Don't answer that!

Did you miss 105?

Brookings... I went there frequently when I was a bike messenger in DC... the place was always mostly empty.

I think it's safe to say that trade deals being a "net positive" is exactly the establishment terminology used that ignores the boarded up manufacturing towns across America.

There's a disconnect between the macroeconomics and the microeconomic reality in which these studies offset reduced incomes with increased purchasing power from cheaper imports... that fall apart far more quickly.

These net positives are unicorns in the reality of ever widening income inequality.

A

Here's the one I was trying to show you ...
https://www.brookings.edu/events/the-brookings-debate-free-trade-deals-have-been-a-net-positive-for-working-americans/?utm_campaign=brookings-comm&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=36061096

Here's something you may be interested in taking a look at ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/opinion/nat-turners-skull-and-my-students-purse-of-skin.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region

Will you apologize? ... emphasis on the 'a' ... heh

Stopping it isn't and never was the goal.

It is the false assumption that the path being taken qualifies as "progress" that is the problem.

The crony capitalist criminals are writing the rules, and that is not as it should be.
Again, there are choices.

But since the criminals who trashed the US and global economy were bailed out instead of being prosecuted, losing their wealth and power over our political system and ability to dictate the rules, the choices are now limited.

A "no" vote is currently the right choice.
International trade isn't going to stop if the TPP fails to pass.

A

It's called a blind spot for a reason.

"it is also important to understand how we can change that reality to make it better"

"You need to recognize reality and the parts of it that cannot be changed or stopped"

Giving up and giving in on the things that need to be changed, by pretending they can't be changed.

For example, it was well within Obama's capacity to prosecute both the Bushies for torture and the banksters for fraud.
He had a mandate, he had the force of law behind him, there was historical precedent (Nuremburg and the S&L crisis), and the evidence was insurmountable.

It was a choice, and all the progressive and liberal Dems falling all over themselves to defend the neoliberalism of Obama and Hillary as if their hands were tied by "reality" are betraying logic and reason.

It's no different than the neoliberals pursuing illegal regime change wars just like the neocons.

The justifications and rationalizations were lies... and this propaganda was effective and has been internalized by voters as self-delusion.

These are choices.
And they are choices that true liberals wouldn't make, and true progressives would condemn.

Suckers gobbling up the Orwellian redefinitions (that just coincidentally serve and maintain the status quo) is the true reality staring us in the face.

A

And yet, if Hillary had spoken your words, she would have lost to Bernie.
Election through deception.

And, (98) of course you think it's only the "murder" part that's disgusting.
Hyperbole my foot.

Reality?
Reality.

Pathetic.

BTW, the left strongly debated Bernie's establishment foreign policy votes and his unwillingness to hit Hillary on them in the primaries. Many couldn't support him for that very reason.
And the so-called progressives in Congress bending to the will of the neoliberal corporatists again and again is why they are so-called progressives.
The few who didn't bend are always ignored by the "practical" warmongering, fraud coddling sellouts... unless needed as window dressing for an election.

Are you done speaking the ugly truth, or will you admit that reality too?

A

I have never contradicted my own previously stated opinions.

I'm not sparring with myself here, nor am I engaged in any other such games.

Congratulations for nailing it with your September column Will The Fight For Mosul Be The October Surprise?

Unfortunately, we seem to have no more answers today than we had on the day that you wrote it, except that it is finally underway.

How so?

Yeah, that's a problem. You do realize that I was describing things that have already happened, some with the support of the progressive caucus in Congress. If Barack Obama isn't progressive enough for ya, then you've retreated off into a political corner that we can't reach. Even Bernie isn't that far afield (see for instance, his latest remarks in support of Hillary).

Really? Because they're giving Obama high marks for his work. Generic Democrats love Obama. It's the far-lefties who're shifting from foot to foot.

Some liberals aren't happy because they're honestly not big fans of the use of American military power, or of transactional politics, or of Wall Street, generally.

Like most Democrats, Obama holds those things in high regard, too. Obama doesn't like targeting anyone with drones, I'm sure he doesn't. I'm equally sure that he'd like to win his congressional fights outright and let Wall Street choke on its own excess. But when it came down to it, he had to choose between his own beliefs and the interests of the country.

But that's my point: most folks understand that a president has to occasionally do things that even he (or she) disagrees with viscerally. It comes with the job description.

The question lefties should answer is: what is Trump's default position on those issues?

Hyperbole in the service of making the point that targeting someone with a drone, or watching a Delta Team member on live TV put a bullet into the brain of Bin Laden is a very grave thing. You're right, though, there is a legal and moral difference between the two.

I would also say that while it is critical that we recognize reality, it is also important to understand how we can change that reality to make it better.

Ah, if only that were the core debate! All of our institutions need upgrades, make-overs or replacements. I'd love to have that discussion.

In the meantime, it seems that we have to define 'reality' in the political sense, first. Imagine that.

Ewwwwwwww.
Agreeing with Balthy's comment (maybe after changing a few words)?

Sick and twisted.
Not liberal.
Certainly not progressive.

You're giving up and giving in like a good exploited cog... even when it contradicts your own previously stated opinions.

Just gross.

And you think you can tell me what I need to do?

A

"That's why we need pragmatists like Obama and Clinton in the White House. Someone has to see the world as it is, and react accordingly. Often, the tasks are repugnant: accept a bill drafted by the other party to achieve a bigger goal later, commit murder on behalf of national interests, or rescue Wall Street from its own corrupt stupidity. We don't need someone who doesn't understand the reasoning, much less the rationale, behind these tough decisions."

That's a seriously disgusting outlook, though accurate about both Obama and Hillary.
Very sad that you would embrace it.

Is that in the fine print of the Democratic platform?
Because most Dems don't think that's what they're voting for.

The big problem of course it that the part where they "achieve a bigger goal later" never happens... unless you mean reelection and wealth after leaving office.

A

You need to recognize reality and the parts of it that cannot be changed or stopped.

And, I didn't mention China as a selling point.

No, actually, I won't "come around", and no the TPP is not primarily about trade.

It's all about writing and enforcing the rules in the race to the bottom approach to globalization that kills jobs and suppresses wages here.

neilm was right, it's got a lot about intellectual property rights, namely extending patent and copyright protections to match the ridiculously long US law that for example will delay the release of generic drugs and prohibit importation of cheap Indian drugs... but also a legal enforcement provision that favors large corporations called the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism that is highly controversial,

The wing of economists who denied that job losses would occur from NAFTA and were COMPLETELY WRONG are denying there will be job losses from the TPP, but many economists have disagreed, and US job losses could be up to half a million (60,000 in Canada)... and with minimal or even negative economic impacts. Labor and environmental "safeguards" in the TPP are basically unenforceable.

A lot of the harm that will be caused will occur in other nations, but both our countries will suffer too.

If you look into it, you will see the proponents admit there will be job losses in manufacturing and other areas, but they insist new jobs in new industries will be created. What we ended up with last time those claims were made was low wage service sector jobs.

Since fast track has already been approved (meaning only a majority vote is needed), I suspect the TPP will pass in the lame duck session of Congress to avoid hurting Hillary's election chances, but average Americans and Canadians should not be celebrating with the wealthy criminal elites who never face accountability and love these deals.
I am still hoping that opposition will kill it, but our bought and sold politicians will probably push it through.

And, btw, since you mentioned it as a positive selling point, China initially opposed the TPP, but now may join it too because it's right up their alley... and that's not a good thing.

A

That's why we need pragmatists like Obama and
Clinton in the White House. Someone has to see the
world as it is, and react accordingly. Often, the tasks are repugnant: accept a bill drafted by the other party to achieve a bigger goal later, commit murder on behalf of national interests, or rescue Wall Street from its own corrupt stupidity. We don't need someone who doesn't understand the reasoning, much less the rationale, behind these tough decisions.

Well, I think you may have got my point! :)

Though, I do take great issue with some of the words you chose to use above. Should we use "commit murder" in the context of war? Because, if we should, then it is more aptly referred to as war crimes and the perpetrators should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

I would also say that while it is critical that we recognize reality, it is also important to understand how we can change that reality to make it better. Both are impossible, however, without up-wing leadership and, unfortunately, all three seem to be in very short supply.

In any event, comment [92] was quite provocative and I typed my response in the same vein ...

This loss of independence gnaws at people, makes them think the system is rigged against them, personally. Some see the rich game the system, and think, 'That man is Free' and want to be like him. I sincerely believe that some followers of Trump believe that they are learning that freedom comes from being a demanding, petulant, asshole. Isn't that how Trump did it? "No dear, he inherited 42 million dollars, most of it made from government contracts. Go to sleep."

Others see a different dynamic, see a system rigged on behalf of the rich: a Hunger Games worldview wherein the virtuous Rural folk toil for the amusement and enrichment of vapid and/or evil elites. Most believers in world-wide conspiracy theories fit into this niche, I think. Many of these folks yearn for a simpler life that they think existed in the past: that it's a largely TV-inspired fantasy is beside the point. Right now rural communities are leading the nation in heroin abuse and suicide. They don't need to be idealized, they need help.

Yet another group views the poor as essentially indolent leeches (the key being that 'the poor' are almost always defined privately in this context as being as being of another race, religion, or ethnicity). Oddly, this became the theme of Romney's run for the presidency.

The exception in the previous group are Libertarians, not because they don't look down their noses at the needy, but rather because libertarianism is, at it's core, just Bizarro Communism. Is the mirror image of a bad system de facto good?

Which brings me back to the basic flaw in the "this system sucks" school of politics: just doing the opposite of what we're doing now is unworkable and probably dangerous. Funny how those who always predict the inevitable collapse of the system are always those who rail against it. It's a sturdier system than they think, apparently.

What we need to do is stop fantasizing about tearing down the system and start working together to try to fix it. Complaining about the game engine in the middle of the game helps nothing. We have to beat the game, whatever it is.

That's why we need pragmatists like Obama and Clinton in the White House. Someone has to see the world as it is, and react accordingly. Often, the tasks are repugnant: accept a bill drafted by the other party to achieve a bigger goal later, commit murder on behalf of national interests, or rescue Wall Street from its own corrupt stupidity. We don't need someone who doesn't understand the reasoning, much less the rationale, behind these tough decisions.

You missed my point, completely.

For the US, the TPP has far more benefit than just trade.

Kick [37]: Exactly!

Liz [42]: When it comes to deadly serious issues, what does Obama know about accountability.

That reads like an essay question.

Well, the answer is: Plenty. It's his name and nobody else's, after all, that's going to be slapped onto this last decade: The Obama era. The Obama Administration. The Obama doctrine. Obama has been too pragmatic for some, overly cautious for others. For me, the balance he strikes has been just right.

Did you know that the TPP is primarily a ... wait for it ... trade agreement between many nations, not including China, of course.

:-)

"She might get to the point where she has given up everything important just to win power. People think she there already"

Yup.

A

The TPP was written by the Wall Street and transnational corporate interests who have Hillary's loyalty.

Nobody on the left believes she actually opposes it.

The left opposes the TPP because it economically benefits the rich while harming the poor, was crafted in secret behind closed doors where corporate lobbyists were welcome but public interest lobbyists were excluded, will destroy far more jobs than it creates in the US, violates the sovereign rights of nations including the US by allowing corporate interests to sue for damages caused by publicly supported common sense environmental and labor policies (thus making those policies less likely and/or unnecessarily and un-affordably expensive), allows them to impose price gouging costs for life saving drugs, and cements crony capitalism, not Free Trade, into place.
Many on the right oppose it for some of those reasons.

Trade is good.
The TPP is not.

A

With a Republican congress I expect more of the last six years. However the alternative is Trump with a Republican congress which I don't want.

Hillary with a Democratic senate and a Republican house can appoint the supreme court justices, etc.

As for TPP, I think its only chance of success is for it to be ratified during Obama's lame duck period, where Hillary can stamp her feet in mock fury, but then live with it. She knows she will have a bruising election in 2020 and will not give a "read my lips, no new taxes" weapon by switch to support on November 9th.

The real future of the TPP, in my opinion, is as a new "Intellectual Property Agreement" - where the U.S. renames trade agreements to focus on the key value we get from these treaties, and play down or ignore the tariff part. This will only work if the other parties are patient and don't pivot to China (as China wants - they are loving the Bernie/Trump anti-TPP movement).

Very well put. Especially the last paragraph.

I think voters ought to think, and act, more like professional politicians. It would spare them a great deal of personal angst, and result in the election of better politicians and more effective, responsive government.

A politician that votes strictly according to an inflexible ideology is a stopped clock.

Side note: Bernie Sanders, who I happen to admire a great deal, has been a consummate wheeler dealer for his entire political career. He doesn't introduce much legislation, he shapes the legislation of other politicians. He's been effective, and his served his constituency well. From what I can tell, most Bernie supporters don't understand him at all.

Many well intended political reforms turn out to be ill conceived. I believe the modern primary system is one of them. Political parties ought to be independent, private clubs, incubators of ideas, and run as such. As they were until relatively recently. Parties are now mostly fund raising machines that special interests fight for control over.

What if the Republicans retain full control of Congress?

What will she be able to accomplish?

You say she is a supporter of the TPP - I hope you're right about that but, she now says otherwise.

She knows she has to change her position on this issue (and there are others) to win power.

She balances the concessions she has to make to her ideal against the other policies that she does support and will be able to push if she gets power.

She might get to the point where she has given up everything important just to win power. People think she there already.

I believe Hillary has had to compromise on some important issues to be able to achieve more important issues.

This is what professional politics is about, and always has been outside of dictatorships. I prefer professional politicians to amateur politicians and especially to dictators.

"Regarding Hillary's speeches, one thing to remember is that they were made before she started her campaign"

Bullshit!
She officially launched her campaign long after she started running... roughly 15 years earlier.

I'm sure you think Bernie showed Hillary the light.
I'm not a fan of self-delusion.
The Hillary who gave the speeches and kept the speeches secret is the Hillary she still is.

Moving on...
I think Chelsea Manning is a whistleblower.
You think some consider her a whistleblower.
Chelsea Manning stole information.
Chelsea Manning is in prison.
Hillary Clinton thinks she belongs in prison.
I do not.

A hacker stole information.
Hillary Clinton thinks they belong in prison.
You think they belong in prison.
I do not.

There certainly are differences.
And there certainly are similarities.

A

"Wikileaks is extremely dangerous"

Perhaps some context is in order?

Nuclear weapons, cluster bombs, grenades, guns, knives, pointy sticks, plastic bags, stuffed animals, Wikileaks?

Hurricanes, floods, tornados, wildfires, lightning, sharks, bears, dogs, kittens, Wikileaks?

The US military, CIA, FBI, Border Patrol, NYPD, mall cops, boy scouts, Wikileaks?

Very dangerous compared to what?

The "won't somebody think of the children" argument is what you're going with, and all the things I listed harm more children than Wikileaks.

Yes, even kittens.

A

Whoops, [76] was meant as a response to you. Still hoping Santa will bring an EDIT button!

Manning stole the information.
A hacker stole the information.

You seem to be ignoring the glaring difference in these two scenarios....Manning stumbled upon the information while doing her job. That is why she is considered a whistle blower by some. Hackers broke into someone's private emails and fished around for anything they could find. I doubt you support the government doing this sort of fishing expedition through the public's private emails, so where do we draw the line on who gets to spy on who and us being OK with it?

I have zero respect for Snowden, Russ.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly regarding the aptly named Snowden, a narcissist committing crimes of desire and reason who deserves whatever punishment he's got coming in this world and more still. As Dante depicts within Canto 32, there is a special place reserved in the lowest pit of a fiery hell... the Ninth Circle... furthest removed from sunshine, and submerged in a large frozen lake in Round 2 you will find the traitors like Snowden preserved in ice.

The link is a lot better than Hillary's "Trumped Up Trickle Down" tagline - but isn't she running with this message already?

To my point, the current dialog is going badly for Trump, and the voters seem in "reality TV" mode rather than "policy vs. policy" mode.

When the "Coach Catastrophe" plays out, Hillary can try to switch the focus to one of her strong points, and she already knows that "Trumped Up Trickle Down" doesn't work, so I assume she has a new, and let's hope better, vehicle for that message, because you are right, it is one of the more powerful ones.

I suspect however that either Trump will get caught up in a new "Donald Debacle", or Hillary's team will have a new one waiting to launch - perhaps a compilation of his creepy comments about him eyeing up 10- and 14-year-old (white) girls as future sexual targets.

I'm going to work on the assumption that you've read the speech excerpts that were leaked...

-Hillary saying one thing to her rich donors, and another to voters is misconduct and is something everyone should care about because her policies will affect us all.-

"No, it's called lying, and while I do not approve of it, it isn't illegal nor does it give anyone the right to hack a person's emails."

I think lying by the person who will be our president in three months is misconduct.

All leaks are considered illegal by the people being exposed.
If they reveal information in the public interest, I approve.

"That's a mighty BIG "IF""

And yet, the "private citizen" who was well known to be running for the highest elected office in the land (and thus in a very different category than most private citizens) told the people giving her large sums of money her "private" position, while giving the rest of us her "public" position.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence unrelated to the cash.

"Manning... is not even remotely the same thing"

Manning stole the information.
A hacker stole the information.

"Remotely" seems a little strong.

"Wikileaks is extremely dangerous"

And yet, the world hasn't crumbled.

"Bullshit! Journalists are part of the public"

Technically true, but Snowden releasing information to a handful of professionals who he carefully chose is very different than letting everyone see the material.
The Fourth Estate also has specific constitutional protections the public does not, and their organizations have expertise on such issues.

A

Then please explain [the Republican cult of economic failure].

We can thank David Fiderer for the phrase Republican cult of economic failure and a great series of articles in the Huffington Post several years ago.

But, if you want a good explanation about what constitutes the Republican cult of economic failure and what is a pro-growth strategy for tax and fiscal policy, here is an excellent link:
https://www.americanprogress.org/events/2010/08/04/16984/live-webcast-secretary-timothy-f-geithner-on-a-pro-growth-strategy-on-tax-and-fiscal-policy/

https://www.facebook.com/tacovoter/

Charlie Cook is one of the most respected election handicappers in the country.

http://cookpolitical.com/

I've been looking into Arizona since, to my surprise, late last week the 538 started calling it for Hillary (only 50.1% to 49.9%). Currently they have switched it back to Trump (again only 50.1% to 49.9%).

The biggest variable seems to be (beyond the candidates/platforms of course) the Latino vote. There are two variables, the number of registered Latinos, and their likelihood to vote.

The Arizona democrats obviously are targeting both variables, and a recent registration drive exceeded their goals (including taco trucks offering voter registration on the menu!). Arizona Latinos are still smarting from SB1070 (police can request your papers if you don't look American, as the locals characterize it), and the activities of Joe Arpaio, and thus are in no mood to vote Republican.

If the models being used minimize the impact of these changes, perhaps we could see Arizona go blue for the first time since 1996.

For example, they have a correlation factor between Ohio and Indiana. If Ohio has a lot of polling and Indiana very little, then they couple the trends in Ohio with the National trends to derive Indiana's situation. This seems smart to me (i.e. it makes sense and it has been proven to work in the past).

Thus National polls can be valuable to a model, even if they don't reflect an actual election.

Currently Hillary is up 6.2% (538) and 5.5% (RCP) Nationally. RCP is a simple average of the last two week's worth of polls (i.e. they take USC/LA Times at face value), the 538 includes poll reliability and 'lean' into their more complicated calculation, and also include more polls.

5.5% - 6.2% is not what I'd call a tie. If Hillary was down over 5% at this point, I'd be very worried.

I expect the polls will get tighter as the current Trump catastrophe becomes yesterday's news, but even then, it is a big hill to climb (but not insurmountable - 538 still give Trump a 15%-20% chance of winning).

Thus Hillary is wise to keep the current storyline on Trump's sexual assaults and wind down the clock.

Sorry about making a false assumption.
So, we deserve to know the information that was leaked?

Should I keep guessing or are you going to share?

A

If Hillary can't explain it, then she should recruit someone who can.

Then please explain it (i.e. the Republican cult of economic failure).

I read the Economist diligently, I also follow Branko Milanovic's (his books, and his excellent blog: http://glineq.blogspot.com/) and the last time I heard the phrase used was about Bush's tax cuts in a HuffPo article in 2010.

I await your words of wisdom from your high perch, if you can even be bothered interacting with riff-raff.

Note: I will channel Michale to muddy the waters as best I can and try to hijack this blog to talk only about this so I can show you why Hillary is wise not to bring this up (i.e. it becomes a peer-to-peer argument NOT about Trump's current scandal).

I'm not sure that I do. The national polls are not relevant.

I concur.

You think the state polls are more accurate than the national polls?

I understand your EV system but wonder why you put more stock into the accuracy of EV analyses.

"she and Trump are virtually tied in many major polls"

It is simply not a national one person, one vote election, so even if that were accurate, it's not really meaningful. She already has nearly enough electoral college votes in states that are not especially competitive. She doesn't need to drown out the Orange One's insanity. She needs to GOTV in swing states.

snowden's perspective: he had valid concerns, and had seen firsthand that people who voiced civil liberties concerns according to the rules had their lives and careers destroyed:

http://www.npr.org/2014/07/22/333741495/before-snowden-the-whistleblowers-who-tried-to-lift-the-veil

he made a conscious decision to put himself in danger in support of a higher principle.

i'm not necessarily saying he's right or wrong, but that's his point of view, and at least i can understand and respect it. why not you?

JL

zero respect is not very much. i can understand doubting his methods or his motives, but ZERO respect? i would think you of all people would be level-headed enough to see his perspective a bit more clearly.

JL

If you're going to quote me, Neil, try to be more accurate and don't leave out important words or context.

The Republican cult of economic failure is not complicated.

Does that indicate a winning strategy?

No fan here! I do have respect for Chelsea Manning and Snowden, however. The sad thing about Snowden's release was that most of the information regarding the government's partnership with the phone & Internet providers and electronics makers was already out there and didn't require the theft of government documents to be known. Granted, it launched it into the public's eye via the method of it's release, but Devon took a class on law enforcement's use of the Patriot Act for working criminal cases a year before Snowden's release. The project PRISM was thoroughly discussed.

The most disturbing aspect isn't even the government's surveillance of private communications, but how the government instructed law enforcement to enter two different sets of "evidence" that prevented the court and defense attorneys from knowing where the information had actually come from! Law enforcement was instructed to enter one warrant request seeking very generalized info with the local court and send a separate "secret" warrant request to the government liaison's office with the specific information they were looking for. Basically, it comes down to the fact that Google and AT&T typically only give the police very basic information when they respond to warrant requests. The Patriot Act requires them to give far more information and specifics to the federal government. If the information obtained with the "secret" warrant led to someone being prosecuted, the "generalized" warrant request was entered as evidence, but the information that resulted from that warrant was replaced with the information that was obtained with the "secret" warrant sent to the Feds. If agencies followed the government's instructions, any resulting conviction should be tossed and the prosecutor disbarred as far as I am concerned.

Is 'A' for asinine? Good luck with that strategy ...

When the news cycle is being dominated by a Trump scandal that he is making worse, you recommend Hillary broaching a complex, nuanced subject such as a "cult of economic failure"?

I think you miss the point from way up there on your high horse - she is trying to win this election.

Indeed.

Let me answer that by saying that he apparently believes that accountability must proceed only when it is politically expedient.

He is not the one to be talking to Republicans about accountability. At least, not until he explains in full why he was so reticent to deliver even a modicum of accountability to his predecessor for war crimes or enough accountability to the entities most responsible for the near collapse of the global financial system.

Don't get me wrong - he had good reasons for what he did and didn't do, on both scores. It's just a bit too self-righteous, even for Obama, to be lecturing about Republican accountability for Trump.

Hillary saying one thing to her rich donors, and another to voters is misconduct and is something everyone should care about because her policies will affect us all.

No, it's called lying, and while I do not approve of it, it isn't illegal nor does it give anyone the right to hack a person's emails.

If the money she was personally paid or the money given to her campaign affects her policies as it appears, it's misconduct, and voters deserve to know what they are in for.

That's a mighty BIG "IF" , especially if these is absolutely no evidence that supports your claims of Clinton taking a bribe. (I realize you didn't actually use the term "bribe", but that is what it would be if it were illegal, so I chose to connect the dots myself). Clinton speeches are not public records. Those are speeches that she gave as a private citizen. What do you honestly think she would say to an auditorium full of bank employees that would point to criminal behavior or misconduct on her part?

We are talking about the corruption of our democracy, and I seriously doubt Manning would be insulted.

Really? Manning uncovered government wrong doing and when his superiors ignored him, he then chose to release the records. Hacking into the private emails on a fishing expedition to see what dirt you can find on someone is not even remotely the same thing!

I saw your comment to Liz above:

I am a "sunshine is the best disinfectant" kind of guy, so it's a shame you don't recognize the public service being provided by Wikileaks and Snowden.

As someone who has long been a public records advocate and has taken government agencies to court on multiple occasions to force the agencies to abide by the public disclosure laws of this state, let me say that Wikileaks is extremely dangerous!

Wikileaks releases everything and lets the cards fall where they will in the belief that there are perils in selectively choosing what to share.

There are many good reasons for withholding portions of government records from the general public: Like protecting the identity of children who have been raped or the addresses of domestic abuse survivors! The "perils" of not selectively choosing what to share is why we have extremely specific transparency laws!

Snowden didn't release ANY information to the public.

Bullshit! Journalists are part of "the public".

"the best continent to commandeer? You and I both know it.......... Australia."

Indeed. There is always a fierce initial battle for Australia, and a grand alliance is almost always formed against the winner!

There are many "house rules" that crop up in basement games, the best of them (IMHO)make blitzkriegs harder. I always felt the best games had all six(?) colors in play, lots of scope for diplomacy and treachery. Our own neighborhood rules made big games last about week.

I'm also fond of the game Diplomacy, and a variant by Avalon Hill called Machiavelli. Implementations of Risk and Diplomacy were some the first online strategy games I encountered.

I have a copy of Jutland, not exactly mint, I think that was the first Avalon Hill publication. I have a closet filled with about 25 subsequent AH board games.

Obama's right: when the Megasaur is finally brought down, there should be some accountability for its creation in the first place.

When it comes to deadly serious issues, what does Obama know about accountability.

Why are there so many poor messengers in the Democratic party?

On the other hand, don't miss Biden on MTP today!

Too late.

Besides, your second one was better. :)

And, you keep making false assumptions.

Is 'A' for asinine? Good luck with that strategy ...

On the other hand, the "debate" will be moderated by a fake news channel ventriloquist dummy. He's more likely to be asked if he'll pardon the Crusaders.

Obama's right: when the Megasaur is finally brought down, there should be some accountability for its creation in the first place.

Meanwhile, where are the sober GOP? You'll find them cowering over there, waiting for the girl they dislike to save them from their own hubris.

Backwards and in high heels! :)

See my previous comment first.

I am a "sunshine is the best disinfectant" kind of guy, so it's a shame you don't recognize the public service being provided by Wikileaks and Snowden.

You seem to believe that ignorance about policies that would never fly if debated publicly, constitutional violations, and corruption is preferable to having informed citizens.

I hope you share the reasoning behind that belief some day. It seems at odds with other positions you've taken.

But I will add that you are conflating Wikileaks with Snowden in a factually inaccurate manner.

Snowden did not perpetrate an indiscriminate document dump.
He provided the information to journalists who selectively released only the portions that they and their organizations deemed in the public interest.
Snowden didn't release ANY information to the public.

Wikileaks releases everything and lets the cards fall where they will in the belief that there are perils in selectively choosing what to share.

Given what we know about the corporate media, I tend to favor the Wikileaks approach. But I certainly appreciate having the information the Snowden release made available too.

I hope many more people with access to classified material and shady dealings are emboldened to share such information.

A

The Podesta email hack and the lack of any evidence presented by the "intelligence agencies" who made their official announcement the other day, not the DNC hack is what I was specifically referring to in my comment.

But they happen to have something in common with the cyber-security firms who investigated the DNC hack.

"are very likely responsible"

Their "conclusions" are similarly qualified... never certain.
Why is that?

Ask an expert... you can Google it.
Here's a hint- hacking email accounts is easy if basic precautions aren't taken.
Government expertise and resources are not required, and hiding the origin of an attack is only slightly more difficult.

"with ties to the Putin regime"

First cousins of a ministers wife?
Maybe the hacker voted for Putin?
"ties" doesn't seem a little vague to you?

In any case, they just happened to reach the conclusion that the people who hired them wanted them to reach in order to distract the public from what the hackers revealed... namely that a supposedly impartial private organization with a huge influence on the supposedly democratic process was not impartial after all.

But the Russians are coming!!!
Pay no attention to the blatant corruption... it was just a few bad apples, and they were fired.
Very concerned people should prioritize the foreign menace... and conveniently ignore the domestic menace.

That's what the establishment wants.
That's what the establishment got.

You get a gold star for helping.
A

Anybody play the Parker Brother game Risk as a kid? You're down to your last country, Ukraine, and you've got 4 armies there, plus a cavalry and an artillery conquer card. Your weakest neighbor has 12 armies. Technically, you can still win the ....but it's going to take some epic rolling of the dice. The temptation to kick over the table and run like hell is very strong. Trump unbound!

Oh, yes! And 9 times out of 10, the person beating you has mastered the game and knows how to play it. That person will usually take control of an entire continent early in the game, and the best continent to commandeer? You and I both know it.......... Australia.

HillRod claimed that continent early in the game, and Australia on our "Risk map" is.......... Virginia.

Oh, looky who just used up a ton of resources and is now slinking away in defeat from Virginitralia! :)

A: When you opponent is in a hole and digging frantically you just stand back and let him dig deeper.

The electorate (that's us) has shown at least two characteristics this cycle:
1. Whoever is making news is dropping in the polls
2. We are more interested in scandal than policy

Why don't Democrats speak to this very important distinction between the parties?

The indiscriminate nature of the document dumps perpetrated by WikiLeaks and Snowden do not rise to the level of anything remotely resembling a public service.

Good of you to note that "Russian hackers" as opposed to the Russian government may be responsible... but since zero evidence has been presented of either, you may well be repeating a falsehood.

Actually, cyber-security firms that have been investigating these leaks have independently concluded that Russian hackers with ties to the Putin regime are very likely responsible for the Clinton campaign and DNC hacks. They have set out the evidence for this in relatively detailed manner which you can see for yourself. Just google it.

I'm too tired tonight to think/write in any detail about this, but it has been a concern for years now. Too many people for too long seemed to think having a bunch of liars in front of microphones was "no problem" -- people would see through it, or wouldn't take it seriously. They didn't seem to grasp that having the microphone -- the radio show, the cable channel, the newspaper, the magazine, the think tank -- automatically bestows credibility and legitimacy.

Now they know.

It's my job to establish the authenticity of the documents being used by the BBC, the NYT, TI, WashPo, HuffPo, LAT, CW, etc.?

These professional reporters with "access and expertise" are "digging deeply" and "putting in the time".

I don't have to do squat.

I do have reasons based on available facts to be suspicious of Hillary and our political establishment, and our government though.

Assange has motive for revenge alright, but so far at least, it appears his motive for maintaining a perfect ten year track record and letting the documents speak for themselves is enough for him.

Of course, many people are involved in running Wikileaks, so we shouldn't limit our appreciation to Assange.

A

Hillary saying one thing to her rich donors, and another to voters is misconduct and is something everyone should care about because her policies will affect us all.
If the money she was personally paid or the money given to her campaign affects her policies as it appears, it's misconduct, and voters deserve to know what they are in for. We are talking about the corruption of our democracy, and I seriously doubt Manning would be insulted.

The DNC shenanigans undermining our democracy are likewise relevant. Five people lost their jobs, but the damage was done and irreversible.
"Do you seriously" not see the hypocrisy when you whine about "hurting a fellow citizens election bid"?
You're OK with it when Hillary does it?

A

Spot on! The sad thing is that those that are being lied to do not realize that they are being lied to, or do not want to realize it. They are being misfed information constantly by the GOP.

"In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against *distorting or falsifying the news* in the United States."

Then you have Mitt Romney's campaign going to court for the right to lie in political ads without the fear of being held culpable for what might result from people believing those ads are telling the truth.... And winning!

After Paul Ryan's 2012 speech as the Vice Presidential nominee at the RNC, a Fox News journalist wrote,

“To anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech.”

When Fox News makes such a bold claim, given their history, that is a powerful statement!

I so badly want my family to see through the lies they are being told. But they trust the news to be honest and factual... Which they should be able to do. When the news on TV warns them of a deadly tornado is coming their way, I don't want them to question whether they should believe it to be the truth! The media have far too critical a role in our society for us to not be able to believe what they are saying to us. I just don't know what to do.

You mean when Wikileaks was focusing on exposing government misconduct verses attacking the campaign of one candidate? Do you seriously not see the difference here? There was no one person being targeted then. Even though you refer to it as being from the Bush era, I can't think of any hacked emails directly from Bush.

That's because those documents all came from a whistle blower, not hackers!

Do you think Chelsea Manning would have risked all she did just to hurt a fellow citizen's election bid? Personally, I find comparing this release in any way to the former a huge insult to Manning's sacrifice.

I have no evidence of forgery, but I doubt you can establish the provenance of Assange's ones and zeros.

Until you, or somebody else does so, there is every reason to be a bit suspicious about the authenticity of Assange's material. Does Assange have motive to publish inauthentic data? How being about being confined to the back rooms of the Ecuadorian Embassy since 2012? Little revenge maybe? Does the Putin government (which is to say Putin) have a motive to undermine the US election? Since Russia and the United States aren't exactly friendly these days, I would entertain that possibility, maybe not with my best liquor, but I would want to chat. I do not dismiss the possibilities that Assange's data dump is in fact all, mostly or completely genuine, but these are all just credible theories. There has not been sufficient time to dig deeply into the matter. Gathering and weighing evidence takes time and in this case, a lot of access and expertise.

CW was admirably cautious in his wording. I remain agnostic awaiting revelation.

If you have evidence of any forgeries, please share.
Nobody has found any, and many are looking... and have been looking for ten years.

Do you seriously think that if Podesta or Hillary found a discrepancy they'd stay silent?
No, they wouldn't.

Is there anything in Hillary's speeches that doesn't sound like something Hillary would say?
Nope.

Is there a reason to conclude they aren't authentic and might be "misinformation" without any evidence whatsoever?
Disgust of Trump and party loyalty come to mind, but are those valid reasons to set aside the normal need for facts and evidence in decision making?

You may also want to ask why Democrats were huge fans of Wikileaks when they were exposing documents from the Bush era and never raised such doubts.

"Who is the authenticating body?"
Really?

Are you expecting the US government or in this case the Hillary campaign to set up such a body and provide access to the original material for comparison so it can be publicly confirmed?

Really?

The nature of the material that Wikileaks has released precludes such a possibility.
I can't think of a nice way to put this, but asking the question is silly.

A

“If she’s in office, I hope we can start a coup. She should be in prison or shot. That’s how I feel about it,” Dan Bowman, a 50-year-old contractor, said of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee. “We’re going to have a revolution and take them out of office if that’s what it takes. There’s going to be a lot of bloodshed. But that’s what it’s going to take. . . . I would do whatever I can for my country.”

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/10/15/donald-trump-warnings-conspiracy-rig-election-are-stoking-anger-among-his-followers/LcCY6e0QOcfH8VdeK9UdsM/story.html?event=event25

"Wikileaks has a perfect record to date.
100% of their releases have been authentic."

Could you be a bit more specific about how you conclude the above? Who is the authenticating body?

Forgeries are not exactly unknown in the espionage business. Misinformation has always been a part of intelligence trade craft.

"the content has turned out to be exactly what everyone, including Bernie, suspected it would be... and worse."

I would not be comforted by that fact. One of the hallmarks of good misinformation is that it is believable to the targeted audience.

I don't believe the public will be in a position to know the authenticity of Wikileaks material for at least 50 yrs or so. The sheer volume of the stuff is going to make ironclad authentication difficult. Everybody is entitled to hunches, but until the archives on both sides are scrutinized by historians not yet born, they are hunches.

This part of Obama's speech is both weak and unintentionally honest-

"And I actually believe in a strong two-party system. And I think that the marketplace of ideas should have a reasonable, common-sense Republican Party debating a reasonable, common-sense Democratic Party. But that is not what we have right now."

A two party system where both parties agree on so many of the policies that are failing America and Americans is not an inclusive "marketplace of ideas"... excluding alternate ideas they don't want anyone to even discuss is not "reasonable" or "common-sense".

So, "but that's not what we have" is unintentionally true of the Democratic Party too.

A

Trump, Ailes, Giuliani, Christie, etc. likely rated Kelly Anne Conway on a 10 point scale before hiring her to ensure she met their requirements.

"Julian Assange has been busily trying his best to torpedo Hillary Clinton's chances..."

Assangs is anti-establishment.
He is succeeding in causing quite a stir despite Trump crashing and burning spectacularly.

"because nobody's paying the slightest bit of attention"

This is a demonstrably false statement, since media outlets from the BBC to the NYT have been reporting on the content, and you yourself brought up the subject... though you managed to give an award without mentioning the reason why Podesta earned it. I'm undecided if that's clever or weak.

"The likelihood that Russian hackers were the source of this information is high, and none of these leaked emails have been verified in any way"

Good of you to note that "Russian hackers" as opposed to the Russian government may be responsible... but since zero evidence has been presented of either, you may well be repeating a falsehood.

In any case, the actual source is irrelevant to the newsworthiness of the content.

The flipside of "none of the emails have been verified" is that none of the emails have been proven to be forgeries, and the content has turned out to be exactly what everyone, including Bernie, suspected it would be... and worse.
The "smoking gun" is not some new and damaging revelation... it's that Hillary's two-faced nature is exactly as her critics claimed. She said so herself.

Wikileaks has a perfect record to date.
100% of their releases have been authentic.
Defenders of the establishment may not like it, but such is life.

A

Trump doesn't really make plans, he operates off-the-cuff according to The Trump Doctrine:

The Trump Doctrine

1) There is a sucker born every minute. Learn to spot them.

2) Risk other people's money, not your own.

3) Threaten law suits and you'll rarely need to sue (see 4).

4) Few people can afford to sue Trump. Those who can will probably get tired and settle on favorable terms.

5) Few people will admit to being duped. Your dupe will usually defend you, especially if you compliment him/her and say they are smart salt of the earth.

6) Get it on credit. Don't pay market rate, better still, don't pay at all

7) Endlessly self promote, the media will help you if you put on a good show.

8) Never admit a setback or defeat.

9) Exaggerate your assets, hide your liabilities

10) Operate in muddy water, if water is clear, add mud.

11) Don't like the subject? Change it.

12) All criticism of Trump is unfair, biased and part of a greater conspiracy.