[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I admit that post could have benefited from a more detailed explanation. [...]

I think the issues you raise in your post indeed exist and are real, but it is not the charge that Chongo made, namely that he feels that most of the members of the media are Democrats and are using their power to further the “agenda of the Democrats” (whatever that is). If anything, main stream media have a main stream bias if that makes sense, i. e. they do not give “outside” candidates (such as Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders and Gary Johnson) enough airtime.

Originally Posted by subego 

For ease of discussion, this only relates to the top tier players ABC, NBC, CBS, and PBS. Cable is a little more complicated.

I would say the news organizations at these respective networks actually try to the best of their ability to be impartial.

I think “impartiality” the way some people think of this notion does not exist, because people differ on what “just criticism” is. The best protection against that is to have a media plurality. But even here, it is too simple to think that any position can be reduced to party affiliation — especially in two-party systems where the two parties have to cover a giant gamut of political opinions.

Originally Posted by subego 

Funny you should mention the media failing to pressure leaders. The media ripped Bush a new asshole for a year straight over warrantless wiretaps, and then was lukewarm about pressuring Obama for programs an order of magnitude worse.

Yup, and they were right to do that to Bush. They got it wrong when they didn't criticize Obama for continuing. And neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump have distanced themselves from these programs. So instead of wasting air time on “Hillary's health” or her “email scandal”, I'd criticize her for that. That's about 300+ million times more important. (And of course, Trump, too, who to my knowledge hasn't distanced himself from these programs, so he should be pressed on this matter as well.)

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Off the top of my head, him saying he didn't really discuss this with her.

No, he has long said that he discussed the matter with her, and he seems to have been honest about what he said (see e. g. this Politico piece which quotes a Powell aide). A level-headed article for more technically minded people appeared on ArsTechica.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The information isn't new, it has been in the news for months. (Although it's the first time I see an actual email on the subject by Powell.) Neither Powell's nor Clinton's objective was to do something sinister, it was to circumvent restrictions on the use of what was-then-new technology.

I dunno, Powell makes it clear her device will be subject to FOIA if people find out about it. No reason to hide from FOIA if all you want is technological freedom.

[The Final Dakar]

In what I can only call timely, Matt Lauer is getting raked over the coals for his performance in a form I didn't even know was happening last night.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Probably deserves its own thread, but...

Powell is back in my doghouse, never to return. If he was ok with this shit, then it makes it hard not to think the rest of the Bush admin wasn't even worse. God, they were rotten.

Is there email telling Hillary to setup her own server, or to be sure to destroy them in the event they are subpoenaed, or to destroy her mobile devices she bought retail with a hammer.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I dunno, Powell makes it clear her device will be subject to FOIA if people find out about it. No reason to hide from FOIA if all you want is technological freedom.

To me the reason is obvious and not nefarious: you don't want to go through the hassle and get into trouble for skirting the rules. According to the AnandTech article back in Powell's times, he wasn't able to use emails in order to communicate with foreign dignitaries. I don't think Powell used his AOL address to hide his nefarious business from public view.

Nevertheless, we should strive towards greater transparency, and make sure that our leaders can get the tools they need.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

To me the reason is obvious and not nefarious: you don't want to go through the hassle and get into trouble for skirting the rules. According to the AnandTech article back in Powell's times, he wasn't able to use emails in order to communicate with foreign dignitaries. I don't think Powell used his AOL address to hide his nefarious business from public view.

Nevertheless, we should strive towards greater transparency, and make sure that our leaders can get the tools they need.

What you say makes sense, however in the context of the Bush Administration deleting most of their emails upon exit, a bit naive. Maybe that was the case in January 2001 when Powell began, but by 2004 after it was pretty clear there was no giant cache of WMDs, I'm sure they were happy to delete his emails.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

What you say makes sense, however in the context of the Bush Administration deleting most of their emails upon exit, a bit naive. Maybe that was the case in January 2001 when Powell began, but by 2004 after it was pretty clear there was no giant cache of WMDs, I'm sure they were happy to delete his emails.

Maybe I am a bit naïve about this, and it's good that you remind me of it. Still I don't think this was Powell's or Clinton's primary motivation, I think they just wanted to work outside of the bounds of what was at that time allowed. The Bush administration had “lost” several million emails and their backups anyway.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

But then it's made up, which is fine, but I can't really call it "truth".

I dunno... maybe a "good idea"?

That's the difference between "truth" and facts. The former is largely a philosophical aspiration within a cultural zeitgeist. Though perhaps not objectively factual viewed externally, within a given society they are verifiable as tenets within the establishment.

(Edit. I'm back in university taking sociology courses, so pardon me if I sound bookish.)

[subego]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

That's the difference between "truth" and facts. The former is largely a philosophical aspiration within a cultural zeitgeist. Though perhaps not objectively factual viewed externally, within a given society they are verifiable as tenets within the establishment.

(Edit. I'm back in university taking sociology courses, so pardon me if I sound bookish.)

Bookish is awesome.

The issue I take with the term "fact" is what's generally considered a fact isn't really a fact. Most people would term "the sky is blue" as a fact. It's not. That the sky has a color is an artifact of what wavelength of the EM spectrum our eyes are sensitive to, and how our brains interpret that, yadda, yadda.

Of course, even though not explicitly stated as such, what I just said is a theory, and it's based on other things which are theories, which leads to one of the fundamental rules of science... it's all theory. All of it. When someone says "this is scientific fact", I know what they mean, but the fact is () they're doing it wrong.

I attempt to sidestep the baggage by terming "facts" as "objective truth", and "truth" as "subjective truth". Not necessarily the best solution, but the best I've come up with.

In general, I'd say objective truth is unattainable, but is one of those things where that makes it all the more important to try.

[subego]

Thank you all for coming to the War Room on such notice.

There's only one item on the agenda. How does Hillary get in front of this?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Thank you all for coming to the War Room on such notice.

There's only one item on the agenda. How does Hillary get in front of this?

Hillary Clinton has pneumonia, doctor says - POLITICO

So, is this what Hillary will use as a excuse to not go face to face with Trump?

[subego]

JuRY, as always, with the penetrating questions.

"If we were still in the 90's, does 'Basket of Deplorables' sound more like a song from Korn, or one from Marilyn Manson?"

I've gotta go Korn on that one.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Hillary Clinton has pneumonia, doctor says - POLITICO

So, is this what Hillary will use as a excuse to not go face to face with Trump?

Oh come on now. The only one making excuses is Donald Trump.

The first presidential debate is still two weeks away, but Donald Trump is already playing the expectations game.

The Republican said Monday he would prefer to debate Hillary Clinton without moderators because they and others are likely to "rig" the set-up against him.

“The fact is that they’re gaming the system, and I think, maybe, we should have no moderator," Trump told CNBC. "Let Hillary and I sit there and just debate because I think the system is being rigged so it’s gonna be a very unfair debate, and I can see it happening right now because everyone’s saying that he was soft on Trump."

Donald Trump protests format for presidential debates

AKA ... Trump doesn't want to do a moderated debate where he could actually be pressed on specific policy issues. He'd prefer to have a forum where he can just say "Excuse me! Excuse me!" And then proceed to talk over Hillary Clinton all night. "Believe me it's true."

OAW

[subego]

Huma Abedin fends off creep on the subway ©2016 - New York Post

[subego]

I just saw a Hillary poster in somebody's window.

I think that's the first one I've seen. Haven't seen any bumperstickers.

That's... a little weird. Apart from this being the Democratic stronghold anchoring the whole state, she was like, born here.

[andi*pandi]

I see hillary stickers and posters.

Then again, I also see Johnson stickers.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Get Bernie ready, Hillary isn't going to last much longer in this race: Former DNC chair Don Fowler says Democrats must find Hillary Clinton's successor now in case pneumonia forces her out of the race | Daily Mail Online

[subego]

CBS News edits transcript, video clip of Bill Clinton discussing Hillary's health | TheHill

"Well, if it is then it’s a mystery to me and all of her doctors," Bill Clinton said when Rose asked him if Hillary Clinton was simply dehydrated or if the situation was more serious. "Frequently -- well not frequently, rarely, on more than one occasion, over the last many, many years, the same sort of thing’s happened to her when she got severely dehydrated, and she’s worked like a demon, as you know, as Secretary of State, as a senator, and in the year since."

But the CBS Evening News version cut Clinton's use of "frequently" out. And a review by The Hill of the official transcript released by the network shows Clinton saying "Frequently -- well not frequently," is omitted as well.

Well, that a bad look for a news outfit.

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I see hillary stickers and posters.

Then again, I also see Johnson stickers.

To be clear, I think they're being distributed as normal, but a greater number than usual around here has decided to forego them.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, that a bad look for a news outfit.

They're so corrupt, it's hard to believe anyone could think that the "big 3" aren't in the Clintons' pocket at this point, they'll do anything to get her elected.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

They're so corrupt, it's hard to believe anyone could think that the "big 3" aren't in the Clintons' pocket at this point, they'll do anything to get her elected.

Should read "Clinton Broadcasting System"

not to be left out

[Cap'n Tightpants]

To be fair: FOX = Frequently On Xanax

(They drone on to the point it puts me to sleep.)

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

To be fair: FOX = Frequently On Xanax

(They drone on to the point it puts me to sleep.)

We'll see how thing are now that Ailes is gone and Rupert's boys are running things. They hate Trump

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Get Bernie ready, Hillary isn't going to last much longer in this race: Former DNC chair Don Fowler says Democrats must find Hillary Clinton's successor now in case pneumonia forces her out of the race | Daily Mail Online

I'm glad you're not my doctor.

Pneumonia is treatable you know.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Get Bernie ready, Hillary isn't going to last much longer in this race: Former DNC chair Don Fowler says Democrats must find Hillary Clinton's successor now in case pneumonia forces her out of the race | Daily Mail Online

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm glad you're not my doctor.

Pneumonia is treatable you know.

Courtesy of Slate.
What makes pneumonia so dangerous for old people?

Singer James Brown died of congestive heart failure on Monday, a day after being admitted to a Georgia hospital with pneumonia. President Gerald Ford died the day after; he had battled pneumonia earlier this year, and his health then rapidly declined. What makes pneumonia so dangerous for old people?

It makes them more vulnerable to other problems. Because of its rapid onset and ability to spread to other parts of the body (as opposed to a stroke or heart attack), pneumonia can be lethal. Even a milder case deals a severe blow to your immune system, which can turn an underlying condition like heart disease into a life-threatening malady. Since older people often have these additional problems, any sort of pneumonia can have dangerous complications. James Brown's cause of death was officially listed as congestive heart failure, but his pneumonia had likelyweakened his immune system and either aggravated an underlying condition or caused his heart to fail on its own. In general, the more health problems someone has, the more likely it is that a case of pneumonia will turn out to be deadly.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm glad you're not my doctor.

Pneumonia is treatable you know.

It's a 3+ year pneumonia, that has to be a record of some kind. Along with her "brain farts", I'm surprised she can talk at all.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

It's a 3+ year pneumonia, that has to be a record of some kind. Along with her "brain farts", I'm surprised she can talk at all.

Your argument is that she has been coughing like this for 3+ years? What brain farts are you talking about?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

[besson3c]

Just asking for a little coherence. You guys should be thanking me, actually. If you really want to press the fence out of this issue, making a clear and bulletproof case will help your cause. I'm not voting for her, so I'm not asking you to change my vote.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Read the Hillary thread.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Read the Hillary thread.

I have, and it has serious signal to noise ratio issues.

[subego]

North Carolina, Iowa, and Ohio flipped to light red according to 538.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

She pretty much has to debate Trump at this point, calling in sick won't cut it.

[subego]

It would certainly cause problems she can't afford to have right now.

[The Final Dakar]

Wait, in what world would she avoid debating Trump?

[subego]

The one where there's a high risk of her taking a dive.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

The one where there's a high risk of her taking a dive.

Is this health conspiracy concern trolling?

Edit: To clarify has this come up from anywhere other than someone's optimistic imagination?

[subego]

I'm not sure optimism is a requirement.

Cribbing from Nate, I ran the simulation 20,000 times, and a small but non-zero amount ended with the result she's way more ill than she claims.

[subego]

First we got "basket of deplorables", now we have "dicking bimbos".

This is the most poetic presidential election in history.

[OAW]

Trump ... and apparently no one in his organization ... has the slightest clue about the protocols for addressing a predominantly black church during election season.

Pastor interrupts Trump to stop him from attacking Clinton in church - CNNPolitics.com

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not sure optimism is a requirement.

Cribbing from Nate, I ran the simulation 20,000 times, and a small but non-zero amount ended with the result she's way more ill than she claims.

40% of Americans, including 17% of Dems, believe she's sicker than she's leading people to believe. Which leads to a very large number of Repubs and Indies (the latter being the most crucial) being unconvinced that she's well.

There's even a partisan divide over how healthy Hillary Clinton seems to be - LA Times

and honestly, who here can say that a 68 y/o being drug into a van with her toes dragging the ground (with whatever that was falling out of her pants) is a good look?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not sure optimism is a requirement.

Cribbing from Nate, I ran the simulation 20,000 times, and a small but non-zero amount ended with the result she's way more ill than she claims.

For this to make any sense, you'd have to think she was considering ditching the debates before she got sick publicly.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

First we got "basket of deplorables", now we have "dicking bimbos".

This is the most poetic presidential election in history.

That email was 100% on point. But I'm not letting you out of the doghouse, Colin.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

40% of Americans, including 17% of Dems, believe she's sicker than she's leading people to believe. Which leads to a very large number of Repubs and Indies (the latter being the most crucial) being unconvinced that she's well.

There's even a partisan divide over how healthy Hillary Clinton seems to be - LA Times

and honestly, who here can say that a 68 y/o being drug into a van with her toes dragging the ground (with whatever that was falling out of her pants) is a good look?

It's a horrible look.

That said, the sad state of affairs is it pretty much doesn't matter to me. That she would lie about being deathly ill is entirely consistent with her character, and it was with full knowledge of this I offered her my nominal endorsement. If it turns out she's actually is lying, that resentment check has already been cashed.

I'd obviously want to avoid the practical damage something like that would cause, but the desire to avoid it does little to make Trump more attractive as an option.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

For this to make any sense, you'd have to think she was considering ditching the debates before she got sick publicly.

I don't think that's the only way to achieve the result. It only barely came up in the simulation. Less than 0.1%.

What came up more often was she's been reacting to a more serious illness the way Jobs reacted to getting cancer. She wrote a check her body can't cash, and now the situation is dire enough heretofore unthinkable strategies are now on the table.

Note, even for the runs in the simulation where it turns out she just has pneumonia like she says, the same thing is happening on a smaller scale. She was diagnosed with pneumonia. Presumably she was told to take it easy, because if she doesn't, she'll pass out and shit. What happens? She writes a check her body can't cash.

[andi*pandi]

What would we think of a candidate on the campaign trail who took time off for

a) undisclosed reasons
b) mild illness
c) worse illness?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't think that's the only way to achieve the result. It only barely came up in the simulation. Less than 0.1%.

What came up more often was she's been reacting to a more serious illness the way Jobs reacted to getting cancer. She wrote a check her body can't cash, and now the situation is dire enough heretofore unthinkable strategies are now on the table.

Note, even for the runs in the simulation where it turns out she just has pneumonia like she says, the same thing is happening on a smaller scale. She was diagnosed with pneumonia. Presumably she was told to take it easy, because if she doesn't, she'll pass out and shit. What happens? She writes a check her body can't cash.

Ok here's the logical disconnect for me: A woman who is so concerned with her public image that she hid her illness, so determined to project strength she tried to campaign through it, is going to abandon a win-win debate scenario and in the process increase conspiracies about her health plus subject herself to further critiques of her stamina, while at the same time giving her opponent a get out of jail free card and give him more fodder for his rambling.

I'd ****ing die on stage before I gave anyone the option you're floating.

[The Final Dakar]

...and that's before the logical conclusion that she'd could have doctors pump her full of meds to get her through the debate like an injured player in the NBA Finals.

[BadKosh]

Maybe she's already maxed out on the drugs she can take and can't tolerate any more or croak on stage? With the number of lies surrounding her health, I really don't think she IS "OK".