Jump to content

2024 Presidential Election Thread - Let's keep the party going.


Recommended Posts

Posted
21 hours ago, Js1 said:

It’s a fucking donut. You order an old fashioned, a Long John or a cake donut. How out of touch to have no idea what kind of donuts to order. Like Hillary 

This is the thing.  The guy is completely out of touch.  Walz would have strolled in and said "can I get 6 glazed, 2 chocolate sprinkles, 2 crullers no wait 4 crullers, 2 cake and 2 custard filled?  Thanks."

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
16 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

This is the thing.  The guy is completely out of touch.  Walz would have strolled in and said "can I get 6 glazed, 2 chocolate sprinkles, 2 crullers no wait 4 crullers, 2 cake and 2 custard filled?  Thanks."

Walz would have gone in the back and cleaned out the store's grease traps. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted

https://newrepublic.com/article/184916/leaks-emails-clinton-trump-campaign?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=SF_TNR

 

Quote

In politics, history has a way of repeating itself with a twist. Eight years ago, the media was drenched with leaked emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign, a flood that may have tipped the scales in Donald Trump’s favor. Fast-forward to 2024, and we find ourselves in a bizarro version of that same story. This time, it’s the Trump campaign allegedly falling victim to a hack, with internal documents hitting journalists’ inboxes. But unlike the frenzy of 2016, major news outlets have chosen to sit on this information, only revealing its existence weeks after the fact. Hmm.

 

Quote

This dramatic shift in approach raises a serious question: Has the media learned from its past mistakes, or is this an overcorrection in a way that, once again, just happens to benefit Donald Trump? Meanwhile, the frustrating reality is that the public is largely in the dark about the decision-making processes behind these changes. While restraint in publishing potentially hacked materials can be commendable, the lack of transparency about this evolving practice is more than a little troubling.

I want to look at some of the similarities and differences between the 2016 and 2024 hack-and-leaks and try to understand why they’re being treated differently.

 

Quote

First, let’s look back at the 2016 leaks and how the press covered them.

In the summer of 2016, the Democratic National Committee discovered that its emails had been hacked. On July 22, just days before the start of the Democratic National Convention, WikiLeaks published nearly 20,000 emails stolen from DNC servers. These emails typically contained conversations between DNC staffers and insiders. There was a fair amount of embarrassing, if not entirely damning, content in the leaks. For instance, the leaks gave a behind-the-scenes look at how donors essentially buy access to politicians and made clear what was pretty obvious: DNC leadership were not exactly fans of Bernie Sanders.

 

Spoiler

In October, WikiLeaks began releasing emails stolen from the personal account of John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman. Over the course of the month, WikiLeaks published more than 50,000 of Podesta’s emails in daily batches, keeping the story in the news cycle right up until Election Day.

The media’s response to these leaks was … pretty intense. According to a study by Media Matters, in the five weeks leading up to the election, weekday evening cable news aired a combined 247 segments either about the emails or featuring significant discussion of them. Major newspapers published nearly 100 articles about the WikiLeaks emails in their print editions during the same period.

The coverage wasn’t just high-volume; it was sensationalized. Many outlets focused on cherry-picked quotes taken out of context, fueling controversy and speculation. The constant drip of new information kept the story alive, dominating headlines and shaping the narrative of the campaign’s final weeks.

While there were early suspicions of Russian involvement in the hacks, many media outlets initially treated the leaks primarily as a political story rather than a potential act of foreign interference. It wasn’t until after the election that the full scope of Russia’s role in the hacking and distribution of these emails became clear.

The damage to the Clinton campaign was extraordinary. WikiLeaks’ slow-release approach forced journalists to cover each batch as new “revelations,” even when there wasn’t much to actually cover. Having learned through bitter experience that few Americans would bother to actually read them, WikiLeaks sprinkled emails into the news cycle and gave Americans the impression of a campaign wound so deep it couldn’t heal. While Donald Trump rapid-cycled through scandals that seemed not to stick because they were so quickly displaced by fresh ones, “the emails” lingered in the public eye.

The effect was devastating. By artificially prolonging the story, WikiLeaks conveyed the impression of wrongdoing so deep it transcended the amnesia we’ve come to expect from the news cycle; of a grievous wound that wouldn’t heal and which—if we ever bothered to actually take a look at it—we’d find shocking indeed.

The press absolutely helped Assange and WikiLeaks achieve his unstated objective of tanking Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and elevating Trump to the presidency. There’s really no question about that.

So, surely, the press would issue some sort of mea culpa for effectively handing Trump the presidency, yes? Surely, this would mean the return of the ombudsman and public editor roles at organizations, yes? Ha! No such luck! Instead, the best we got was a December 13, 2016, New York Times article by Eric Lipton, David E. Sanger, and Scott Shane that included the line, “Every major publication, including The Times, published multiple stories citing the D.N.C. and Podesta emails posted by WikiLeaks, becoming a de facto instrument of Russian intelligence.”

Other than that? Good luck.

Now let’s look to 2024 and examine the alleged hack of the Trump campaign.

In late July and early August of this year, several major news outlets, including Politico, The Washington Post, and The New York Times, received emails from a mysterious figure calling himself “Robert.” This individual offered internal Trump campaign documents, most notably a 271-page dossier listing J.D. Vance’s potential vulnerabilities as a running mate. Unlike in 2016, when similar leaks were quickly published and dissected, these news organizations chose a different approach.

For weeks, these outlets sat on the information, conducting their own investigations and deliberations. It wasn’t until August 10 that the story broke, not with the content of the leaks but with news of the hack itself. The Washington Post reported that the Trump campaign claimed to be “the victim of a foreign hack,” pointing to a Microsoft report suggesting Iranian involvement.

The media’s restraint has been notable. As Will Sommer and Elahe Izadi reported in the Post on August 13, “So far, newsrooms have been reluctant to run with the material.” Instead of publishing the leaked documents, news organizations have focused on the hack itself and the potential implications of foreign interference.

This cautious approach represents a significant shift from 2016. Matt Murray, executive editor of the Post, explained their reasoning: “This episode probably reflects that news organizations aren’t going to snap at any hack that comes in and is marked as ‘exclusive’ or ‘inside dope’ and publish it for the sake of publishing.” He added, “All of the news organizations in this case took a deep breath and paused, and thought about who was likely to be leaking the documents, what the motives of the hacker might have been, and whether this was truly newsworthy or not.”

The decision not to publish the Vance materials seems to have been influenced by their perceived lack of newsworthiness. Murray noted, “In the end, it didn’t seem fresh or new enough.”

However, this new approach has not been without its critics. Jesse Eisinger, senior reporter and editor at ProPublica, told Sommer and Izadi that the outlets could have told more than they did. He argued that even if past Vance statements about Trump were easily found publicly, the vetting document could have indicated which statements most concerned the campaign or revealed things the journalists didn’t know.

Writing at The Bulwark, Marc A. Caputo, who was at Politico during the 2016 election, made the argument for publishing leaked documents: “Reporters are not in this to worry about partisan critics or holier-than-thou media professors. This isn’t a job to make friends, be extensions of campaigns, or agents of any government. We report news.”

I would say the same thing today. The job is to cover the news. And the Vance dossier sure as hell sounds like news.

Writing at his Off Message Substack, writer Brian Beutler argued that “outlets like The New York Times owe their readers frenzied coverage of his campaign’s emails, or a mea culpa for their history-altering emails fixation in 2016.”

This stands in untenable contrast to the way these same outlets responded to the hacking and leaking of Democratic emails in 2016. A hallmark of Trump-era journalism has been the media’s institutional defensiveness of its conduct in the run-up to Trump’s first election. Precious few reporters have retrospectively acknowledged that their 2016 fixation on emails (both the ones on Hillary Clinton’s personal server and the ones that were stolen from her colleagues) fell beneath professional standards. Most reporters, and nearly all decision-makers, insist they did nothing wrong—at most they’ll allow that their failures that cycle were garden-variety.

“When we learn important things, to not publish is a political act,” the Times’ then-executive editor Dean Baquet insisted in retrospect. “The calculation cannot be, we’re just not going to publish because that would screw up American politics. You know, at that point, I will go into business as like a campaign adviser to people and not as a journalist.”

Oliver Darcy caught up with some veterans of Clinton’s 2016 campaign for a piece over at his brand-new Status newsletter. It’s not that the former Clinton campaign officials believe news organizations should spotlight hacked materials. It’s that, when they protested in 2016, their complaints largely fell on deaf ears. Now, however, it appears the standards have quietly changed without any type of formal mea culpa having been offered by news institutions.

As the former Clinton communications official told me, “To the extent that there is a widespread frustration, the lack of a mea culpa is what is driving people the most nuts.”

I’m with Beutler on this. If the press wants to do things differently this time around, fine. But if they’re going to do that, then they have a responsibility to both explain the change and make it clear that they botched 2016. It’s as simple as that. If they can’t do that, then I think there’s an obligation to treat this leak the exact same way they treated the 2016 email leak: nonstop negative coverage that played up the very existence of a leak as a scandal in itself. But they won’t.

The media’s failure to acknowledge and atone for their role in 2016 election coverage leaves a gaping hole in the public’s understanding of how and why news organizations have changed their tactics. This silence not only undermines trust in journalism but also allows for additional double standards that consistently seem to benefit one side of the political aisle.

If outlets want to adopt a more cautious approach to leaked materials, they have an obligation to explain this change to their readers. More importantly, they need to openly reckon with past mistakes. Without this accountability, the press comes off as uneven and biased, favoring the right.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 4
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
5 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I post this anytime I can.  I take about 5 pics a year so I’m pretty damn proud of capturing this POS in one of our country’s best national parks.   

Screenshot 2020-03-07 at 3.56.46 PM.png

63574dcc-7de8-4284-ab1a-1b8c0cd1f5c2_tex

0e4abd38-84f1-43d3-9924-1350d1528932_tex

  • Haha 3
Posted
8 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

I mean, by the time that suit gets to court there won’t be a Harris campaign anymore, one way or another. 

As mentioned previously, the infringers' liability is so clear cut, the only thing to argue about is damages.  It will settle promptly for a sizable sum.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Just saw the first Trump ad on TV here in KC area. It's a national broadcast of a football game so probably not just for Missouri. I doubt the gop spends much money here. 

Posted

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-harris-election-08-24-24#h_67934a06e85b90565772498194d350c1

 

Former President Donald Trump’s campaign is bracing for more unfavorable polling news in the days to come.

A memo from Trump pollsters Tony Fabrizio and Travis Tunis sent out by the Trump campaign Saturday predicts a convention bump in polls after the Democratic National Convention for Vice President Kamala Harris. 

“Post-DNC we will likely see another small (albeit temporary) bounce for Harris in the public polls. Post-Convention bounces are a phenomenon that happens after most party conventions,” the memo says. “So don’t be surprised to see Harris get a temporary 2 to 3 point bump,” it added.

In July, Fabrizio wrote he expected a “honeymoon” period for Harris after she replaced President Joe Biden on the Democratic ticket – a prediction that has certainly come to pass. Before ending his re-election campaign, Biden’s support in CNN Poll of Polls registered at 45%, behind Trump at 49%. Heading into the convention, the race had shifted, with Harris at 50% and Trump at 48%, the CNN Poll of Polls found. 

Fabrizio now anticipates the honeymoon for Harris extending, blaming it largely on favorable media coverage of the vice president. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 4
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

Just saw the first Trump ad on TV here in KC area. It's a national broadcast of a football game so probably not just for Missouri. I doubt the gop spends much money here. 

SMU game?

 

Edit:  I probably saw the same ad.  As my wife said, they are so poor they are having to resort to advertising on CBS Sports Network.  

 

Edited by Francisco 2.0
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Motherfucker can't even use the word "lie" properly.

I don’t rely on guys who look like diabetic orange raccoons when I’m looking for advice either.

Edited by Judge Roybeanbag
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
15 hours ago, G650 said:

Being in the construction business as well, I feel like a unicorn sometimes, but it does seem to be changing a bit.

 

Hope you don't get too down about your brother. Bike rides always help

Yeah. I am pretty down about it. Bike ride did help today. 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
12 hours ago, LCHorn said:

Me too, but we also haven’t done our annual Labor Day trip to Port A yet.  

Damn. I was thinking about going to Gorda, but it will be packed and hot and the sand will be powder.

Posted
1 hour ago, Js1 said:

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-harris-election-08-24-24#h_67934a06e85b90565772498194d350c1

 

 

Former President Donald Trump’s campaign is bracing for more unfavorable polling news in the days to come.

A memo from Trump pollsters Tony Fabrizio and Travis Tunis sent out by the Trump campaign Saturday predicts a convention bump in polls after the Democratic National Convention for Vice President Kamala Harris. 

“Post-DNC we will likely see another small (albeit temporary) bounce for Harris in the public polls. Post-Convention bounces are a phenomenon that happens after most party conventions,” the memo says. “So don’t be surprised to see Harris get a temporary 2 to 3 point bump,” it added.

In July, Fabrizio wrote he expected a “honeymoon” period for Harris after she replaced President Joe Biden on the Democratic ticket – a prediction that has certainly come to pass. Before ending his re-election campaign, Biden’s support in CNN Poll of Polls registered at 45%, behind Trump at 49%. Heading into the convention, the race had shifted, with Harris at 50% and Trump at 48%, the CNN Poll of Polls found. 

Fabrizio now anticipates the honeymoon for Harris extending, blaming it largely on favorable media coverage of the vice president. 

 

If Harris actually gets a 3-point bump from the convention, this is over. Trump has zero comeback strategy to claw back enough support from a gap that big. Harris would have to have a Biden-like debate performance which is not going to happen. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
12 hours ago, immamac said:

Put the cloud in a closet.

???

Profit. 

Haha seriously though I am raising for a startup if you and g650 want to hear more I'll do that not in a thread. 

Is it a BBQ trailer?

  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, LurkingHorn said:

If Harris actually gets a 3-point bump from the convention, this is over. Trump has zero comeback strategy to claw back enough support from a gap that big. Harris would have to have a Biden-like debate performance which is not going to happen. 

Also Fabrizio originally predicted the Harris honeymoon would only last a week or two after Biden stepped down. Going on 5 weeks now 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
9 hours ago, Mo Horn said:

Just saw the first Trump ad on TV here in KC area. It's a national broadcast of a football game so probably not just for Missouri. I doubt the gop spends much money here. 

I saw multiple Trump/Republican spots during the FSU/GT game; I didn't see a single Harris/Dem ad. 

Posted
21 hours ago, Chips O'Toole said:

Taxing unrealized capital gains sounds really bad which is why they chose it to be their big policy talking point this week.  It didn't sound quite right to me, so I looked into it a bit. I'm not that savvy when it comes to this shit, but my take is anyone freaking out about it is either exponentially more wealthy than the people deciding this election or has been told to freak out about it and doesn't understand shit about fuck. 

Not only is there a massive cutoff for assets, it sounds like there is a liquidity requirement, possibly 80%, meaning that the unrealized gains are being borrowed against to effectively gain liquid capital while avoiding the steep capital gains taxes.  This sounds like one of these band-aid attempts to patch a loophole that would be a pain in the ass for the corporate accountants for a year or so until they find a new weakness in the tax code to exploit. 

I agree with the concept of taxing loans on unrealized capital gains, but this idea is probably ineffective and a nonstarter on Congress. It's also not new, and Kamala hasn't to put anything out specifically in support of it. But it's absolutely a nada-burger for the any of the people complaining about it on Facebook or wherever. 

Sounds like it’s targeted squarely at DJT and his inflated assets to get more loans empire. 

Posted
17 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

I'm old enough to remember when Team GOP raised hell about Michelle Obama wanting to make school lunches healthier.

 

 

 

16 hours ago, HenryJames said:

This is going to be some weirdo seed oils and soy shit or something.

Alex Jones can get behind this 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
11 hours ago, Slacks said:

Damn. I was thinking about going to Gorda, but it will be packed and hot and the sand will be powder.

You can make it.   Brown Cedar cut opened up about 15 miles down, with the last storm.   It’s still about 4’ deep and you can’t drive to Mitchell’s Cut anymore.  

Posted
3 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

That’s not a terrible take and the tweet about it is misleading. Tariffs can bring manufacturing jobs back to the US if done correctly, and if those jobs are high quality they can lead to the creation of industry adjacent jobs; the net effect in economic growth can offset increase in cost of goods.

Also there is a hidden cost of cheap overseas labor that one can argue should be offset by a tariff to discourage human rights abuses, to which he alludes, as well as curb environmental damage. 
 

Do I trust the orange shitgibbon to use tariffs in a well considered, thoughtful manner? Of course not. Last time he fucked up manufacturing when suddenly there was no cheap steel to be imported and no domestic supply that could be quickly ramped up to address the shortage, and he had to bail out farmers who suddenly faced retaliatory tariffs on their exports 

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted
15 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

As mentioned previously, the infringers' liability is so clear cut, the only thing to argue about is damages.  It will settle promptly for a sizable sum.

Lol.  The dude try to overthrow the govt nearly 4 years ago and ain't shit happened yet.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

That’s not a terrible take and the tweet about it is misleading. Tariffs can bring manufacturing jobs back to the US if done correctly, and if those jobs are high quality they can lead to the creation of industry adjacent jobs; the net effect in economic growth can offset increase in cost of goods.

Also there is a hidden cost of cheap overseas labor that one can argue should be offset by a tariff to discourage human rights abuses, to which he alludes, as well as curb environmental damage. 
 

Do I trust the orange shitgibbon to use tariffs in a well considered, thoughtful manner? Of course not. Last time he fucked up manufacturing when suddenly there was no cheap steel to be imported and no domestic supply that could be quickly ramped up to address the shortage, and he had to bail out farmers who suddenly faced retaliatory tariffs on their exports 

steve-buscemi-reservoir-dogs.gif

  • Haha 2
Posted

Also the eyeliner freaks me the fuck out.  Is no one going to ask him about it? Is it tattooed on? 
 

To each their own, but in light of his party’s stance on gender it’s a valid question 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...