Guccifer casts out Hillary

[kandrathe]

It may not be remembered in the future that a notorious Romanian hacker, Guccifer, by hacking Sydney Blumenthal, was the one to reveal Hillary's home grown e-mail fiasco.

It is possible that hackers may have compromised her accounts ironically giving foreign spys more access to the former Secretary of States communications than would be possible from legal freedom of information requests. The far right wing political fanatics will be on this for years being able to claim there is ample evidence that anything they may have dreamed she did or said has been permanently deleted.

Here is a more lengthy article in the NYT that all but accuses her of using her exclusively private e-mail to thwart FOIA, and accountability.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/pol...king Rules

"It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. " And, what will never be known is how many they hit *delete* on. This smacks right back to Sandy Berger sneaking into the National Archives to steal and destroy documents that would hurt the Clintons.

At best, this just shows very very poor judgment in not understanding the implications of having her own unsecured shadow IT, rather than rely on the services supplied and secured by the government on her behalf.

If this is the anchor that sinks a Hillary presidency run, it will have possibly been due to a hacker.

[Hammerskjold]

If this is the anchor that sinks a Hillary presidency run, it will have possibly been due to a hacker.

I'm just a spectator\neighbour from the north, but did Hillary Clinton officially drop her hat into the prez ring? So far I haven't seen anything concrete. Lot's of hints of course, but 2016 is still a long time politically speaking so understandable if she's just saving her resources\energy.

Though it would be strangely funny if the 2016 U.S.A. Presidential Idol Season Finale comes down to Clinton v Bush.

[Taem]

My opinion, Republicans will make too big of a stink about this one. Her presidency run* is over... there's no way she can recover from this and beat out all the male contenders. To get elected as the first woman president, I postulate she'd need a perfect track record to tarnish her contenders images, but now her opponents can use that and Bengazi to obliterate her.

*I know she didn't officially announce it yet, but everyone knows she was going to run.

[kandrathe]

Though it would be strangely funny if the 2016 U.S.A. Presidential Idol Season Finale comes down to Clinton v Bush.

All I can say, to quote Ms. Mona Lisa Vito, is...

OMG...

[Alram]

I thoroughly dislike Mrs. Clinton, but I doubt that this revelation will affect her ability to run for president. I think her supporters will still vote for her.

My worst case scenario in the 2016 Presidential race: H. Clinton vs. R. Perry. I'd have to hold my nose no matter which one I voted for.

[kandrathe]

I think her brief 20 minute, "I did it for convenience" press conference mollified her supporters. There, you see? There is a good explanation for taking control of your professional e-mail at home. You can do it for convenience. Your boss would surely understand when you conduct official business on your home account, especially when it relates to your companies external customers.

But... There is the proverbial bus that might imminently hit you. It is easy to imagine what would happen if some sales representative had no official paper trail on prospects, orders, promises, etc. Chaos. In almost every company, or government office these days, your e-mail contains the record of what you are working on and with whom. It is an important part of transference if a job changes from one individual to another. I know, when I took over my post from the guy who was retiring, a big part of the transfer was the history of his correspondence. He took the time to put it into electronic folders by subject, etc.

Even here, at the University where I work, we set up an e-mail account for every student. This is the official account where we know we can ensure communication. If they use this account to send e-mail to their instructors, they can then prove they sent in that paper on time as our IT can verify the postmarks. We know that every student entering already has one or more e-mail accounts, and they frequently need help to set up forwarding (which is allowed). We also use this e-mail account as a part of emergency notifications. We know they all have it, so they are enabled to get the message.

But, I bet it is really very hard to forward any private e-mails from the State department system to your private e-mail account. I suspect with good reason, since they would be in the habit of protecting State Secrets. What I don't really understand is *why* for all the time she was in her job that no one in the government who must have conversed with her raised any red flags. If someone told me to contact the IRS at IRS@hotmail.com, I'd first think it was illegitimate, and if serious then I'd be flabbergasted at our governments incompetence in allowing such a thing.

Yes, Hillary will probably be the Democrats candidate, unless another unknown "Obama" is out there ready to be catapulted above her again. The Republican's problem is which of the mostly extremely chauvinist (original meaning), bigoted, white, male candidates will be selected to oppose her. Granted, there are some women, and some non-white people on the list.

[Hammerskjold]

I think her brief 20 minute, "I did it for convenience" press conference mollified her supporters.

It might mollify some of the die hard Clinton camp supporters, sure. Though IMO it can still give off a "...no, it's ok when -we- do it see.." stink that may or may not linger the closer 2016 gets.

Yes, Hillary will probably be the Democrats candidate, unless another unknown "Obama" is out there ready to be catapulted above her again. The Republican's problem is which of the mostly extremely chauvinist (original meaning), bigoted, white, male candidates will be selected to oppose her. Granted, there are some women, and some non-white people on the list.

Anything that appears like a foregone conclusion coronation, instead of an honest (even if just for appearances) contest for either party can backfire though could it not.

Last I looked most USofA-ricans don't particularly like the idea of "divine right of kings and or queens" and such. I think you guys might have even fought a war over it a long time ago or something.

[kandrathe]

Last I looked most USofA-ricans don't particularly like the idea of "divine right of kings and or queens" and such. I think you guys might have even fought a war over it a long time ago or something.

True. It's just that now, the nobility attempts to blend with the commoners (around election time), who wouldn't otherwise be caught dead in Iowa. Unless, they actually happen to have moved there in order to be their duly anointed representatives. There is a semblance of a democratic-like process, at least enough of one to fool the simple common folk. But, every four years, they all scratch their heads and wonder how we are again stuck with Clinton v. Bush. Look beyond the designated toady du jour, to the vast money rich political machinations behind them, like NRA, AIPAC, Soros, Koch, Adelson, Richard Mellon Scaiffe, Warren Buffet more lately.

Politicians know how these elections work, and who butters their buns.

[Hammerskjold]

True. It's just that now, the nobility attempts to blend with the commoners (around election time), who wouldn't otherwise be caught dead in Iowa.

I always liked "The Emperor's New Clothes". It'd be interesting if that's the show the judges of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Idol Games will choose for the final, or even semi final performance for the candidates. And to see what kind of interpretation and performance the finalists will bring to the audience.

In all seriousness, I wonder if it's just me that find it increasingly strange that politics in the N.American continent seems to be stuck in constant campaigning mode, and campaign lengths seem to grow longer. It doesn't even seem like a half joke anymore to say the campaign for the next election starts 5 seconds after you win the office.

Anyhow, Ted Cruz has officially announced his bid to run it seems. Only reason I mention that is because of the Canadian connection. Mr. Cruz is legally a U.S. citizen, and he was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Not as impressive as Obama's trifecta feat of simultaneously being born in Kenya, Indonesia, and hailing from the lizard galaxy. But still pretty impressive considering.

[kandrathe]

I always liked "The Emperor's New Clothes". It'd be interesting if that's the show the judges of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Idol Games will choose for the final, or even semi final performance for the candidates. And to see what kind of interpretation and performance the finalists will bring to the audience.

The illusion is that they (Congress, President, etc.) have any semblance of control guiding our futures. Their real job is to run political cover, and react to events on behalf of the actual reins of power.

Why do I believe this?

Look at how quickly the language of the emerging Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was changed once Warren Buffet flew to DC. Berkshire Hathaway, Goldman Sacs, and other powerful financial coalitions also use derivatives frequently to hedge their bets. Some (I would say lunatic) bad actors use them to bundle debt into credit default swaps, which is also another form of hedge. Hence, in response to the financial melt down, we have Dodd-Frank. When you look at the core of what led to the financial collapse, Dodd-Frank does not in any way restrict any of that bad behavior. What it did do was require banks to hold more capital in order to survive any future market shocks. The result being that 1) banks were more loath to lend at all, 2) not just *easy* credit dried up, but all credit dried up contributing to a decade long recovery from the great recession. On the other hand, business as usual would probably have seen us recover more quickly, inflate another bubble, pop it, and be in another recession by now. At least we can credit Dodd-Frank for slowing down the boon-bust cycles.

I'm a systems guy. This led me into computing, but I've always been the type of person who looks at the really big picture of causes and effects. Now, the worlds economic, and political systems are vastly complicated. Sometimes well beyond my ability to have more than a sense of what is happening, and often beyond my capability to describe, let alone prove it. But, I have some "axioms" that kind of guide me in predicting "the future"

1. Energy and the price of energy is wrapped into every consumable, and the supply chain. If you can slightly change the price of energy, you will perturb the world economy.
2. The powerful elite in the world no longer are beholden to nations, but nations are useful allies. Nations can have military force, which can be used in taking things from others.
3. Almost all conflict in the world is related to the use, control, or hording of resources.
4. The powerful elite either don't care, or don't believe they can do much to help the people on this planet. I'm not sure if it's the "give" vs "teach fishing" thing, but they didn't get into the powerful circle by "caring" about others. Some, who are more well known, will do some things to improve their image. Others just control the media. Most prefer anonymity.
5. The wealthy in this world rely on a system of dependent consumers who are "addicted" to their products. We've gotten to the point of mortgaging our futures with bad credit deals to pay for things we cannot afford. This is normal now.

Anyway, here is a thoughtful paper by some smart guys at Princeton and Northwestern. Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens

They conclude,

our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

If the actual study is a little too droll, and TLDR, here is a New Yorker digestion of it; http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassi...-oligarchy

There conclusion, as is mine is that the US, and much of the "western world" is now ruled by Oligarchy.

In all seriousness, I wonder if it's just me that find it increasingly strange that politics in the N.American continent seems to be stuck in constant campaigning mode, and campaign lengths seem to grow longer. It doesn't even seem like a half joke anymore to say the campaign for the next election starts 5 seconds after you win the office.

Easy to explain. The Super-PAC. They are really just the organization of "bundlers" into a full time money raising organization on behalf of a politcal movement. They can advertise, and shift public opinions 24/7 x 365 as full time campaign entities, just in search of "the right" popular candidate (who will do their bidding).

Anyhow, Ted Cruz has officially announced his bid to run it seems. Only reason I mention that is because of the Canadian connection. Mr. Cruz is legally a U.S. citizen, and he was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Not as impressive as Obama's trifecta feat of simultaneously being born in Kenya, Indonesia, and hailing from the lizard galaxy. But still pretty impressive considering.

I wish he were more fully Canadian. :-) The collective "Aw Crap" resounding from the lower 48 was from the Republican side, and all the cheering was from the Democrats. Now if only he'd choose Sarah Palin as his running mate. It would be the Democratic dream team...

...to run against.

[DeeBye]

Anyhow, Ted Cruz has officially announced his bid to run it seems. Only reason I mention that is because of the Canadian connection. Mr. Cruz is legally a U.S. citizen, and he was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Not as impressive as Obama's trifecta feat of simultaneously being born in Kenya, Indonesia, and hailing from the lizard galaxy. But still pretty impressive considering.

Ted Cruz isn't quite as brown as Obama, so he's okay. There is absolutely a racist angle to this.

[kandrathe]

Ted Cruz isn't quite as brown as Obama, so he's okay. There is absolutely a racist angle to this.

So... Mr. Cruz gave his first ever $10 political donation to Sen. Jesse Helms. I can't help also to ascribe some guilt by association.

There is much of Cruz's libertarian fiscal positions I can endorse, however his domestic policy and foreign policy agenda don't align with my views much at all. He and I happen to be diametrically opposed on Net Neutrality -- meaning Hell will freeze before I'd vote for him.

Often he caves, like with his positions on marijuana legalization, or civil rights issues like same-sex marriage, to one of "leave it up to the States." Which could be read as, "You liberal Yankees can do what yall like, but the South will rise again." If he really does want to emphasize States, over Federal power, then he needs to make a better (libertarian) case, imho.

With drug legalization, or even prostitution -- we've obviously gone the wrong direction, and we need to shift to less incarceration of those who are exploited, and more incarceration of the people who are profiting by exploiting and victimizing people (causing harms). The federal government should deal with border interdiction, but not butt heads with States criminal codes. It would actually work better to make prostituting legal, but buying it illegal, and the opposite for drugs.

I just have these obscure goals I'd like to see corrected, such as straightening out the mess caused by Wickard v. Filburn, which set the precedence that the government can twist the commerce clause to even tell you what you can grow on your own land to feed to your own livestock.

I want a candidate who has more big picture ideas, and goals that will "flatten the bowl" -- that is, make it easier for common people to crawl out of cyclical poverty. And, to do so without relying on further income redistribution. For example, ensure that all income is taxed equally regardless of source (capital gains, inheritance, wages, gifts, etc), and that all taxes are applied equally without caps (i.e. social security, FICA). The reason we 99%'ers should chafe at the 1% is not that they have more, but that the LAWS are skewed to tax them at lower rates, and give them more breaks.

On the other end of the scale, everyone should pay. Right now, in the US, about 1/2 the people pay nothing. We can even keep it progressive, with 3-4 brackets. Even Denmark, that often cited bastion of social consciousness, the Arbejdsmarkedsbidrag is 8%. It is not that I want to dump on the poor, it is just that people will make decisions based upon their "skin in the game". A pig and a chicken were walking along a road, and the chicken exclaimed, "Hey! I have a great idea! Let's start a restaurant. We can call it Bacon, and Eggs." The pig replied, "I have one issue with that. It seems I would be committed, but you'd only be involved." If we all proportionally have our fat in the fire, we'd make more equitable decision on what should be done with taxes for the common good.

[Hammerskjold]

It looks like she made it official, Clinton threw her hat in the ring on sunday apr 12. Not sure how well she can pull off the " The New Clinton, just like the 90's version only better" act though.

There is much of Cruz's libertarian fiscal positions I can endorse, however his domestic policy and foreign policy agenda don't align with my views much at all. He and I happen to be diametrically opposed on Net Neutrality -- meaning Hell will freeze before I'd vote for him.

Cruz reminds me of someone who is trying a tad too hard, in convincing everyone that he's more Roman than Rome itself. It really doesn't help any that some of his supporters thinks saying him being born in Alberta doesn't count as foreign soil. 1) That's pretty insulting to Canada, aka America's top hat. 2) It sounds straight up, ridiculous.
As you mentioned with Net Neutrality, we're now in 2015. (Where did the time go?!) Cruz seems too analog in an increasingly digitized world. There will always be room for good, old fashioned analog the way Pepperidge Farm makes 'em. But old analog that has questionable value, that's just out of touch. Not even kitsch.

[kandrathe]

It looks like she made it official, Clinton threw her hat in the ring on sunday apr 12. Not sure how well she can pull off the " The New Clinton, just like the 90's version only better" act though.

Credentials: First Lady, moved from Arkansas to NYC & pandered herself into the Senate, stepped up to be the *first woman* president, but was upstaged by the *first black man* for President, parlayed that loss into the Secretary of State. I don't think she did much exemplary as Secretary of State, other than keep her head down and don her Teflon tunic versus the *vast right wing conspiracy*. Now she's the most hated American in China.

Cruz reminds me of someone who is trying a tad too hard, in convincing everyone that he's more Roman than Rome itself.

Yes, exactly. It's like every speech he gives is a hollow sermon that he delivers more than adheres, or believes in.

It's probably not a surprise that I'm more in line with Rand Paul if he can distance himself from the racists.

[Hammerskjold]

It's probably not a surprise that I'm more in line with Rand Paul if he can distance himself from the racists.

Definitely interesting times we're living in, in the ancient Chinese curse sense of the word.

I live in Canada, and in a city where multi-culturalism and diversity is trumpeted. I like it in general, however. There is a danger I think, of becoming too smug in believing one's cause\way is the only true and just one, and becoming a palette swapped monster that one claims to be fighting.

Yes, Racism with a capital R is bad. Equally so I think, a culture of extreme political correctness where everything and everyone is seen through a lens of "am I offended by this, that sounds racist \ -ist, proceed to attack mode: YOU ARE A ----IST!".

TL;Dr.Pepper : I have read claims of Rand Paul's circle of people who are racist. Problem is if the current obsession with extreme identity politics continues, Rand or any other candidate's perceived or real racism problem, might not be perceived as much of a negative, a backlash generated by overly indiscriminate tarring by the PC mindset. And that's quite dangerous for obvious reasons.

See: The boy who cried "Wolf" one too many times. And his lesser known but equally idiotic brother, the boy who cried "Wolf" at everyone and everything.

[kandrathe]

I live in Canada, and in a city where multi-culturalism and diversity is trumpeted. I like it in general, however. There is a danger I think, of becoming too smug in believing one's cause\way is the only true and just one, and becoming a palette swapped monster that one claims to be fighting.

Well, Racists exist. The compulsion, by fascists left or right, is to quell free speech, and free association by power of the state. I have nothing against exposing the "David Dukes" of this world for what they are, and ridiculing their wrong thinking. I am troubled when it is aided and abetted by the forces of laws, and the state power apparatchik.

I feel what Rand gets slammed for is trying to have the dialog where we can discuss the limits of effectiveness of public policy like affirmative action. And, his association with people who are more dogmatic in their strict adherence to Libertarian ideology. We ideally also live in a meritocracy, where your potential is weighed impartially. We know this is not always true, and often who you know (your relationships and networking) are more important than what you know. The little "d" discrimination in who gets hired, and who get accepted to Harvard get blurred with big "D" discrimination, often even unintentionally by the offender. In examining the statistic we can see in EPIC magnitude how, for example, black people are denied the same potential for success due to their neighborhood, or their cultural inheritance.

Here is a place where the strict ideology of libertarian emphasis on individual rights conflicts with our sense of "right and wrong", like the right to have wrong headed racist thoughts, or the right to earn a living wage. Pure philosophy and ideology must step aside for the pragmatic reality of how things really work.

It is where we must also be careful qualify, as Rand did, saying "I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation."

But, we must have the discussion, because to me it is clearly a recipe for further pain to promote people who are unprepared into eventual failure. We must go back to improve the coaching to get over that bar, and not lower the bar. In the spheres of higher education, where I work. The most "exclusive" institutions have high retention and graduation rates because they are the most selective in choosing students who are all but guaranteed to succeed. Their finances are worked out in advance, and their preparation and "merit" are assured. They can do this due to the overwhelming number of applicants they get.



As you can see above in this chart on dropping out, things are improving for all races at the secondary school level. But, the gaps remain. The picture for Hispanics is most improved, however it was also the most dismal. The trouble I see remaining is the decreasing number of students prepared for the rigor of college. At the college level things are also better, but I wouldn't say things look good.

But, you may retort, "Not all people need to go to college to be successful." Which is true, if you have the resources, or can tie into the resources required to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps". Here is where the cultural heritage of racial discrimination, crime, and poverty set certain groups at higher disadvantage. This is made worse by double or triple when you criminalize those who are victimized by the vices associated with poverty, such as drugs, or prostitution.

I abhor the system that enforces the inevitable inequality it produces, which is made by mostly white people who cannot fathom how their disparate support for laws tears apart communities, and destroys livelihood for generations -- while patting themselves on the back for the benevolence of their interventions, all at the expense of taxpayers. Taxpayers, who are also more white, rich, upper middle class, or wealthy and blithe the the effect to which their enforced contribution yields.

[FireIceTalon]

There is no such thing as being "too" politically correct. "Politically correct/ness" is a term used by right-wingers to be able to justify or mask their hateful agendas and discriminatory views of whatever group it is they don't like, and shield themselves from any backlash that may result. They use it to protect their "freedom of speech" of course, as if their racist, sexist homophobic and generally despicable views constitute as freedom of speech (they do not). And of course the irony is, these same assholes go absolutely apeshit when someone uses THEIR "freedom of speech" to express views that they don't like - i.e. "fuck America and western imperialism/capitalism", "I don't support the troops", or otherwise criticize privileged classes or powerful institutions in society such as white straight males, Christians, wealthy people and businessmen, corporations, trust fund babies, etc. Complete double standard.

If you dislike political correctness, chances are: you are either a right-winged self righteous dickhead, or chauvinist of some type that thinks you can say whatever the hell you want without there being any consequences or critique. Or part of some privileged group in society that stands to lose power when oppression is confronted in various ways (political correctness being one of those ways), and the achievement of equality. All in all, the whole concept is nothing more than a ridiculous protest by these people, upset that they don't have the freedom to be prejudice hate mongers in public anymore.

If it is such an infringement on your personal freedom to ask you to use terminology that isn't derogatory towards minorities, people of color or other oppressed groups in society, then the problem lies not in political correctness, but in YOUR (shitty) personal character and short-sighted worldviews. Being politically correct, as I understand it, isn't so much a bad thing even though the religious right can try to use it sometimes to shove their subjective morality mumbo jumbo down peoples throats. Being a racist though, is NEVER ok under any circumstances and it should always be called out.

[Hammerskjold]

Well, Racists exist. The compulsion, by fascists left or right, is to quell free speech, and free association by power of the state. I have nothing against exposing the "David Dukes" of this world for what they are, and ridiculing their wrong thinking. I am troubled when it is aided and abetted by the forces of laws, and the state power apparatchik.

Yep, capital R racists do exists, the danger I am talking about is treating it as if only white males can hold and exercise prejudice behaviors. Which I think, is a naive, sheltered, and myopic view that doesn't match reality. Current day racism IMO is often wrapped in a far more appealing package.

Pure philosophy and ideology must step aside for the pragmatic reality of how things really work.

That, that right there is absolutely key isn't it. Ideas that focuses only in it's purity with no regard in how it would function in reality, sooner or later tends to morph into an extremely myopic, dogmatic, fanatical ideology. It's acolytes starts exhibiting cult like behaviors.

It'd be like driving a car with both eyes glued to a pair of telescopes. It's not being a far seeing visionary at that point, it's merely a countdown to a crash.

But, you may retort, "Not all people need to go to college to be successful." Which is true, if you have the resources, or can tie into the resources required to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps". Here is where the cultural heritage of racial discrimination, crime, and poverty set certain groups at higher disadvantage. This is made worse by double or triple when you criminalize those who are victimized by the vices associated with poverty, such as drugs, or prostitution.

I abhor the system that enforces the inevitable inequality it produces, which is made by mostly white people who cannot fathom how their disparate support for laws tears apart communities, and destroys livelihood for generations -- while patting themselves on the back for the benevolence of their interventions, all at the expense of taxpayers. Taxpayers, who are also more white, rich, upper middle class, or wealthy and blithe the the effect to which their enforced contribution yields.

Yes, it looks like more of a fashionable trend in recent years I've noticed. I see it in things like slacktivism, or clicktivism as well. Now I agree with you that helping and empowering someone who say, didn't have a good start in their early formative period, that can arguably be a good and positive thing.

What I'm talking about is the lure and pitfall of falling into the "great savior" complex. Not you specifically, but I'm sure you've seen them in your experience. Maybe they're just young and naive, some are not so young but intellectually and emotionally immature. They want to change the world, but it's expressed in an immature way. If they're lucky, they might grow up once they are able to see a wider facet of the world and how it functions. If they're not so lucky, they can wind up as useful idiots to a metaphorical (sometimes literal) cult, prey to wolves they didn't recognize until it's too late.

I mean I'm somewhat bemused when last year in my city, I hear\read a few folks unironically going, "..well I guess I will be outraged for you/them". It just amazes me, that level of ignorance and lack of self awareness of not realizing, how racist that act of co-opting actually is. Some of them might actually mean well and really do have good intentions, but we know what the road to hell is paved with.

Anyhow, to get back somewhat to one of the thread topic you originally mentioned. Guccifer is an interesting character in this tapestry. If the articles I read about him are true, it's like a comedy of errors and hubris.

The guy is not quite a cyberElite hax0rR from some gleaming comp sci institute , his former occupation was a taxi driver. His computer was not some top of the line Renraku deck, it was considered relatively old and underpowered. He "hacked" the data by mostly persistence, and the laughably lax security of his targets.

It's also going to be interesting watching how the U.S. election coverage plays out, in light of the changing media landscape, especially with the interwebz increasing role in how people receive, and digest their news\info. It's no longer just a one way broadcast I think. Definitely interesting times.

[kandrathe]

... Anyhow, to get back somewhat to one of the thread topic you originally mentioned. Guccifer is an interesting character in this tapestry. If the articles I read about him are true, it's like a comedy of errors and hubris.

The guy is not quite a cyberElite hax0rR from some gleaming comp sci institute , his former occupation was a taxi driver. His computer was not some top of the line Renraku deck, it was considered relatively old and underpowered. He "hacked" the data by mostly persistence, and the laughably lax security of his targets.

It's also going to be interesting watching how the U.S. election coverage plays out, in light of the changing media landscape, especially with the interwebz increasing role in how people receive, and digest their news\info. It's no longer just a one way broadcast I think. Definitely interesting times.

Yes, back on topic...

I saw “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer is being released. I suspect it will be met with our usual bi-polar zeal with those against her still against, and those for her pointing to a vast right wing conspiracy, defaming the author, and shrugging it off.



I suspect this is a very militant women who is willing to crush the resistance out of all dissidents, foreign and domestic.

Her troubles now are she needs to undo her image of what she's actually done for the past decade, and project a (false) image of who she is. Taking the scooby van out for Chipotle, and rubbing elbows with the common average, hand picked, well scripted Americans to have seemingly impromptu photo ops or a short Q&A. Speaking of elbows, there is her telegraph to the Elizabeth Warren wing of the progressives in her selection of Gary "Scourge of Wallstreet" Gensler as her campaign's chief financial officer. She needs to run hard to the left now to reassure her base, before she runs hard to the middle after she gets the nomination.

But, the truth of her is in the record of what she's done. What I see, truthfully, on foreign policy is GWB in a dress without the fake folksy Texas accent, and on domestic is more aggressively progressive than even Obama.

The New York Times takes down the Clinton Foundation.

"While the little people are getting hit with Obamacare, high taxes and joblessness, a class of businessmen enjoys ready access to politicians of both Left and Right that poses troubling questions for how the republic can continue to call itself a democracy so long as it functions as an aristocracy of the monied. "

[Hammerskjold]

I saw “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer is being released. I suspect it will be met with our usual bi-polar zeal with those against her still against, and those for her pointing to a vast right wing conspiracy, defaming the author, and shrugging it off.

IIRC there was quite the commotion when Primary Colors came out. It was fictional, nudge nudge wink wink, but Bill Clinton still won the contest for that year.

Speaking of elbows, there is her telegraph to the Elizabeth Warren wing of the progressives in her selection of Gary "Scourge of Wallstreet" Gensler as her campaign's chief financial officer. She needs to run hard to the left now to reassure her base, before she runs hard to the middle after she gets the nomination.

Yeah, Warren hasn't thrown her hat into the ring, but never say never at this point. It's still relatively early in the pre-show.

Listing some of the confirmed names so far from the big 2 party:

Dems:
-Hillary Clinton
-Bernie Sanders

Reps:
-Ted Cruz
-Marco Rubio
-Ben Carson
-Carly Fiorina
-Rand Paul
-Mike Huckabee

Sanders dropped the P word, Plutocracy, that's different. Not sure how much traction that will get, but definitely different. I will not underestimate Clinton, but the brand name is a double edged sword. From the Reps side, I dunno, not exactly excitement generating, or not well known enough. Rubio is telegenic though, but we'll see if that's enough.

Problem is, do you ever get the feeling of watching a contest, and at the end you suspect that what you've just watched was a contest between cola X, and soda y, but they're actually both made by the same company?