Octopus Overlords

noxiousdog wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:I don't get it.

Out of touch with what? (not directed at you specifically Chris. I'm having difficulty understanding what the problem is. Rip said it was pathetic. What is?).

Allegedly doesn't know how to send email.

I honestly can't see how this is something that matters to people, but ok. The last thing I want in a leader is someone who spends time updating her facebook page, tweets what she had for breakfast, and posts selfies on pinterest. I mean, that would make her "one of us" but geezus, those are the worst qualities of "us" imo.

People are weird.

So, you are ok with someone that "doesn't know how to send email" making decisions about net neutrality, or nsa spying?

I'm not sure how I reconcile that with broadband being a necessity...

Edit: I don't think it's a populist argument, I just think it's an example of not being familiar enough with a situation to make the right decisions.

noxiousdog wrote:So, you are ok with someone that "doesn't know how to send email" making decisions about net neutrality, or nsa spying?

I'm not sure how I reconcile that with broadband being a necessity...

Edit: I don't think it's a populist argument, I just think it's an example of not being familiar enough with a situation to make the right decisions.

The president better have some damn good advisors. Knowing how to send an email does not make you qualified to make decisions on net neutrality either. NSA's issues aren't technical, they are privacy issues.

I don't understand the need to reconcile anything with broadband as a necessity, unless you feel that everyone has a team of people like the president does to compile, summarize and present the daily wealth of information.

Are people of the illusion that the leaders of their countries are subject matter experts on...everything? Anything?

GreenGoo wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:So, you are ok with someone that "doesn't know how to send email" making decisions about net neutrality, or nsa spying?

I'm not sure how I reconcile that with broadband being a necessity...

Edit: I don't think it's a populist argument, I just think it's an example of not being familiar enough with a situation to make the right decisions.

The president better have some damn good advisors. Knowing how to send an email does not make you qualified to make decisions on net neutrality either. NSA's issues aren't technical, they are privacy issues.

I don't understand the need to reconcile anything with broadband as a necessity, unless you feel that everyone has a team of people like the president does to compile, summarize and present the daily wealth of information.

Are people of the illusion that the leaders of their countries are subject matter experts on...everything? Anything?

I'm not asking her, or anyone else, to be an expert. I'm asking her to be familiar enough with modern living that she can use email. It's a symptom, not the problem.

It was the clincher on why I couldn't vote for McCain.

Let's not pretend that age wasn't a huge mark against him.

As far as advisors, that's true, but when push comes to shove and she's deciding whether or not to veto the next patriot act, I'd be much more comfortable with her actually having experienced putting personal information in an e-mail rather than only dictating official public correspondence.

noxiousdog wrote:So, you are ok with someone that "doesn't know how to send email" making decisions about net neutrality, or nsa spying?

Ignorance of email doesn't imply that she doesn't know how to surf for porn.

Kraken wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:So, you are ok with someone that "doesn't know how to send email" making decisions about net neutrality, or nsa spying?

Ignorance of email doesn't imply that she doesn't know how to surf for porn.

I will without a doubt vote for the candidate that says they surf for porn regularly.

Consider me a one issue voter.

According to the Youtubes, it's official. If I'm not mistaken, the video starts with the "Amen Break" drum solo (or a variant thereof). Expect someone to get upset.

Pretty cheesy to do it in a video.

Should be pretty interesting to watch them overpolish everything trying to make the scripted campaign look unscripted. Probably be like a bad reality TV show.

Rip wrote:Pretty cheesy to do it in a video.

Why is that?

Alefroth wrote:

Rip wrote:Pretty cheesy to do it in a video.

Why is that?

Rip was *this* close to voting Democrat this year, but, dammit, a VIDEO???!

Alefroth wrote:

Rip wrote:Pretty cheesy to do it in a video.

Why is that?

Because it comes off more genuine and personal and less like a marketing campaign. Lots of glitter and feel good crap that didn't even include her for the most part and pretty much nothing of substance.

Pretty much what I expected because that is her only game.

I would just think the base was looking for more of a bang.

My Champion? Really?

I didn't care for Hope & Change but it was loads better and more catchy than "I will be your champion"

[quote][I didn't care for Hope & Change but it was loads better and more catchy than "I will be your champion"/quote]

Then you may want to Van Winkle for the next few years, just a guess, but I doubt anything will stop the Clinton machine once in motion.

I just wish I was loaded so it would be easy to take an extended vacation. Of course if that were true I would probably already be on vacation.

Any way she announced would have been an anticlimax, except maybe this.

I have one FB friend who's enthused about Hillary. Otherwise she's pretty much a yawn. She's been inevitable since like 2006, so let's just get this over.

From her mother’s own childhood – in which she was abandoned by her parents – to her work going door-to-door for the Children’s Defense Fund to her battling to create the Children’s Health Insurance Program, she’s fought children and families all her career.

Rip wrote:

From her mother’s own childhood – in which she was abandoned by her parents – to her work going door-to-door for the Children’s Defense Fund to her battling to create the Children’s Health Insurance Program, she’s fought children and families all her career.

Gorgantua! Defiler of children and their families for decades unending.

*imagines gigantic Hillary sloshing ashore with reams of children and mothers clinging to her limbs, trying to stop her*

mike wrote: Then you may want to Van Winkle for the next few years, just a guess, but I doubt anything will stop the Clinton machine once in motion.

I don't think anything will stop cheesy, vapid, insultingly obvious, and substanceless fluff to come out from all machines. Get ready for the year of "Wait, That's Not a Parody?"

The SNL skit was hilarious. I think they have her down even better than Palin.

The few tidbits I've witnessed coming out of Hillary's camp have made me recoil in horror.

I wonder if they are going to totally misplay this? That would be hilarious.

After several seconds spent sitting motionless and glaring directly into the camera, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reportedly began Sunday’s video announcing her 2016 presidential bid by warning the nation not to fuck this up for her. “Listen up, assholes, ’cause I’m only saying this once: I’ve worked way too goddamn hard to let you morons blow this thing for me,” said Clinton, repeatedly jabbing her index finger toward the viewers at home while adding that if they thought she was going to simply sit back and watch them dick her over like they did in 2008, they were out of their fucking minds.

Kind of funny to to listen to Hillary's rhetoric about being a Champion for the middle class and battling against the wealthy while looking at the top 20 contributors from her last run.



Also I had apparently missed it but Cruz had a joke when announcing about having wanted her to be there but couldn't find a foreign country to finance it.

Rip wrote:Kind of funny to to listen to Hillary's rhetoric about being a Champion for the middle class and battling against the wealthy while looking at the top 20 contributors from her last run.

The list of contributors from either party's top candidates will look pretty much the same, just swap out a PAC here and there.

It appears that Infowars' "borrowed" that list from Open Secrets. Open Secrets a good place to go to actually understand what those numbers mean.

#1, EMILY's list is a single issue PAC that supports pro-choice candidates.

#2, DLA Piper, is the probably the highest revenue law firm in the world. They are a giant lobbying firm and have interests in internet copyright, net neutrality, etc. Here's what they looked like in 2012:

Obama, Barack $415,390
DNC Services Corp $268,375
Romney, Mitt $151,100
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte $90,894
Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte $69,010
National Republican Senatorial Cmte $44,000

#3 JPM, looked like this in 2012:

Romney, Mitt $835,596
Republican National Cmte $498,174
Obama, Barack $306,319
DNC Services Corp $266,088
National Republican Senatorial Cmte $185,425
National Republican Congressional Cmte $143,725

Unless candidates are supposed to start turning down contributions, they're all going to have money from similar sources.

Kind of makes the entire I am fighting against the wealthy people for the middle class rhetoric rather hollow, no? It was baloney with Mitt and Obama and it still is.

Meh, they all do it. Even the ones you vote for.

Rip wrote:Kind of funny to to listen to Hillary's rhetoric about being a Champion for the middle class and battling against the wealthy while looking at the top 20 contributors from her last run.



Also I had apparently missed it but Cruz had a joke when announcing about having wanted her to be there but couldn't find a foreign country to finance it.

It takes a (lot of) check(s) from the Financial Industry.

When they say JP Morgan Chase, do they mean any employee of JMPC, or some sort of corporate donation? Because if it's the latter, and they are giving similar amounts of money to both parties, doesn't it imply they are expecting quid pro quo from whoever wins? Which afaik is illegal?

Rip wrote:Kind of makes the entire I am fighting against the wealthy people for the middle class rhetoric rather hollow, no? It was baloney with Mitt and Obama and it still is.

Not necessarily. It just depends on which wealthy people you like the least.

Mitt blamed everything on the Trial Lawyers, because they are big Democratic supporters.

Obama blamed everything on big Oil, because they are big Republican supporters.

Nobody goes after the bankers.

I tend to think that Health Care and the Environment are middle-class support. You tend to think cutting taxes is middle-class support. All 3 can be, or they can be tailored to not actually support the middle class and yet still sound like it and sell that way.

Rip wrote:Kind of makes the entire I am fighting against the wealthy people for the middle class rhetoric rather hollow, no? It was baloney with Mitt and Obama and it still is.

When it costs over half a billion dollars just to mount a viable campaign you can't just take money from the middle class. They don't have enough for you to win.

Regardless, I know you aren't naïve enough to take what candidates say at face value. You just limit attacking their trademark bullshit to when it suits you.


Just wait until the "Hillary Up!" and "Cruz to Victory!" ad runs start.

Rip wrote:https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians ... =N00030836

That's the 2014 cycle. Hillary is around $50M for 2014.

At least I assume that's the comparison you are making.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Rip wrote:https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians ... =N00030836

That's the 2014 cycle. Hillary is around $50M for 2014.

At least I assume that's the comparison you are making.

Actually I was just noting the large amount of small and individual donors and much less big corp/PAC money than most.

LawBeefaroni wrote: When it costs over half a billion dollars just to mount a viable campaign you can't just take money from the middle class. They don't have enough for you to win.

We'll get Bernie's take on that by the end of the month.

“Bernie has been traveling around the country speaking before very large crowds and he's been on the phone with a whole lot of people. He is trying to ascertain whether or not there is the grassroots support -- in terms of a national volunteer base and small-donor campaign contributors -- to mount a successful campaign which takes on the billionaire class and their powerful corporate lobbyists. That decision will be made within a few weeks, certainly by the end of the month.”

I hope somebody prevents Hillary's primary campaign from becoming an outright coronation. My hunch is that Bernie will conclude that it just ain't possible.

Kraken wrote:
I hope somebody prevents Hillary's primary campaign from becoming an outright coronation. My hunch is that Bernie will conclude that it just ain't possible.

I hope so too. Bernie wouldn't necessarily be my first choice, but I'm very meh on Hillary.

Look, no one is going to beat Hillary Clinton in the primary. Her support this time is dramatically stronger than it was at this point in 2007. But I do hope that Martin O'Malley will keep things spirited, and at least make her take some punches in the primary debates. Webb and Chaffee are nonstarters, and I'm not sure Sanders will run — he'll have to switch parties rather soon to do so. His best opportunity to make his point are the debates, and those will likely be starting in the summer.

It's funny that Dems are now the disciplined party while Republicans are the batshit chaos party. This wasn't always the case.

Clinton will be the nominee of the party not controlled by lunatics, and that's really what matters. The GOP could somehow trip up and nominate the sanest possible candidate, and he would still be entirely beholden to the destructive reactionary agenda of Republicans in Congress. That's the nightmare we mustn't live.

I think the left is resigned to her, but nobody except fireball likes her very much.

Fireball wrote:Look, no one is going to beat Hillary Clinton in the primary. Her support this time is dramatically stronger than it was at this point in 2007. But I do hope that Martin O'Malley will keep things spirited, and at least make her take some punches in the primary debates. Webb and Chaffee are nonstarters, and I'm not sure Sanders will run — he'll have to switch parties rather soon to do so. His best opportunity to make his point are the debates, and those will likely be starting in the summer.

Any chance Biden runs? He may have some issues, but IMHO, he has cultivated a decent air of Integrity - one which just about every other candidate out there does not have.

Rip wrote:Kind of makes the entire I am fighting against the wealthy people for the middle class rhetoric rather hollow, no? It was baloney with Mitt and Obama and it still is.

No, not really.

Being "for" the middle class isn't the same thing as being "against" the wealthy, but in any case, you can't win an election without deep pockets. You're trying to convince us that this is somehow Clinton being hypocritical?

Yawn.

LawBeefaroni wrote:Regardless, I know you aren't naïve enough to take what candidates say at face value. You just limit attacking their trademark bullshit to when it suits you.

Very much this, this particular time. The only thing ringing hollow about that particular platform is the contrived criticism of it. I mean, it could still be hollow don't get me wrong, it's just that it doesn't jump out at me as glaringly hollow, yet.