Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 486 posts

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#91

Post by jedberg »

skylan_q wrote: post #72
kevhito wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was getting ready to point out that Hillary really has a large lead, even if the day-to-day talking heads insist on making this and every race/issue seem as if it is 50/50 split. Then I checked 538.com [1]: they have her at 60% chance of winning -- pretty strong lead and hardly a normal time to throw someone under the bus -- but those graphs should be terrifying team Hillary. [1] http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com…

Don't use that site for any insight. Nate Silver had Trump at a "1%" chance of winning the GOP primaries. He then admitted that he got the call wrong because he really didn't have any models and was just spitballing with friends. His accuracy in the previous general election was based on the fact that he had visibility into private polling (WAY more accurate) and other forecasters didn't.

> His accuracy in the previous general election was based on the fact that he had visibility into private polling (WAY more accurate) and other forecasters didn't.

Where did you hear that? I'm not doubting you I'm just interested because I've never heard this before. My understanding was that he was so accurate last time around because the election followed normal patterns and his math was just better than everyone else's gut.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#92

Post by imron »

mkopinsky wrote: post #59
peteretep wrote: post #32

> Citation needed if you're > going to "correct the record." This is not Reddit, and it is not a place for accusing people of being paid shills. Please desist.

Where did he accuse anyone of that? All he asked for is a citation.

Just in case you are genuinely asking, "Correct the Record" is a PAC that pays people to promote Hillary Clinton in a positive light online and also discount any negative online publicity she gets.

By saying that the GP was trying to "correct the record", he's implying that the GGP is a paid shill for Hillary.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#93

Post by soemoea »

losvedir wrote: post #73
mindcrime wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly can't understand how anybody is considering voting for Clinton or Trump. If this world was anything close to reasonable, Gary Johnson would win in a landslide. shrug

As a Gary Johnson supporter myself, I freely admit that he has some extreme policies that can turn off a lot of voters. But what really frustrates me is how many people I've heard from that do prefer him but are afraid to vote for him because of the spoiler effect. I keep (wishful thinking) envisioning a scenario where he gets just enough votes that all of a sudden everyone on the fence realizes that maybe he could w…

Isn't this called a tipping point?

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#94

Post by robomc »

danso wrote: post #10
Mendenhall wrote: post #4

What amazes me besides him using familiar handle is that even after the investigation he left all those reddit posts up. Then he decides to try and delete them now after they are found.

I'm guessing that a person who asks this kind of "help-me-cover-something-up" question while mentioning that his client is "VERY VIP" is also completely oblivious of how findable things are on today's Internet. I'm guessing the Internet detective work might have come from something very serendipitous and casual: Someone interested in the email server scandal doing a search for "Paul Cambetta", which is a fairly rare…

Hey may not have viewed his actions as being a big deal - like, it's possible that they're not a big deal, outside of political hay-making.

There's nothing in the thread to suggest he's trying to conceal anything meaningful in terms of the content of the correspondence. Presumably the "how does I delete sexy snapchats to the Saudis" thread was done more discretely.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#95

Post by imron »

brown9-2 wrote: post #87
jimmywanger wrote: post #26

The actual facts aside, this makes her appear far less electable, as her campaign camp looks like it's being run by a bunch of clowns. Just from a PR perspective, this could not have come at a worse time. The collapse at the 9/11 memorial, the "basket of deplorables", and the mention of the Pepe meme on her official website. Right after a couple of muslim terror attacks, some evidence surfaces purporting that she tri…

> and the mention of the Pepe meme on her official website mentioning a meme on her website is disqualifying?

> huh?

It's horrifying https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/donald-trump-pepe-the-fr...

Edit: In response to your edit, she's attacking a cartoon frog. In seriousness.

Not only that, but she's trying to attribute characteristics to that frog that simply aren't any core part of why people post Pepe memes.

All of that questions the sensibilities of her campaign. Basically her campaign is going all out trying to paint Trump as racist, because that's really all they have left at this point, and even that isn't working too well.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#96

Post by mcphage »

School-Cotton wrote: post #53
mcphage wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We can all agree this is a problem. Funny how nobody seemed to think so until now.

Who cares? Literally what point are you making? Dude, do you think this is a football game? That scoring a point against your opponent negates points scored against you? I suspect a big chunk of the people complaining about this would have complained even harder when Bush did it (if what you say is true), if they had been old enough to be aware what was going on, and had social media like we do now. So, what is your…

> Literally what point are you making?

The point I'm making is that I don't think you, or anybody else actually cares about the emails—they care it's something they can criticize Clinton for. Before her, nobody gave a shit. After her, nobody will give a shit. They don't matter, except that they can be used to criticize Clinton. So of course nobody complained about it with Bush, because nobody cares about them.

> I suspect a big chunk of the people complaining about this would have complained even harder when Bush did it (if what you say is true), if they had been old enough to be aware what was going on

They wouldn't have. The rest of us had much bigger complaints to make, that complaining about deleting emails would have been a laughable waste of time.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#97

Post by TillE »

discodave wrote: post #77
jimmywanger wrote: post #26

The actual facts aside, this makes her appear far less electable, as her campaign camp looks like it's being run by a bunch of clowns. Just from a PR perspective, this could not have come at a worse time. The collapse at the 9/11 memorial, the "basket of deplorables", and the mention of the Pepe meme on her official website. Right after a couple of muslim terror attacks, some evidence surfaces purporting that she tri…

> The actual facts aside I happen to believe that facts are important in a Presidential race. Essentially your response is repeating talking points of the Trump campaign... which is OK, 1st amendment and all that but to pretend like you're making a constructive addition to the discussion / debate is folly. Right now America has a choice between Trump, a racist, mysoginist demagogue who has never held a public office…

> the most experienced presidential candidate of the last couple of decades

George H. W. Bush was a two term vice president, director of the CIA, etc.

I've been following this election pretty closely for more than a year, and I seriously couldn't tell you what Clinton's positive message is besides "I'm experienced". Nobody cares. Americans don't elect technocratic planks of wood. This is the worst, most inept presidental campaign I've ever seen. She's very nearly losing to a joke candidate.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#98

Post by comex »

mkopinsky wrote: post #59
peteretep wrote: post #32

> Citation needed if you're > going to "correct the record." This is not Reddit, and it is not a place for accusing people of being paid shills. Please desist.

Where did he accuse anyone of that? All he asked for is a citation.

Their comment is referencing Correct The Record, a pro-Clinton PAC which, according to a popular but false Reddit rumor, employs commenters to anonymously spread propaganda. See also:

https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/4xcwjb/what_i...

Edit: At the time of this edit, three replies have asked for a citation on "false", so I may as well put it here.

Barrier Breakers 2016, the subject of the original The Daily Beast article that spread the rumor [1], is a real project that spreads messaging (call if propaganda if you want) supporting Clinton. But that messaging is not anonymous or covert. Here are some of their social media accounts:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/nobarriers2016

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BarrierBreakers2016/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMLy17PDQw_WSNoytoDX-HA

Other CTR Twitter accounts (not 'Barrier Breakers'):

https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord

https://twitter.com/CTR_DZ

They post a lot of stuff - the @nobarriers2016 Twitter account has three posts in the last hour. But the accounts are clearly marked as a project of Correct the Record, and the glossy images they share are not even remotely pretending to be grassroots.

According to their spokesperson, they do not have an additional covert operation:

> “Barrier Breakers accounts are always identified as Correct the Record,” spokesperson Elizabeth Shappell said.

- http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/correct-...

That article is a good read in general and explains what they mean by "pushing back":

> In an exchange on May 24, a Twitter user with a bio that reads “Conservative Republican. Trump SUPPORTER. Fox news viewer,” wrote: “Whenever CROOKED HILLARY gets a tough question she either bursts into that blood curdling laughing cackle or starts barking like a dog. #LIAR.” Correct the Record responded with #ImWithHer and a graphic of Clinton with text reading: “She’s the most vetted person on earth. And standing STRONGER than ever.”

(You can find the tweet in question by searching - the response was from the @CTR_DZ account.)

Personally, I consider this approach fairly lame, in line with the brand social media accounts that sometimes show up in my Twitter replies when I complain about the brand. If I got a message from them, I doubt I would feel especially encouraged or interested in resharing their images. But that's a far cry from being immoral, which I think employing anonymous commenters to skew the public debate would be.

Of course, I can't present absolute proof that they are telling the truth about not having an additional covert operation. But there is no evidence whatsoever that they do have one, only baseless speculation about "paid shills", of the sort that's been around forever (I remember when I used to read Slashdot, closer to its prime, and it was Microsoft that supposedly employed an army of them there), combined with a distorted understanding of a real project.

[1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/21/hillary-pac...

Post reply on HN