DNC emails

[JustWinBaby]

(07-25-2016, 09:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Because it does seem like they are trying to help Trump.

Or simply trying to undermine the likely next POTUS.

I read somewhere that intelligence agencies around the globe, including the US, routinely do this in elections.  From the relatively benign of trying to understand a potential leader and their positions, to finding "things" to leverage in negotiations.

I mean, it's probably a given her server was hacked.  This could be a shot across the bow to Hillary, or even used to bluff her with the threat of something more damning in the future.  And how would you feel about that scenario?

[*bfine32*]

(07-25-2016, 09:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Because it will be either Trump or Clinton. If no party receives majority, then it will be Trump because of GOP Congress.

And the reason I think it is because of preference is because what other reason would Russia have to get involved in US domestic politics than to seek a more favorable outcome for themselves?

You really think the only reason Russia would do and release this is to make things more favorable for them?

Personally, I think, if they did it, it was just a big F. you; given, that reduces the conspiracy theory. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-25-2016, 09:34 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Or simply trying to undermine the likely next POTUS.

This is where I'm at on this. they found a weakness and exploited it. What better time to release it than now. If they wanted to help Trump wouldn't they have released it last week when the spotlight was on him and folks were dogging Hillary? 

[JustWinBaby]

(07-25-2016, 09:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is where I'm at on this. they found a weakness and exploited it. What better time to release it than now. If they wanted to help Trump wouldn't they have released it last week when the spotlight was on him and folks were dogging Hillary? 

Now whomever wins, it will be very difficult to unite the country.  That's a favorable outcome for Russia.

The Repub party is already fractured.  The Bernie supporters just needed a gentle push and the Democratic party could also fracture. That's a favorable outcome for Russia.

Further questions about the fairness of the nomination process leading to more political unrest....on top of social/civil unrest.  That's a favorable outcome for Russia.

[Belsnickel]

(07-25-2016, 09:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You really think the only reason Russia would do and release this is to make things more favorable for them?

Personally, I think, if they did it, it was just a big F. you; given, that reduces the conspiracy theory. 

No country does anything intelligence-wise without the intent of a favorable outcome for themselves. It could have been to sow more discord in the DNC, sure, but it will always be to create a more favorable outcome for Russia.

[Rotobeast]

(07-25-2016, 10:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No country does anything intelligence-wise without the intent of a favorable outcome for themselves. It could have been to sow more discord in the DNC, sure, but it will always be to create a more favorable outcome for Russia.

It was an act of revenge for what Hilldog initiated in Syria, screwing their pipeline plans.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[StoneTheCrow]

A lot of free pub for Trump out of Squaw Warren. Also, nobody on the mic has mentioned that fat ass elephant in the room, I don't think.

[Benton]

(07-25-2016, 09:04 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Both got more popular vote than anyone else in their primaries.  Like half the country doesn't vote in the primaries.  "We the people" had plenty of opportunity to nominate someone else.

Say what you will, but we get the leaders we deserve.  People have to vote, and vote intelligently, for any system to work.

in their primaries. That's the problem. There's not a lot of difference in the candidates that make it into the primaries. You're mostly talking about very rich individuals connected to some (or multiple forms of) business. They all play blue collar knowledge, but it's not like anyone running in presidential primaries for the last four decades ever held down a middle class job and tried to relate to middle or lower class issues.

granted, an optomotrist doesn't have to have glaucoma to know how to treat his patient. But when he starts by spending all his time looking at your toe nails, it doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-26-2016, 12:33 AM)Benton Wrote: You're mostly talking about very rich individuals connected to some (or multiple forms of) business.

So let's get rid of the career politicians - bye Obama, Clintons, Gore, Bernie, Kerry, Bush, and most of the Dem candidates we've had recently (and plenty of Repubs).  Get rid of the silver spoons if you want, and most of the same again and many more.

But there have been plenty of successful business people who have run, and the vast majority (save Trump) had to work their way up a company....yes, including Romney.  To say no one has run that ever held a "middle class job" is demonstrably false. Most anyone who isn't a career politician like Clinton, or trust fund baby like Bush, started their career at good 'ol fashioned entry level jobs just like you and me.

A middle manager or factory line worker is not capable of running a country.  Sorry, it sounds like a nice idea, but IMO the only people capable of the job are career politicians and Execs who've run large companies. This is readily obvious once you see and understand the gigantic leap from even Sr. Mgmt to the C-suite, even at smaller companies with just a few hundred million in revenues.

The job calls for significant Exec experience.  If you want Joe the Plumber, ok I'm sure he'll make a fine Representative or maybe even a Senator....but no business being near the Oval Office.

[Rotobeast]

(07-26-2016, 01:07 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: So let's get rid of the career politicians - bye Obama, Clintons, Gore, Bernie, Kerry, Bush, and most of the Dem candidates we've had recently (and plenty of Repubs).  Get rid of the silver spoons if you want, and most of the same again and many more.

But there have been plenty of successful business people who have run, and the vast majority (save Trump) had to work their way up a company....yes, including Romney.  To say no one has run that ever held a "middle class job" is demonstrably false. Most anyone who isn't a career politician like Clinton, or trust fund baby like Bush, started their career at good 'ol fashioned entry level jobs just like you and me.

A middle manager or factory line worker is not capable of running a country.  Sorry, it sounds like a nice idea, but IMO the only people capable of the job are career politicians and Execs who've run large companies. This is readily obvious once you see and understand the gigantic leap from even Sr. Mgmt to the C-suite, even at smaller companies with just a few hundred million in revenues.

The job calls for significant Exec experience.  If you want Joe the Plumber, ok I'm sure he'll make a fine Representative or maybe even a Senator....but no business being near the Oval Office.

I would agree, but I think the exception would be if the "Joe the Plumber" candidate had a cabinet picked out, and said cabinet had committed to the candidate.
I know things do not currently work that way, but if the experience of the supporting cast is known, I think the executive experience of the figurehead is less of a factor.
Again, not the norm and unlikely to ever happen, but stranger things have happened.
Look where we are now.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[McC]

(07-26-2016, 01:07 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: So let's get rid of the career politicians - bye Obama, Clintons, Gore, Bernie, Kerry, Bush, and most of the Dem candidates we've had recently (and plenty of Repubs).  Get rid of the silver spoons if you want, and most of the same again and many more.

But there have been plenty of successful business people who have run, and the vast majority (save Trump) had to work their way up a company....yes, including Romney.  To say no one has run that ever held a "middle class job" is demonstrably false.  Most anyone who isn't a career politician like Clinton, or trust fund baby like Bush, started their career at good 'ol fashioned entry level jobs just like you and me.

A middle manager or factory line worker is not capable of running a country.  Sorry, it sounds like a nice idea, but IMO the only people capable of the job are career politicians and Execs who've run large companies. This is readily obvious once you see and understand the gigantic leap from even Sr. Mgmt to the C-suite, even at smaller companies with just a few hundred million in revenues.

The job calls for significant Exec experience.  If you want Joe the Plumber, ok I'm sure he'll make a fine Representative or maybe even a Senator....but no business being near the Oval Office.

You make a lot of good points but I can't completely agree.  I believe there are PLENTY of people out there with the good sense, intelligence, intuition, understanding and ability to learn and process quickly to be able to be POTUS or CEO of a major corporation.  If you ask me, you're just believing what the people in those positions want you to believe.  They want you to think only a genius can do what they do and that is patently untrue.

The biggest thing that stands in the way of ever knowing what a regular person could do is the Washington game.   You must be an insider.  It's a self sustaining system, just like the courts.  Go to court without a lawyer and see what happens to you.

That's what pisses me off about the way Trump has conducted himself.  The opportunity was there for an outsider to be elected.  People were hungry for it and he was too stupid to take advantage of it.  He couldn't dial back the crazy.  This is how bad Hillary is.  She will struggle to beat the worst candidate ever.

So, the upshot of what he's done is that no one will take an outsider seriously again.

[Belsnickel]

(07-26-2016, 01:07 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: The job calls for significant Exec experience.  If you want Joe the Plumber, ok I'm sure he'll make a fine Representative or maybe even a Senator....but no business being near the Oval Office.

I don't disagree with you on this. The job of POTUS requires executive experience, but an executive in business isn't the same. They share some of the same qualities, absolutely, but the skill sets are different and a titan of industry could very easily be overwhelmed in the government sector and vice versa. I'd rather see someone with an MPA running for POTUS than someone with an MBA.

Edit to add: This actually got me thinking how interesting it would be to see someone that had worked their way up the public sector ladder get into these spots where they are elected officials. What they could potentially do. I am a low level supervisor in state government and I could already go over a number of things that I'd work to improve were I the executive power for the state. Imagine someone doing this for decades and getting the chance to take the reins. Of course, that is, if they'd be willing to get these things done.

[GMDino]

(07-26-2016, 03:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't disagree with you on this. The job of POTUS requires executive experience, but an executive in business isn't the same. They share some of the same qualities, absolutely, but the skill sets are different and a titan of industry could very easily be overwhelmed in the government sector and vice versa. I'd rather see someone with an MPA running for POTUS than someone with an MBA.

You mean President Trump couldn't just fire people?

[JustWinBaby]

(07-26-2016, 02:57 PM)McC Wrote: I believe there are PLENTY of people out there with the good sense, intelligence, intuition, understanding and ability to learn and process quickly to be able to be POTUS or CEO of a major corporation. 

You may believe this, but I know from firsthand experience that is very common misperception, pushed for any number of reasons.

First off, there aren't PLENTY of good CEO's doing the job.  Fact of the matter is, you may be capable of doing the job, but it's going to take you years to develop all the skills and experience for the job - it has nothing to do with being a genius.  We are not talking "learn from your experience" and "pick things up as you go".  These jobs are far more serious and complex than that.  Leading an entire company is a huge leap from supervising 4-5 guys in your crew.

20 years from now that line supervisor might be ready to be CEO....AFTER climbing the ranks all the way to Sr. VP and accumulating years of experience.  But today, as a line supervisor, he or she is wholly incapable of leading that company.

[Benton]

(07-26-2016, 01:07 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: So let's get rid of the career politicians - bye Obama, Clintons, Gore, Bernie, Kerry, Bush, and most of the Dem candidates we've had recently (and plenty of Repubs).  Get rid of the silver spoons if you want, and most of the same again and many more.

But there have been plenty of successful business people who have run, and the vast majority (save Trump) had to work their way up a company....yes, including Romney.  To say no one has run that ever held a "middle class job" is demonstrably false.  Most anyone who isn't a career politician like Clinton, or trust fund baby like Bush, started their career at good 'ol fashioned entry level jobs just like you and me.

A middle manager or factory line worker is not capable of running a country.  Sorry, it sounds like a nice idea, but IMO the only people capable of the job are career politicians and Execs who've run large companies. This is readily obvious once you see and understand the gigantic leap from even Sr. Mgmt to the C-suite, even at smaller companies with just a few hundred million in revenues.

The job calls for significant Exec experience.  If you want Joe the Plumber, ok I'm sure he'll make a fine Representative or maybe even a Senator....but no business being near the Oval Office.

I liked Romney. He was out of touch, but I liked him.

That said, there's very few people out of the last few decades who had middle class understanding and got their party's nomination. Dole and Clinton come to mind.

But to the bold, that's what got us here. Career politicians and big companies. I aree, it sounds like an outstanding idea on paper — bring in someone who knows how to find the right people (which is a big part of being successful in business) and let them do what they do best — but it's had mixed results in real world applications. We had that problem in Kentucky years ago when Fletcher got elected, fired everyone and brought in business-minded guys. The result was pretty bad and had even more corruption than recent Democrat administrations, which was saying something.

I don't know if the presidential application has been much better. George Bush I was a businessman turned career politician turned not great president. His son was the same and a worse president.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-26-2016, 07:27 PM)Benton Wrote: I don't know if the presidential application has been much better. George Bush I was a businessman turned career politician turned not great president. His son was the same and a worse president.

That's all fair, but just like it's hard to find good CEO/CFO's, the POTUS is a really hard job.  I just don't think a 40-something person of average intelligence with limited leadership and life experiences can run a country.

Let's just take you or me as an example.  OK, we're "fine" with a good cabinet - how are you and I going to vet these people?  Who are we going to talk to for advice and recommendations - and who do we talk to to vet those people?


But it's not like there aren't candidates like you mention, but primary voters seems to pay little attention to them.  Just this cycle:
Kasich grew up middle class, but he's a career politician (and IMO, career politicians are just as out-of-touch with the middle class).
Bernie Sanders checks all the boxes.
Walker was a career politician.
Rand Paul checks all the boxes.
Carly Fiorina checks most of the boxes
Dr. Carson checks all the boxes

And I'm sure there are a few more, just from this cycle.  Nor do I think it's mostly an issue of money and "connections".  The non-career politicians tend to be unpolished, and either aren't good speakers or debaters, or struggle to deliver their message effectively.  Again, I blame the electorate that is generally too disinterested or too lazy to really learn about the issues and candidates.  Instead they respond to the 30-second speech, talking points and soundbites - an area where long-time politicians have a clear and decided advantage.

[Benton]

(07-26-2016, 09:04 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: That's all fair, but just like it's hard to find good CEO/CFO's, the POTUS is a really hard job.  I just don't think a 40-something person of average intelligence with limited leadership and life experiences can run a country.

Let's just take you or me as an example.  OK, we're "fine" with a good cabinet - how are you and I going to vet these people?  Who are we going to talk to for advice and recommendations - and who do we talk to to vet those people?


But it's not like there aren't candidates like you mention, but primary voters seems to pay little attention to them.  Just this cycle:
Kasich grew up middle class, but he's a career politician (and IMO, career politicians are just as out-of-touch with the middle class).
Bernie Sanders checks all the boxes.
Walker was a career politician.
Rand Paul checks all the boxes.
Carly Fiorina checks most of the boxes
Dr. Carson checks all the boxes

And I'm sure there are a few more, just from this cycle.  Nor do I think it's mostly an issue of money and "connections".  The non-career politicians tend to be unpolished, and either aren't good speakers or debaters, or struggle to deliver their message effectively.  Again, I blame the electorate that is generally too disinterested or too lazy to really learn about the issues and candidates.  Instead they respond to the 30-second speech, talking points and soundbites - an area where long-time politicians have a clear and decided advantage.

To the bold, why are we quantifying these hypothetical candidates as average and limited in leadership or life experiences? I understand you're more pro-big business than I am, but you cant seriously think anyone outside of a CEO hasn't had leadership opportunities, life experiences or has an above average IQ? In all honesty, it doesn't take intelligence in most cases to become a CEO, it takes connections and opportunity. That's not synonymous with intelligence or life experiences.

From my experiences with CEOs and from many of their own depictions of life, it seems like few have much life experience. Business, yes, but life experiences involve more than the workplace.

But I do agree with you that the majority of people only respond to sound bites and nutshells. Last election cycle I had a guy who owns a marina chain come in and ask me when we would be providing election information. We had been doing in depth profile candidates for 6 weeks by then. He got huffy and said he didn't have time to read all that, he just wanted bullet points. I told him we probably weren't much use to him. And maybe guys like him are why I'm not a fan of the "successful business equates to a successful everything" idea. I deal with a few. They're great at their business, but I don't think they're qualified for much after that.

[*bfine32*]

The absolutely amazing thing of this whole email controversy is that the Dems do not care that their party rigged the election. They instead point the finger at Trump and Russia. Reminds me of the recent Terrorist act in Orlando where a Muslim killed gays and straight Christians were to blame.

[Belsnickel]

(07-26-2016, 10:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The absolutely amazing thing of this whole email controversy is that the Dems do not care that their party rigged the election. They instead point the finger at Trump and Russia. Reminds me of the recent Terrorist act in Orlando where a Muslim killed gays and straight Christians were to blame.

I have to admit, it is surprising to me how many Dems are just shrugging this off. I mean, I am the first one to say that I didn't really respect Bernie running with a D for POTUS when he is an I in Congress and think he shouldn't have been doing that. But the way the DNC did what they did is just downright foul.

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2016, 10:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have to admit, it is surprising to me how many Dems are just shrugging this off. I mean, I am the first one to say that I didn't really respect Bernie running with a D for POTUS when he is an I in Congress and think he shouldn't have been doing that. But the way the DNC did what they did is just downright foul.

Believe me, I would take 2 terms of Hills over one term of The Bern. I just cannot imagine how a true Bernie Supporter that gave his or her time and money to support him must feel. You cannot go Trump, Green and Libertarian parties are irrelevant, and Hills took advantage of a policy (we'll pretend she wasn't aware of it) that robbed your Candidate of a fair shake.