

A little knowledge of the Republican base's stance on infidelity and sexual misconduct could suggest to someone sitting on the kind of information WikiLeaks had in its possession that the Billy Bush tape would be a game changer/campaign devastator. Some attempt has been made by the Trump campaign to redirect attention back to Bill Clinton's sexual history, but that has only served, to some degree, to remind the Republican base that they have a history of finding such behavior morally objectionable--to the point of impeachment, even. (Note: the impeachment was technically for President Clinton lying under oath about his sexual misconduct.)

Some on the right may feel compelled to condemn Trump and wish for his removal simply out of a desire to stay morally consistent. They may feel some duty to do this in spite of how they may feel about Hillary Clinton's original reactions toward the charges of her husband's infidelity being brought to light (not to mention her reactions toward the women making the charges). She may not have acted in an honorable way, they may reason, but they may also reason that she wasn't the one accused of sexual misconduct. Sexual misconduct is a huge sticking point for many on the right, since it is bound in many ways to many of their religious beliefs.

For some, sexual misconduct is a cousin to abortion, which is also bound in many ways to many of their religious beliefs. For many--at least as far as I can tell where a significant chunk of my family and Facebook friends are concerned--this has become their sole reason for choosing Trump over Clinton in a race featuring two people they dislike intensely. We all have that one issue that is most important to us. For many, it appears to be abortion. Granted, Trump's abortion stance isn't consistent, but for those who are absolutely against abortion, they'll take inconsistency over a pro-choice stance.

Anyway, if the the intention of the timing of the WikiLeaks release had been to discredit Clinton only after her victory had been somewhat assured, I would certainly feel the credibility of Assange and Co. had been shot. It would be a case of election engineering, and it wouldn't be that far removed from what the DNC and the Clinton campaign are alleged to have done.

I don't know that the WikiLeaks folks have been sitting on their information for any specific reason or length of time, and I'm unlikely ever to know. (Have they? Have they said they were sitting on it for a specific reason? Has anyone outside of them found evidence that they were? If so, have they pointed toward this evidence? I'm not asking rhetorically. I'm asking because I'm genuinely unaware if any evidence of this exists.) My guess is that, as always, they're just releasing info after some vetting and doing so in hopes of stirring the pot, also as always. I still think of their alignment as being somewhere between chaotic neutral and chaotic good.

Those whose e-mails were leaked and/or forged could do some of their own discrediting by showing their original, un-tampered-with e-mails and showing said e-mails to be different from those published by WikiLeaks. I don't see anyone doing this, though, unless they're subpoenaed to do it. People's e-mails are their private property, after all, and if the e-mails released by WikiLeaks were genuine or in part genuine, then they were (and likely continue to be) classified.

[Mal Shot First]

Those whose e-mails were leaked and/or forged could do some of their own discrediting by showing their original, un-tampered-with e-mails and showing said e-mails to be different from those published by WikiLeaks. I don't see anyone doing this, though, unless they're subpoenaed to do it.

Of course, there's also the possibility that there are no originals and the incriminating e-mails are complete fabrications. I don't believe that is the case, but it's a possibility.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

It's a definite possibility. "Forged" was meant to cover this possibility, though I suppose "forging" as a concept (if Quasar were still here, I'd feel the need to specify that I mean "forging" outside of the context of the smithy) is really more connected to handwriting. I probably should have gone with "leaked and/or modified and/or fabricated," and I probably should have added another line about how there wouldn't necessarily be anything to show an alternate form of in the case of fabrication. I chose "forged" because I meant to indicate that it seems--if fraudulence was, indeed, involved--some effort was made to capture the styles of the various correspondents.

[Mal Shot First]

Those sneaky fucking Russians!

[Dalty]

In Soviet Russia, sneaky fucking Russians........... never mind.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

They mind, but only out of respect for Mother Russia.

[Dalty]

Days to go and another FBI probe and more email issues for Crooked Hilary. I, for one, salute our new Orange overlord and his creepy/sexy daughters.

[Adam54]

It's a non issue that Orange Hitler will struggle desperately to turn into an issue.

The bigger concern right now is that Gary Johnson's numbers are plummeting and that seems to be directly benefiting Trump.

[Dalty]

Plummeting Johnson?

[Adam54]

That's how Mrs. Dalty wound up pregnant, isn't it?