Malcolm X on one of our on-going debates here:

[yurbud]

[Squinch]

1. This year? I'm for the Democrat, no matter who they are. Because

if we don't get Congress, it won't matter ever again who you are for or who I am for.

[yurbud]

2. that was my position during the Bush administration...

and look where it got us.

In the primaries, we need to support the most progressive candidates we can, who might actually push for progressive economic and foreign policies once elected.

If we elect business friendly candidates (without the GOP intolerance), we will be right back here in 2-4 years.

[Squinch]

4. Nope. The safest Democrat for the seat. So we can get back the committees, put ourselves in a

position to stop this asshole from bringing down the Republic.

As FSogol said in another thread: Some people are trying to put out the fire in the kitchen while others are picking out furniture for the dining room.

I'll be over here in the kitchen.

[yurbud]

5. some people take power lunches with arsonist then don't understand why we don't

want them as firefighters anymore.

[Squinch]

9. But what if the arsonist was just POSING as a firefighter, and was really just the

borscht maker from the restaurant next door? ...

... oh, nevermind. Metaphors only go so far.

[LanternWaste]

6. That's a most accurate example

"and look where it got us..."

That's a most accurate example of the the logical fallacy, post hoc ergo prompter hoc. Stay away from bumper stickers... they're really not wisdom, despite what the commercials tell you!

[JCanete]

3. Good quote. I think it is fair to not take the truth in a vacuum though. For instance, wikileaks

may have released true details of democratic party issues, but it did so selectively, with an agenda. Compromising GOP information has either not been in WikiLeaks possession or it has been withheld(and I think there are examples of the latter).

So even when its the truth, the source matters. That doesn't mean we ignore the truth, it just means we take it in the context of the whole picture and with acknowledgement of what part of the picture is being deliberately obscured from our view.

[yurbud]

7. it could also be that the timing partly had to do with when they got it, however...

I recall reading that Hillary had said some pretty tough things directed at Assange and his situation.

Also, rightly or wrongly, some perceived her rhetoric about Russia as likely to lead to military action if she was elected, which could have lead to a nuclear exchange, in which case, Trump might have looked like the lesser of two evils to him.

I do not agree with that last assessment by the way. Trump is a greater danger of starting a war on accident than Hillary was of doing it on purpose.

[JCanete]

8. Right, it could have been timing, or it could have been ideological..but withholding facts because

it contradicts an ideology is problematic, even if that ideology is in the right.

[yurbud]

10. what is Wikileaks withholding?

[JCanete]

11. Don't take my word for that. I don't want to spread disinformation if that's incorrect, but I

thought I read something here recently regarding things WikiLeaks had had in its possession but for whatever reasons decided not to release.