US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3066

On February 29 2016 14:26 GreenHorizons wrote:

Seriously? Are you refuting she has?

On February 29 2016 14:26 GreenHorizons wrote:

Trump would make her rage/cry without a doubt. Call her marriage a political sham and just rip her to shreds.

On February 29 2016 14:26 ticklishmusic wrote:
I'm exceeded the recommended daily intake of salt so much that I'm at risk of suffering kidney failure at this point.

GH, let me put it this way: from the start is was a real uphill battle for Bernie, like climbing a mountain. If you fail or its hard, you don't blame the mountain for being too tall or too windy or whatever. Yes the DNC pulled some shit, but Hillary is an incredibly qualified candidate. It took Barack Obama to beat her, and he's the second most gifted politician in recent history after Bill Clinton, and he had a knack for organizing.

Actually, this is kind of a funny story-- back when I was a junior in college, I ran for VP in student government. I'd never been involved before, but basically I felt they'd been doing an ass job of managing finances, student organizations and everything else. A decent number of people shared that view. I figured that as an outsider I could attract some support, and I wasn't a complete unknown on campus-- involved in a couple pretty big orgs. I worked up a platform of reforms, got a ton of friends across campus to campaign for me, spammed all across social media and went door to door for two weeks. My alma mater is weird and we have basically 2 campuses-- one has about 500 students who are all freshmen/sophomore and they basically transfer to main campus after 2 years. It's an hour away, and I spent 2 days campaigning there (won the shit out of them b/c I was the only one who bothered visiting).

We had a debate which I crushed, but the newspaper characterized me as some guy new to the scene with no experience despite me knowing the student government regs better than the other two guys running. They also endorsed the eventual winner, who was VP ops or something (not me). I lost like 70-30, though I did get a shoutout from the winner about bringing attention to the messed up finances.

tl;dr Change is hard.

On February 29 2016 14:35 kwizach wrote:

Do tell me what she has done, according to you. Hillary specifically.


How can you possibly be so ignorant about her? Hopefully you'll listen to Sanders when he tells you to support Hillary in a few days.

A new academic study of criminal sentencing patterns in South Carolina has found that consistently harsher penalties are applied in the sentencing of African Americans than regarding their white counterparts.

One author of the study called its findings “troubling”, and added: “It is particularly concerning that this pattern of disparity appears to be affecting African American offenders with limited criminal histories or for less severe crimes.”

The study, published on Monday by the University of Sheffield, looked at 17,000 decisions from South Carolina courts. It identified clear patterns of racial bias in court sentencing decisions: petty criminals who are black, for example, are more likely to be jailed than their white counterparts and black offenders will likely serve longer sentences for low severity crimes.

Not only were black people with lower levels of criminal history more likely to be jailed, the study found, but the likelihood of custodial sentences increased by 43% for those with no past criminal history.

Analysis of the figures from 2000, the last year South Carolina released them, revealed that while the probability of incarceration may be relatively low for white and black offenders with no to moderate prior convictions, it is not the same.

Analysis showed disparities ranging from incarceration for 43% of defendants with no criminal history to 26% with minimal history and 10% for those with moderate histories. Career criminals were treated almost identically.

On February 29 2016 14:38 GreenHorizons wrote:


There's no point in arguing, you think what she's done is fine, I think it undermines democracy at it's core. As long as we're on the same page of her trying to rig the process, that's enough for me.


Yeah, no. I've posted several examples you can accept the reality or not but I'm not arguing about whether red looks the same to us.

While I in no way support Hillary, that wasn't a comment on her personally. That was the political reality that Trump is going to rip her to shreds because he'll have no boundaries. That will include things like calling her marriage a political sham as he hinted when she tried to call him sexist.

On February 29 2016 14:38 puerk wrote:
i think it will be going more like this

On February 29 2016 14:54 kwizach wrote:

I haven't seen you talk about Hillary specifically. If you're going to claim that she rigged the nomination, the least you can do is back up that claim.

There's a difference between Trump not having boundaries and Trump ripping her to shreds. Clinton will make him look like the buffoon that he is and crush him in the general election.

On February 29 2016 15:01 ticklishmusic wrote:
@GH again:

She's not rigging the system, and honestly you saying she is makes you sound like a sore loser. Hillary came in with massive advantages, like familiarity with the black community, a formidable team of advisers and loyalty from numerous members of the Democratic party. Those are things she's cultivated over 20 years in public service.

While I agree with you the DNC's early behavior with regards to the debate schedule (which is what I assume you're referring to/ where Tulsi Gabbard had her original split) was egregious, that's more favoritism than rigging. And to be honest, there have been more than enough events especially when counting these town halls.

To use another analogy, though I doubt it'll help, this is like saying it's not fair that Serena Williams destroyed you in tennis on her home court-- she's a preternaturally gifted freak of nature who has honed her skills since she was young.

---

Hillary is gonna destroy the Donald in debates. I'm 100% certain on this. She's dealt with far worse than anything he can possibly throw. If he goes too extreme, it'll alienate voters and even then I doubt there's anything at this point that he could say to rattle her. This lady has sat across from world leaders who quite literally think women belong in the kitchen and told them to jump, and they've jumped, albeit reluctantly.

If anything, I see her getting under his extremely thin skin. Rubio's last performance gave a slight hint of what real opposition to Trump would look like, except from a guy who has less charisma than Barack Obama's big toe (despite the GOP liking to think he's their answer to BO) and hasn't won a single state. Hillary's far more experienced, actually has a sense of humor and a real message. Donald went for Jeb with a sledgehammer. Hillary will go at him with a surgeon's knife.

On February 29 2016 15:13 ticklishmusic wrote:
I've never characterized Hillary as a messiah at any point in time. She's the most qualified candidate out there and far less sleazy than some would like to assume and I do my best to provide evidence in support of that.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's claim Sunday that his self-named university got a "A rating" from the Better Business Bureau is true — but that's only half the story.


...
The BBB said a statement to NBC News on Sunday that Trump University currently has no rating because "the company is believed to be out of business."

But when it was assessed by BBB Serving Metro New York, the Trump Entrepreneur Initiative — the name under which Trump University has most recently operated — had, indeed, gotten the BBB's top rating in the past, it said.

In fact, according to the rating agency, Trump appears to have undersold things — at times in the past, his "university" had an A-plus rating.

But it's not all good news for the Republican front-runner. The BBB's ratings are "dynamic" and are based on a constantly shifting algorithm, meaning they're changing all the time. And over the years, the company's rating had fallen as far as D-minus — an assessment Trump chose not to mention Sunday.

On February 29 2016 15:05 GreenHorizons wrote:


If you are expecting an email chain showing her directing specific actions I obviously don't have that. You're fine to think she didn't or it was just her supporters or whatever you want, I don't really care. It's obvious to anyone willing to look at it imo and others can have their opinion.

You think Trump supporters aren't fully aware he has no idea what he's talking about politically? The pile of oppo that would be hurled at Clinton would make the 90's look like a dinner party.



I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.

She's already been complaining about Sanders "artful smears" she isn't ready for what Trump's bringing, as evidenced by how Trump shut her down on the sexist stuff.

On February 29 2016 15:16 m4ini wrote:


No, what you're doing is going to ridiculous lengths to hype her. Yes, she might be the most qualified candidate in the run, which is a non-statement considering she's up against sanders and especially trump, which isn't even a fricking politician. Pavarotti is the most qualified for opera out of a trio of him, kanye west and donald trump. Surprise.

About the sleazyness, that's subjective. I think she's a weasel. You don't. You don't have proof either way. We have some indications about some actions, which might or might not be correct. You saying "all false" doesn't change a thing.

And no. You're not really providing evidence. At all. You're stating your opinion over and over again.

edit: it's not just you though, so don't think i'm purely shooting against Hillary - no need for another speech as to why she's amazing.

On February 29 2016 15:05 GreenHorizons wrote:


If you are expecting an email chain showing her directing specific actions I obviously don't have that. You're fine to think she didn't or it was just her supporters or whatever you want, I don't really care. It's obvious to anyone willing to look at it imo and others can have their opinion.

You think Trump supporters aren't fully aware he has no idea what he's talking about politically? The pile of oppo that would be hurled at Clinton would make the 90's look like a dinner party.



I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.

She's already been complaining about Sanders "artful smears" she isn't ready for what Trump's bringing, as evidenced by how Trump shut her down on the sexist stuff.