The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

KimDracula

Well-Known Member
Re-opening the HRC email investigation due to NEW emails couldn't happen at a worse time. It's like a bad Taco Bell fart in a Mini Cooper with the windows closed......it's gonna have some serious hang time because it won't get resolved before the election.

Yes, quite the coincidence, isn't it? We get some nebulous general hint that they are investigating something that may or may not be significant. Acting like there is a scandal until people believe there is one as an MO is an awful lot like crying wolf IMO. Does anyone really believe the real Clinton scandal is right around the corner? Maybe not but at least we can pretend one more time before November 8. Lame.
 

gangababa

Well-Known Member
Regarding the newest the FBI "will bring her down" email spin of desperation, for those who know that there is no there there but have not searched for the truth to refute the anti-Hillery spin; and for those who need to be talked down from their subjective suicidal stands, a different spin.

"BREAKING: US official: Newly discovered emails related to Clinton investigation did not come from her private server." AP

"As Republicans cheer because they think that they have been thrown an election lifeline, read the whole letter and look at what it says. The letter does not say that Hillary Clinton did anything wrong. The letter states that emails were found that were pertinent to the email investigation while looking into an unrelated matter."

"This might be a record for the fastest death of a Republican scandal. Trump and Republicans made a number of assumptions that turned out not to be true. It looks like the FBI is only trying to be careful in their review. Since the emails have nothing to do with Hillary Clinton, the State Department, emails sent or received by Clinton or the Clinton Foundation, Republicans were wrong on all fronts."
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
Just because their beliefs are contrary, doesn't mean I think they should be reconciled.
In my mind, there's cognitive dissonance in all of our political parties
I don't think that term means what you think it means.

Regarding the newest the FBI "will bring her down" email spin of desperation, for those who know that there is no there there but have not searched for the truth to refute the anti-Hillery spin; and for those who need to be talked down from their subjective suicidal stands, a different spin.
No "there" there? There is so much smoke there there is no rational case I've heard there that they're not going to investigate there. "Spin" indeed. (http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/interim-dnc-chair-on-clinton-emails-theres-no-there-there/)

"BREAKING: US official: Newly discovered emails related to Clinton investigation did not come from her private server." AP
"As Republicans cheer because they think that they have been thrown an election lifeline, read the whole letter and look at what it says. The letter does not say that Hillary Clinton did anything wrong. The letter states that emails were found that were pertinent to the email investigation while looking into an unrelated matter."

"This might be a record for the fastest death of a Republican scandal. Trump and Republicans made a number of assumptions that turned out not to be true. It looks like the FBI is only trying to be careful in their review. Since the emails have nothing to do with Hillary Clinton, the State Department, emails sent or received by Clinton or the Clinton Foundation, Republicans were wrong on all fronts."
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10...il-scandal-killed-slew-facts-record-time.html

The link (for me) went to Twitter. I think the correct link for the article is:
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10/28/reopening-clinton-email-investigation-gop-hype.html
 
Tranquility,
  • Like
Reactions: nosmoking

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
Agreed. There's no way they would re-open this :worms:,
unless they had something so meaningful that it can't legally be ignored.


What do you think it means?

:myday:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time; performs an action that is contradictory to their beliefs, ideas, or values; or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas or values.[1][2]

Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. An individual who experiences inconsistency tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and is motivated to try to reduce this dissonance, as well as actively avoid situations and information likely to increase it.​

http://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html
Cognitive dissonance refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs or behaviors. This produces a feeling of discomfort leading to an alteration in one of the attitudes, beliefs or behaviors to reduce the discomfort and restore balance etc.
http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/cognitive_dissonance.htm
This is the feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time.

Dissonance increases with:

  • The importance of the subject to us.
  • How strongly the dissonant thoughts conflict.
  • Our inability to rationalize and explain away the conflict.
Dissonance is often strong when we believe something about ourselves and then do something against that belief. If I believe I am good but do something bad, then the discomfort I feel as a result is cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance is a very powerful motivator which will often lead us to change one or other of the conflicting belief or action. The discomfort often feels like a tension between the two opposing thoughts. To release the tension we can take one of three actions:

  • Change our behavior.
  • Justify our behavior by changing the conflicting cognition.
  • Justify our behavior by adding new cognitions.
Dissonance is most powerful when it is about our self-image. Feelings of foolishness, immorality and so on (including internal projections during decision-making) are dissonance in action.

If an action has been completed and cannot be undone, then the after-the-fact dissonance compels us to change our beliefs. If beliefs are moved, then the dissonance appears during decision-making, forcing us to take actions we would not have taken before.

Cognitive dissonance appears in virtually all evaluations and decisions and is the central mechanism by which we experience new differences in the world. When we see other people behave differently to our images of them, when we hold any conflicting thoughts, we experience dissonance.

Dissonance increases with the importance and impact of the decision, along with the difficulty of reversing it. Discomfort about making the wrong choice of car is bigger than when choosing a lamp.

http://skepdic.com/cognitivedissonance.html
Cognitive dissonance is a theory of human motivation that asserts that it is psychologically uncomfortable to hold contradictory cognitions. The theory is that dissonance, being unpleasant, motivates a person to change his cognition, attitude, or behavior.
And so on. Cognitive dissonance theory has the person with the dissonance trying to reconcile his beliefs. That's the cognitive part.
 
Tranquility,
  • Like
Reactions: Snappo

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
To me it simply means that a described reality disagrees with an actual reality.

But I also understand that everybody lives in their own reality!

:myday:
Hence my difficulty understanding.

It sounds like a Koan. What is the sound of one hand clapping? If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? Is there a reality without a description?
 
Last edited:

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
"The Director owes it to the American people to immediately provide the full details of what he is now examining. We are confident this will not produce any conclusions different from the one the FBI reached in July," Podesta said in a statement.

This strikes me as disingenuous and good politics at the same time. Disingenuous because I don't think they can release the 'evidence' to the public before it is presented via the case. Good politics because if they can't release the new information the HRC team has taken some of the steam out of the event by making it look like they aren't releasing it because there is nothing of worth.
 

grokit

well-worn member
Is there a reality without a description?
The real conflict, to me, is the tension between individual and consensus reality.

Groupthink vs. the individual, look at how history has played out.
Groups commit atrocities, while individuals are our heros and achievers.
When they're allowed to by the tyranny of consensus that is...
Democracy in a nutshell :tup:

:myday:
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure if it's like Fight Club's first rule or anything; but out of curiosity, is anyone here either a member of or know anything about this "Correct the Record" group Reddit seems to be getting its consensus panties in a bunch over?
 
Tranquility,
  • Like
Reactions: Joel W.

Baron23

Well-Known Member
egarding the newest the FBI "will bring her down" email spin of desperation, for those who know that there is no there there but have not searched for the truth to refute the anti-Hillery spin; and for those who need to be talked down from their subjective suicidal stands, a different spin.

Look, I get it that many don't see this as disqualifying HRC or is a legal violation. But I don't think that there is any basis for this kind of contempt of people who don't agree.

I held a security clearance for many, many years both active duty and as a civilian and I will, without caveats or any mitigation state the following:

1. If anybody else did what she did with classified material, they would lose their clearance immediately.
2. If anybody else did what she did with classified information, they would lose their job immediately.
3. Nobody gets to have a clearance unless they have received training in the rules, regulations, procedures and requirements for safe keeping of classified information. There is absolutely NO way that HRC was not aware that she was violating laws, rules, regulations. She just put her convenience and satisfying her paranoia as priorities over and above safe guarding this information.

I don't care if she is a Dem, a Rep, a Green. I my view of her actions have nothing to do with her party affiliation nor the positions she takes on the political spectrum. She mishandled classified information and she should be held to the same level of accountability as anyone else and she definitely has not been so far.

See ya :wave:
 

lwien

Well-Known Member
Look, I get it that many don't see this as disqualifying HRC or is a legal violation. But I don't think that there is any basis for this kind of contempt of people who don't agree.

I held a security clearance for many, many years both active duty and as a civilian and I will, without caveats or any mitigation state the following:

1. If anybody else did what she did with classified material, they would lose their clearance immediately.
2. If anybody else did what she did with classified information, they would lose their job immediately.
3. Nobody gets to have a clearance unless they have received training in the rules, regulations, procedures and requirements for safe keeping of classified information. There is absolutely NO way that HRC was not aware that she was violating laws, rules, regulations. She just put her convenience and satisfying her paranoia as priorities over and above safe guarding this information.

I don't care if she is a Dem, a Rep, a Green. I my view of her actions have nothing to do with her party affiliation nor the positions she takes on the political spectrum. She mishandled classified information and she should be held to the same level of accountability as anyone else and she definitely has not been so far.

See ya :wave:

@Baron23, I don't know about you but every piece of classified information that I have EVER seen had a classification heading on the top and bottom of each page in a font that was at least 10 times larger than the text that it was covering.

If something came across my desk without any classification headings at all, I would assume that it was not classified.

According to all of the previous FBI reports, none of the emails in question had those headings but rather a small "c" in front of a paragraph or sentence to indicate that that text was classified as confidential. While it is very common to use those paragraph and sentence tags to indicate within a classified document that those sentences, graphs or paragraphs are of a lower classification than that indicated by the classification headings, again, I have never seen those tags used by themselves. Have you?

All my experiences has been in top secret cryptographic analysis in the Air Force and at NSA. While I doubt that classification procedures would vary by department, I guess it's possible but highly unlikely, eh?
 
Last edited:

Baron23

Well-Known Member
I don't know about you but every piece of classified information that I have EVER seen had a classification heading on the top and bottom of each page in a font that was at least 10 times larger than the text that it was covering.

If something came across my desk without any classification headings at all, I would assume that it was not classified.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with that. If you are creating classified material, well, then no....it will not be marked until submitted to a classification authority. Still doesn't relieve the person of the responsibility in the interim to recognize what falls into a classified state and safe guard and none of this certainly justify setting up an outside mail server to run Sec of State correspondence through.

I'm sure you are true and honest about crypto in the USAF and NSA. But I wonder that with all that experience and knowledge you still defend her on this subject. I don't see that at all but I'm not out to change hearts and minds :-)

Have a great weekend.
 

lwien

Well-Known Member
Still doesn't relieve the person of the responsibility in the interim to recognize what falls into a classified state....

The classification that we're talking about here is "confidential" which is the lowest rung of classification there is. As I said in a previous post, half the shit (and I'm using this term very loosely) that is printed in the newspaper or online "could" be considered "confidential" yet it's out for public consumption.

To have those classification tags on a document that was not clearly marked with a classification heading is unorthodox, to say the least.

none of this certainly justify setting up an outside mail server to run Sec of State correspondence through.

Never said that it did. I still can't wrap my head around the Sec of State doing government work on a personal server. That's insane.....

I'm sure you are true and honest about crypto in the USAF and NSA. But I wonder that with all that experience and knowledge you still defend her on this subject.

Defend her? I would never defend her decision to set up a private server but I can understand how she could miss those tags on a document that was not clearly marked (stamped) with a classification heading, especially with material that had that low of a classification.

If that happened to me, I seriously do not think that I would lose my clearance but you bet your bottom dollar that heads would roll in the department who's job it was to initially classify those documents. Tags without a heading? WTF ????
 
Last edited:

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Republican Insurgency Threatens the Functioning of the Supreme Court
by Nancy LeTourneau
October 28, 2016 12:40 PM

Yesterday I said that this might be the biggest challenge this country faces in the coming days.

Senate Republicans are choosing sides ahead of a brutal conflict over how to handle the lingering Supreme Court vacancy, with Jeff Flake firing back Thursday at a suggestion by Ted Cruz that the party could indefinitely block any nominee from Hillary Clinton.​

Here is what the editorial board of the Washington Post said about this latest threat of obstruction by Ted Cruz:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) raised the prospect of an indefinite Republican blockade around the vacant Supreme Court seat. Irresponsibly, Senate Republicans have refused to even hold hearings on President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to fill the seat of Antonin Scalia, who died in February. Now Mr. Cruz seems to be suggesting that this willful dysfunction be carried into the new Congress and presidency. “There is certainly long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices,” he said.

Mr. Cruz did not say he would oppose a nominee submitted by Ms. Clinton, which would be within the bounds of normal political discourse. Rather, he has suggested that Republicans in the Senate, if facing a Democratic president, simply not act. Crudely, his message is: We lost the presidency, so let’s take our marbles and go home. Such thinking seems to come easily to the senator who led the 2013 government shutdown. But it runs against the oath Mr. Cruz took as a senator to “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office.”​

As I’ve written previously, blocking the consideration of a Supreme Court nominee from the opposing party is a way to challenge the legitimacy of the president and our Constitutionally established institutions. It is, as Doug Muder wrote, the strategy of a confederate insurgency.

The essence of the Confederate worldview is that the democratic process cannot legitimately change the established social order, and so all forms of legal and illegal resistance are justified when it tries…

The Confederate sees a divinely ordained way things are supposed to be, and defends it at all costs. No process, no matter how orderly or democratic, can justify fundamental change.​

Paul Waldman writes that over the last few years, this insurgency has been breaking down the norms (not rules, necessarily) that have allowed our government to function for decades.

Again and again in the time since, Republicans have run up against some norm that restricts them from doing what they’d like, and said to themselves, “Well, why don’t we just violate this norm? There’s no law against it.” There’s no rule or law preventing you from filibustering literally every bill more consequential than the renaming of a post office, even if that wasn’t how filibusters were understood before. There’s no rule or law preventing you from having your commissioners on the Federal Election Commission just decide that election laws don’t have to be enforced. There’s no rule or law preventing you from threatening to default on America’s debt, even if up until then everyone considered that to be insane. There’s no law or rule against writing to a foreign government with whom the administration is conducting delicate negotiations over matters of the highest national security questions, and saying, just so you know, we’ll tear up any agreement you make with the Obama administration.

The larger point is that at the same time they were becoming more ideologically radical, Republicans embraced an unprecedented procedural radicalism, in which they’re perfectly happy to take a sledgehammer to any and all of the norms that enable the government to function.​

Republican gridlock in Congress has now become so normalized that these days no one expects any legislation to get passed. Now they’re threatening to do the same thing to the Supreme Court. Their refusal to even hold hearings on President Obama’s nomination of Judge Garland is already starting to have that effect.

The U.S. Supreme Court released its December calendar of oral arguments last week. Normally, the justices hear 12 or more cases during this sitting, but this year, they have scheduled only eight — a calendar court commentators have called “bare-boned” and “anemic.”

In addition, the Court has not yet scheduled oral arguments in three important and controversial cases involving the separation of church and state, property rights and class action lawsuits. All three cases were accepted by the court before Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in February. Speculation from Amy Howe at SCOTUS Blog is that Scalia had voted to grant review, and that the court — still lacking his replacement — is stalling to avoid a 4-4 tie.

There’s some evidence that the court has changed its behavior because it has only eight justices. Justice Sonia Sotomayor has said publicly, “It’s much more difficult for us to do our job if we are not what we’re intended to be — a court of nine.” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has opined an eight-person court is “not good enough” to decide difficult and controversial cases such as the immigration and public union fee cases the justices divided 4-4 on last term. “When we are evenly divided, it is equivalent to denying review,” Ginsburg said.​

Every concerned citizen who cares about a functioning democracy should be outraged. It is not likely that the insurgents in Congress will stop this kind of behavior on their own. The only way to restore the two branches of government that have been stymied by these actions is for citizens to vote as if it mattered.
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Trump’s proof of a ‘rigged’ process is unintentionally hilarious
10/28/16 10:08 AM—Updated 10/28/16 12:15 PM

By Steve Benen
Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly asked Donald Trump yesterday if he believes public-opinion polls are “rigged.” The Republican candidate didn’t hesitate, saying, “I have no doubt about it.”

From there, I more or less assumed the GOP nominee would deliver a confused rant about oversampling, but Trump instead went in a very different direction. “I won the third debate easily,” he insisted. “It wasn’t even a contest and everybody had me winning. Every poll had me winning, big league. And then CNN did a poll and they had me losing somewhat and I said, ‘How did that happen I wonder.’”

I’ll confess, this was the first time in a while I literally laughed at a Trump quote. He thinks he won the debate; every independent, scientific poll found that the public thought the opposite. Therefore, in Trump’s mind, it’s obvious the polls themselves are part of a scheme cooked up by nefarious forces conspiring against him.

If Trump perceived reality one way, how could there possibly be evidence of others perceiving reality a different way? The discrepancy is all the evidence the Republican candidate needs as the basis for a conspiracy theory.

As the interview continued, Trump complained that in 2005, when he made controversial comments about sexual assault, his “Access Hollywood” microphone “was not supposed to be on.” It led to this striking exchange:

O’REILLY: You think it was illegal, what they did, putting that tape out?

TRUMP: Oh, absolutely. No, that was a private locker – you know, that was a private dressing room. Yeah, that was certainly –

O’REILLY: Are you going to take any action after the election against NBC?

TRUMP: Well, you’ll see. You will see…. You’re going to see after the election…. I mean, you know, we’re going to find out soon enough. I will tell you.
Just so we’re clear, from Trump’s perspective, when Russia steals emails in the hopes of influencing America’s presidential election, that’s fantastic. But as far as he’s concerned, when a 2005 recording of Trump reaches the public, that’s “illegal.”
published a list this week of all the people, organizations, businesses, and other entities he’s threatened with lawsuits since Trump’s campaign began – and it’s not a short list.

I’m so old, I remember when Republicans were the party of “tort reform” and used “trial lawyer” as an epithet.
 

grokit

well-worn member
This is larry king interviewing jesse ventura. It was supposed to be about his new book, "marijuana manifesto" but ended up being more about the folly of american politics, and this stupid election.

If you're against the establishment at all, it's a great watch :tup:

:myday:
 
Last edited:

Silat

When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind.
Camille Paglia is feminist of the highest order. I have tried to read her books and, with the exception of her more accessible ones like "Sex, Art and American Culture" and "Vamps and Tramps" (Both of which tends towards short stories and essays.), she writes well above my head.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/the-woman-is-a-disaster-camille-paglia-on-hillary-clinton/

Her opinion on the election in general:

Paglia says she has absolutely no idea how the election will go: ‘But people want change and they’re sick of the establishment — so you get this great popular surge, like you had one as well… This idea that Trump represents such a threat to western civilisation — it’s often predicted about presidents and nothing ever happens — yet if Trump wins it will be an amazing moment of change because it would destroy the power structure of the Republican party, the power structure of the Democratic party and destroy the power of the media. It would be an incredible release of energy… at a moment of international tension and crisis.’

All of a sudden, the professor seems excited. Perhaps, like all radicals in pursuit of the truth, Paglia is still hoping the revolution will come.

Paglia is the anti feminist.
 
Silat,

MinnBobber

Well-Known Member
Thanks @grokit ,

I'm from MN so have a special interest in Jessie.
As an independent, I did vote for him for governor.

Strange timing in the video as they mention Russia hacking our election and then a Russian airline commercial comes on---- I kept thinking it was a "Saturday Night Live" parody type but, it was real :)

Anybody read his MJ book??
 

Silat

When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind.
Fuck Hillary! Are you fucking serious? Reopening her email investigation now? I stupidly thought there was no way Hillary could lose. I am going to try to stick to that because the alternative is unacceptable. I will do all I can against a Trump presidency. Damn Hillary, why oh why are you so fucking crooked? Man how Bernie would have been so much better for all Americans.

Still, go Hillary you crooked fucking cheater I am counting on you to win.

The investigation was not closed to begin with.
And the current news is that the emails are a "few" and not even from or to her.
Another false flag.
And Assange can go to hell.
 
Top Bottom