View Full Version : Hillary Clinton: Woman Enough
Sexy Celebrity
04-07-16, 09:37 PM
Deleted
I thought you were supporting Trump?
M'kay. I guess Yodas gonna make a Cruz thread now then to even it all out, I think hes a Cruz guy. Someone probably will.
matt72582
04-07-16, 10:00 PM
50% of me wants anyone but Clinton. The other 50% of me wants anyone but Cruz. I'm tore in half.
SilentVamp
04-07-16, 10:10 PM
I don't want Hillary to win at all. I don't think she is even the lesser of two evils when it would come to me having to choose who I'd vote for as president. I have never liked her.
I was in a very good mood Tuesday night because not only did Milwaukee re-elect their mayor and county executive (which is what I wanted), but Wisconsin voted for Bernie Sanders. Yes, I did support Bernie. I have from the beginning.
Then I woke up on Wednesday and my spirits were just brought down again. Bernie Sanders won EVERY county in the state except for one. Milwaukee County. :rolleyes:
I hope NY comes to their senses and votes for him.
Slappydavis
04-08-16, 02:06 AM
I hear and see a lot of "anyone but Hillary or Trump". I understand the Never Trump position, because a lot of people don't want him to enact the policies he stands for, and that he is unpredictable on the rest. I don't quite understand the fervor towards Hillary.
So, to help me out, those who think Hillary is the absolute worst. What exactly do you fear from a Clinton presidency? What policies? What effects?
With Trump, we could expect a fiasco with him pumping billions of dollars into a symbolic wall that won't solve any issues, we can expect some sort of anti-Muslim travel policies, we can expect there to be some sort of attempt to ramp up deportation efforts, among other things. There are actual outcomes that we can predict.
So, with Clinton, which policies do you oppose? And if you think she's "just untrustworthy", what do you not trust her to do, exactly?
(I realize I'm setting myself up for a lot of different responses, some that I can empathize with, and some that I can't, I might not respond, I'm just genuinely curious and I don't see discussion around it)
Follow up question, specifically to Bernie supporters: If you find Sanders trustworthy and unable to be forced into saying anything he doesn't believe in, if he loses the nomination and endorses Clinton, would you no longer trust his judgement?
If Hillary beats Bernie, Id back her vs Trump or Cruz. Really hope we dont have to go there because Im over the whole republican party vs the Clintons weve gotten for so long. You know if/when she takes office Slappy the republican media will descend and never let up. No gap will be filled between the two parties, and more of the same. Is it fair? No. Would she be as good as her husband was? No, but he will help. I dont have anything bad to say about her. Bernie says big business backs her, but thats across the board for everyone but Sanders. Really so many are guilty of special interests money taking, blah blah. We'll see who wins the democratic ticket I guess. :)
M'kay. I guess Yodas gonna make a Cruz thread now then to even it all out, I think hes a Cruz guy.
Only by process of elimination. There were at least half a dozen others I would've preferred out of the original field.
Only by process of elimination. There were at least half a dozen others I would've preferred out of the original field.
Well you should make a thread for him. Its not like youre making the site pro-Cruz if you do, hes your guy. Its a thread, thats all :) Glad to see hes gaining on Trump, very glad.`
Nah, I'm good. :D
If anything I'd rather we just have one election thread, but there's too much going on right now, so maybe we can consolidate this once we have the nominees sorted out.
No Vermin Supreme thread? :tsk:
Now I do like Bill Clinton. Bad husband, great president. He just mixed it up with some protestors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRrVI5gHVyo
Nostromo87
04-08-16, 02:39 PM
http://oi65.tinypic.com/4rqrkx.jpg
I would actually be fine with Bill Clinton back in office.
I'll settle for a Democratic party that doesn't now think his economic policy was right-wing extremism.
Captain Steel
04-08-16, 11:09 PM
Hillary Clinton as...
Gwynplaine in Universal Studio's 2017 remake of
The Man Who Laughs
http://onecitizenspeaking.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/03/04/hccapture.jpg
No Vermin Supreme thread? :tsk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbvtkNGGQfo
He will execute all Americans; then when pressed on it he admitted he wouldn't.
Vermin Supreme!!!
http://oi65.tinypic.com/4rqrkx.jpg
If it ends up being Trump vs Hillary, come October this would make an awesome Halloween mask
If it ends up being Trump vs Hillary, come October this would make an awesome Halloween mask
November ;)
November ;)
No, thats the election. Halloween is in October the month before.
Fudge off T; hopefully Sc is with me
Citizen Rules
04-27-16, 09:44 PM
How about they tax babies to pay for the pre school. That makes more sense to me.
Shes gonna lose! I wish it wasnt so but as sure as I am that she will beat Bernie, Im equally sure she'll lose to Trump. :sick::sick::sick::sick:
Well I hope youre right Sexy, cause Id rather a lottery of mayors across the country was taken, and if they chose with Bingo balls who would be President, Id prefer that over Trump.
Was out of town, but I want to remind people I have a standing offer to talk Clinton in her thread. I asked for any worry about a specific outcome of a Clinton presidency (basically, not just "she'd be bad") and I have yet to be taken up on it in the 4 weeks since I posted it.
Not that I support everything about her, there are some points I'll likely just concede, and I like Sanders as well (Obama, in my view, edges both of them out. So I'm slightly forlorn by what I'd see as a downgrade, no matter the outcome). Even Obama had downsides for me, but I'm okay with that, seeing as how politics contains a lot of compromise.
I will bite a bit being fully aware that I will be way out of my element talking to you about economics. I think my biggest question to any Hillary supporter is how they think her policies can pull us out of the spending hole we find ourselves in. I am fully aware that the Bush years are apart of this problem but most of the republicans now fully admit that and feel we have to do something about the massive spending or the system can't sustain itself. I know the go to answers are larger taxes on the 1% and cut military spending. Correct me if I'm wrong, but these solutions don't even begin to solve our deficit, and spending hasn't stopped. In fact it seems like I hear about new programs daily. The latest today is that people shouldn't be spending more than 10% on childcare. So how do Hillary's policies change our spending habits is my first question?
matt72582
05-10-16, 07:16 PM
I think there needs to be compromise... Cut loopholes for the rich, cut military spending and put up some better shelters. This way there isn't abuse. This would also help home owners as property values rise when poverty is cut, so it could be beneficial either way. And in return cutting a billion from new office space for federal workers, which has been brought up, and I don't disagree - it's not a necessity. Another billion by collecting unpaid taxes by federal employees. Cutting 1.4 billion from USAID is something else. Compared to other industrial countries, we actually spend less per capita, but they live better than us - we have plenty of poverty. I'd also add cutting funding for federal employees with travel. They can fly economy - we can always cut luxuries.
Also, the less we bomb, the more safe we are. We've been bombing ISIS for 2 years, and they are stronger than ever. Every bomb is a recruiting tool for people on the fence.
Slappydavis
05-10-16, 08:40 PM
I will bite a bit being fully aware that I will be way out of my element talking to you about economics. I think my biggest question to any Hillary supporter is how they think her policies can pull us out of the spending hole we find ourselves in. I am fully aware that the Bush years are apart of this problem but most of the republicans now fully admit that and feel we have to do something about the massive spending or the system can't sustain itself. I know the go to answers are larger taxes on the 1% and cut military spending. Correct me if I'm wrong, but these solutions don't even begin to solve our deficit, and spending hasn't stopped. In fact it seems like I hear about new programs daily. The latest today is that people shouldn't be spending more than 10% on childcare. So how do Hillary's policies change our spending habits is my first question?
Thanks for the honest concern seanc! That was a lot more substantive than I was expecting; to be frank, when it comes to Hillary it's actually pretty nice to hear a policy issue for once.
First of all, while I really love economics, I’m really only an expert in really esoteric stuff, I don’t think I’m out of any thoughtful person’s league on generic economic issues. I might know more of the particular names for things, but really knowledge of the American economy is a hobby; not my profession.
I’ll separate your question into a couple parts:
1) What would I assume Hillary’s effect on the budget deficit to be?
a. Would that be mostly through cutting spending or raising taxes.
2) Is that something I myself support?
So the first easy political answer is “both cut spending and raise taxes! It’s a compromise!”, and I definitely think that’s what Hillary will say (I’m not going to say she’s not a politician in my defense of her by the way, I don’t think that’s a bad thing either [or a good thing, necessarily]). But I think the balance of her approach to the deficit will be more on raising revenues than on cutting spending.
You may cry “Laffer Curve”, but I don’t think we are even close to the tail of the Laffer Curve. I also don’t think the Laffer curve works the way most people think, but I will acknowledge a generalized diminishing marginal return on each additional dollar of taxation toward revenue. Basically, each additional dollar of taxing gets a tiny bit less true revenue than the last dollar, as each additional tax dollar makes a business less able to leverage their finances to improve their position in an economy, hence costing us a portion of what would have been taxable income. This sounds like the Laffer curve, but the distinction here is the tipping point that actually reverses revenue where a dollar of taxation costs MORE than a dollar of lost revenue because of several dollars of lost income.
Okay, I’m kinda getting in the weeds already, but I want to start the conversation with 2 mutually under-acknowledged ideas: Liberals sometimes ignore the fact that the effect of taking a dollar away from a business is not on a flat distribution, Conservatives sometimes ignore that the dollar isn’t vanishing, but being reinvested somewhere else (sometimes in a good way, sometimes in a bad way). Liberals and Conservatives alike should at least conceptually acknowledge that we care about the opportunity cost of that dollar, is it better for it to be in a market? Or is it better for it to be in a government program? There will still be disagreements from that point, but it helps frame the conversation a bit less dramatically: I don’t think we should have a purely state run economy, and most conservatives probably agree that there are some worthwhile governing programs.
While I seriously love markets, I also think it’s in the collective interest of those markets to be regulated. Players in markets will naturally try to escape competition, individually that’s GOOD for them. But it creates a collective action problem, in my opinion. Markets are pretty good at controlling themselves when they are fairly competitive, but once a company gains a relative advantage it’s very easy to use their leverage to out-power their rivals…
Man, this actually is kinda at the center of my political beliefs, and it’s going to pull so much into it that this will be impossible to read. I’m going to try to be more brief:
I know appealing to balances is kind of a hokey “look at me, I’m impartial” move, but I do think there’s a very generic balance between spending and investments. It’s not 50-50, but it’s something to keep in mind.
Consuming every dollar we have immediately is bad, because it’s difficult to make improvements over our current condition. Investing every dollar is bad, because the market would fail without money in circulation. In a sense, this is a lot like the supply side vs demand side argument.
I believe we are in a situation where our economy thrives more if we take a dollar away from a wealthy individual and put it toward infrastructure such as education. This is NOT to say that dollar would have been WASTED by the wealthy person, that dollar would have, in some way, been useful to the net economy. Even if that wealthy person would have used that dollar to buy a solid gold bar, that money is moving around in the economy. However I think spending the dollar on education eventually gets us more money down the road.
In a way, when the government has a dollar, it has to juggle three basic benefits of that dollar:
1) Use that dollar to pay down the debt (this, to me, is the easiest “baseline” use of a dollar). We know exactly how much that dollar would save us down the line.
2) Give that dollar back to the market (typically, tax cuts). We want to think about how that dollar would enable businesses to hire more people, or invest in new ideas.
3) Spend that dollar towards a public program. How effective would that dollar be? If we put it towards healthcare, will that dollar help us in the long run by reducing future healthcare costs? If we put it in education, do we expect that student to become more productive and give us more revenue in the long run?
When thinking about the use of tax money, if you go with either giving the money to the market, or spending it on a social program, in my opinion the benefit MUST be shown to be greater than spending it on paying down the debt. If the social program wouldn’t give us 3% on that dollar in the future, all else equal I’d say use that dollar on the debt instead. If giving that dollar back to the market doesn’t net us 3%, put that dollar towards the debt (3% is just an example, the interest rate varies).
Now back to Clinton. There’s a lot of programs she talks about that I think beats both the market and the debt. Some I’m not sure about. You mention childcare. Now, my job experience with TANF childcare research is going to color my opinion on this, but allowing parents greater freedom to work has shown tremendous benefits. The child has better education outcomes. The parents have better job stability. The effects are also biggest on allowing women to enter the workforce more easily, and it even reduces some of their need for other government programs. I’m not going to hide my bias, I love child care, and I love it for greedy, greedy money reasons (by the way, I also particularly love Social Security for greedy money reasons, much more than Medicare/Medical).
I guess my answer is this: generally speaking, Hillary’s programs have tended to pass my personal threshold for being better spent in that program than either given back to the market or spent directly on the debt. This is not true for all programs, and I haven’t read about every individual program, so there very well could be a poison pill in one of them.
I will admit that should Clinton win, I’d like to see some money spent directly towards the debt, even when some of the time I’d rather it go towards social programs. Because I think the value of some compromise along with that reduction in the debt is likely greater than the value of dollars in SOME of those programs.
TL: DR I’m a pretty standard liberal. I think that the investments in the social programs outlined by Clinton are better for the deficit long term than direct payments or tax cuts. But I do think that compromise can exist and there can be some debt pay-down, and I think as a candidate who has branded herself as a pragmatist, debt reduction is low-hanging fruit to help that pragmatist case (e.g. Jerry Brown).
If you disagree that those social programs are better for the debt, specifically, Hillary probably isn't the candidate for you, and you should probably look into Libertarians. Whom I think are wrong, a lot, but they seem pretty consistent on that that issue. Libertarians usually strongly dislike a lot of government programs, so I pretty vehemently disagree with them on that, but I kind of enjoy their baseline simplicity. Actual Libertarians that is, not pick and choose ones who like the brand better.
Ugh, that was kind of a mess. I feel like I talked about a lot of stuff outside of your question; and in the end kinda made my answer hard to extract (and possibly incomplete, if I'm missing stuff please point it out, just because it's long doesn't mean it's actually a full answer) sorry about that. I tried to make it more parsimonious in a lot of places, but I resented leaving all this interesting stuff out, and I'm also just bad at being concise.
I knew as soon as I started reading that that it was going to branch off way more than you wanted it to. :D
I kind of want to talk more about the Laffer Curve/investment trade off stuff, but it'll instantly stop being about Hillary, so I'm kinda torn. So I'll just put this post up as a marker if and when you guys finish talking about more on-topic stuff and maybe we can pick something up then.
I guess my answer is this: generally speaking, Hillary’s programs have tended to pass my personal threshold for being better spent in that program than either given back to the market or spent directly on the debt. This is not true for all programs, and I haven’t read about every individual program, so there very well could be a poison pill in one of them.
I will admit that should Clinton win, I’d like to see some money spent directly towards the debt, even when some of the time I’d rather it go towards social programs. Because I think the value of some compromise along with that reduction in the debt is likely greater than the value of dollars in SOME of those programs.
I appreciate the long response, I really like having an idea of where you are coming from and you certainly gave me that. I'll respond to this small part just because that will hopefully keep us on track with making this about Hillary specifically. Although saying that I am immediately afraid that my thoughts will be towards democrats in general rather than her specifically. I can appreciate where your thoughts are coming from on education, and I am sure there are other programs you can name where I would find the point valid. Overall I would say that programs spent into would actually give back to the economy has to be a pretty small percentage. I am not a conservative that says we need to cut welfare programs bare bones either. Obviously there are humanitarian concerns, and slashing programs people have come to depend on could have severe consequences. I do think we need to start down the road of rehabilitation though, and this seems like something democrats are unwilling to do. I really believe our welfare programs need to have better checks and balances, and I don't see that ever happening under a democratic president.
I also grow frustrated with what I call, for lack of a better term, hidden taxes. When debates come up about things like cap and trade or universal health, democrats default to the big companies are going to be flipping the bill. That the average joe will not incur the costs. Of course this is never how things work. The companies immediately pass the cost down to the consumer. So it is not in fact a tax, but it is very much a tax in practice. We saw this is how things worked big time with the Affordable Care Act. My place of business almost immediately forced our family premiums so high that no one could afford them. Forcing our kids onto state run plans. I know my story isn't particularly sad, but it is not unique either. That is without even mentioning that the insurance is not actually affordable to those who need it. It is actually rather expensive, most people I know who looked into it chose to go without.
I simply see more of the same with Hillary. I don't know how much impact a republican candidate can have either at this point. At least on that side I see talk headed in the right direction.
Slappydavis
05-11-16, 06:24 PM
Thanks sean, I'll do my best to explain where I differ.
I really believe our welfare programs need to have better checks and balances, and I don't see that ever happening under a democratic president.
What do you mean by checks and balances? Do you mean fraud? Or that it's too easy to get on welfare? Or that we give those on welfare too much?
I also grow frustrated with what I call, for lack of a better term, hidden taxes. When debates come up about things like cap and trade or universal health, democrats default to the big companies are going to be flipping the bill.
I'll actually agree with you here. I think that the democratic policy wonks actually do know this, but are aware that the "stick it to the big companies" argument is an easier sell than "yes, this will eventually cost YOU money too, but here's why it's necessary". I'd prefer that democrats open admit that there's a real cost of taking money away from the rich (such as a reduction in investments, and the cost being passed on in some portion to the consumer) but that the benefits of the program are even larger. Both sides have these sorts of rhetorical shortcomings, and this is a frustrating one for me by the dems because I really think a lot of these programs are fantastic and there's good data on their benefits.
The other reason it's a common argument is that it's also a one-size-fits-all. You have to justify every program individually with the other argument, saying that it's unfair for the rich to have all the money works for everything and we can just put the money where we want it.
We saw this is how things worked big time with the Affordable Care Act. My place of business almost immediately forced our family premiums so high that no one could afford them. Forcing our kids onto state run plans. I know my story isn't particularly sad, but it is not unique either. That is without even mentioning that the insurance is not actually affordable to those who need it. It is actually rather expensive, most people I know who looked into it chose to go without.
I'm definitely not a health care expert. And even in my hobbyist look at why health care is so expensive and not particularly great (compared to other countries) I haven't found a really convincing single reason (the closest, for me, is that we lack leverage over health care companies/drug companies to negotiate better prices, but even this has gaps). But I do know a bit more about insurance in general.
Insurance is high because costs are high. When we talk about high premiums, it's usually not the case that the insurance company is particularly greedy, and overcharging; the services are just really expensive. Relative to your point about the ACA causing insurance premiums to rise, I'll point towards someone more knowledgeable than me at factcheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/2014/04/skyrocketing-premiums/). I'll do a summary of the points (and I'll really do my best not to cherry pick, so if someone finds something that I left out that is particularly egregious, let me know).
The main question the article addresses is whether or not premiums are "skyrocketing". So here's the issue in my eyes: We would expect Premiums to rise even without the ACA, so did the ACA accelerate the rise?
The article argues states there was maybe a 1-3 percent rise that was directly attributable to the ACA (likely caused by an influx of people previously unable to get health care that need more health care services). Otherwise, the rise in healthcare premiums really wasn't very high:
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/files/2014/07/download.png&w=480
(You'll see that while there was a spike, the rise of premiums is actuallyslower than it was under Bush Jr.)
You can argue that it should have been even lower, or that he got lucky, but based on what I've found, it's a stretch to say that insurance premiums on the whole have done anything but mildly increase.
Obviously, there may be individual cases where the rise was much, much greater (Trump points to these during his remarks, and to his credit, his claims are rated half true (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/25/donald-trump/trump-obamacare-health-care-premiums-going-35-45-5/)[for once] because it technically does happen in some places, but it's cherry picking in the same way that a pro-ACA person could point to someone's premiums dramatically falling and saying it's the norm).
I simply see more of the same with Hillary.
I think this is pretty accurate, but since I'm relatively alright with it, it's not that concerning to me. She probably won't be all that dramatically different from Obama.
Let me know if I missed anything or got something wrong.
matt72582
05-11-16, 06:49 PM
Bill Clinton practically ended welfare --- unless you have children.
Bill Clinton practically ended welfare --- unless you have children.
Phew, thank God there are no people with children around to take advantage of the system.
Slappy, I will respond to you a bit later.
What do you mean by checks and balances? Do you mean fraud? Or that it's too easy to get on welfare? Or that we give those on welfare too much?
Is it a cop out to say all of the above? I get frustrated with how our funds are used at almost every turn. I am all for giving people a leg up, but there seems to be no accountability for that leg up at all. On the flip side it does seem hard at times for people that need help. Similar to immigration, it seems that the people that know the system are best able to take advantage. Leaving those without a handle on the system out in the cold. I know this may be too vague, but as a voter I see one side that is at the very least willing to have conversations about these issues and the other side who is not only unwilling to have that conversation but accuse those against them of racism for even bringing it up.
I'll actually agree with you here. I think that the democratic policy wonks actually do know this, but are aware that the "stick it to the big companies" argument is an easier sell than "yes, this will eventually cost YOU money too, but here's why it's necessary". I'd prefer that democrats open admit that there's a real cost of taking money away from the rich (such as a reduction in investments, and the cost being passed on in some portion to the consumer) but that the benefits of the program are even larger. Both sides have these sorts of rhetorical shortcomings, and this is a frustrating one for me by the dems because I really think a lot of these programs are fantastic and there's good data on their benefits.
We won't probably come to an agreement on this point but I had to quote because this is what an actual adult conversation looks like. Two people understanding where the other is coming from even if they don't agree. Amazing, and just so you know you will never here me say conservatives don't have rhetorical shortcomings. Your absolutely right, the whole system has far too many. Frustrating.
The article argues states there was maybe a 1-3 percent rise that was directly attributable to the ACA (likely caused by an influx of people previously unable to get health care that need more health care services). Otherwise, the rise in healthcare premiums really wasn't very high:
Fair point, and maybe bringing my own story into it isn't fair to people who have much bigger healthcare issues, and isn't representative of the big picture. I do think it is fair to say that ACA is starting to put a lot of financial pressure on businesses and is not very affordable for the people who need it. I think that is the bigger issues with ACA, it is not working the way it should. I think that is another example of misrepresentation as well. When ACA first passed I had no less than five people talk to me who were genuinely surprised it cost anything at all, let alone the pretty darn high premiums that it does.
That being said, and this will tie in to what I was talking about with hidden taxes. I could probably be talked into true universal health if someone would say how much it is going to cost each individual tax payer. 8-10% income tax rate hike across the board pays for universal health. I'm ready to go. No one wants to do that though. Too sweet having the appearance of free.
Slappydavis
05-13-16, 10:29 PM
sean- thanks for the thoughtful reply-- I'm gonna give you a real response in the next couple days. I'm in a debate about payday lending elsewhere and I'm worried that if I reply here while my headspace is still there I'll drag my frustrations from that over here.
Guaporense
05-14-16, 08:37 PM
I read that -- in Pennsylvania, at least? -- she wants to tax soda so that there will be (mandatory?) pre-school for everybody. "Everybody needs pre-school," she said.
I did not need pre-school. I didn't go to it. It wasn't necessary. Give me a break.
I heard her speak last night on TV. Her voice sounds terrible. She sounds sick.
My proposals if I were the president:
1) They should tax soda and fat, to make people eat more healthy and improve the looks of Americans. That would improve life expectancy much more than ObamaCare.
2) Also, tax Co2 emissions to deal with global warming, economists estimate that a tax of 50-100 dollars per ton of Co2 would be optimal. Since the US makes 6 billion tons of Co2 that would net the US government 300-600 billion dollars.
3) Also, cut out unemployment insurance because you are paying for people to not work (hence reducing productivity).
4) Reduce welfare expenditures by allowing foreign doctors to work in the US (that would reduce a lot the cost of medical care and hence Medicare/Medicaid), like doctors from places with similar quality of medical schools like Canada, UK, Japan, EU, etc.
5) And use the money from these taxes and the money saved from unemployment insurance to reduce income taxes to zero for the lower middle class and the poor which are 50-60% of the population.
I'm in a debate about payday lending elsewhere and I'm worried that if I reply here while my headspace is still there I'll drag my frustrations from that over here.
If you're arguing against its existence, I wouldn't mind getting into those weeds a little whenever you're "done" here (whatever done means).
Slappydavis
05-16-16, 01:47 PM
Is it a cop out to say all of the above? I get frustrated with how our funds are used at almost every turn. I am all for giving people a leg up, but there seems to be no accountability for that leg up at all. On the flip side it does seem hard at times for people that need help. Similar to immigration, it seems that the people that know the system are best able to take advantage. Leaving those without a handle on the system out in the cold. I know this may be too vague, but as a voter I see one side that is at the very least willing to have conversations about these issues and the other side who is not only unwilling to have that conversation but accuse those against them of racism for even bringing it up.
I’ll agree that sometimes the conversation gets shut down too easily around welfare programs, but I’ll disagree with the lack of accountability. However, I should note that the vast majority of my knowledge is at the state level (California), so it’s completely possible that if you live in a different state, the situation is different (though I would doubt it’s massively different).
I mentioned fraud first for my personal reasons, because it’s a significant part of my job to look at TANF/SNAP fraud statistics. And in my opinion, the amount of fraud resources we have are overleveraged if anything. If we were simply a company, we’d be pretty alright with the actually low fraud rate of 1-3% (depending on the program, SNAP is usually thought to be around ~1%, TANF is a bit higher, but around 2-3%, and Medical & Medicare are higher, but I don’t know those programs as well). We don’t recoup the resources we exert on fraud detection because usually, the individuals can’t pay us back. They get kicked off the program and prevented from rejoining for a period of time relative to the severity of the fraud, and that saves us some money, but it’s a lot of effort for pretty low benefits, aside from a symbolic deterrent.
Though, to be truthful, the main benefit of fraud detection programs is to show that the programs have accountability, and often fraud programs are folded in during negotiations on the programs, usually not very much, but in CA a token increase in fraud detection is a win that Republicans in the state legislature can tout, because they are seriously outnumbered.
The thing that bugs me about discussions around fraud when it comes to SNAP (in particular) is that the non-participation rate is around ten times higher than the fraud rate (~15% nationally, above 30% in CA). Because of the negative stigma about government assistance, a lot of people don’t get help they are entitled for, a significantly larger group than the ones defrauding the program (though it’s true, the people that defraud government programs designed to help the poor are pretty awful, because they are contributing towards efforts to defund the program and endangering a lot of people).
Now all this might be moot, because SNAP and TANF spending is dwarfed by SS, Medicare, and Medical. But particularly when it comes to SNAP, I really want everyone on the program, it’s not that much money and getting people food secure helps kids develop, helps people stay healthy (and drop Medicare costs), and really feels like the least we could do.
Two people understanding where the other is coming from even if they don't agree.
Agreed that this is pretty key, because it’s not only annoying to talk past each other, it makes discussion fairly worthless, and discussion is really important to me. It bugs me a bit when dems only repeat the merits of their ideas that appeal to their own base, rather than addressing the concerns of the other side (they should appeal to their base some of the time, but if they’re going to enter a negotiation with the other side, at least show that you know why they are concerned).
That being said, and this will tie in to what I was talking about with hidden taxes. I could probably be talked into true universal health if someone would say how much it is going to cost each individual tax payer. 8-10% income tax rate hike across the board pays for universal health. I'm ready to go. No one wants to do that though. Too sweet having the appearance of free.
Sadly, I don’t know enough about healthcare in particular to mount a real defense of government funded healthcare. I can pretty much only point to the outlier status of the US when it comes to the ratio of money spent on relatively mediocre health outcomes and ask if there’s something that other countries are doing that we’re not.
The most convincing argument I’ve heard on US healthcare costs being so relatively high is that we lack bargaining leverage, which could be a benefit of a state run healthcare system.
But your last sentence is where I hem and haw, because while I like the idea, I have to admit that I haven’t been fully convinced of the merits by its proponents (Sanders in particular), and I should be one of the easy ones. It could be that I just personally pay less attention to that sort of thing, and I would be convinced if I listened.
Thanks again sean, the voice in my head that I try to use as a counterpoint to my positions is getting a lot smarter during discussions like this!
Slappydavis
05-16-16, 01:52 PM
If you're arguing against its existence, I wouldn't mind getting into those weeds a little whenever you're "done" here (whatever done means).
I think a separate topic would be good for the econ stuff (unless Hillary said something in particular about it). I'll be there!
I will say that from the get-go, I sometimes take my time with replying to debates. Overall I enjoy them, but I prefer to debate when I'm not feeling any external stress, otherwise it turns a little incoherent and aggressive, which makes my side look bad, and goes against my goal of accelerating our march towards a state-run utopia.
Yeah, same. There's a compulsive argument cycle where one or more participants feel the need to reply as soon as possible, and that's about the point where it stops becoming illuminating and starts becoming unpleasant and/or angry, in my experience. Just wanted to put that in the back of your head, and maybe in a week or two when work settles down (on my end) one of us will give it a go. Though given your general faith in markets, I think I know how it'll go and it'll probably reach an impasse pretty quick. But hey, you have the conversation because you might be surprised, so who knows.
marmalade skies
05-16-16, 02:42 PM
Hillary Clinton is another candidate that's tough to judge. She's the most experienced, sensible and practical candidate in the race. She also represents many of the bad things about the establishment (such as her Iraq War vote).
Right now, I'd say there's an 80% chance that she'll win the election. She would have to lose every single battleground state in order to lose the election, and that's doubtful.
The thing that bugs me about discussions around fraud when it comes to SNAP (in particular) is that the non-participation rate is around ten times higher than the fraud rate (~15% nationally, above 30% in CA). Because of the negative stigma about government assistance, a lot of people don’t get help they are entitled for, a significantly larger group than the ones defrauding the program (though it’s true, the people that defraud government programs designed to help the poor are pretty awful, because they are contributing towards efforts to defund the program and endangering a lot of people)
This statement sent me down a bit of a google rabbit hole. I read some interesting stuff and while my views haven't changed, there is enough there that will give me pause the next time I am discussing this subject with someone. My ex-wife has worked in various areas of both APS and CPS over the past fifteen years, so admittedly most of my views on the fraud aspect are colored by that. The fact that the non-participation rate is that much higher than the fraud rate is the sort of statistic that reaffirms how disingenuous the rhetoric around these subjects really is. I have never heard this mentioned before and it bugs me quite a bit.
It also reaffirms for me how much I believe in straight up hard line fairness, in both taxes and fund cuts. I know my mind lives in pipe dreams that will never come to fruition, but in my utopia fairness looks like flat tax rates. With fund cuts I would take the same approach. If a straight 15% cut in all government funded programs gets us where we need to be. Do it, no questions asked and no exceptions. I know that type of reality will never come to fruition and I will never be asked to run things but that is how I would handle it. :D
Out of curiosity how do you feel about the security investigations Clinton is involved in? Like most things I feel one side is making too big of a deal out of it while the other is trying to casually dismiss it. I think she was pretty negligent and is trying to squirrel her way out of it. Probably nothing that should keep her from being president or anything, but shouldn't be swept under the rug either. Thoughts?
what kind of 'woman enough' ?? a woman who still stuck by her husband without batting an eyelid even though it was revealed that he was taking blowjobs from an intern...
Out of curiosity how do you feel about the security investigations Clinton is involved in?
I'd be curious about this, too. I know some thoughtful people who support her, and I'm not really sure how they handle the email server stuff. I suppose the depth of the transgression is arguable, but I'm not sure how someone could explain the way her justification of it has demonstrably shifted as new information has come out to contradict whatever the previous line was. Is the argument just "yeah, that's really dishonest, but so is everyone else who runs for President"?
Slappydavis
05-18-16, 05:40 PM
Out of curiosity how do you feel about the security investigations Clinton is involved in? Like most things I feel one side is making too big of a deal out of it while the other is trying to casually dismiss it. I think she was pretty negligent and is trying to squirrel her way out of it. Probably nothing that should keep her from being president or anything, but shouldn't be swept under the rug either. Thoughts?
I think it won’t surprise you that it’s not something I really care that much about. But I’ve been kinda forced to think about it because it never really goes away. It does highlight some of my concerns about her, but not the ones that most people take away from it.
I think she didn’t know about, or didn’t care about, the rule about the email server. I don’t believe she was hiding anything in particular on it. I do think that she wanted to minimize the fallout, so she doubled down a couple times on the story, and then found herself in a position where she couldn’t just apologize quickly for it and get it over with. I think that the republicans in the legislature don’t really care about this idiosyncratic rule, but that they see it’s a winning tactic to keep the story alive, and they’ll keep using it (and honestly, compared to the other things that bug me about republicans in the legislature, it’s not all that dirty of a tactic either; I’m not all that shocked or even upset that they keep on it).
The concern it highlights for me is that she has trouble admitting when she’s wrong. Something that the 3 candidates left in the race all are bad at (I actually think both Obama and Bush were better at this than those candidates). My main disappointment was that one of Clinton’s strong suits should be tactics, and she flubbed this one and didn’t back down when she could have because of either pride or a tactical miscalculation, and now both tactics AND pride prevent her from apologizing.
Still, in the end, I haven’t been convinced it’s a deal breaker. Just a downside.
Can't see her not becoming president so good luck to her. I don't like her at all and would never vote for if i was american whether she was up against Trump or not, but you have to at least hope she does a good job.
I would elect a Richard Nixon, even if he had the sex drive of Bill Clinton, before Id elect Donald Trump. Hillary would be better.
that is all
I will say that poster is pretty hilarious. She did make history but that poster makes out it is on the same scale as Obama in 08 or the other major woman milestones. In reality she had next to no competition, Sanders who did extremely well but never had much of a chance and a guy nobody has ever heard of :rolleyes:
In comparison to Donald Trump, who had a major battle against so many other competitors and still managed to defeat them all.
I don't like Trump but i can't help but be impressed that he somehow won and pretty easily. I remember hearing he was thinking about running in 2012 and i just took it as a joke that he'd either be like Vermin Supreme running on the Dem ticket but not in the debates, etc, or he would last a month at most.
honeykid
06-09-16, 11:39 AM
True, but Vermin talks more sense than Donald, so it's harder to be serious about him. :D
Nostromo87
06-10-16, 07:20 PM
Obama: Hillary Clinton is a Liar (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UTtizmetQMY&app=desktop)
Omnizoa
06-11-16, 09:52 AM
Hillary Clinton will be taking away your guns soon because of this incident.
By the same rationale, I could say "Such-and-Such is going to take away your autographs."
It certainly paints the target in a negative color, but it does little to inform why. Autographing sessions are friggen' deadly.
Citizen Rules
06-11-16, 12:39 PM
Don't worry there's more than enough guns for everyone in America. Trump is more likely to ban movies, because he's got bad taste:laugh:
Cobpyth
06-11-16, 12:46 PM
Don't worry there's more than enough guns for everyone in America. Trump is more likely to ban movies, because he's got bad taste:laugh:
Citizen Kane is his favorite film, though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upC8pX3RY0A
But I don't like the whole "First Lady" thing he'd be doing.
You dont like a husband supporting his wife?
or you have a problem with a man taking a back seat to a woman?
;)
Also yes,i hope she takes your guns away.Lets face it,it should have been done a long time ago.
Even in that clip, Trump can't seem to not equivocate - he seems like he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Citizen Rules
06-11-16, 01:12 PM
Citizen Kane is his favorite film, though.
Achk...Trump's full of it, he always lies:rolleyes:
His favorite film is really Anchorman 2 (2013)
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1229340/)
As far as guns disappearing, the NRA has been perpetuating that lie for almost 40 years now, and Americans keep having access to more and more guns.
We need training in guns to be a requirement to own a gun. Theres too many idiots holding them now, but to disarm us entire would be a nightmare unforseen.
Citizen Rules
06-11-16, 01:24 PM
As far as guns disappearing, the NRA has been perpetuating that lie for almost 40 years now, and Americans keep having access to more and more guns.Well said!
The NRA & conservatives said that about Bill Clinton (he didn't take our guns) and Pres Obama (didn't take our guns either).
The only president who 'took' our guns was a conservative republican George Bush sr. who banned the import of foreign made assault rifles.
Hillary is not banning guns.
Then let's ban alcohol. It kills people, too. There's no good going on with alcohol being legal, either. Your need to get drunk and have a good time is no different than people who own guns and go shooting for fun. Or just having them to collect in their homes. We need guns so good people who wanna protect themselves and their family and their home can do so.
Most people are able to enjoy alcohol without hurting themselfs or others.
if people want to protect themself they can start with getting an alarm system. theres no need for guns.
we follow the gun debate over here on the news in amusement,sorry to say. its kinda ridiculous.
matt72582
06-11-16, 01:25 PM
Citizen Kane is his favorite film, though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upC8pX3RY0A
I knew it was his favorite movie ever, never saw that clip - thanks..
I actually think Trump does understand the movie, that money isolates you, and that it's an empty life without happiness. I think rosebud stood for innocence, before his life changed, a time when things were easier, when fun (sled) was the feeling worth living for, instead of currency.. Trump notes how further and further apart he and his wife become as he gets "richer" (wish they would have used a better video clip)..
To me, Trump and Hillary are almost the same person, just a different gender.
Alot more people drink and more often,you need to take that into account.but then again your alcohol rules are different then ours-so i`d agree that your rules should be strickter.we would never go to a bar then drive home-you`d loose your liscence and get in jail.
If thats why people should have guns then you need to ask yourselfs why people are breaking in to other peoples homes and hurting them. then work towards fixing that. guns arnt gonna fix anything-they obviously just the problem worse.
To me, Trump and Hillary are almost the same person, just a different gender.
Voters have had about 25 years to build up their hatred for Hillary. They've only had about one year to hate Trump.
Omnizoa
06-11-16, 01:35 PM
Lets face it,
That's a very dangerous combination of words in a political discussion.
Really?
So a man comes into a house and stabs a woman to death. She didn't have a gun.
A man comes into a house, a woman has a gun on her, he comes to stab her, she shoots him in the forehead and he dies.
What's the better scenario here?
And how are we gonna fix crazy people from breaking into homes and hurting others? You can't. It'll always happen.
the best scenerio is finding out why he was breaking in.
Mental illness? then you need to review the health system-are people
getting the help they need?
Money? why was he needing money to the point he would break into someone else house and hurt them for it. Are there not enough jobs,are people not getting the right education,are people out of jobs not getting the right support?
Revenge? has there been history where he was not getting the help he needed from a public service?
what you are talking about-guns- is talking around the actual issue.
you need to find out WHY people need to defend themselfs and fix it.
also theres been several cases where people have shot others they thought were intruders but werent. But my main point is as above.
the problem will never be solved by throwing guns into the mix.
the best scenerio is finding out why he was breaking in.
Mental illness? then you need to review the health system-are people
getting the help they need?
Money? why was he needing money to the point he would break into someone else house and hurt them for it. Are there not enough jobs,are people not getting the right education,are people out of jobs not getting the right support?
Revenge? has there been history where he was not getting the help he needed from a public service?
what you are talking about-guns- is talking around the actual issue.
you need to find out WHY people need to defend themselfs and fix it.
also theres been several cases where people have shot others they thought were intruders but werent. But my main point is as above.
the problem will never be solved by throwing guns into the mix.
Based on your logic, guns aren't the problem, either. So in arguing against the necessity of guns, you've simultaneously argued against the long-term efficacy of gun control.
This is without getting into the implication that things like mental illness, envy, or poverty can necessarily be solved. They can certainly be exacerbated or alleviated, but they're not going to be eliminated. You will never "fix" people, and the best remedy for people being broken which the world has ever known is to give them as much freedom as possible. And any attempt to roll back those freedoms should be held to the highest possible standard of evidence; a standard that gun control arguments basically never come close to meeting.
And this is supposed to be worse? Hillary's had 25 years to get on our good side. Trump still has another 24.
Politicians tend to not get on people's good sides.
Omnizoa
06-11-16, 01:59 PM
So a man comes into a house and stabs a woman to death. She didn't have a gun.
A man comes into a house, a woman has a gun on her, he comes to stab her, she shoots him in the forehead and he dies.
What's the better scenario here?
You gotta realize that's a flawed argument, SC. You could rationalize a device that spits out aerosolized anthrax with that argument.
Why not? Anthrax fights are a popular sport in Kazakhstan.
Omnizoa
06-11-16, 02:06 PM
Are we talking about aerosol anthrax? NO.
This is all you ever do with your stupid arguments -- exchange something in them for something else. Something we're not even dealing with.
It's an analogy, SC. If your principal is infallible, then it shouldn't break under the extremes. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum)
Everything with you is interchangeable. Even your own gender.
*laughs* Good grief, you and Camo can't get over that can you?
Based on your logic, guns aren't the problem, either. So in arguing against the necessity of guns, you've simultaneously argued against the long-term efficacy of gun control.
This is without getting into the implication that things like mental illness, envy, or poverty can necessarily be solved. They can certainly be exacerbated or alleviated, but they're not going to be eliminated. You will never "fix" people, and the best remedy for people being broken which the world has ever known is to give them as much freedom as possible. And any attempt to roll back those freedoms should be held to the highest possible standard of evidence; a standard that gun control arguments basically never come close to meeting.
People kill people,we know that. Guns make it possible for people kill people alot easier-would the same people who shot others be able to kill someone with a knife? you have a better chance defending yourself and surviving an attack without a gun.would the person whos attacking be able to do it without a gun? its a lot more "guts" to shove knife into someones stomach up close than to shoot someone from a distance.
Meanwhile - the woman he killed is dead for eternity.
It probably won't stop every crazy out there.
Won't stop every crazy person. There are other reasons people do these things. I doubt the man who killed Christina Grimmie last night shot her while signing autographs 'cause he needed money.
We KNOW why people need to defend themselves -- to keep themselves from being killed by psychos who want to take their innocent lives. Doesn't need fixed!
If you can say people drink alcohol innocently, then people are also innocently defending themselves with guns if someone's trying to kill them.
That can happen sometimes.
I'm not convinced of that.
the dead person will continue to be dead just like any other person who was killed,but you can then prevent others from suffering the same fate.
when did i say money was the reason he shot her?
im saying you need to figure out WHY-and in some situation money is why. you need to figure out why then build on that.
are people going to be less crazy? actually,yes maybe with proper help-or atleast less violent and if not then that person should not be out on the streets where he is a danger to the public.
if a person shoots someone because of a mental illness then you need to
find out why nobody was helping him,doctors,surroundings,work/boss or school.
when should this have been discovered? could it have been discovered (if hes older) at school? should his parents have been suspicious of his behaviour? who is responsible-is there not enough information about these issues out there,are the doctors not equipped to handle it or discover it,is it too difficult to get help?
i could obviously go on and on, i dont feel like you guys are taking into account what im actually saying,but insted talking around it.
Omnizoa
06-11-16, 02:21 PM
i could obviously go on and on, i dont feel like you guys are taking into account what im actually saying,but insted talking around it.
>_>
>_>
Please stop aggitating with that nonsense. It doesnt contribute anything and only makes someone feel isolated to a group, and communication becomes strained.
_______
Topsy in regards to United States no longer "having guns" its really unrealistic at this point. Im pretty sure the USA leads the world in gun production, and weve been producing those guns and injecting them into the public the past 200 years. To disarm the nation would be something like Civil War 2. I do know that we need to control them more though, even at the cost of some of our precious freedom.
Omnizoa
06-11-16, 02:42 PM
Please stop aggitating with that nonsense. It doesnt contribute anything and only makes someone feel isolated to a group, and communication becomes strained.
...
i could obviously go on and on, i dont feel like you guys are taking into account what im actually saying,but insted talking around it.
It's tough to take this seriously when your post opens with "its a lot more 'guts' to shove knife into someone" and Yoda has addressed you on point.
Please stop aggitating with that nonsense. It doesnt contribute anything and only makes someone feel isolated to a group, and communication becomes strained.
That sounds kind of like a criticism of how I post.
And that's sounds kind of ironic.
<_<
That sounds kind of like a criticism of how I post.
And that's sounds kind of ironic.
<_<
No it was a plain criticism on how you post. Not every disagreement or conversation has to be fueled on by those type constant antics.
honeykid
06-11-16, 02:45 PM
It is ****. But then, maybe that's just because I have no idea what he's trying to communicate.
As far as it actually happening,i have no doubt that it wont. theres too much money in it and there will be too much of a
backlash from people
Im just saying that it should as in regard to the gp,and why i think so ;)
we dont have guns here,and we dont need them (because reasons above).if someone here likes guns and want to fire them-then they nedd to go get a liscence and register at a shooting hall.
Omnizoa
06-11-16, 02:58 PM
No it was a plain criticism on how you post.
Oh, so does that mean I can post this?:
You better not have any more to say to me, or about me TONGO, OR ANYONE AT THE FORUM,I seem to recall a rather similarly caustic PM when I criticized someone else's posts...
Something along the lines of... "contributing"...
A little on the nose. And a little passive aggressive. (O_O )
Citizen Rules
06-11-16, 02:58 PM
Gun control might need it's own thread...but as it was brought up I will address it.
Topsy, I know you're not in the USA, so you may or may not already know this:
The reason the U.S. Constitution grants it's citizens the right to bear arms is not for home defense and not for gun collecting or sporting events.
The reason is... in case our government because tyrannical the citizens of America will have the means to rise up in armed revolt and overthrow the government.
The right to bear arms, is a balance of power, that keeps our government from straying from the freedoms and liberties we set forth in our Bill of Rights and our Constitution.
Omnizoa
06-11-16, 03:01 PM
The reason the U.S. Constitution grants it's citizens the right to bear arms is not for home defense and not for gun collecting or sporting events.
The reason is... in case our government because tyrannical the citizens of America will have the means to rise up in armed revolt and overthrow the government.
The right to bear arms, is a balance of power, that keeps our government from straying from the freedoms and liberties we set forth in our Bill of Rights and our Constitution.
Excellent.
So the idea is you disarm the population, militarize the local police, and become an evil empire.
honeykid
06-11-16, 03:02 PM
Yep, luckily when the government start firing missiles and have jets flying overhead and tanks rolling down the streets, little Johnny will be able to defend his homestead with a rifle. ;)
Omnizoa
06-11-16, 03:04 PM
Yep, luckily when the government start firing missiles and have jets flying overhead and tanks rolling down the streets, little Johnny will be able to defend his homestead with a rifle. ;)
That... DOES present a new issue.
Yep, luckily when the government start firing missiles and have jets flying overhead and tanks rolling down the streets, little Johnny will be able to defend his homestead with a rifle. ;)
lol! Yee haw! :laugh:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/13/78/07/13780709d8a422afc1baca4e17710a1e.jpg
Omnizoa
06-11-16, 03:57 PM
We can't be living in this country without guns when there's crap like that going on.
But what if THEY have guns? That's when you break out the chastity belt.
I say truly educate someone on firearms, like they do in the military, or country boys growing up (not "rednecks", theres a difference.) before allowing them to have one. You still have the freedom to get a gun, but youd have to earn it. Someone thats a convicted violent criminal wouldnt have that right.
the best scenerio is finding out why he was breaking in.
Mental illness? then you need to review the health system-are people
getting the help they need?
Money? why was he needing money to the point he would break into someone else house and hurt them for it. Are there not enough jobs,are people not getting the right education,are people out of jobs not getting the right support?
Revenge? has there been history where he was not getting the help he needed from a public service?
what you are talking about-guns- is talking around the actual issue.
you need to find out WHY people need to defend themselfs and fix it.
also theres been several cases where people have shot others they thought were intruders but werent. But my main point is as above.
the problem will never be solved by throwing guns into the mix.
Holy crap. I have never seen anyone take personal responsibility out of the equation completely quite like this. Thoughts like this make me sprint to the far right, and I'm not even very pro-gun.
I dont know if you missunderstood me? theres always a reason why people do what they do,point being you need to find out why guns are being used/and if in defense why is there so much violence
Citizen Rules
06-11-16, 04:19 PM
Mostly people break into homes, because they're low life criminals.
I dont know if you missunderstood me? theres always a reason why people do what they do,point being you need to find out why guns are being used/and if in defense why is there so much violence
Sure, but you are never going to get rid of that scenario completely. Even if 100% of your gdp was going into social programs ear marked for violence and mental illness. Your still more likely to have a tragic accident in your home than thwart a bad guy if you own a gun. So by no means am I saying everyone should pack but this idea that we can save everyone from themselves is equally unproductive.
The bottom line for me concerning gun control is the right needs to stop thinking not being able to purchase assault rifles is the equivalent of taking away hunting rifles. The left needs to stop acting like street violence will be gone with more gun control. There is a pretty easy middle ground on this issue but neither side wants to budge as usual.
The left never likes this but we need to be tougher on criminals. Serious consequences for actions is always the best deterrent. We are light on crime, especially sexual crimes.
Okey,well im probably not wording myself good enough either.
A happy,healthy,economically stable person wouldnt just attack someone.hence you wouldnt have to have a gun to defend yourself,neither would said person need a gun to attack someone-is what ive been trying to say.
i live in a place where i dont have to lock the door when i leave home for work,i dont have to worry walking home in the dark,most/all of the violent and sexual crimes are done by foreigners (not politically correct to say but true)
and theres a reason for that.
(not meant to be a condecending as it probably comes across)
But obviously we feel differently on the matter,which is fine enough :) :)
Omnizoa
06-11-16, 04:42 PM
The bottom line for me concerning gun control is the right needs to stop thinking not being able to purchase assault rifles is the equivalent of taking away hunting rifles. The left needs to stop acting like street violence will be gone with more gun control. There is a pretty easy middle ground on this issue but neither side wants to budge as usual.
The left never likes this but we need to be tougher on criminals. Serious consequences for actions is always the best deterrent. We are light on crime, especially sexual crimes.
I agree, however the "tough on crime" bit can and has gone sour in a few ways.
I agree, however the "tough on crime" bit can and has gone sour in a few ways.
Like how? From where I am standing we are wildly inconsistent on sentencing and repeat offending for sexual and violent crimes not called murder is off the charts.
honeykid
06-11-16, 05:00 PM
Isn't that to do with plea bargaining more than anything else?
Citizen Rules
06-11-16, 05:02 PM
Believe it or not it has to do with a movie, at least that's what I read at IMDB. Not that I believed the reviewer's take on history.
Isn't that to do with plea bargaining more than anything else?
You very well could be right. That wouldn't make my argument any different though.
Citizen Rules
06-11-16, 05:16 PM
IMO, it's an overall lack of personal responsibility in U.S. society. From the individual to government policy and even laws, people no longer are held accountable for their actions. That's probably why the concept of 'no free will' has gotten popular:rolleyes:
Omnizoa
06-11-16, 05:24 PM
Like how?
Like giving small town police departments tanks.
Citizen Rules
06-11-16, 05:25 PM
Popular, but accurate. You're starting to sound like Omni:cool:
Omnizoa
06-11-16, 05:30 PM
You're starting to sound like Omni:cool:
Whuuut? I missed something.
Omnizoa
06-11-16, 05:34 PM
That's because Omni is my new, non-binary, genderless alt account!
http://25.media.tumblr.com/de5a8f78f7681056f3149000b412a756/tumblr_n0p95aL78i1t2ko4eo6_500.gif
Citizen Rules
06-11-16, 05:35 PM
I like the non-binary part:p
Omnizoa
06-11-16, 05:40 PM
I heard that label used today -- there was an article about a court allowing somebody to be legally defined as "non-binary". Neither male or female.
This person was born a man, had a sex change to become a woman, but now considers "Jamie" (Jamie's name - Jamie does not like pronouns) as non-binary.
I don't think he's... WOMAN ENOUGH.
Citizen Rules
06-11-16, 05:44 PM
I heard that label used today -- there was an article about a court allowing somebody to be legally defined as "non-binary". Neither male or female.
This person was born a man, had a sex change to become a woman, but now considers "Jamie" (Jamie's name - Jamie does not like pronouns) as non-binary.That's pretty interesting...and surprising. I had thought non-binary might mean:
non-speaking or non-sensical. You know computers use binary language and a non-binary would be non-communication.
(not saying you are Omni, I just thought that was what SC meant) I learn something new everyday!
Like giving small town police departments tanks.
Yes, of course, I forgot about all the rapists who have been crushed by tanks as punishment.
Sir Toose
06-11-16, 10:35 PM
Hillary is crooked as a snake. Can't stand her. I'm almost willing to vote for Trump just so it's not a vote for this lying, deceiving woman.
Hillary is crooked as a snake. Can't stand her. I'm almost willing to vote for Trump just so it's not a vote for this lying, deceiving woman.
http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/40/4062f93efbe62e1da5a23e40886188c3fb52ddaca0cf24751bf6282afb825d11.jpg
Vote for your favorite rock star before putting The Donalds name down.
Sir Toose
06-11-16, 10:46 PM
Write in for Bernie Sanders. Or Adolph Hitler. Anyone who isn't sponsored by the power elite ( guess that removes Hitler from the list).
Write in for Bernie Sanders. Or Adolph Hitler. Anyone who isn't sponsored by the power elite ( guess that removes Hitler from the list).
Just vote Hillary. Theyre both crooks but hes incompetent too. Him taking office would hurt our country and divide us from each other further.
Just die.
Dont look at me! Your candidate is throwing out new self-inflammatory material daily. The only industry hed be good for is stand up comedy because he would bring a great surplus of new material to that sector.
Someone smarter than me on all this said a few weeks ago Trump had a slim chance of winning.....yet I have a bad feeling he will. Hillary isnt inspiring. She comes off flat, and people that vote with their feelings "like" Trump. If he were to win......it would not end up being funny. The presidency is too delicate a position to hold with weight domestically & internationally for a blowhard like Kanye Trump. We are better than that.
Nostromo87
06-11-16, 11:23 PM
Just vote Hillary. Theyre both crooks but hes incompetent too. Him taking office would hurt our country and divide us from each other further.
Hmm this made me thoughtful all a sudden, why don't you declare what Hillary has done that displays her competence
Nostromo87
06-11-16, 11:28 PM
The only industry hed be good for is stand up comedy because he would bring a great surplus of new material to that sector.
You lyin! http://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/smilies/liar.gif
I can tell you two industries he's done very well in, and he's less than a year into a third industry and is winning there too, at record levels. Details available upon request.
Hmm this made me thoughtful all a sudden, why don't you declare what Hillary has done that displays her competence
Able to endure media scrutiny with class. It will get worse when whichever takes office.
As for execution, Trump could have come in and tried to unite the 2 parties, but his antics have widened the gaps between democrats and republicans, AND divided the republicans. He still is, this is from today....
In Florida, Trump attacks rivals — and not just the Democrats
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/in-florida-trump-attacks-rivals-—-and-not-just-the-democrats/ar-AAgVhYs?li=BBnb7Kz
Now she is working with her party, and is going to do all she can to get Bernies votes. She'll go about it better than Trump is. She was Secretary Of State, and her husband was one of the most effective Presidents for 8 years. Trust me, she knew more then than Gore. Now Bill will be there for her if she needs advice. Need more?
Nostromo87
06-11-16, 11:47 PM
In politics for 35 years and that's it?
She can endure scrutiny from a left-leaning media?
What did she achieve as Senator? What did she achieve as Secretary as State?
In politics for 35 years and that's it?
She can endure scrutiny from a left-leaning media?
What did she achieve as Senator? What did she achieve as Secretary as State?
Her resume dwarfs Donald Trumps. Bernie Sanders resume dwarfed Donald Trumps.
Why are you so loyal to him? Hes never been a stand up guy in life before this latest bid for attention. What is it?
Nostromo87
06-12-16, 01:04 AM
What did she do as Senator and Secretary of State that was so great?
Hey, that rhymed! :D
Sorry Nostro youre just saying stuff, theres no forward moving conversation as again you wont respond. Ive answered your question.
Nostromo87
06-12-16, 01:20 AM
Hillary Clinton, she'll say anything, and change nothing.
It's time to turn the page.
Paid for by Obama for America.
I'm Barack Obama, and I approve this message (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UTtizmetQMY&app=desktop).
http://oi68.tinypic.com/mvm7lu.jpg
Nostro I dont know why you think youre gaining any ground with Trump utterances. :laugh:
Heres accomplishments of Hillary Clinton as Secretary Of State....
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/carly-fiorina-debate-hillary-clintons-greatest-accomplishment-213157
Omnizoa
06-12-16, 05:00 AM
That's pretty interesting...and surprising. I had thought non-binary might mean:
non-speaking or non-sensical. You know computers use binary language and a non-binary would be non-communication.
(not saying you are Omni, I just thought that was what SC meant) I learn something new everyday!
Binary does me just fine.
Yes, of course, I forgot about all the rapists who have been crushed by tanks as punishment.
Hopefully you're joking. I was just bringing up one way in which the mentality of "WE MUST BE HARDER ON CRIME!" becomes too much (particularly drugs with a topping of terrorism paranoia).
I think you and I can agree that tanks are an overreaction to even rape. If that ever does happen.
Hopefully you're joking. I was just bringing up one way in which the mentality of "WE MUST BE HARDER ON CRIME!" becomes too much (particularly drugs with a topping of terrorism paranoia).
I think you and I can agree that tanks are an overreaction to even rape. If that ever does happen.
I was half joking. I don't think stronger police forces is necessarily a deterent in itself. Especially when we already have strong police forces. I think harsher penalties is. I especially think we have a problem with repeat offenders in the areas I mentioned before.
I'm iffy on the war on drugs. While I do think it's crazy some of the things we send people to jail for, I don't think it's a coincidence that many of our crimes are committed by people with drug problems. Especially now that meth and other home made chemical drugs are what people are using now. We are frying our brains, not good times.
Omnizoa
06-12-16, 05:26 AM
I was half joking. I don't think stronger police forces is necessarily a deterent in itself. Especially when we already have strong police forces. I think harsher penalties is. I especially think we have a problem with repeat offenders in the areas I mentioned before.
I'm iffy on the war on drugs. While I do think it's crazy some of the things we send people to jail for, I don't think it's a coincidence that many of our crimes are committed by people with drug problems. Especially now that meth and other home made chemical drugs are what people are using now. We are frying our brains, not good times.
I think we're on the same page.
You can tell a lot about someone's preconceptions based on whether or not their first response to this was to talk about guns, or terrorism.
Yeah he went in near closing time (when it would be at its fullest), and just opened up. Sick. None of these "crazies" have the cajones to go somewhere that people can defend themselves and shoot back. Punkass coward. I wish one of these p.o.s. shooters would get bumrushed by the crowd one time and beaten into a smear.
Omnizoa
06-12-16, 01:53 PM
Yeah he went in near closing time (when it would be at its fullest), and just opened up. Sick. None of these "crazies" have the cajones to go somewhere that people can defend themselves and shoot back. Punkass coward. I wish one of these p.o.s. shooters would get bumrushed by the crowd one time and beaten into a smear.
Yeah, what are you CHICKEN??? You wanna go shoot up some people? Show us you're a BIG MAN and come to our shooting competition and see how many of us you put down!
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/bttf/images/5/56/Are_you_chicken.png
Yeah, what are you CHICKEN??? You wanna go shoot up some people? Show us you're a BIG MAN and come to our shooting competition and see how many of us you put down!
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/bttf/images/5/56/Are_you_chicken.png
I dont get it at all. What does Michael J Fox have to do with what youre saying?
Omnizoa
06-12-16, 02:16 PM
He recently reviewed Back to the Future.
Actually, that's just a coincidence. I was making a "no one calls me chicken" joke.
honeykid
06-12-16, 03:10 PM
Yeah he went in near closing time (when it would be at its fullest), and just opened up. Sick. None of these "crazies" have the cajones to go somewhere that people can defend themselves and shoot back. Punkass coward. I wish one of these p.o.s. shooters would get bumrushed by the crowd one time and beaten into a smear.
Yeah, that's not how terrorism works. Clues kind of in the title. :(
I think it won’t surprise you that it’s not something I really care that much about. But I’ve been kinda forced to think about it because it never really goes away. It does highlight some of my concerns about her, but not the ones that most people take away from it.
I think she didn’t know about, or didn’t care about, the rule about the email server. I don’t believe she was hiding anything in particular on it. I do think that she wanted to minimize the fallout, so she doubled down a couple times on the story, and then found herself in a position where she couldn’t just apologize quickly for it and get it over with. I think that the republicans in the legislature don’t really care about this idiosyncratic rule, but that they see it’s a winning tactic to keep the story alive, and they’ll keep using it (and honestly, compared to the other things that bug me about republicans in the legislature, it’s not all that dirty of a tactic either; I’m not all that shocked or even upset that they keep on it).
The concern it highlights for me is that she has trouble admitting when she’s wrong. Something that the 3 candidates left in the race all are bad at (I actually think both Obama and Bush were better at this than those candidates). My main disappointment was that one of Clinton’s strong suits should be tactics, and she flubbed this one and didn’t back down when she could have because of either pride or a tactical miscalculation, and now both tactics AND pride prevent her from apologizing.
Still, in the end, I haven’t been convinced it’s a deal breaker. Just a downside.
I've wanted to reply to this for awhile, because I don't think it jibes with the facts, and the FBI making a statement about the matter (http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politics/fbi-director-doesnt-recommend-charges-against-hillary-clinton/index.html), in which they say Clinton was "extremely careless," is a good excuse to finally do it.
It's certainly true to say that both Clintons do when you're describing: their reflex when accused of something is to deny it, true or not, and then walk back that denial piece by piece if evidence comes out that forces them to. By the end of the process, the line has changed dramatically enough that "I did nothing wrong" has been watered down to "They didn't formally charge me, so I'm exonerated."
It'd be awfully credulous (and part of that same conflation of the legal with the ethical I just mentioned) to think that she could have been ignorant of these laws, even absent any other evidence. And it's not much of a defense, since it's basically arguing that she was incompetent rather than malicious.
But even if you buy that, it's not like we don't have further evidence: her shifting statements on the matter prove an intent to deceive. The timeline of her statements about the server (http://bigstory.ap.org/8aef31c43c364ac88975517da0e9c497) shows her saying things that were not true, and which she could not plausibly have thought were true. So, at best, we're parsing whether the lie was fully deliberate, or just the kind where you don't really know or care if it's true. Which in my book is still a lie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV0il-90JnI
We can hold off, for the moment, on whether or not this should be a dealbreaker (particularly in 2016, in the ultimate "Lesser of Two Evils" election), but I really don't see how this can be dismissed as mere stubbornness, let alone just a tactical error.
Slappydavis
07-05-16, 05:23 PM
It's certainly true to say that both Clintons do when you're describing: their reflex when accused of something is to deny it, true or not, and then walk back that denial piece by piece if evidence comes out that forces them to. By the end of the process, the line has changed dramatically enough that "I did nothing wrong" has been watered down to "They didn't formally charge me, so I'm exonerated."
Not saying this is a good thing, but this seems to be a characteristic of the powerful, not just the Clintons? It's odd to say that's specifically the formulaic way when the "deny first until pressured" is pretty ubiquitous? Do you disagree that it's pretty standard for politicians of any stripe to issue a broad denial, and then clarify (i.e. change) their statements based on new evidence?
I don't think you'll ever catch me saying that the Clintons are above the norms of the political class. I definitely think they are politicians. Sometimes in good ways, sometimes in bad ways.
But you kinda just made my point for me, I didn't learn anything new about Hillary through this scandal. This is baggage, this is a concern, this is known. She often takes the expedient path. I don't want this to come off as "So what?", because it's a downside.
Like, in four years with Rubio runs for president again, will I really change your mind if I show you his 20 tweets saying he was not seeking, and would not want, re-election to the Senate, and then running for it later anyway? I think you'd say yeah, he made a mistake, but overall I think he's a good candidate. If I said he had a meltdown during the debate, do you think it's fair for me to say that he can't handle Putin (it's always Putin for some reason) in negotiations?
I think those are exceptions, I think Rubio would have been a strong candidate for the GOP, even though I think he's dead wrong on a lot of issues, I couldn't say that he seems actively dishonest or incompetent in negotiation. I think that he'd negotiate for the wrong things, or at least things I don't like, sure.
My point here is not that since Rubio made small mistakes, Hillary's bigger mistake is alright. But that you are aware of these weaknesses and presumably you've decided the candidate is still worth a vote.
There's also Paul Ryan. Who has a lot of disastrous ideas, but the thing that really bugs me about him is that he lied about his marathon time. Marathons are excruciating, and I swear that you never, EVER, forget what your time was (Okay, maybe if you run many, many marathons and you conflate them, or have other memory issues). But he made up an incredible time (sub 3 hour) when he ran above a 4 hour. Though this upsets me on many levels, if I take a step back, honestly I don't care (except I do care that my time kicks hiss ass). It doesn't radically alter my perception of him, he just has a big ego and made up a time to fit it. Nothing new (and honestly, he is an important person, he doesn't need to have a good marathon time).
I think Clinton was incompetent on this issue. I think she made a mistake, and specifically walked the line to reveal as little as she could on it. It's hard to know now, but had she just admitted it from the get go, she might be in a stronger position.
But have you convinced me that overall, she is an incompetent politician? No.
(Would I prefer a third Obama term? Yes.)
Here's what I said at the beginning of this thread:
So, to help me out, those who think Hillary is the absolute worst. What exactly do you fear from a Clinton presidency? What policies? What effects?
...with Clinton, which policies do you oppose? And if you think she's "just untrustworthy", what do you not trust her to do, exactly?
Quick thought experiment, honestly. Think of all the things that a Hillary administration would do that you would dislike. All of the policies, all of the effects.
How many were affected by the knowledge of the server? Some probably, but did this email server radically alter your perception of Hillary? And are you expecting my perception to be radically altered?
Here's basically what I trust Hillary to do: standard democratic policies. I don't trust her to stand up to the party when it's wrong. She wishes to be, and IMO will succeed in being, a surrogate for centrist liberal democrats. She will compromise on some issues to make progress on others (often against my own views).
Bill was also a pretty weak president, but a stable one. I think he had less convictions than Hillary though (though she's stuck defending all of his record, unfortunately). I feel more like I'm voting in an idea than a person with Hillary. Which isn't like, exciting, but I have yet to be convinced it's the wrong move.
So if your questions are "Was Hillary being incompetent/dishonest during the server scandal, or do you think you'll still vote for her?", the answer is yes.
Not saying this is a good thing, but this seems to be a characteristic of the powerful, not just the Clintons? It's odd to say that's specifically the formulaic way when the "deny first until pressured" is pretty ubiquitous? Do you disagree that it's pretty standard for politicians of any stripe to issue a broad denial, and then clarify (i.e. change) their statements based on new evidence?
No, but I disagree that that's an accurate description of what's happened here. My whole point is that she didn't just say cagey or slightly misleading things, but actively false ones, which is a lot rarer than the kind of everyday spin you're talking about. The phrase "new evidence," for example, makes it sound like she's learning what she did from the FBI. But of course, it's new to us, not to her. And lots of politicians do come clean when confronted, and even those that don't aren't always reflexively calling every accusation a witch hunt.
There's also the fact that it keeps inexplicably working. Many careers are ended by the kind of stonewalling you're describing, so even though doing it may be common, surviving it, again and again, is not.
But you kinda just made my point for me, I didn't learn anything new about Hillary through this scandal. This is baggage, this is a concern, this is known. She often takes the expedient path. I don't want this to come off as "So what?", because it's a downside.
You learned that, when faced with the decision of protecting herself or protecting classified information, she chose to protect herself.
Like, in four years with Rubio runs for president again, will I really change your mind if I show you his 20 tweets saying he was not seeking, and would not want, re-election to the Senate, and then running for it later anyway? I think you'd say yeah, he made a mistake, but overall I think he's a good candidate. If I said he had a meltdown during the debate, do you think it's fair for me to say that he can't handle Putin (it's always Putin for some reason) in negotiations?
I think those are exceptions, I think Rubio would have been a strong candidate for the GOP, even though I think he's dead wrong on a lot of issues, I couldn't say that he seems actively dishonest or incompetent in negotiation. I think that he'd negotiate for the wrong things, or at least things I don't like, sure.
My point here is not that since Rubio made small mistakes, Hillary's bigger mistake is alright. But that you are aware of these weaknesses and presumably you've decided the candidate is still worth a vote.
The only way to put these two things on the same spectrum is by classifying them both as "mistakes," a category so broad it encompasses both typos and ethnic cleansing. Errors and lies are both mistakes, but one is worse than the other. The same is true of strategic errors and moral ones. And it's those sub-categories we care about; zooming out and talking about "mistakes" is the thing politicians do in damage control mode, when they try to explain away scandal with everyone's favorite straw man, "I'm not a perfect person." Sure, they all make "mistakes," but they don't all brazenly lie, let alone about things of serious import.
Getting into the weeds on this particular example, applying even a little charity to Rubio's reversal would make it a simple error (and during a cycle where his entire party has been upended, no less), whereas I'm not sure any amount of charity can characterize Hillary's statements as anything other than actively dishonest. Changing your mind about running also isn't, ya' know, against the law. It also doesn't directly endanger anyone the way exposing classified information can.
I think Clinton was incompetent on this issue. I think she made a mistake, and specifically walked the line to reveal as little as she could on it. It's hard to know now, but had she just admitted it from the get go, she might be in a stronger position.
Do you think she lied?
But have you convinced me that overall, she is an incompetent politician? No.
"Politician" is another overly broad word. I mean, she's here, so in that sense she's done something right, though I tend to think her political strength is almost entirely structural, and not down to political skill, or an ability to inspire people, or any real command of policy.
Are you convinced she was an incompetent Secretary of State?
Quick thought experiment, honestly. Think of all the things that a Hillary administration would do that you would dislike. All of the policies, all of the effects.
How many were affected by the knowledge of the server? Some probably, but did this email server radically alter your perception of Hillary? And are you expecting my perception to be radically altered?
Here's basically what I trust Hillary to do: standard democratic policies. I don't trust her to stand up to the party when it's wrong. She wishes to be, and IMO will succeed in being, a surrogate for centrist liberal democrats. She will compromise on some issues to make progress on others (often against my own views).
I agree, and I like the question a lot; it's clarifying, because there's a lot of vitriol aimed at her that, at first glance, seems disproportionate to the type of center-left agenda she's likely to advance.
I think this scandal is different (or should be) because other people's lives are directly involved. Borderline quid-pro-quos with the Clinton Foundation are troubling, but certainly not new for the Clintons (or unheard of in politics in general). But political considerations seemingly directly overriding security ones?
I said in the Trump thread that there was a difference between accepting that something happens, and accepting its public display. In that context, I was condemning Trump for insulting people on stage, even though I'm sure everyone insults each other in privately all the time. But what we pay lip service to matters; failing to meet an ideal is a different failure than dispensing with it altogether. I think the same thing applies here: we all know you don't magically abandon self-preservation or political goals when you become Secretary of State, but that doesn't mean we have to sanction their blatant prioritization over security concerns.
There's a whole other post in analyzing why people hate her disproportionate to her likely political agenda, though. Some of it's unreasonable, but not all.
Bill was also a pretty weak president, but a stable one. I think he had less convictions than Hillary though (though she's stuck defending all of his record, unfortunately).
Without branching off into a whole other thing (unless you want to!), I would like to talk about this at some point. I have a lot of smart liberal friends exhibiting a metric ton of cognitive dissonance about the policies of the Clinton years right now.
So if your questions are "Was Hillary being incompetent/dishonest during the server scandal, or do you think you'll still vote for her?", the answer is yes.
I wasn't really responding to that part (though as I said above, it's a good question). I'm responding to the characterization of the email server scandal: I don't see how it can be called a political miscalculation or chalked up to stubbornness. It's pretty clearly a) knowingly mishandling sensitive materials to protect herself and b) lying about it. Agreeing on what this is is my only aim at this point. The implications of that for her supporters are another question.
Slappydavis
07-06-16, 01:28 PM
The only way to put these two things on the same spectrum is by classifying them both as "mistakes," a category so broad it encompasses both typos and ethnic cleansing. Errors and lies are both mistakes, but one is worse than the other. The same is true of strategic errors and moral ones. And it's those sub-categories we care about; zooming out and talking about "mistakes" is the thing politicians do in damage control mode, when they try to explain away scandal with everyone's favorite straw man, "I'm not a perfect person." Sure, they all make "mistakes," but they don't all brazenly lie, let alone about things of serious import.
Getting into the weeds on this particular example, applying even a little charity to Rubio's reversal would make it a simple error (and during a cycle where his entire party has been upended, no less), whereas I'm not sure any amount of charity can characterize Hillary's statements as anything other than actively dishonest. Changing your mind about running also isn't, ya' know, against the law. It also doesn't directly endanger anyone the way exposing classified information can.
I'm concerned you didn't really read what I wrote (or that I didn't do my job of communicating). I said that 1) Rubio's small mistake doesn't take away Hillary's big mistake and 2) The point is about acknowledging problems with a candidate, big or small. And also containing them to what they are.
The trouble I have with all of this is that it feels like the Republicans are overreaching. Not necessarily on the specifics of the case, but trying to drag down Clinton with one (admittedly significant) issue. They'd have to either do a better job making a case that there's a larger conspiracy, or that this one issue really does affect EVERYTHING else she does. Just saying that this issue shows incompetency, therefore it bleeds into everything else (even the things she does competently) isn't going to work, even if I'm not a massive Hillary fan.
If I actually wanted to go all Tu quoque on you I'd bring up Bush and the Iraq War, but I felt that would distract from my point, not add to it.
Do you think she lied?
At all? Probably. Even when she tried walking that line, I think she slipped off of it into just lying. But do I think she's just a liar now? No.
If you're used to having people refuse to say any bad thing about their preferred candidate, and getting them to acknowledge one specific downside is a victory, then you've already done that. But it's not particularly hard, because I'm pretty open with that.
She's less honest than Obama and less honest than Sanders (whose honesty issues are more intellectual).
"Politician" is another overly broad word. I mean, she's here, so in that sense she's done something right, though I tend to think her political strength is almost entirely structural, and not down to political skill, or an ability to inspire people, or any real command of policy.
Political skill is a bit broad. I think she does have political skill, but is eh on inspiration (especially oratory) but does have a command of a lot of (but not all) policy. I think her strong suit is organization and tactics (both of which she failed in during the initial stages of this investigation, she, or a staffer, miscalculated).
Are you convinced she was an incompetent Secretary of State?
I'm not. Not at all. I think for that one you'd have to bring in a lot of other issues. Do you even think she was an incompetent SoS?
I think this scandal is different (or should be) because other people's lives are directly involved. Borderline quid-pro-quos with the Clinton Foundation are troubling, but certainly not new for the Clintons (or unheard of in politics in general). But political considerations seemingly directly overriding security ones?
1) Convincing me of specific and damaging favors performed by the Clintons for money would be much more damaging to my idea of Hillary than the server case.
2) This section is a good way to show why I don't find this convincing. You say the scandal is different, but I don't think you've proven that. Actually, here's a good way to put it. If I agree with you on many of the facts, I think I greatly disagree with you on the magnitude. If you think that doesn't matter, I think we'll just be separate on this issue. And it's not because, oh, she lied on that but it ended up small so it doesn't matter; it's that there's a different calculation for a lie that endangers other important issues, and one that doesn't.
I think she saw this issue come up, thought it was one that would be better swept away by denial and forgetting than admitting in the smallest way and diminishing. I think that was a miscalculation, because it's been in the time since then that a lot of the damage has been done.
There's a whole other post in analyzing why people hate her disproportionate to her likely political agenda, though. Some of it's unreasonable, but not all.
Well, somewhat to your more general point. The combination of having structural advantages and being a centrist kind of annoys everyone. If undecideds don't like parties, they won't like how she flexes party strength; being a centrist means that she disturbs the bases of both sides.
And to be completely honest, and this might be the most unpopular thing I can say here: People think Hillary overplays being a woman, but especially before her tenure as SoS, the things she did that would have been considered strong (and possibly bullying) from a male politician were seen as manipulative and conniving by her. (This is NOT to say that she can do whatever she wants because she's a woman; people around here seem really sensitive about that)
Without branching off into a whole other thing (unless you want to!), I would like to talk about this at some point. I have a lot of smart liberal friends exhibiting a metric ton of cognitive dissonance about the policies of the Clinton years right now.
Yeah, I get that sense too. Particularly about the Crime bill. Which I think was a terrible idea. Hillary is in a tough spot on that, because the actual truth is that marginalized communities actively pushed FOR that bill because they disproportionately experienced the effects of the crime wave. If she says it was the wrong move, she either has to say that the implementation was wrong, or that those communities were wrong (it seems like they didn't know what they were getting). In that same vein though, Sanders took the tact of ignoring their support of that bill, and decided to blame the Clintons, which did not reflect well on him to me (because he's supposed to be willing to take on those types of things, head on).
I'm concerned you didn't really read what I wrote (or that I didn't do my job of communicating). I said that 1) Rubio's small mistake doesn't take away Hillary's big mistake and 2) The point is about acknowledging problems with a candidate, big or small. And also containing them to what they are.
I'm not sure why you'd be concerned about that, because I think what I said is a direct response to them. You did say that one mistake doesn't excuse another, and that one is bigger, but you otherwise put them on the same moral plane, and that's what I'm objecting to. My response was (and is) that they're different not just in degree, but in kind, and that using the word "mistake" for both smuggles (perhaps not intentionally) the idea that an error is the same as a lie.
I take your point that neither of these things have to automatically disqualify us from supporting someone, but I don't think that's really the crux of the disagreement, and I think the comparison in question really just underscores the difference here.
The trouble I have with all of this is that it feels like the Republicans are overreaching. Not necessarily on the specifics of the case, but trying to drag down Clinton with one (admittedly significant) issue. They'd have to either do a better job making a case that there's a larger conspiracy, or that this one issue really does affect EVERYTHING else she does. Just saying that this issue shows incompetency, therefore it bleeds into everything else (even the things she does competently) isn't going to work, even if I'm not a massive Hillary fan.
I think the best case is what I said in the previous post: she had a choice between protecting herself and protecting classified information, and she chose to protect herself. The tendency to put one's own interests above the protection of others certainly seems, to me, like the kind of thing that would inevitably "[bleed] into everything else."
If I actually wanted to go all Tu quoque on you I'd bring up Bush and the Iraq War, but I felt that would distract from my point, not add to it.
Feel free, if you want to elaborate. I think you'll find me, much like yourself, disconcertingly willing to admit mistakes by the people I support.
At all? Probably. Even when she tried walking that line, I think she slipped off of it into just lying. But do I think she's just a liar now? No.
If you're used to having people refuse to say any bad thing about their preferred candidate, and getting them to acknowledge one specific downside is a victory, then you've already done that. But it's not particularly hard, because I'm pretty open with that.
She's less honest than Obama and less honest than Sanders (whose honesty issues are more intellectual).
Well, I certainly am used to people who refuse to admit there's anything wrong with their candidate, but no, I wasn't expecting that from you. That's why I replied: I was surprised you (in particular) would characterize it as a mere political error.
I'm not. Not at all. I think for that one you'd have to bring in a lot of other issues. Do you even think she was an incompetent SoS?
Incompetent is probably too strong a word, but I think even her biggest fans would have to acknowledge that her tenure was a mixed bag. I don't think much of the idea, for example, that just being Secretary of State is a feather in her cap, even if her tenure there wasn't a rousing success.
I'm trying to talk about this without necessitating a really granular discussion that I probably won't end up having time for. But to answer directly: no, not incompetent. But I don't think it gave her anything to really run on, either, which is why the line the campaign has chosen is just citing the mere fact of her tenure, rather than specific accomplishments during it.
1) Convincing me of specific and damaging favors performed by the Clintons for money would be much more damaging to my idea of Hillary than the server case.
Well, in that case, maybe we should get into it. Obviously, we're talking about political quid pro quos, so the closest thing you ever get to a smoking gun is that X gives money and receives favorable outcome around the same time. Should I just start listing examples? I dunno if this is one of those things where one side of the political divide already knows all about it and the other has never heard any of it, or if you're already familiar with it.
2) This section is a good way to show why I don't find this convincing. You say the scandal is different, but I don't think you've proven that. Actually, here's a good way to put it. If I agree with you on many of the facts, I think I greatly disagree with you on the magnitude. If you think that doesn't matter, I think we'll just be separate on this issue. And it's not because, oh, she lied on that but it ended up small so it doesn't matter; it's that there's a different calculation for a lie that endangers other important issues, and one that doesn't.
I don't think I've "proved" it either, though I think I've explained it in fairly clear terms: most scandals are about image, or things like trustworthiness, and don't mean much because people don't trust politicians much to begin with. But directly putting your interests about national security is in a different ethical stratosphere than having an affair or hiring your cousin or something.
So maybe we have an impasse here, but we'll only have an impasse if we can establish that you either a) don't think putting your political considerations before national security is worse than most other scandals, or b) don't think she actually compromised national security. I'd be genuinely curious to know which.
I think she saw this issue come up, thought it was one that would be better swept away by denial and forgetting than admitting in the smallest way and diminishing. I think that was a miscalculation, because it's been in the time since then that a lot of the damage has been done.
I find it interesting that your descriptions of this are almost entirely about what she did after it was discovered. I don't think you've talked at all about her initial decision to set it up. For example, you say "she saw this issue come up," as if it's something that happened to her, rather than something she did, and was then noticed doing.
And to be completely honest, and this might be the most unpopular thing I can say here: People think Hillary overplays being a woman, but especially before her tenure as SoS, the things she did that would have been considered strong (and possibly bullying) from a male politician were seen as manipulative and conniving by her. (This is NOT to say that she can do whatever she wants because she's a woman; people around here seem really sensitive about that)
Well, I'll say something that might be unpopular, too: I think people have way less tolerance for her styling herself as a pioneer because she didn't work her way up. There are lots of remarkable women who came from nothing, and whose achievement is undeniable, and though Clinton certainly has a resume now, it all starts with the name recognition of being First Lady. I'm not suggesting this is unfair, but going to an Ivy League school, being married to a President, and then using that fame to become a Senator makes all the glass ceiling talk feel pretty disingenuous.
I have to imagine some of this has grated on you a bit, even as someone who likes her. Like when she's asked about whether she's enough of an "outsider," and replies that being a woman automatically makes her one. Or when Madeline Albright introduces her by saying there's a "special place in hell" for women who don't support other women.
Yeah, I get that sense too. Particularly about the Crime bill. Which I think was a terrible idea. Hillary is in a tough spot on that, because the actual truth is that marginalized communities actively pushed FOR that bill because they disproportionately experienced the effects of the crime wave. If she says it was the wrong move, she either has to say that the implementation was wrong, or that those communities were wrong (it seems like they didn't know what they were getting). In that same vein though, Sanders took the tact of ignoring their support of that bill, and decided to blame the Clintons, which did not reflect well on him to me (because he's supposed to be willing to take on those types of things, head on).
There's that, for sure. But also the fact that DOMA is now (apparently) bigotry. Or that Bill Clinton cut capital gains taxes, which would be a non-starter in the Democratic primary today. It was pretty amusing in 2008 and 2012 watching people talk about the wealth of the Clinton years as a reason to vote for Obama, as if they had similar economic policies.
But yes, Hillary's in a very tough spot with this stuff. I don't ask myself about her, though, because she's a politician and probably more concerned with how to weave through this stuff than she is with finding an intellectually justifiable rationalization. The actual voters/activists, however, I expect a little more of, and I'm having a pretty hard time figuring out how they manage it.
Slappydavis
07-07-16, 02:59 PM
I'm not sure why you'd be concerned about that, because I think what I said is a direct response to them. You did say that one mistake doesn't excuse another, and that one is bigger, but you otherwise put them on the same moral plane, and that's what I'm objecting to.
This is why I think it's being misunderstood by you or misstated by me. I'm not putting the actions on the same moral plane, but trying to show how a voter contextualizes ANY downsides of a candidate they support.
By the way, the things mentioned are all on different planes, Rubio breaking promise not to run isn't in the same arena as the email scandal. But the email scandal isn't anywhere near the (alleged) deception prior to the Iraq War. But even saying that seems like I'm trying to dwarf this issue with a larger issue, which is exactly what I was trying to avoid by choosing a clearly smaller issue for comparison.
My response was (and is) that they're different not just in degree, but in kind, and that using the word "mistake" for both smuggles (perhaps not intentionally) the idea that an error is the same as a lie.
You seem to be under the impression that I'm making the case that all politicians lie, therefore if Hillary lies, it's okay. Which is not the point.
On a conceptual note, I don't think "error" is necessarily better than "lie" anyway! If Obama was asked by Putin to tell him the number of spies in Russia, I'd rather he lie and say "none" than "oh, well, 1264, I want to be honest".
I don't see the point of trying to smuggle anything in this conversation because I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. You seemed to want to know my thought process on the issue. I'm trying to explain it. I'm not trying to debate you on this one.
I think the best case is what I said in the previous post: she had a choice between protecting herself and protecting classified information, and she chose to protect herself. The tendency to put one's own interests above the protection of others certainly seems, to me, like the kind of thing that would inevitably "[bleed] into everything else."
I'm glad you used the word tendency, because that's my issue with this. I don't see this as establishing a tendency that significantly undermines all of her other work. The tendency that I do have an issue with is the attitude of trying to always minimize damage than either admitting it up front, or taking on the issue and trying to change minds. Because that is more damaging to her (and often my) agenda than security tendencies.
And that is a tactical error, possibly interchangeable with what you were describing as a political error. It's possible when you think I'm characterizing something as a mere political error instead of a moral issue, it's that the political error is more significant to me, and the real downside in my mind.
Feel free, if you want to elaborate. I think you'll find me, much like yourself, disconcertingly willing to admit mistakes by the people I support.
Oh god no, based on the age of these forums I'm sure it's been fleshed out. But I appreciate the offer. And I do know that you are open about that sort of stuff.
I think even her biggest fans would have to acknowledge that her tenure was a mixed bag. I don't think much of the idea, for example, that just being Secretary of State is a feather in her cap, even if her tenure there wasn't a rousing success.
This I agree with entirely. And while a big point of her campaign is how qualified she is, it's usually on the back of titles rather than accomplishments. Which is annoying because she should be running on those (and acknowledging the "accomplishments" that were actually mistakes, because I'd rather she project growth than impeccability, the latter is clearly wrong).
Well, in that case, maybe we should get into it. Obviously, we're talking about political quid pro quos, so the closest thing you ever get to a smoking gun is that X gives money and receives favorable outcome around the same time. Should I just start listing examples? I dunno if this is one of those things where one side of the political divide already knows all about it and the other has never heard any of it, or if you're already familiar with it.
I've worked for a legislator that's gone through accusations of quid pro quo, and I've seen first hand clear examples of how many favorable decisions you can make towards a group and how often they give you money can align to spur quid pro quo. It takes a lot of effort to clearly show a case that could have just been a general allegiance of ideas rather than a direct trade. That said, while I worked there, there actually was a legislator (a democrat, by the way) that actually was clearly proven to have engaged in such activities. So it can happen. But know that my standards are pretty high.
By the way, I truly think I'm non-partisan on this one. I don't think I've ever accused the other side of QPQ either (at least that I can remember off the top of my head). I think ideological alliances between a fund provider and a politician are democratically uncomfortable; able to be alleviated but not extracted entirely. QPQ tends to be rare not because the system isn't corrupt, but rather because it's unnecessary.
Rather, the transfers of funds expose possible alliances. Which while legal, are still telling (Sanders in particular attacked Clinton on this).
I know many of the accusations against Clinton (but likely not all), and I haven't been swayed into believing QPQ allegations. If you want to tell them to me that's fine, but I'm not going to refute each one.
I don't think I've "proved" it either, though I think I've explained it in fairly clear terms: most scandals are about image, or things like trustworthiness, and don't mean much because people don't trust politicians much to begin with. But directly putting your interests about national security is in a different ethical stratosphere than having an affair or hiring your cousin or something.
So maybe we have an impasse here, but we'll only have an impasse if we can establish that you either a) don't think putting your political considerations before national security is worse than most other scandals, or b) don't think she actually compromised national security. I'd be genuinely curious to know which.
1) I actually do trust politicians on an individual level. I think that the structure in which they operate is uncomfortable at times, but whenever I've talked to them, they are decent people. I don't know if I've stated this, but I actually do find Hillary trustworthy, but there aren't many politicians I don't (Trump actually is an exception here. But Bush, Rubio, and Romney, for example, are not exceptions).
2) I don't think she compromised national security. Though admittedly the idea of NS is nebulous. This is the magnitude issue I mentioned. I think she broke a rule at worst, made a mistake in putting forth such effort in minimizing it rather than making the argument that she didn't undermine US stability. But I'll say up front, that I won't get into a long debate about what does and doesn't constitute a breach of national security. Not because it's not important for the conversation to happen somewhere, but because it feels helplessly abstruse (for me) to get through.
Will respond to the rest in a bit.
Slappydavis
07-07-16, 07:07 PM
Well, I'll say something that might be unpopular, too: I think people have way less tolerance for her styling herself as a pioneer because she didn't work her way up. There are lots of remarkable women who came from nothing, and whose achievement is undeniable, and though Clinton certainly has a resume now, it all starts with the name recognition of being First Lady. I'm not suggesting this is unfair, but going to an Ivy League school, being married to a President, and then using that fame to become a Senator makes all the glass ceiling talk feel pretty disingenuous.
Honestly, I think we have a huge disconnect here. I'm confused because there's a whole lot of implications that could be in here and I'm not sure which are intended or not. I'm not quite sure what to say. I'm not going to stop celebrating Elanor Roosevelt even if she came into the public consciousness via being the first lady.
I have to imagine some of this has grated on you a bit, even as someone who likes her. Like when she's asked about whether she's enough of an "outsider," and replies that being a woman automatically makes her one. Or when Madeline Albright introduces her by saying there's a "special place in hell" for women who don't support other women.
Yeah, I didn't like the Albright quote, which she herself has walked back. But actually I do think she has a true outsider perspective on many issues. I think she can fairly claim to be an outsider in some regards and not in others, but I'm not voting for her because she claims to be one. It's just a popular way to brand yourself right now, I get that. Overall she's more insider than outsider, if I had to pick?
There's that, for sure. But also the fact that DOMA is now (apparently) bigotry. Or that Bill Clinton cut capital gains taxes, which would be a non-starter in the Democratic primary today. It was pretty amusing in 2008 and 2012 watching people talk about the wealth of the Clinton years as a reason to vote for Obama, as if they had similar economic policies.
But yes, Hillary's in a very tough spot with this stuff. I don't ask myself about her, though, because she's a politician and probably more concerned with how to weave through this stuff than she is with finding an intellectually justifiable rationalization. The actual voters/activists, however, I expect a little more of, and I'm having a pretty hard time figuring out how they manage it.
For better or for worse, that kind of captures my stance on Hillary. I trust her to follow along most mainstream democrat ideals. If those ideals shift in the party, I'd expect her to shift. The median democrat in the 90's supported DOMA and the crime bill. I think they were mistaken in their support, but that was the party. Now she's either evolved naturally along the party, or she never actually liked either of those, or she still likes them and is willing to give up those issues for progress on other ones, but I trust her if she says that she's now against DOMA type policies (unless the party changed, then I think she might). Her convictions seem tied to the party, which make them kind of stable, to be honest (which again, isn't always a good thing, I like it when candidates stand up to their own party and tell them they're wrong).
By the way, I'm about to go on a trip for a few days. So unless I'm driven mad enough by something to type it out piecemeal on my phone, I'll be a bit quiet for a bit.
Also want to mention that typing these out can sometimes be a chore, but I feel a sense of relief/accomplishment/clarity after I'm done. So even though I have strong disagreements within, I'm glad to do it. I'll let you know if it gets to being just a chore though, because I don't think you'd want that (same goes for you too).
This is why I think it's being misunderstood by you or misstated by me. I'm not putting the actions on the same moral plane, but trying to show how a voter contextualizes ANY downsides of a candidate they support.
By the way, the things mentioned are all on different planes, Rubio breaking promise not to run isn't in the same arena as the email scandal. But the email scandal isn't anywhere near the (alleged) deception prior to the Iraq War. But even saying that seems like I'm trying to dwarf this issue with a larger issue, which is exactly what I was trying to avoid by choosing a clearly smaller issue for comparison.
Hmmm, then if I am misunderstanding, perhaps it's because you're trying to convince me of something I was already taken as a given. I guess on the Internet, there's a constant implication that you must defend a candidate completely or else publicly abandon supporting them, but I don't think that's the case, so you don't need to convince me that it's potentially reasonable to say "yeah, they lied, but I support them anyway."
I'm glad you used the word tendency, because that's my issue with this. I don't see this as establishing a tendency that significantly undermines all of her other work.
What would, then? Here we have a very sensitive matter, and the candidate in a very diplomatic position (by which I mean, we expect cabinet members, particularly Secretary of State, to put aside partisan things at least a little bit more than someone in Congress). And in that position she knowingly exposed classified information not because it was good for her country or consistent with her oath, but because she thought it would be good for her.
The tendency that I do have an issue with is the attitude of trying to always minimize damage than either admitting it up front, or taking on the issue and trying to change minds. Because that is more damaging to her (and often my) agenda than security tendencies.
And that is a tactical error, possibly interchangeable with what you were describing as a political error. It's possible when you think I'm characterizing something as a mere political error instead of a moral issue, it's that the political error is more significant to me, and the real downside in my mind.
That is a tactical error. But what of the decision to setup the server in the first place? How can that be read as anything other than underhanded?
I've worked for a legislator that's gone through accusations of quid pro quo, and I've seen first hand clear examples of how many favorable decisions you can make towards a group and how often they give you money can align to spur quid pro quo.
I agree, so I want to be clear on this: I'm usually the guy who thinks this isn't happening. That is to say, it bugs me when people just show the money, and show the decision, and suggest that's enough. They make no attempt to show causality. In other words, if the NRA gives money to someone who supports gun rights, they do it because they know they agree, not to convince them to agree. So a lot of things look shady that aren't. That said...
I know many of the accusations against Clinton (but likely not all), and I haven't been swayed into believing QPQ allegations. If you want to tell them to me that's fine, but I'm not going to refute each one.
I'm not going to throw a ton of links at you. Just a general overview of the types of things we've learned about:
First (and this is obviously directly relevant to the above), it took years of lawsuits to produce documents showing meetings with Clinton Foundation donors (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/284824-state-dept-wont-defend-holes-in-clintons-schedule) that were ommitted from her official schedule. Obviously it's bad to hide emails and documents, and it doesn't look great to exercise authority over people that are also giving your foundation money...but hiding emails and documents about those donors? That's a particularly damning nexus. Show me a married man having lunch with a woman other than his wife, and I might think "no big deal." Show me the same man deliberately lying to his wife about it, and suddenly it looks very different.
As for the donations themselves, it's pretty straightforward stuff: someone gives a bunch of money and then is awarded government grants (http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/17/exclusive-disgraced-clinton-donor-got-13m-in-state-dept-grants-under-hillary/). Another is placed on the International Security Advisory Board (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624) despite being ostensibly unqualified for the position. I can list more on request, but you get the idea.
1) I actually do trust politicians on an individual level. I think that the structure in which they operate is uncomfortable at times, but whenever I've talked to them, they are decent people.
Could be, though part of me wonders if they get to where they are by being good at giving that impression. I interviewed a Congressman once, and I remember thinking that, between our segments on the show we were taping, he seemed surprisingly open and candid. It only occurred to me later that perhaps seeming that way with everyone is how one gets to be a successful politician in the first place.
I don't want to mislead, because I have no reason to think he wasn't a good person, but it's a sobering thing to consider. If you think a politician is honest, it either means you're right, or you're very wrong.
I'll say this, though: I think the number of politicians who lie is a lot higher than the number of politicians who think (or realize) they're lying. The best liars, as they say, believe their own lies. It's often less about maliciousness than finding ways to stop asking yourself what's true before you say it.
2) I don't think she compromised national security. Though admittedly the idea of NS is nebulous. This is the magnitude issue I mentioned. I think she broke a rule at worst, made a mistake in putting forth such effort in minimizing it rather than making the argument that she didn't undermine US stability. But I'll say up front, that I won't get into a long debate about what does and doesn't constitute a breach of national security. Not because it's not important for the conversation to happen somewhere, but because it feels helplessly abstruse (for me) to get through.
Yeah, I have no interest in combing through that either, so I'll keep it broad: the FBI said her setup was "less secure than Gmail." They couldn't find definitive evidence of it being compromised, but they also said they wouldn't expect to even if it had. They basically found every way to say "yeah, this was probably hacked" without literally saying it.
I'm not going to breathlessly pretend that anything which exposes any classified information is like the NOC list getting out, or whatever. But it seems similarly ridiculous to pretend there's no damage here. So let's flip things around: why are you confident none of the exposed information was important?
Honestly, I think we have a huge disconnect here. I'm confused because there's a whole lot of implications that could be in here and I'm not sure which are intended or not. I'm not quite sure what to say. I'm not going to stop celebrating Elanor Roosevelt even if she came into the public consciousness via being the first lady.
Nor would I ask you to, but then, Eleanor Roosevelt wasn't running for President and wasn't styling herself a trailblazer as part of an argument for why she ought to be, either.
There really aren't any buried implications in what I said. It's meant to be taken at face value: it already feels disingenuous enough for someone to call themselves a pioneer, and it feels doubly so when that person comes from privilege and built their career on the foundation of being married to a successful politician. The idea of her overcoming obstacles doesn't really ring true, given the advantages she's had. This doesn't mean there weren't obstacles, and that doesn't mean she hasn't exhibited skill, but those look pretty small in comparison to the things she's benefited from.
Yeah, I didn't like the Albright quote, which she herself has walked back. But actually I do think she has a true outsider perspective on many issues. I think she can fairly claim to be an outsider in some regards and not in others
Which issues do you think she can claim to be an outsider on?
but I'm not voting for her because she claims to be one. It's just a popular way to brand yourself right now, I get that. Overall she's more insider than outsider, if I had to pick?
Boy, I don't even think it's close, and I don't know how someone could suggest it's close if they remotely buy her "most qualified" argument. She was married to the former leader of the party. She's been in politics for 20 years. She was in Congress. She was the Secretary of State. She's run before. She had the total support of the party in the primaries, an historic number of endorsements, and mind-boggling fundraising numbers. If she's not an insider, nobody is.
And again, I don't have a problem with her trying to thread this needle...but I think it looks pretty silly, and I expect reasonable people to see it for what it is: a clumsy attempt to capitalize on the political zeitgeist. And while most of them try to do this, most have the good sense to only do it when the shoe at least sort of fits.
For better or for worse, that kind of captures my stance on Hillary. I trust her to follow along most mainstream democrat ideals. If those ideals shift in the party, I'd expect her to shift. The median democrat in the 90's supported DOMA and the crime bill. I think they were mistaken in their support, but that was the party. Now she's either evolved naturally along the party, or she never actually liked either of those, or she still likes them and is willing to give up those issues for progress on other ones, but I trust her if she says that she's now against DOMA type policies (unless the party changed, then I think she might). Her convictions seem tied to the party, which make them kind of stable, to be honest (which again, isn't always a good thing, I like it when candidates stand up to their own party and tell them they're wrong).
This jibes pretty well with how I think of her, too. I'm going to put it in harsher terms (obviously) and say that I basically think she's a political cypher. I think the Presidency is its own end, and to that end she'll augment her positions quite a bit. I honestly think people like this, after awhile, don't even really think in terms of right/wrong or true/false any more, except at the extremes. I don't think they ask themselves the kinds of questions I'm asking of her.
By the way, I'm about to go on a trip for a few days. So unless I'm driven mad enough by something to type it out piecemeal on my phone, I'll be a bit quiet for a bit.
No worries. Turns out I didn't get around to replying for a few days, anyway.
Also want to mention that typing these out can sometimes be a chore, but I feel a sense of relief/accomplishment/clarity after I'm done. So even though I have strong disagreements within, I'm glad to do it. I'll let you know if it gets to being just a chore though, because I don't think you'd want that (same goes for you too).
Yeah, I get all that, too. And I have zero problem with just focusing on the bits you think are most relevant. And if either of us thinks the other has left out something important that needs a response, they can just say so.
Slappydavis
07-11-16, 07:02 PM
I'll reply later, but I'll say that as I read through recognized that I like interacting with people that are reasonable on top of wrong, rather than unreasonable on top of right. If that makes sense?
I give you a single point of rep, which I hold with miserly fingers.
I'll reply later, but I'll say that as I read through recognized that I like interacting with people that are reasonable on top of wrong, rather than unreasonable on top of right. If that makes sense?
It does, and I think the same way. "Smart people who disagree with you," as they say. You invariably learn something new, or at least clarify and sharpen why you believe what you do.
I give you a single point of rep, which I hold with miserly fingers.
I will treasure it.
Citizen Rules
07-12-16, 12:48 PM
Just announced:
Bernie Sanders Endorses Hillary Clinton at New Hampshire Rally
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/bernie-sanders-finally-endorse-hillary-clinton-n607591
Bernie Sanders officially endorsed Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, capping off a contentious presidential primary and solidifying the former secretary of state's hold on the Democratic party.
"I have come here to make it as clear as possible as to why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton," Sanders said while standing next to Clinton at an event in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
"This campaign is not really about Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders. This campaign is about the needs of the American people and addressing the very serious crises that we face," Sander said. "And there is no doubt in my mind that as we head into November, Hillary Clinton is far and away the best candidate to do that."
Will Bernie Sanders followers, follow his lead? Matt?
Matt won't, but a lot will. A lot of the alleged poll tightening we saw a few weeks ago, if you dig into the crosstabs, suggests mostly Bernie supporters who were still a little upset about losing. In a normal election year, where the Republicans nominated somebody sane, it'd be an open question how many of them would get over it. But with Trump on the ballot, a whole lot of them are going to come around by election day.
Hilary named Tim Kaine as her running mate.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36870441
Anybody here familiar with him?
Friendly Mushroom!
07-22-16, 10:19 PM
Hilary named Tim Kaine as her running mate.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36870441
Anybody here familiar with him?
No. Surprised to hear her pick this soon actually, but then again, everyone is breaking expectations.
Citizen Rules
07-22-16, 10:44 PM
My wife just read an article about Tim Kaine and told me about it:
He's a former governor and current U.S. senator from Virginia. He worked as a christian missionary in Africa. He's a Catholic but pro choice. Politically he's a progressive and a moderate Democratic. He's described as being a nice guy and squeaky clean. And he speaks fluent Spanish too.
I'd say he balances out Hillary and will give her appeal to older, more conservative Americans. Sounds like she made a smart choice.
honeykid
07-23-16, 11:18 AM
Isn't Virginia one of the closer states to call? If so, then picking a running mate from one of those states is also a good call.
It's probably classified as a "swing state," yeah. Not one of the absolute closest/most important (Ohio and Florida are both significantly more important), though. From what I can tell that gives her a tiny boost, but probably not a dispositive one. VP picks are often subject to the political equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath, and Kaine works on that level.
matt72582
07-23-16, 12:27 PM
Just announced:
Bernie Sanders Endorses Hillary Clinton at New Hampshire Rally
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/bernie-sanders-finally-endorse-hillary-clinton-n607591
Will Bernie Sanders followers, follow his lead? Matt?
Bernie Sanders had no reason to endorse her. He should have stood his ground. The scary part of this are the millions of kids who might completely turn off forever.. Broken hearts, scrounging pennies to send him money, making him the guy with the most donors. I respect a guy like Ralph Nader more.
Friendly Mushroom!
07-26-16, 11:39 PM
Watching Bill's speech. Any thoughts?
Captain Steel
07-27-16, 12:37 AM
What did Michael Brown's mother have to say?
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/76976000/jpg/_76976397_76972723.jpg
donniedarko
07-27-16, 12:48 AM
Sad that the democratic party has been so quick to demonize police officers as a group, and state there's a problem with the culture. But refuse to admit that there's some societal problems with Muslims. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Captain Steel
07-27-16, 12:58 AM
It looks like Brown's mother didn't speak, but was just up on the stage with a bunch of other ladies ("Moms of the movement").
Tomorrow Michael Brown's step-father will address the DNC with a few words...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26zzcPPjLOI
donniedarko
07-27-16, 01:30 AM
"Burn this b*tch down"
Is the new poster child of the Dems. Crazy how far back this party has gone, it's pathetic now. And they say the GOP is dying. This has become pure lunacy, 10 years from now we'll have terrorists speaking at the DNC. #JihadLivesMatter
Movie Max
07-27-16, 08:09 PM
Hillary Clinton Makes History—And Newspapers Put Bill Clinton on the Front Page
http://fortune.com/2016/07/27/hillary-clinton-front-page/
She knows the drill.
First we discuss Bill and see what he's up to,
then we check out...
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/78/13/21/78132132dfb6fb51a5290906e5cff316.jpg
and after that, we can turn to Hillary on page 3.:p
Citizen Rules
07-27-16, 10:52 PM
So who's voting for Hillary after watching the DNC? Anyone impressed by it? I only seen the first 90 minutes yesterday and was floored...and I don't mean that in a good way.
I only watch political conventions in movies - The Manchurian Candidate, The Best Man, Medium Cool, etc. I'm voting for Angela Lansbury.
Cobpyth
07-27-16, 11:28 PM
So who's voting for Hillary after watching the DNC? Anyone impressed by it? I only seen the first 90 minutes yesterday and was floored...and I don't mean that in a good way.
Bill's speech yesterday was OK. Joe Biden was fantastic and Bloomberg was pretty good tonight, but now her VP pick is giving one of the most uninspiring speeches ever given (like Hillary's own speech will undoubtedly be).
The other superstars of the Democratic party will have to sell this couple to America if they want to win, because Hillary and Kaine themselves are not as good at the selling part as Trump and Pence are, in my opinion.
donniedarko
07-27-16, 11:57 PM
Kaine's speech was awful, Pence was inspiring and strong. Kaine resembled a little kid saying "My dad (mom in this case) is better than your dad"
Movie Max
07-30-16, 12:45 AM
I saw the white outfit and I must say, it caught my attention. I knew there would be a few articles on it. She looks so pure, almost holy, squeaky clean, wouldn't want to get that suit dirty, bring on the Pope visit...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/fashion/2016/07/29/104322427-hillary_clinton_EPA-xlarge_trans++aDnIKI3Q0aQre1cqAkdPGU3hE075SqS4iGLmlaa-LAU.jpg
Captain Steel
07-30-16, 12:47 AM
I saw the white outfit and I must say, it caught my attention. I knew there would be a few articles on it. She looks so pure, almost holy, squeaky clean, wouldn't want to get that suit dirty, bring on the Pope visit...
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/ES5H3wBX9_gqr.No1dYk8g--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/https://66.media.tumblr.com/515ffaf7ed0c9d9ee9577ed2d4f2157e/tumblr_inline_ob27hsd5xa1tyi0a9_1280.jpg
Well, she is a virgin.
(You won't find any stains from Bill on her dresses!)
The hell? Did you change the picture after Captain quoted it?
Movie Max
07-30-16, 12:59 AM
Well, she is a virgin.
Born again with a decree to handle snakes?:D
Movie Max
07-30-16, 01:00 AM
The hell? Did you change the picture after Captain quoted it?
Captain is a little fast when he has his cape on. I was still deciding. Why do you ask?
Captain Steel
07-30-16, 01:23 AM
The hell? Did you change the picture after Captain quoted it?
It's another miracle of the Virgin Hillary! ;)
Slappydavis
07-31-16, 07:00 AM
Now that the conventions are over, I might be politically level-headed enough to reply.
Hmmm, then if I am misunderstanding, perhaps it's because you're trying to convince me of something I was already taken as a given. I guess on the Internet, there's a constant implication that you must defend a candidate completely or else publicly abandon supporting them, but I don't think that's the case, so you don't need to convince me that it's potentially reasonable to say "yeah, they lied, but I support them anyway."
I'll hold off on just saying "lied" because it means vastly different things to different people. But I'll agree that it at least seems that she was, at the very least, not honest and forthcoming about this issue. I find her more trustworthy than not trustworthy overall, but on this, yeah, she's been dicey.
The problem extends to the fact that I would write off a significant portion of it as damage control, but I think that, clearly, the damage control didn't work. So it was both un-forward AND tactically unsound. Which bothers me.
... she knowingly exposed classified information not because it was good for her country or consistent with her oath, but because she thought it would be good for her...
...what of the decision to setup the server in the first place? How can that be read as anything other than underhanded?
I'll be honest, where this line of argument loses me is that I don't see where she drastically benefits from having the personal email server. If she's conducting nefarious business, why wouldn't she just use another email entirely? When I can't get past that, I can't really theorize about what other reasons she could have.
As for the donations themselves, it's pretty straightforward stuff: someone gives a bunch of money and then is awarded government grants (http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/17/exclusive-disgraced-clinton-donor-got-13m-in-state-dept-grants-under-hillary/). Another is placed on the International Security Advisory Board (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624) despite being ostensibly unqualified for the position. I can list more on request, but you get the idea.
I'll definitely agree that money can buy access from either party, but I'm still not seeing QPQ. I can see relationships built on money, sure. I'm particularly suspicious of the second link on the securities trader, because honestly that donor didn't seem to give more than many other wealthy donors, but he was somehow able to bend the Clinton's will? That doesn't make sense to me why they'd stick their neck out for a relatively moderate amount of money (compared to others in the donor class, that is).
Could be, though part of me wonders if they get to where they are by being good at giving that impression. I interviewed a Congressman once, and I remember thinking that, between our segments on the show we were taping, he seemed surprisingly open and candid. It only occurred to me later that perhaps seeming that way with everyone is how one gets to be a successful politician in the first place.
Possibly. I'll also say I had a similar experience, but with lobbyists. I can honestly say 90% of the lobbyists I met with were actually straight forward and honest people. But I also had the thought that it's their job to seem that way (but I'll also say that a lobbyists reputation is everything in the legislature, if you burn a member, you'll never find an office that will trust you again).
I'll say this, though: I think the number of politicians who lie is a lot higher than the number of politicians who think (or realize) they're lying. The best liars, as they say, believe their own lies. It's often less about maliciousness than finding ways to stop asking yourself what's true before you say it.
I think this flows both ways a bit. I think politics can sometimes lead people to adopt very broad views on "greatest good for greatest number" to allow them to do some uncomfortable maneuvering, but I also think that's sometimes actually a good thing, and something somewhat undervalued by the public. Though where politicians often fail for me is when they pretend they aren't subverting some values to promote others.
It reminds me, I think I'd get the most information about candidates by watching them play video games that have tradeoffs. Just something where there is no absolutely right move, and they're forced into prioritizing. I'd love to watch them play Democracy 3 for example (even though I'll free admit it's a poor simulation of what the actual effects of policies would be, it's really good at forcing you to internalize tradeoffs).
So let's flip things around: why are you confident none of the exposed information was important?
Right now, because it hasn't appeared that while combing through the emails, nothing earth shattering seems to have been discovered? I guess part of this depends on trusting the FBI investigation. I suppose there's also the missing emails, but it really feel like something should have slipped through the cracks in the released emails.
Which issues do you think she can claim to be an outsider on?
Many, honestly. But one clear case that comes to mind is the military. I think that she has struggled against perceptions of women in commanding positions. To the point where you could even argue she's overcompensated to show boldness; ending up a bit too hawkish.
Aight, I'm dead tired (hopefully it doesn't show), I'll pick up again later.
Movie Max
07-31-16, 09:46 AM
Looks like people are having a lot of fun with the hug photo.
Photoshoppers Go to Town on Obama and Clinton Hug
https://fstoppers.com/humor/photoshoppers-go-town-obama-and-clinton-hug-140292
https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/full/s3/media/2016/07/30/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-hug-photoshop-7.jpg
Movie Max
07-31-16, 01:47 PM
What do they say about Hillary and Canadian relations?
As I mentioned before, trade deals seem to be fairly important and as you pointed out, we're screwed either way...:(
President Trump would do little good for Canada – but Clinton much the same
A Trump presidency will do nothing good for Canada, and the costs would appear through lost opportunities. The odd thing is that a Clinton presidency looks to mean about the same thing. This U.S. election does not seem likely to bring good outcomes for Canada.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/president-trump-would-do-little-good-for-canada-but-clinton-much-the-same/article30121684/
Movie Max
07-31-16, 02:21 PM
Same Canadian mainstream media channel as the one with the Trump video...
Kim Campbell: Clinton 'will do it' if given the chance [VIDEO]
CTV News Channel: 'An amazing achievement'
Canada’s first and only female prime minister says Hillary Clinton has what it takes to be U.S. president and that Americans will like her better once they get to know her more
Kim Campbell told CTV News Channel that "if (Clinton) has a chance to do it, she will do it -- I think she will surprise Americans."
Link to video...
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/kim-campbell-clinton-will-do-it-if-given-the-chance-1.3008607
mojofilter
08-01-16, 01:12 AM
Looks like people are having a lot of fun with the hug photo.
Photoshoppers Go to Town on Obama and Clinton Hug
https://fstoppers.com/humor/photoshoppers-go-town-obama-and-clinton-hug-140292
https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/full/s3/media/2016/07/30/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-hug-photoshop-7.jpg
That was funny as hell!
earlsmoviepicks
08-01-16, 10:16 AM
Once again, the voting choices the power brokers give the people are unf#$%ingbelievable....
I think people care more for the Bernie thread than this one.
Saturday Night Live needs to do a bunch of skits on the supposed Clinton "murders to look like suicides" list. So many people are supposed to have been ordered to be killed by the Clintons :laugh:
https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/03ps-godmotherweb.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=664&h=441&crop=1
matt72582
08-08-16, 02:05 PM
Not to mention all the people who died "mysteriously" before having to testify against her.
"Oops a barbell fell on my neck 5 minutes before I had to testify" <silence>
I think people care more for the Bernie thread than this one.
Saturday Night Live needs to do a bunch of skits on the supposed Clinton "murders to look like suicides" list. So many people are supposed to have been ordered to be killed by the Clintons :laugh:
https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/03ps-godmotherweb.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=664&h=441&crop=1
Stop being a sheep TONGO, clearly she staged the moon landing. Oh wait, wrong conspiracy...
Omnizoa
08-08-16, 08:16 PM
After 35 years the Cinema Snob walks out of his first movie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr2PtuviAJo
I saw that director's first movie, and it wasn't well-made and was highly-biased, but it wasn't a complete embarrassment. This one has a 2 on Metacritic.
Omnizoa
08-08-16, 09:49 PM
This one has a 2 on Metacritic.
On Dinesh's Youtube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfgX8I2Khc8
They did this with Obama when he was going up against Romney. Sad.
http://api.comingsoon.net//images//2012/2016_Obamas_America_1.jpg
Omnizoa
08-08-16, 09:56 PM
http://static.ijr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Screen-Shot-2016-08-07-at-9.56.07-AM.jpg
Very cringy user reviews (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hillarys_america_the_secret_history_of_the_democratic_party/reviews/?type=user).
Captain Steel
08-08-16, 10:32 PM
Interestingly, I saw a documentary from back in the 90's all about the Clintons - it was a story of lies and corruption (and even a few hard-to-explain ties to strange deaths).
Omnizoa
08-08-16, 11:24 PM
https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/03ps-godmotherweb.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=664&h=441&crop=1
"pantsuit aficionado"
Friendly Mushroom!
08-08-16, 11:43 PM
I saw that Obama 2016 movie when it came out, which was also when I was a "blind conservative." I at the time loved it but since then, I don't remember much of anything. I triedvreading some reviews of it to see if it really was a good documentary but they were all in angry prose I couldn't take seriously. Can someone here talk about the points made in that film since I trust you much more than random folks? I actually been maning to ask this for a while but never had a good opportunity before.
Friendly Mushroom!
08-08-16, 11:46 PM
Interestingly, I saw a documentary from back in the 90's all about the Clintons - it was a story of lies and corruption (and even a few hard-to-explain ties to strange deaths).
Personally I dont buy the deaths as murders
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp
Omnizoa
08-09-16, 01:37 AM
I saw that Obama 2016 movie when it came out, which was also when I was a "blind conservative." I at the time loved it but since then, I don't remember much of anything. I triedvreading some reviews of it to see if it really was a good documentary but they were all in angry prose I couldn't take seriously. Can someone here talk about the points made in that film since I trust you much more than random folks? I actually been maning to ask this for a while but never had a good opportunity before.
Just listen to Dinesh D'Souza say the word "WHY?" rhetorically and you'll quickly find that his charisma wears thin against circular logic, false ultimatums, tautologies, and misrepresentations.
Any documentary by Dinesh is worth less to me than an empty DVD case.
Friendly Mushroom!
08-09-16, 09:38 AM
I saw that Obama 2016 movie when it came out, which was also when I was a "blind conservative." I at the time loved it but since then, I don't remember much of anything. I triedvreading some reviews of it to see if it really was a good documentary but they were all in angry prose I couldn't take seriously. Can someone here talk about the points made in that film since I trust you much more than random folks? I actually been maning to ask this for a while but never had a good opportunity before.
Just listen to Dinesh D'Souza say the word "WHY?" rhetorically and you'll quickly find that his charisma wears thin against circular logic, false ultimatums, tautologies, and misrepresentations.
Any documentary by Dinesh is worth less to me than an empty DVD case.
Thanks but I asked about the actual points he made and why they weren't valid.
I'm not trying to defend him, as the bits I remember I don't think are good. I ranked the film a five on Imdb.
Omnizoa
08-09-16, 09:42 AM
Thanks but I asked about the actual points he made and why they weren't valid.
Couldn't say, I didn't watch it.
donniedarko
08-09-16, 03:36 PM
Orlando Shooters Father Attends HILLARY CLINTON Rally (http://www.cbsnews.com/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab4i)
If he went to a Trump rally it would be all over CNN/MSNBC
Orlando Shooters Father Attends HILLARY CLINTON Rally (http://www.cbsnews.com/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab4i)
If he went to a Trump rally it would be all over CNN/MSNBC
http://i63.tinypic.com/2a61jiu.jpg
https://ametia.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/gmeeq.gif?w=225&h=300
Hillary's voting record - http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/55463/hillary-clinton#.V6sGtPkrLIU
Captain Steel
08-10-16, 01:25 PM
http://i63.tinypic.com/2a61jiu.jpg
I have to ask - what's this all about?
Why is that guy even out of his house, no less in a public place, in a prominent position, on TV behind a presidential candidate?
He's the father of one of the worst mass murderers in U.S. history, and the massacre occurred only a couple months ago! Add to that, the guy is an Islamic Fundamentalist supporter of the Taliban terrorist organization. Instead of sitting behind Hillary he should be on a deportation list.
Citizen Rules
08-10-16, 01:28 PM
Could we just declare a 'mistrial' and start over again with new Presidential candidates? please! The ones we have now are rotten in the brain.
WikiLeaks Reward Fuels DNC Staffer Conspiracy
http://news.sky.com/story/wikileaks-reward-fuels-dnc-staffer-conspiracy-10530632
Julian Assange appeared to suggest Seth Rich, who was shot dead outside his home, was behind the Democratic email hack.
WikiLeaks has offered a $20,000 (£15,000) reward for information about the murder of a Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer.
The reward fuels speculation Seth Rich, 27, was behind a major email leak which embarrassed the party.
Mr Rich was shot twice in the back outside his home in Bloomingdale, Washington DC, on 10 July in what police believe was an attempted robbery.
He had worked for the DNC for two years as director of voter expansion and his parents have denied the social media speculation that he had any involvement in the publication of 20,000 emails on 22 July.
Those emails revealed a party-led effort to undermine Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign and subsequently lead to the resignation of then-DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Mr Rich's father, Joel Rich, said he hoped the reward "helps find out who did this".
But speaking to the Washington Post, he added: "I don't want to play WikiLeaks' game."
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said he would not confirm or deny whether Mr Rich was a source for his organisation.
"We treat threats towards any suspected WikiLeaks sources with extreme gravity," he said.
"This should not be taken to imply that Seth Rich was a source to WikiLeaks or that his murder is connected to our publications.
"We hope our efforts will contribute to the family's calls for information and to the separate reward issued by police."
But he appeared to suggest Mr Rich was the source of the leaks in an interview with Dutch TV show Nieuwsuur.
"Whistleblowers often take very significant efforts to bring us material and often at very significant risks," he said.
"There's a 27-year-old who works for the DNC who was shot in the back, murdered, just a few weeks ago, for unknown reasons as he was walking down the streets in Washington."
Washington DC Assistant Police Chief Peter Newsham said there was no information to suggest a connection between Mr Rich's killing and the WikiLeaks data.
Other theories have claimed the Russian government was involved in the DNC leak.
Nothing was taken during the alleged robbery. Police have offered a $25,000 reward for information leading to a conviction.
Captain Steel
08-10-16, 01:31 PM
Could we just declare a 'mistrial' and start over again with new Presidential candidates? please! The ones we have now are rotten in the brain.
Ha! I keep thinking the same thing. Too bad there isn't a "caveat" system to remove & replace the current candidates.
I would've liked to have seen a Cruz vs. Sanders race. It would've had much less scandal.
Captain Steel
08-10-16, 01:35 PM
WikiLeaks Reward Fuels DNC Staffer Conspiracy
http://news.sky.com/story/wikileaks-reward-fuels-dnc-staffer-conspiracy-10530632
Julian Assange appeared to suggest Seth Rich, who was shot dead outside his home, was behind the Democratic email hack.
WikiLeaks has offered a $20,000 (£15,000) reward for information about the murder of a Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer.
The reward fuels speculation Seth Rich, 27, was behind a major email leak which embarrassed the party.
Mr Rich was shot twice in the back outside his home in Bloomingdale, Washington DC, on 10 July in what police believe was an attempted robbery.
He had worked for the DNC for two years as director of voter expansion and his parents have denied the social media speculation that he had any involvement in the publication of 20,000 emails on 22 July.
Those emails revealed a party-led effort to undermine Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign and subsequently lead to the resignation of then-DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Mr Rich's father, Joel Rich, said he hoped the reward "helps find out who did this".
But speaking to the Washington Post, he added: "I don't want to play WikiLeaks' game."
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said he would not confirm or deny whether Mr Rich was a source for his organisation.
"We treat threats towards any suspected WikiLeaks sources with extreme gravity," he said.
"This should not be taken to imply that Seth Rich was a source to WikiLeaks or that his murder is connected to our publications.
"We hope our efforts will contribute to the family's calls for information and to the separate reward issued by police."
But he appeared to suggest Mr Rich was the source of the leaks in an interview with Dutch TV show Nieuwsuur.
"Whistleblowers often take very significant efforts to bring us material and often at very significant risks," he said.
"There's a 27-year-old who works for the DNC who was shot in the back, murdered, just a few weeks ago, for unknown reasons as he was walking down the streets in Washington."
Washington DC Assistant Police Chief Peter Newsham said there was no information to suggest a connection between Mr Rich's killing and the WikiLeaks data.
Other theories have claimed the Russian government was involved in the DNC leak.
Nothing was taken during the alleged robbery. Police have offered a $25,000 reward for information leading to a conviction.
Last night on the radio they said there are now 34 names on the "Clinton Murder List."
Of course the list was compiled by conspiracy theorists, but all the names represent people tied to the Clintons who died mysterious or questionable unnatural deaths.
And the list is expanding. It previously had names of people who died in the 90's, but a whole bunch of recent new ones (tied to Hillary's various current scandals) have begun to be added!
Captain Steel
08-10-16, 01:46 PM
Just looked on line to find there are lists with up to 90 names of people who were killed that were associated with the Clintons.
It's just weird that so many people who had inside info about them were murdered or committed "suicide."
I owe Slappy a response, which should happen soonish, but I just wanted to address the conspiracy stuff: I don't think it's odd. I think it happens when you're extremely powerful and well-connected. There are a ton of "dots" here, and the more dots you have the easier it is to connect them into any shape.
Captain Steel
08-10-16, 02:18 PM
I owe Slappy a response, which should happen soonish, but I just wanted to address the conspiracy stuff: I don't think it's odd. I think it happens when you're extremely powerful and well-connected. There are a ton of "dots" here, and the more dots you have the easier it is to connect them into any shape.
I understand that - it's kind of related to the whole 6 degrees of separation (and the more public you are and the more people you know, then odds work out that you'll have known more people who were murdered or committed suicide).
The thing about this conspiracy that can't really be explained by numbers is the amount of people who had some sort of info on (or who allegedly had incriminating evidence on) the Clintons that were murdered or committed suicide. And the amount of suicides that are questionable - people who had no reasons, displayed no signs, left no notes, etc.
For the general majority of suicides there are indicators that can be observed in hindsight even when direct communication, like a note, is absent (long term illness or diagnosis thereof, depression, a history of mental illness, trauma, long term substance abuse, sudden loss of a loved one or break up of a relationship, past attempts, focus on death or despair, etc.)
I think the key is in the way these things are described. It's definitely suspicious if lots of people all commit suicide with no prior warning if they all have incriminating evidence. But what about when it's not all, but just a little higher than is normal for suicides? And what if you expand it from people who definitely have incriminating evidence to people who just may have it, or are "alleged" to have it? I'm not sure how suspicious that is. If you're the President, I think literally everyone in the White House could be at least "alleged" to have incriminating evidence.
And heck, that's even assuming general suicide stats are comparable in the first place. Would it surprise anyone to learn that suicides are more sudden or more frequent among people working in highly public, high stress professions?
Omnizoa
08-10-16, 02:55 PM
Ha! I keep thinking the same thing. Too bad there isn't a "caveat" system to remove & replace the current candidates.
There is, it's called a worker's cooperative, and NOBODY REALIZES THIS.
Captain Steel
08-10-16, 03:04 PM
I think the key is in the way these things are described. It's definitely suspicious if lots of people all commit suicide with no prior warning if they all have incriminating evidence. But what about when it's not all, but just a little higher than is normal for suicides? And what if you expand it from people who definitely have incriminating evidence to people who just may have it, or are "alleged" to have it? I'm not sure how suspicious that is. If you're the President, I think literally everyone in the White House could be at least "alleged" to have incriminating evidence.
And heck, that's even assuming general suicide stats are comparable in the first place. Would it surprise anyone to learn that suicides are more sudden or more frequent among people working in highly public, high stress professions?
No, the last part isn't surprising.
But going back to your Presidential analogy, it would be like if a large number of people closely associated to Obama's scandals (New Black Panther voter intimidation scandal; IRS targeting Obama opposition; statements on Affordable Care Act; "Rosengate"; "Fast & Furious"; Syrian "red line"; Benghazi video lies at re-election; attacking Libya without Congressional approval & various other "end runs" around Congress; Bergdhal / terrorist trade; Iran ransom for hostages, etc.) have continuously been committing suicide (or been murdered) since he took office.
It would seem a little more than "coincidental."
Possibly, but the devil is in those details: what does "closely associated" mean, and were the circumstances around their deaths actually "mysterious," or just not overtly obvious? Stuff like that.
As a general rule, conspiracies thrive on ambiguous language. Phrases that suggest things without overtly stating them in a way that could be contradicted. "Alleged to have information about" is a perfect example of that kind of phrase. If someone wants to seriously entertain this idea, the very first thing they'd do is replace those ambiguities with specifics.
I have to ask - what's this all about?
Why is that guy even out of his house, no less in a public place, in a prominent position, on TV behind a presidential candidate?
He's the father of one of the worst mass murderers in U.S. history, and the massacre occurred only a couple months ago! Add to that, the guy is an Islamic Fundamentalist supporter of the Taliban terrorist organization. Instead of sitting behind Hillary he should be on a deportation list.
Sure you will be glad to know he has now officially endorsed her:
https://gma.yahoo.com/father-orlando-nightclub-shooter-attends-hillary-clinton-rally-134414328--abc-news-topstories.html#
After the rally, Seddique Mateen, who wore a red cap to the event, told NBC West Palm Beach affiliate WPTV that he supports Clinton. "Hillary Clinton is good for United States versus Donald Trump, who has no solutions," he said.
A few things from this article to show that this isn't just an innocent parent:
The Orlando gay club gunman's father has well-known anti-American views and is an ideological supporter of the Afghan Taliban.
After the shooting he said:
"God will punish those involved in homosexuality," saying it's, "not an issue that humans should deal with."
Friendly Mushroom!
08-11-16, 03:53 PM
I hate all of this.
Do Trump and Clinton and their supporters not know demanzing each other (and staying bad stuff) is only making promblems worse?
Omnizoa
08-11-16, 10:45 PM
A few things from this article to show that this isn't just an innocent parent:
The Orlando gay club gunman's father has well-known anti-American views and is an ideological supporter of the Afghan Taliban.
After the shooting he said:
"God will punish those involved in homosexuality," saying it's, "not an issue that humans should deal with."That's anti-American? That was VERY American not that long ago.
That's anti-American? That was VERY American not that long ago.
Sorry, those two weren't related, i see the way i posted that makes it seems like this is an example of him being anti-american. Most of his Anti-American stuff was on his pakistan sponsored tv show and facebook.
Omnizoa
08-11-16, 11:01 PM
Sorry, those two weren't related, i see the way i posted that makes it seems like this is an example of him being anti-american. Most of his Anti-American stuff was on his pakistan sponsored tv show and facebook.
Ah.
Clinton Foundation under FBI Investigation.
http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2016/08/13/clinton-foundation-investigation/
There's rumours that the october surprise wikileaks have been talking about is going to be related to the Clinton Foundation, so it is interesting that they decide to do this now.
Donald Trump Is the Gift to Hillary Clinton That Keeps On Giving
Another day, another blown opportunity for Donald Trump. Speaking in Youngstown, Ohio, on Monday afternoon, the embattled Republican nominee sought to reboot his Presidential campaign for the umpteenth time, in this case by calling for a Cold War-style effort to confront radical Islam. Expanding upon his call to ban entry to the United States to people from countries affected by terrorism, he attacked Hillary Clinton, saying she lacked the “mental and physical stamina” to defeat ISIS.
As usual where the Trump campaign is concerned, things didn’t work out as planned. On the eve of the Ohio speech, the New York Times published a story datelined Kiev that focussed on the business dealings of Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, a veteran political consultant whose client list includes Viktor Yanukovych, the former President of Ukraine, who was widely seen as an ally of the Kremlin. “Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych’s pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to Ukraine’s newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau,” the Times article said.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/donald-trump-is-the-gift-to-hillary-clinton-that-keeps-on-giving/ar-BBvGMcT?li=BBnb7Kz
earlsmoviepicks
08-16-16, 03:38 PM
Our election
https://boardgamegeek.com/camo/d270706f7ec0e8a3a0824b07d64f9907894eb7f0/687474703a2f2f3364746f74616c67616d65732e636f6d2f77702d636f6e74656e742f75706c6f6164732f323031332f3035 2f6465636973696f6e732e6a7067
There's other people you can vote for you know. And this thread should be for negative or positive Hillary stuff, no point in reposting the stuff from the Trump thread here.
Captain Steel
08-16-16, 10:13 PM
There's other people you can vote for you know. And this thread should be for negative or positive Hillary stuff, no point in reposting the stuff from the Trump thread here.
I may be mistaken, but from what I've heard; any vote for anyone other than the Republican nominee is a default vote for Hillary.
Kind of like back when Ross Perot ran as a third party candidate and people said a vote for him was a wasted vote because it would actually be a vote for one of the partisan nominees (but I don't remember which one).
The Gunslinger45
08-17-16, 12:25 AM
Perot drew votes away from HW Bush and Dole in two elections
Speaking in Atlantic City, New Jersey, Hillary Clinton attacked Donald Trump’s business record. Standing in front of the now-defunct Trump Plaza
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idmsYqwxRDk
Has anyone seen this video in the ongoing Hilary is dying controversy? Warning it is really disgusting if you believe it is actually what people are saying it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um5tN-25WaU
I hate Hilary and hope something miraculous happens so that neither her or Trump become president even though i know it won't, but personally i think it is ridiculous. It is clearly gum or something, it's not green slime IMO. Don't know about the health stuff in general, this isn't a comment on this i just think it is ridiculous. Especially when i've seen tonnes of people posting articles that coughing up green phlegm is a sign of Parkinsons Disease. I'm sure it is but it is also not exactly an extremely rare thing among people of any ages.
Camo, why would Hillary Clinton be chewing GUM during a speech? If she is, that's worse than her spitting up green slime.
Dunno, i thought of that. Still that isn't green slime IMO. And how is that worse?
Ooof. Diagnosed with Pneumonia. Hadn't heard. This election is going to be really weird now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37332106
US Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has been treated for pneumonia, her doctor says, after she was taken ill at a 9/11 ceremony.
Dr Lisa Bardack said she was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday and given antibiotics, but had become dehydrated at the New York event.
Video shows her being supported by aides as they put her into her van after she left the ceremony early.
The doctor's statement said she was now re-hydrated and "recovering nicely".
"Secretary Clinton has been experiencing a cough related to allergies. On Friday, during follow up evaluation of her prolonged cough, she was diagnosed with pneumonia," Dr Bardack's statement said.
"She was put on antibiotics, and advised to rest and modify her schedule," it went on.
It is not yet clear whether Mrs Clinton will stick to her hectic campaign schedule, starting with a series of fundraisers in California on Monday and Tuesday.
Her Republican opponents have queried her physical fitness, with the presidential candidate Donald Trump telling supporters last month she "lacks the mental and physical stamina" to serve as president and fight Islamic State militants.
Last month Dr Bardack said she was "in excellent health and fit to serve as president of the United States".
She made a full recovery from surgery she underwent in 2012 for a blood clot, the doctor said.
The Clinton campaign has accused opponents of pushing a "deranged conspiracy about Clinton's health".
The hell?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzZl9j580tM
Don't know how to embed tweets but Meghan McCain on Twitter:
I would just like any journalist to admit the hypocrisy on how they covered my fathers health compared to Hilary.
Nostromo87
09-12-16, 07:34 PM
Obviously Putin's fault. Nothing to see here
http://i1142.photobucket.com/albums/n617/frankog10/ezgif-2785184486_zpslcw5wvjm.gif
http://oi68.tinypic.com/2co5y0x.jpg
donniedarko
09-13-16, 01:47 PM
Hillary is obviously sick, its not rumors anymore. She should drop out before she has convulsions debating Trump. It's probably the reason she hasn't held a press conference since last year.
Tell me this isn't weird
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJjHTeo6mVw
Hillary is obviously sick, its not rumors anymore. She should drop out before she has convulsions debating Trump. It's probably the reason she hasn't held a press conference since last year.
Tell me this isn't weird
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJjHTeo6mVw
whoa
Citizen Rules
09-13-16, 02:03 PM
Hillary calls Trump supporters Deplorables & Racist.
Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/11/us/politics/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorables.html)
Hillary Clinton’s comments Friday night, which were a variation of a sentiment she has expressed in other settings recently, came at a fund-raiser in Manhattan.
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” she said to applause and laughter. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it... What an insult to the American way of life, where we are suppose to have free will, free choice and can freely choose to believe as we wish. But then Hillary decides that anyone who doesn't agree with her is a racist, sexist, homophobe, etc, etc. She's the embodiment of pure evil.
If you don't like Trump and you don't support Hillary, for godsake vote for a third candidate! Hillary doesn't deserve votes for her arrogant, lying manipulative campaign.
Have you paid attention to any other presidential campaigns?
donniedarko
09-13-16, 05:27 PM
Don't know how to embed tweets but Meghan McCain on Twitter:
Like when liberals were speculating whether he will die or not and if Sarah Palin will be our president? Because I remember a lot of that
"About a quarter of registered voters (26%) say they think McCain is too old to be president, and this proportion rises to nearly a third (32%) when voters are informed that he is currently 71 years old."
http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/mccains-age-problem/
Can someone explain to me what would happen if Hilary dropped out? Not convinced she will but i'm just curious because i'm not aware of someone ever dropping out after winning their parties nomination. Would the DNC decide a new nominee? Who would be the candidates? Would it go straight to Bernie since he was second or Tim Kaine since he is her running mate? Sorry for all the questions and if any of these are stupid just curious.
donniedarko
09-13-16, 05:41 PM
The DNC can pick in that case it would likely be Biden, Kaine, or Bernie
donniedarko
09-13-16, 05:43 PM
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/775451233536577536
tbh not a bad attack ad
The DNC can pick in that case it would likely be Biden, Kaine, or Bernie
Well it's not going to be Bernie. Biden? The hell? God no.
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/775451233536577536
tbh not a bad attack ad
I hate when people constantly moan about media bias. But this Hilary says half of Trump supporters are racists isn't being blown up half as much by the MSM as Romneys comments last time.
Well i don't wish death on her tbh, no matter how much i dislike her.
Anyway it was just so stupid, Romneys 47% remark should be played at presidential hopeful boot camp. Can't believe this has happened again one election later. Not that anything will come of it, it won't be drilled into peoples heads like Romneys equally ridiculous and damaging statement was.
Gotta say Donald Trump is the real Teflon Don. Nothing sticks to him. He says stuff as bad or worse than this every day and the media hounds him about it yet it just endears him to his supporters and probably net gains him a few new ones. I don't want him to be President but it is genius and is really entertaining to watch.
Teflon Don was a nickname for John Gotti because he kept beating charges by the way.
Citizen Rules
09-13-16, 07:02 PM
I hate when people constantly moan about media bias. But this Hilary says half of Trump supporters are racists isn't being blown up half as much by the MSM as Romneys comments last time. That's true, and I would say Hillary gets almost a free pass from the media. The media didn't like Romeny so grilled him over his comments. Which makes me think Trump is correct in saying he can't get a fair shake at the debates with moderators who are out to get him. I like his idea of a no moderator debate.
Which makes me think Trump is correct in saying he can't get a fair shake at the debates with moderators who are out to get him.
I think that's one of the very few things that he is correct about. Fox likes Hilary more than him even.
I like his idea of a no moderator debate.
haha. Haven't heard this but i don't. The debates are obnoxious enough with more civilized candidates like Romney and Obama being moderated, Trump and Hilary un-moderrated would be unbearable.
donniedarko
09-14-16, 08:04 PM
Oh, please. The woman is pure trash. Trump mostly singled out specific people to speak bad about, or he said something in a joking manner. Hillary actually called all Trump supporters "deplorables" and people who don't belong in her vision for America. She can go die from her mysterious illness.
Im obviosuly not a Hillary supporter. I just think its an effective ad. And ya all those attacks were against Rosie O'Donnel
Its sad that the Gary Johnson thread has more buzz about it than what should be our next President in Hillary Clinton. Im not thrilled about this, a lifeboat isnt a fun ride, but its better than drowning itself. Yeah Im of the group thats voting Hillary to prevent Trump, but there is another reason. I think it hasnt gotten enough mention. Bill Clinton. I certainly would like someone thats done this for 8 years to be on hand just in case. Two heads are better than one. :shrug:
https://twitter.com/lachlan/status/788815210941329408
I mean, I know slogans are vapid by their very nature, but reading a bunch in a row like this really drives it home.
Certainly confirms the idea of this being a very calculated, focus-tested candidacy, too. Yikes.
My favorite was "you can be just like the rich people."
Geeze, you're absolutely right. Hard not to see the trend.
"Fighting Fairly for Fair Fairness"
DAnconiaLead
10-24-16, 07:46 AM
Oprah Windbag just gave Hillary Clinton a 'full throated endorsement', stating; "You (the 'subject people') don't have to like her", you just have to bow before her...
http://www.gatefans.net/gforums/attachments/00000549-gif.30046/
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/10/23/oprah-on-hillary-clinton-you-dont-have-to-like-her-sot-sotu.cnn
ash_is_the_gal
10-24-16, 10:53 AM
oh my god, those slogans are the best. is there a list for the ones Trump threw away??
Doubtful, since nobody was on board at first and he doesn't seem like one for focus-testing. I'll bet he just thought of himself and went with it.
Election is over! Hillary won!
Its all a formality now, because Morgan Freeman is doing the voicework for Hillary Clintons new ads! :yup:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iDRu2q2cRw
http://img.memecdn.com/morgan-freeman-dressed-as-gandalf_o_2049841.jpg
DAnconiaLead
10-25-16, 10:24 PM
It was over in May.
I was unaware that "Crooked Hillary's" 'Foundation' had paid off the members of the Electoral College in May, though I can't say I'm surprised...otherwise, IT'S STILL ON!!!
I was unaware that "Crooked Hillary's" 'Foundation' had paid off the members of the Electoral College in May, though I can't say I'm surprised...otherwise, IT'S STILL ON!!!
Oh a Trumpet. Not surprising. :rolleyes:
Citizen Rules
10-25-16, 11:06 PM
I love his Confederate sig line (sarcasm), "Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis!!!":rolleyes:
If Trump was elected he'd do away with due process and be a real tyrant. A vote for Trump is like a vote for Napoleon.
Nostromo87
10-25-16, 11:18 PM
A vote for Trump is like a vote for Napoleon.
Wow, quite a compliment. Napoleon.
One of the greatest military minds in history
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PV1_02qRr8&t=2s
Citizen Rules
10-25-16, 11:25 PM
Yes Napoleon was a great military leader. At least the French think so. The British aren't of the same opinion:p Where's HoneyKid when I need him?
Nostromo87
10-25-16, 11:33 PM
Yes Napoleon was a great military leader. At least the French think so. The British aren't of the same opinion:p Where's HoneyKid when I need him?
Was surprised to see that comparison to be honest, comparing someone to Napoleon...
Also, I'd doubt the British commanders didn't respect the threat that was Napoleon when they faced him.
DAnconiaLead
10-25-16, 11:42 PM
I love his Confederate sig line (sarcasm), "Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis!!!":rolleyes:
Are you really asserting that opposition to tyranny is an exclusively 'Confederate' virtue???
While your claim is patently false, since opposition to tyranny is a universal value shared by all real men and women, were your claim true (and it's not), then the Confederacy would have ben justified in their actions...Citizen Rules, you're not attempting to justify the actions of the CSA (by employing false premises), are you???
DAnconiaLead
10-25-16, 11:47 PM
Wow, quite a compliment. Napoleon.
One of the greatest military minds in history
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PV1_02qRr8&t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMVGkAsHVFM
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.