Trump

Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
firefinga said:
A possible motive, but then I still suspect the reason lies within the right wing mindset of people working for organisations like the FBI. After all, this is a common theme within western countries - secretly collected data via their domestic intelligence services on leftist/liberal politicians etc. Happened in Italy, Germany, France, Austria and so on.
Click to expand...

Right, but there's right-wing and then there's right-wing, isn't there? Lots of lifelong Republican voters (and even politicians), who can hardly be called anything but right-wing, are horrified by the idea of Trump being in charge. Colin Powell and John McCain have said they'll vote for Clinton, amongst others.

And Hillary Clinton is not exactly a radical liberal socialist herself, is she?

Edit: I see I've got that wrong about McCain, he's said he can't support either candidate. But a senior Republican refusing to endorse his own party's candidate is surely significant in itself.
 
Last edited:
firefinga

firefinga

Well-known member
vimothy said:
What happens to the GOP
Click to expand...

There are three possible scenarios IMO (regardless if Trump wins - as unlikely as this has become by now - or loses, bc the game has already been changed by Trumps nomination ):

1) The Republican party establishment wants to incorporate the Alt Right into the Party - resulting in: further shift to the right, becoming a truly authoritarian party. At the same time this would mean the final end of the interventionist neocon branch. (Sidenote: that's one of thre reason parts of the left actually prefer Trump over Hillary bc they at least believe Trumps isolationist rhetorics and belive Hillary to be an interventionist - which she probably actually is).

2) The Alt Right establishing itself as some sorf of "Third Party", damaging the Republicans to a great extent. Currently, the momentun works very much in favor of the Alt Right in fact, and so possibly extincting the "oldschool"-right wing of moderate Republicans

As a result of 2) follows 3)The Alt Right disappearing again after some moire or less spectacular successes in elections but unable to fulfill the promises in actual political ground work.

But then, politics became very volatile. I vividly remember commentators after Bush's reelection of '04 lamenting "decades of republican hegemony ahead"
 
Last edited:
firefinga

firefinga

Well-known member
Mr. Tea said:
Right, but there's right-wing and then there's right-wing, isn't there? Lots of lifelong Republican voters (and even politicians), who can hardly be called anything but right-wing, are horrified by the idea of Trump being in charge. Colin Powell and John McCain have said they'll vote for Clinton, amongst others.

And Hillary Clinton is not exactly a radical liberal socialist herself, is she?

Edit: I see I've got that wrong about McCain, he's said he can't support either candidate. But a senior Republican refusing to endorse his own party's candidate is surely significant in itself.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's bc of the influence of the Alt Right which Trump put into the center of his campaign. They pose a threat to the Republican party establishment, which is conservative and interventionalist, but also pro free-trade. The Alt Right is isolationist, anti-democratic, and downright racist. It's like a radicalised rejuvenation of people like Pat Buchanan, just way ruder and social-network-savy.

@Hillary - sure she isn't a radical socialist, yet she's paying lip service to gather the votes from that spectrum (Sanders). Which is enough already for many right wing types, paranoid as they often show a tendency of being - to see her as some sort of Trotzki-reborn.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Corpsey said:
Yeah, supposedly what unites the Trump voters is their authoritarianism: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533
Click to expand...

These questions pertain to child-rearing: whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious. Respondents who pick the first option in each of these questions are strongly authoritarian.
Click to expand...

Which is ironic, considering that Trump is about as far from being respectful, obedient, well-behaved and well-mannered as humanly possible.
 
Leo

Leo

Well-known member
comey was between a rock and a hard place: if he didn't tell congress last friday and it leaked out that they were looking for the emails, he and the department would have been accused of a massive coverup. even worse, if he announced the inquiry a few week from now after a clinton victory, it would have "confirmed" every alt-right conspiracy theory about the election being "rigged". damned if he did, damned if he didn't.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Yeah, put like that it's probably the least bad option in order to deflate Trump's "rigged election" claims.
 
firefinga

firefinga

Well-known member
Mr. Tea said:
Yeah, put like that it's probably the least bad option in order to deflate Trump's "rigged election" claims.
Click to expand...

It just doesn't change a thing in the paranoid minds of the hardcore right-wing constituency - in case of a Trump defeat, they'll believe in election fraud. If there is no proof of actual fraud, they'll claim it's bc the perpetrators (New World Order council, The Freemasons, The UN, Lizzard People etc) covered it all up so well.

There were always conspiracy nuts around, the creepy aspect today though is, those conspiracy claims are now being shared by big chunks of the population. And the right wing narrative of "rigged elections" isn't a Trump phenomenon - you can hear/read this in other Western countires too where populist/usually right wing parties have gained massive momentum recently. Thsoe claims also work as means to denounce (representatvie) democracy.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
firefinga said:
If there is no proof of actual fraud, they'll claim it's bc the perpetrators (New World Order council, The Freemasons, The UN, Lizzard People etc) covered it all up so well.
Click to expand...

It's also pretty much word-for-word what a lot of diehard Sanders fans (Sanderistas?) were saying when Clinton won the nomination, because it was just unthinkable to them that she had beaten their man simply by being significantly more popular with Democrat voters.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Though that's not to say that big business interests in the US don't have good reasons to prefer Clinton over Sanders.
 
luka

luka

Well-known member
I think it's fair to surmise the release of that information was neither coincidental nor innocent. Blaming the entire FBI is wrong-headed, however. It's only ever factions/elements
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
That seems more reasonable. When Comey first made unnecessarily public statements about this case, they favoured Clinton, so I don't think it's a given that even he favours Trump:

This controversy has its roots in the director’s July decision to hold a news conference announcing his recommendation that the Justice Department bring no charges against Hillary Clinton. Instead of making a private recommendation to the attorney general — consistent with Justice Department policy — he chose to publicly share his professional recommendation, as well as his personal opinions, about the case. That was a stunning breach of protocol. It may set a dangerous precedent for future investigations. It was wrong.
Click to expand...

-- Eric Holder, WaPo
 
Leo

Leo

Well-known member
vimothy said:
That seems more reasonable. When Comey first made unnecessarily public statements about this case, they favoured Clinton, so I don't think it's a given that even he favours Trump:

-- Eric Holder, WaPo
Click to expand...

when you say "they", are you referring to comey's initial unnecessary public comments? because those clearly did not favor clinton. he called her reckless and severely damaged her trustworthiness and honesty numbers. perhaps i'm misreading your sentence.

either way, as luka said, the fbi overall is not for or against a candidate or party but particular factions within the department do have their own agendas. according to a story in the wsj, some officials think the fbi should be pushing harder on the clinton foundation investigation while others want to stand down.
 
Last edited:
droid

droid

Well-known member
Doesnt seem like the emails are affecting polls too much. Trump is now 1/4, but it seems to be from a general tightening of the race. Comey taking flak for refusing to release info on Russian interference, citing Hatch as justification, which begs the obvious question.
 
Leo

Leo

Well-known member
that comey-russian story is only single-sourced (from a former fbi exec), i wouldn't put much stock in it until it's corroborated by others.

while this new email story might not be enough to fatally damage clinton, it does make it harder for down ballot democrats. those dem candidates are also faced with last week's announcement about rising obamacare premiums, it all adds up to the benefit of republicans.

without a democratic-controlled senate, a president clinton doesn't get much accomplished while in office.
 
firefinga

firefinga

Well-known member
Mr. Tea said:
It's also pretty much word-for-word what a lot of diehard Sanders fans (Sanderistas?) were saying when Clinton won the nomination, because it was just unthinkable to them that she had beaten their man simply by being significantly more popular with Democrat voters.
Click to expand...

Sure, such conspiracy theories are rampant within certain chunks of the (liberal) left. To exaggerate, anything bad is usually due to the CIA/Mossad :rolleyes:

That said, I think Sanders is a necessity in US politics in so far that he is highlighting how much the general consensus of the political spectrum has moved to the right. He advocates ideas/policies which in the 1970s would have been considered those of social democrats/labour. Now he often was called "radical".
 
Leo

Leo

Well-known member
vimothy said:
Who says they do?
Click to expand...

'The FBI is Trumpland': anti-Clinton atmosphere spurred leaks, sources say

Deep antipathy to Hillary Clinton exists within the FBI, multiple bureau sources have told the Guardian, spurring a rapid series of leaks damaging to her campaign just days before the election....

The currently serving FBI agent said Clinton is “the antichrist personified to a large swath of FBI personnel,” and that “the reason why they’re leaking is they’re pro-Trump.”

The agent called the bureau “Trumplandia”, with some colleagues openly discussing voting for a GOP nominee who has garnered unprecedented condemnation from the party’s national security wing and who has pledged to jail Clinton if elected....

The Daily Beast reported on Thursday on ties between Trump surrogate Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor, and the FBI’s New York field office, which reportedly pressed the FBI to revisit the Clinton server investigation after beginning an inquiry into Weiner’s alleged sexual texting with a minor. The website reported that a former New York field office chief, highly critical of the non-indictment, runs a military charity that has received significant financial donations from Trump.
Click to expand...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/03/fbi-leaks-hillary-clinton-james-comey-donald-trump

to be fair, this is a bit clickbait, as the article does say it's the feelings of some (not all) agents, never states outright that the FBI overall has a preference and mentions how one leak was about an investigation of paul manafort's involvement with russia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top