|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 01 2016 08:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 08:28 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 08:18 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 08:14 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:51 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 07:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:19 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
So just vague accusations and then silence when people ask for specific details? Because that sounds like the argument of a sore loser. No just lazy folks who ignored or missed the issues be pointed out already and refusing to even try to look into it. I'm not going to lay it out again just for you folks to say "but you can't prove it in a court of law". Anyone with any sense of objectivity can see how the debate process was manipulated by Hillary and the DNC which was most clearly displayed when Hillary suddenly wanted a debate in NH. Bernie's always wanted more debates same with O'Malley, as soon as Hillary actually wanted more debates, she got them and DWS abandoned her repeated statements that they weren't needed and wouldn't happen. It's obvious the DNC didn't change it's opinion all of the sudden because of Sanders, clearly the only person standing in the way of more debates earlier in the process was Hillary. So, the DNC decided to sanction six debates, which is the same number of sanctioned debates as in 2004 and 2008. This time, however, they decided to attempt to limit (or avoid completely) unsanctioned debates, with basically the exact same rule as the RNC. Was the RNC also trying to favor Hillary Clinton? Or could the complete debacle that were the high number of Republican debates in the 2012 election perhaps have factored in the decision from both national committees to limit the number of debates in their primaries and have a firmer grasp on them? Now, of course, having a limited number of debates favors the prior front-runner since it gives less opportunity to lesser-known candidates to make their case to the public. And it's likely that Shultz did not see the number of debates as a big issue since she underestimated how interested in Sanders many voters would become. But let's not present the decisions made over the debate process as Hillary dishonestly manipulating the election -- the DNC wanted a smooth process and to avoid the kind of shit-show that were the 2012 Republican debates, and it backfired. Any other element to support the idea that Hillary has tried to rigged the election? Or was that it? Yeah that was more or less the best case interpretation up until it was exposed as bullshit by what happened with NH. You don't have any interest in addressing the truth just putting a pro HRC spin on things. HRC dishonestly suggested she wanted more debates long before NH and nothing happened. She knew she didn't want more debates at the time but she lied and said she did. When she ACTUALLY wanted one, the DNC folded faster than Superman on laundry day. But you knew that before you attempted to defend her. I didn't "attempt to defend her", I answered the one element you managed to bring up, and it wasn't even about Hillary but about the DNC. With regards to the changes that were agreed upon at the end of January, Hillary apparently came to be of the opinion that more debates should be added (she probably thought it would help her, just like Sanders wanted more debates from the start because he felt it would help him), Sanders agreed and both campaigns struck a deal which was validated by the DNC. I'm not sure how that implies any more "rigging" by Hillary. So, any other element to support the idea that Hillary has been rigging the election? Or was that it? Except you aren't even comprehending what happened. Hillary said months before NH that she wanted more debates, when she obviously didn't, that's what makes it dishonest. Except you have been accusing Hillary of rigging the process, not of making unconvincing statements about wanting something. Either substantiate your claim or stop making it. She says she wants more debates(lie), nothing happens. She thinks another debate will help her, suddenly it happens and DWS is on board. Your willful disbelief doesn't mean much to me. There initially was no agreement between the campaigns to make more debates happen. Then there was agreement. Again, where is the rigging? Like I said, you have been accusing Hillary of rigging the process, not of making unconvincing statements about wanting something or of changing her mind on whether or not more debates would help her. Actually DWS decided the number of debates even to the astonishment of the co-Governors(?) who said they had no say at all or why she was doing it going as far to set the times.
Do you have any source on that? From what I'm reading, the calls to increase the number of debates came later in 2015. In any case, how does that change what I said, though?
|
On March 01 2016 08:28 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 08:18 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 08:14 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:51 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 07:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:19 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Shouldn't be hard to guess. I've talked about it more than once. So just vague accusations and then silence when people ask for specific details? Because that sounds like the argument of a sore loser. No just lazy folks who ignored or missed the issues be pointed out already and refusing to even try to look into it. I'm not going to lay it out again just for you folks to say "but you can't prove it in a court of law". Anyone with any sense of objectivity can see how the debate process was manipulated by Hillary and the DNC which was most clearly displayed when Hillary suddenly wanted a debate in NH. Bernie's always wanted more debates same with O'Malley, as soon as Hillary actually wanted more debates, she got them and DWS abandoned her repeated statements that they weren't needed and wouldn't happen. It's obvious the DNC didn't change it's opinion all of the sudden because of Sanders, clearly the only person standing in the way of more debates earlier in the process was Hillary. So, the DNC decided to sanction six debates, which is the same number of sanctioned debates as in 2004 and 2008. This time, however, they decided to attempt to limit (or avoid completely) unsanctioned debates, with basically the exact same rule as the RNC. Was the RNC also trying to favor Hillary Clinton? Or could the complete debacle that were the high number of Republican debates in the 2012 election perhaps have factored in the decision from both national committees to limit the number of debates in their primaries and have a firmer grasp on them? Now, of course, having a limited number of debates favors the prior front-runner since it gives less opportunity to lesser-known candidates to make their case to the public. And it's likely that Shultz did not see the number of debates as a big issue since she underestimated how interested in Sanders many voters would become. But let's not present the decisions made over the debate process as Hillary dishonestly manipulating the election -- the DNC wanted a smooth process and to avoid the kind of shit-show that were the 2012 Republican debates, and it backfired. Any other element to support the idea that Hillary has tried to rigged the election? Or was that it? Yeah that was more or less the best case interpretation up until it was exposed as bullshit by what happened with NH. You don't have any interest in addressing the truth just putting a pro HRC spin on things. HRC dishonestly suggested she wanted more debates long before NH and nothing happened. She knew she didn't want more debates at the time but she lied and said she did. When she ACTUALLY wanted one, the DNC folded faster than Superman on laundry day. But you knew that before you attempted to defend her. I didn't "attempt to defend her", I answered the one element you managed to bring up, and it wasn't even about Hillary but about the DNC. With regards to the changes that were agreed upon at the end of January, Hillary apparently came to be of the opinion that more debates should be added (she probably thought it would help her, just like Sanders wanted more debates from the start because he felt it would help him), Sanders agreed and both campaigns struck a deal which was validated by the DNC. I'm not sure how that implies any more "rigging" by Hillary. So, any other element to support the idea that Hillary has been rigging the election? Or was that it? Except you aren't even comprehending what happened. Hillary said months before NH that she wanted more debates, when she obviously didn't, that's what makes it dishonest. Except you have been accusing Hillary of rigging the process, not of making unconvincing statements about wanting something. Either substantiate your claim or stop making it. She says she wants more debates(lie), nothing happens. She thinks another debate will help her, suddenly it happens and DWS is on board. Your willful disbelief doesn't mean much to me. There initially was no agreement between the campaigns to make more debates happen. Then there was agreement. Again, where is the rigging? Like I said, you have been accusing Hillary of rigging the process, not of making unconvincing statements about wanting something or of changing her mind on whether or not more debates would help her.
Why do you suppose there was no agreement before Hillary pushed for a NH debate? O'Malley and Bernie wanted more debates from day 1, there was only one person not openly saying it all the time. She said she wanted more debates, yet DWS came out and said there wont be any and it has nothing to do with the candidates.
It wasn't until she genuinely wanted another debate that the other candidates opinion had anything to do with more debates. Which was only because the DNC couldn't come out and sanction a debate that only 1 of the candidates agreed to. Which is why Bernie was able to negotiate other debates, if she actually wanted more debates like she said (and could have gotten months ago) she would of got them.
She dishonestly manipulated the debate process in order to help herself. I'm not going to stop saying she has tried to rig the process because it's obviously true. I guess I'll add the "&co" though to cover stuff like counting votes at the caucus level since I doubt she personally said "go ahead and break the rules when it favors me".
|
On March 01 2016 08:33 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 08:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 01 2016 08:28 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 08:18 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 08:14 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:51 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 07:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
No just lazy folks who ignored or missed the issues be pointed out already and refusing to even try to look into it.
I'm not going to lay it out again just for you folks to say "but you can't prove it in a court of law". Anyone with any sense of objectivity can see how the debate process was manipulated by Hillary and the DNC which was most clearly displayed when Hillary suddenly wanted a debate in NH.
Bernie's always wanted more debates same with O'Malley, as soon as Hillary actually wanted more debates, she got them and DWS abandoned her repeated statements that they weren't needed and wouldn't happen.
It's obvious the DNC didn't change it's opinion all of the sudden because of Sanders, clearly the only person standing in the way of more debates earlier in the process was Hillary. So, the DNC decided to sanction six debates, which is the same number of sanctioned debates as in 2004 and 2008. This time, however, they decided to attempt to limit (or avoid completely) unsanctioned debates, with basically the exact same rule as the RNC. Was the RNC also trying to favor Hillary Clinton? Or could the complete debacle that were the high number of Republican debates in the 2012 election perhaps have factored in the decision from both national committees to limit the number of debates in their primaries and have a firmer grasp on them? Now, of course, having a limited number of debates favors the prior front-runner since it gives less opportunity to lesser-known candidates to make their case to the public. And it's likely that Shultz did not see the number of debates as a big issue since she underestimated how interested in Sanders many voters would become. But let's not present the decisions made over the debate process as Hillary dishonestly manipulating the election -- the DNC wanted a smooth process and to avoid the kind of shit-show that were the 2012 Republican debates, and it backfired. Any other element to support the idea that Hillary has tried to rigged the election? Or was that it? Yeah that was more or less the best case interpretation up until it was exposed as bullshit by what happened with NH. You don't have any interest in addressing the truth just putting a pro HRC spin on things. HRC dishonestly suggested she wanted more debates long before NH and nothing happened. She knew she didn't want more debates at the time but she lied and said she did. When she ACTUALLY wanted one, the DNC folded faster than Superman on laundry day. But you knew that before you attempted to defend her. I didn't "attempt to defend her", I answered the one element you managed to bring up, and it wasn't even about Hillary but about the DNC. With regards to the changes that were agreed upon at the end of January, Hillary apparently came to be of the opinion that more debates should be added (she probably thought it would help her, just like Sanders wanted more debates from the start because he felt it would help him), Sanders agreed and both campaigns struck a deal which was validated by the DNC. I'm not sure how that implies any more "rigging" by Hillary. So, any other element to support the idea that Hillary has been rigging the election? Or was that it? Except you aren't even comprehending what happened. Hillary said months before NH that she wanted more debates, when she obviously didn't, that's what makes it dishonest. Except you have been accusing Hillary of rigging the process, not of making unconvincing statements about wanting something. Either substantiate your claim or stop making it. She says she wants more debates(lie), nothing happens. She thinks another debate will help her, suddenly it happens and DWS is on board. Your willful disbelief doesn't mean much to me. There initially was no agreement between the campaigns to make more debates happen. Then there was agreement. Again, where is the rigging? Like I said, you have been accusing Hillary of rigging the process, not of making unconvincing statements about wanting something or of changing her mind on whether or not more debates would help her. Actually DWS decided the number of debates even to the astonishment of the co-Governors(?) who said they had no say at all or why she was doing it going as far to set the times. Do you have any source on that? From what I'm reading, the calls to increase the number of debates came later in 2015. In any case, how does that change what I said, though?
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/democratic-primary-debates-six-debbie-wasserman-schultz-2016-213489
Wasserman Schultz has come under fire for the limited schedule, with Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley leading the charge. O’Malley has said the limits are “rigged” and “ridiculous,” and devoted much of his speech to the DNC last month in Minneapolis to ripping the rules.
But the statement late Wednesday from two DNC vice chairs, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and R.T. Rybak, was notable because it came from within the party’s own power structure. “By limiting Democratic debates to just six, more people will feel excluded from our political process, rather than included,” Gabbard and Rybak wrote in a post on Facebook.
Wasserman Schultz said Thursday the “beauty of our party” is that it embraces divergent opinions, but that her decision on debates would stand.
The party rules say that the DNC will hold six sanctioned presidential primary debates and that any presidential candidate who participates in a non-sanctioned debate will be disinvited from future official ones. Wasserman Schultz said the limits are necessary to make “sure that we not let the debate process get out of control,” and that preparing for debates is “labor intensive” for candidates. She said the party encouraged groups to organize forums and other non-debate events for the Democratic field.
In addition to O’Malley, Sen. Bernie Sanders has called for more debates and last week Hillary Clinton said she was open to more debates, as well.
|
On March 01 2016 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 08:28 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 08:18 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 08:14 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:51 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 07:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:19 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
So just vague accusations and then silence when people ask for specific details? Because that sounds like the argument of a sore loser. No just lazy folks who ignored or missed the issues be pointed out already and refusing to even try to look into it. I'm not going to lay it out again just for you folks to say "but you can't prove it in a court of law". Anyone with any sense of objectivity can see how the debate process was manipulated by Hillary and the DNC which was most clearly displayed when Hillary suddenly wanted a debate in NH. Bernie's always wanted more debates same with O'Malley, as soon as Hillary actually wanted more debates, she got them and DWS abandoned her repeated statements that they weren't needed and wouldn't happen. It's obvious the DNC didn't change it's opinion all of the sudden because of Sanders, clearly the only person standing in the way of more debates earlier in the process was Hillary. So, the DNC decided to sanction six debates, which is the same number of sanctioned debates as in 2004 and 2008. This time, however, they decided to attempt to limit (or avoid completely) unsanctioned debates, with basically the exact same rule as the RNC. Was the RNC also trying to favor Hillary Clinton? Or could the complete debacle that were the high number of Republican debates in the 2012 election perhaps have factored in the decision from both national committees to limit the number of debates in their primaries and have a firmer grasp on them? Now, of course, having a limited number of debates favors the prior front-runner since it gives less opportunity to lesser-known candidates to make their case to the public. And it's likely that Shultz did not see the number of debates as a big issue since she underestimated how interested in Sanders many voters would become. But let's not present the decisions made over the debate process as Hillary dishonestly manipulating the election -- the DNC wanted a smooth process and to avoid the kind of shit-show that were the 2012 Republican debates, and it backfired. Any other element to support the idea that Hillary has tried to rigged the election? Or was that it? Yeah that was more or less the best case interpretation up until it was exposed as bullshit by what happened with NH. You don't have any interest in addressing the truth just putting a pro HRC spin on things. HRC dishonestly suggested she wanted more debates long before NH and nothing happened. She knew she didn't want more debates at the time but she lied and said she did. When she ACTUALLY wanted one, the DNC folded faster than Superman on laundry day. But you knew that before you attempted to defend her. I didn't "attempt to defend her", I answered the one element you managed to bring up, and it wasn't even about Hillary but about the DNC. With regards to the changes that were agreed upon at the end of January, Hillary apparently came to be of the opinion that more debates should be added (she probably thought it would help her, just like Sanders wanted more debates from the start because he felt it would help him), Sanders agreed and both campaigns struck a deal which was validated by the DNC. I'm not sure how that implies any more "rigging" by Hillary. So, any other element to support the idea that Hillary has been rigging the election? Or was that it? Except you aren't even comprehending what happened. Hillary said months before NH that she wanted more debates, when she obviously didn't, that's what makes it dishonest. Except you have been accusing Hillary of rigging the process, not of making unconvincing statements about wanting something. Either substantiate your claim or stop making it. She says she wants more debates(lie), nothing happens. She thinks another debate will help her, suddenly it happens and DWS is on board. Your willful disbelief doesn't mean much to me. There initially was no agreement between the campaigns to make more debates happen. Then there was agreement. Again, where is the rigging? Like I said, you have been accusing Hillary of rigging the process, not of making unconvincing statements about wanting something or of changing her mind on whether or not more debates would help her. Why do you suppose there was no agreement before Hillary pushed for a NH debate? O'Malley and Bernie wanted more debates from day 1, there was only one person not openly saying it all the time. She said she wanted more debates, yet DWS came out and said there wont be any and it has nothing to do with the candidates. It wasn't until she genuinely wanted another debate that the other candidates opinion had anything to do with more debates. Which was only because the DNC couldn't come out and sanction a debate that only 1 of the candidates agreed to. Which is why Bernie was able to negotiate other debates, if she actually wanted more debates like she said (and could have gotten months ago) she would of got them. She dishonestly manipulated the debate process in order to help herself. I'm not going to stop saying she has tried to rig the process because it's obviously true.
There was no agreement because the Hillary campaign was not pushing to come to an agreement for more debates like the others. Sanders and O'Malley thought it would help them to have more debates, so they were pushing for more. Hillary didn't think it would help her to have more debates, so she was not pushing for more. Since when does "not pushing to have more debates" become "rigging the electoral process"? Or do you not know what words mean?
Still waiting for any other element to support your claim. Or was that it?
|
On March 01 2016 08:37 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 08:33 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 08:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 01 2016 08:28 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 08:18 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 08:14 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:51 kwizach wrote:[quote] So, the DNC decided to sanction six debates, which is the same number of sanctioned debates as in 2004 and 2008. This time, however, they decided to attempt to limit (or avoid completely) unsanctioned debates, with basically the exact same rule as the RNC. Was the RNC also trying to favor Hillary Clinton? Or could the complete debacle that were the high number of Republican debates in the 2012 election perhaps have factored in the decision from both national committees to limit the number of debates in their primaries and have a firmer grasp on them? Now, of course, having a limited number of debates favors the prior front-runner since it gives less opportunity to lesser-known candidates to make their case to the public. And it's likely that Shultz did not see the number of debates as a big issue since she underestimated how interested in Sanders many voters would become. But let's not present the decisions made over the debate process as Hillary dishonestly manipulating the election -- the DNC wanted a smooth process and to avoid the kind of shit-show that were the 2012 Republican debates, and it backfired. Any other element to support the idea that Hillary has tried to rigged the election? Or was that it? Yeah that was more or less the best case interpretation up until it was exposed as bullshit by what happened with NH. You don't have any interest in addressing the truth just putting a pro HRC spin on things. HRC dishonestly suggested she wanted more debates long before NH and nothing happened. She knew she didn't want more debates at the time but she lied and said she did. When she ACTUALLY wanted one, the DNC folded faster than Superman on laundry day. But you knew that before you attempted to defend her. I didn't "attempt to defend her", I answered the one element you managed to bring up, and it wasn't even about Hillary but about the DNC. With regards to the changes that were agreed upon at the end of January, Hillary apparently came to be of the opinion that more debates should be added (she probably thought it would help her, just like Sanders wanted more debates from the start because he felt it would help him), Sanders agreed and both campaigns struck a deal which was validated by the DNC. I'm not sure how that implies any more "rigging" by Hillary. So, any other element to support the idea that Hillary has been rigging the election? Or was that it? Except you aren't even comprehending what happened. Hillary said months before NH that she wanted more debates, when she obviously didn't, that's what makes it dishonest. Except you have been accusing Hillary of rigging the process, not of making unconvincing statements about wanting something. Either substantiate your claim or stop making it. She says she wants more debates(lie), nothing happens. She thinks another debate will help her, suddenly it happens and DWS is on board. Your willful disbelief doesn't mean much to me. There initially was no agreement between the campaigns to make more debates happen. Then there was agreement. Again, where is the rigging? Like I said, you have been accusing Hillary of rigging the process, not of making unconvincing statements about wanting something or of changing her mind on whether or not more debates would help her. Actually DWS decided the number of debates even to the astonishment of the co-Governors(?) who said they had no say at all or why she was doing it going as far to set the times. Do you have any source on that? From what I'm reading, the calls to increase the number of debates came later in 2015. In any case, how does that change what I said, though? http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/democratic-primary-debates-six-debbie-wasserman-schultz-2016-213489Show nested quote +Wasserman Schultz has come under fire for the limited schedule, with Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley leading the charge. O’Malley has said the limits are “rigged” and “ridiculous,” and devoted much of his speech to the DNC last month in Minneapolis to ripping the rules.
But the statement late Wednesday from two DNC vice chairs, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and R.T. Rybak, was notable because it came from within the party’s own power structure. “By limiting Democratic debates to just six, more people will feel excluded from our political process, rather than included,” Gabbard and Rybak wrote in a post on Facebook.
Wasserman Schultz said Thursday the “beauty of our party” is that it embraces divergent opinions, but that her decision on debates would stand. Show nested quote +The party rules say that the DNC will hold six sanctioned presidential primary debates and that any presidential candidate who participates in a non-sanctioned debate will be disinvited from future official ones. Wasserman Schultz said the limits are necessary to make “sure that we not let the debate process get out of control,” and that preparing for debates is “labor intensive” for candidates. She said the party encouraged groups to organize forums and other non-debate events for the Democratic field.
In addition to O’Malley, Sen. Bernie Sanders has called for more debates and last week Hillary Clinton said she was open to more debates, as well.
Your story confirms what I just said. This is an article from September 2015. The decision to have six debates was announced in May.
|
Feb 29 (Reuters) - A federal judge in Brooklyn, New York denied the U.S. government's motion to compel Apple Inc. to provide access into an iPhone used in a drug case, according to court documents released on Monday.
The government sought access to the phone in October, months before a judge in California ordered Apple to give the government access to the phone used by one of the shooters in the San Bernardino, California attacks.
Source
|
On March 01 2016 08:39 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 08:28 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 08:18 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 08:14 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:51 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 07:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
No just lazy folks who ignored or missed the issues be pointed out already and refusing to even try to look into it.
I'm not going to lay it out again just for you folks to say "but you can't prove it in a court of law". Anyone with any sense of objectivity can see how the debate process was manipulated by Hillary and the DNC which was most clearly displayed when Hillary suddenly wanted a debate in NH.
Bernie's always wanted more debates same with O'Malley, as soon as Hillary actually wanted more debates, she got them and DWS abandoned her repeated statements that they weren't needed and wouldn't happen.
It's obvious the DNC didn't change it's opinion all of the sudden because of Sanders, clearly the only person standing in the way of more debates earlier in the process was Hillary. So, the DNC decided to sanction six debates, which is the same number of sanctioned debates as in 2004 and 2008. This time, however, they decided to attempt to limit (or avoid completely) unsanctioned debates, with basically the exact same rule as the RNC. Was the RNC also trying to favor Hillary Clinton? Or could the complete debacle that were the high number of Republican debates in the 2012 election perhaps have factored in the decision from both national committees to limit the number of debates in their primaries and have a firmer grasp on them? Now, of course, having a limited number of debates favors the prior front-runner since it gives less opportunity to lesser-known candidates to make their case to the public. And it's likely that Shultz did not see the number of debates as a big issue since she underestimated how interested in Sanders many voters would become. But let's not present the decisions made over the debate process as Hillary dishonestly manipulating the election -- the DNC wanted a smooth process and to avoid the kind of shit-show that were the 2012 Republican debates, and it backfired. Any other element to support the idea that Hillary has tried to rigged the election? Or was that it? Yeah that was more or less the best case interpretation up until it was exposed as bullshit by what happened with NH. You don't have any interest in addressing the truth just putting a pro HRC spin on things. HRC dishonestly suggested she wanted more debates long before NH and nothing happened. She knew she didn't want more debates at the time but she lied and said she did. When she ACTUALLY wanted one, the DNC folded faster than Superman on laundry day. But you knew that before you attempted to defend her. I didn't "attempt to defend her", I answered the one element you managed to bring up, and it wasn't even about Hillary but about the DNC. With regards to the changes that were agreed upon at the end of January, Hillary apparently came to be of the opinion that more debates should be added (she probably thought it would help her, just like Sanders wanted more debates from the start because he felt it would help him), Sanders agreed and both campaigns struck a deal which was validated by the DNC. I'm not sure how that implies any more "rigging" by Hillary. So, any other element to support the idea that Hillary has been rigging the election? Or was that it? Except you aren't even comprehending what happened. Hillary said months before NH that she wanted more debates, when she obviously didn't, that's what makes it dishonest. Except you have been accusing Hillary of rigging the process, not of making unconvincing statements about wanting something. Either substantiate your claim or stop making it. She says she wants more debates(lie), nothing happens. She thinks another debate will help her, suddenly it happens and DWS is on board. Your willful disbelief doesn't mean much to me. There initially was no agreement between the campaigns to make more debates happen. Then there was agreement. Again, where is the rigging? Like I said, you have been accusing Hillary of rigging the process, not of making unconvincing statements about wanting something or of changing her mind on whether or not more debates would help her. Why do you suppose there was no agreement before Hillary pushed for a NH debate? O'Malley and Bernie wanted more debates from day 1, there was only one person not openly saying it all the time. She said she wanted more debates, yet DWS came out and said there wont be any and it has nothing to do with the candidates. It wasn't until she genuinely wanted another debate that the other candidates opinion had anything to do with more debates. Which was only because the DNC couldn't come out and sanction a debate that only 1 of the candidates agreed to. Which is why Bernie was able to negotiate other debates, if she actually wanted more debates like she said (and could have gotten months ago) she would of got them. She dishonestly manipulated the debate process in order to help herself. I'm not going to stop saying she has tried to rig the process because it's obviously true. There was no agreement because the Hillary campaign was not pushing to come to an agreement for more debates like the others. Sanders and O'Malley thought it would help them to have more debates, so they were pushing for more. Hillary didn't think it would help her to have more debates, so she was not pushing for more. Since when does "not pushing to have more debates" become "rigging the electoral process"? Or do you not know what words mean?
This is insanity. Sanders or O'Malley would of taken any debate anywhere when Hillary said she was open to more. Fact is she wasn't open to more until they benefited her. She and her supporters manipulated the debate process to personally benefit her. But I'm not going to argue about it anymore
|
On March 01 2016 08:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 08:39 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 08:28 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 08:18 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 08:14 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:51 kwizach wrote:[quote] So, the DNC decided to sanction six debates, which is the same number of sanctioned debates as in 2004 and 2008. This time, however, they decided to attempt to limit (or avoid completely) unsanctioned debates, with basically the exact same rule as the RNC. Was the RNC also trying to favor Hillary Clinton? Or could the complete debacle that were the high number of Republican debates in the 2012 election perhaps have factored in the decision from both national committees to limit the number of debates in their primaries and have a firmer grasp on them? Now, of course, having a limited number of debates favors the prior front-runner since it gives less opportunity to lesser-known candidates to make their case to the public. And it's likely that Shultz did not see the number of debates as a big issue since she underestimated how interested in Sanders many voters would become. But let's not present the decisions made over the debate process as Hillary dishonestly manipulating the election -- the DNC wanted a smooth process and to avoid the kind of shit-show that were the 2012 Republican debates, and it backfired. Any other element to support the idea that Hillary has tried to rigged the election? Or was that it? Yeah that was more or less the best case interpretation up until it was exposed as bullshit by what happened with NH. You don't have any interest in addressing the truth just putting a pro HRC spin on things. HRC dishonestly suggested she wanted more debates long before NH and nothing happened. She knew she didn't want more debates at the time but she lied and said she did. When she ACTUALLY wanted one, the DNC folded faster than Superman on laundry day. But you knew that before you attempted to defend her. I didn't "attempt to defend her", I answered the one element you managed to bring up, and it wasn't even about Hillary but about the DNC. With regards to the changes that were agreed upon at the end of January, Hillary apparently came to be of the opinion that more debates should be added (she probably thought it would help her, just like Sanders wanted more debates from the start because he felt it would help him), Sanders agreed and both campaigns struck a deal which was validated by the DNC. I'm not sure how that implies any more "rigging" by Hillary. So, any other element to support the idea that Hillary has been rigging the election? Or was that it? Except you aren't even comprehending what happened. Hillary said months before NH that she wanted more debates, when she obviously didn't, that's what makes it dishonest. Except you have been accusing Hillary of rigging the process, not of making unconvincing statements about wanting something. Either substantiate your claim or stop making it. She says she wants more debates(lie), nothing happens. She thinks another debate will help her, suddenly it happens and DWS is on board. Your willful disbelief doesn't mean much to me. There initially was no agreement between the campaigns to make more debates happen. Then there was agreement. Again, where is the rigging? Like I said, you have been accusing Hillary of rigging the process, not of making unconvincing statements about wanting something or of changing her mind on whether or not more debates would help her. Why do you suppose there was no agreement before Hillary pushed for a NH debate? O'Malley and Bernie wanted more debates from day 1, there was only one person not openly saying it all the time. She said she wanted more debates, yet DWS came out and said there wont be any and it has nothing to do with the candidates. It wasn't until she genuinely wanted another debate that the other candidates opinion had anything to do with more debates. Which was only because the DNC couldn't come out and sanction a debate that only 1 of the candidates agreed to. Which is why Bernie was able to negotiate other debates, if she actually wanted more debates like she said (and could have gotten months ago) she would of got them. She dishonestly manipulated the debate process in order to help herself. I'm not going to stop saying she has tried to rig the process because it's obviously true. There was no agreement because the Hillary campaign was not pushing to come to an agreement for more debates like the others. Sanders and O'Malley thought it would help them to have more debates, so they were pushing for more. Hillary didn't think it would help her to have more debates, so she was not pushing for more. Since when does "not pushing to have more debates" become "rigging the electoral process"? Or do you not know what words mean? This is insanity. Sanders or O'Malley would of taken any debate anywhere when Hillary said she was open to more. Fact is she wasn't open to more until they benefited her. She and her supporters manipulated the debate process to personally benefit her. But I'm not going to argue about it anymore
She wasn't pushing for an agreement for more debates until it became clear it would benefit her. And Sanders pushed for more debates from the start because it was clear it would benefit him from the start. That is not synonymous with rigging the process.
Still waiting for any other element to support your claim. Or was that it?
|
Canada11583 Posts
Six debates seems like lots to me, but then again our elections are usually 50 days long and consist of two debates: one in English, the other in French. We decided to shake things up and go for 78 days and have two in English, two in French, and one bilingual. I honestly don't think I was the wiser for the additional debates... except the niqab nonsense confirmed my decision to vote against my party.
|
On March 01 2016 08:45 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 08:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 08:39 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 08:28 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 08:18 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 08:14 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Yeah that was more or less the best case interpretation up until it was exposed as bullshit by what happened with NH.
You don't have any interest in addressing the truth just putting a pro HRC spin on things. HRC dishonestly suggested she wanted more debates long before NH and nothing happened. She knew she didn't want more debates at the time but she lied and said she did. When she ACTUALLY wanted one, the DNC folded faster than Superman on laundry day.
But you knew that before you attempted to defend her. I didn't "attempt to defend her", I answered the one element you managed to bring up, and it wasn't even about Hillary but about the DNC. With regards to the changes that were agreed upon at the end of January, Hillary apparently came to be of the opinion that more debates should be added (she probably thought it would help her, just like Sanders wanted more debates from the start because he felt it would help him), Sanders agreed and both campaigns struck a deal which was validated by the DNC. I'm not sure how that implies any more "rigging" by Hillary. So, any other element to support the idea that Hillary has been rigging the election? Or was that it? Except you aren't even comprehending what happened. Hillary said months before NH that she wanted more debates, when she obviously didn't, that's what makes it dishonest. Except you have been accusing Hillary of rigging the process, not of making unconvincing statements about wanting something. Either substantiate your claim or stop making it. She says she wants more debates(lie), nothing happens. She thinks another debate will help her, suddenly it happens and DWS is on board. Your willful disbelief doesn't mean much to me. There initially was no agreement between the campaigns to make more debates happen. Then there was agreement. Again, where is the rigging? Like I said, you have been accusing Hillary of rigging the process, not of making unconvincing statements about wanting something or of changing her mind on whether or not more debates would help her. Why do you suppose there was no agreement before Hillary pushed for a NH debate? O'Malley and Bernie wanted more debates from day 1, there was only one person not openly saying it all the time. She said she wanted more debates, yet DWS came out and said there wont be any and it has nothing to do with the candidates. It wasn't until she genuinely wanted another debate that the other candidates opinion had anything to do with more debates. Which was only because the DNC couldn't come out and sanction a debate that only 1 of the candidates agreed to. Which is why Bernie was able to negotiate other debates, if she actually wanted more debates like she said (and could have gotten months ago) she would of got them. She dishonestly manipulated the debate process in order to help herself. I'm not going to stop saying she has tried to rig the process because it's obviously true. There was no agreement because the Hillary campaign was not pushing to come to an agreement for more debates like the others. Sanders and O'Malley thought it would help them to have more debates, so they were pushing for more. Hillary didn't think it would help her to have more debates, so she was not pushing for more. Since when does "not pushing to have more debates" become "rigging the electoral process"? Or do you not know what words mean? This is insanity. Sanders or O'Malley would of taken any debate anywhere when Hillary said she was open to more. Fact is she wasn't open to more until they benefited her. She and her supporters manipulated the debate process to personally benefit her. But I'm not going to argue about it anymore She wasn't pushing for an agreement for more debates until it became clear it would benefit her. And Sanders pushed for more debates from the start because it was clear it would benefit him from the start. That is not synonymous with rigging the process. Still waiting for any other element to support your claim. Or was that it?
You're right that we have different definitions of what constitutes rigging and we should just leave it at that.
|
On March 01 2016 07:42 Deathstar wrote:
The illegality of incest (between two consenting adults) is one of the most ridiculous things around. It'll become legal in due time.
I dunno. You could argue that a child can never truly consent to have sex with a parent due to the power relationship between them never really going away.
|
Yeah, DWS probably put the thumb on the scale when she scheduled that idiotic Saturday night debate. But would having 9 debates really have helped Bernie that much? The debates didn't do much to swing things in Bernie's favor. His marketing and retail campaigning in the early primary states did a lot. But Hillary seemed to handle the debates well. Bernie never landed any hard hits and Hillary never lost her cool/lead. I don't get why another ~3 more debates would have changed things (especially in light of the weekly townhall events).
|
On March 01 2016 08:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 08:45 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 08:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 08:39 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 08:28 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 08:18 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 08:14 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
I didn't "attempt to defend her", I answered the one element you managed to bring up, and it wasn't even about Hillary but about the DNC.
With regards to the changes that were agreed upon at the end of January, Hillary apparently came to be of the opinion that more debates should be added (she probably thought it would help her, just like Sanders wanted more debates from the start because he felt it would help him), Sanders agreed and both campaigns struck a deal which was validated by the DNC. I'm not sure how that implies any more "rigging" by Hillary.
So, any other element to support the idea that Hillary has been rigging the election? Or was that it? Except you aren't even comprehending what happened. Hillary said months before NH that she wanted more debates, when she obviously didn't, that's what makes it dishonest. Except you have been accusing Hillary of rigging the process, not of making unconvincing statements about wanting something. Either substantiate your claim or stop making it. She says she wants more debates(lie), nothing happens. She thinks another debate will help her, suddenly it happens and DWS is on board. Your willful disbelief doesn't mean much to me. There initially was no agreement between the campaigns to make more debates happen. Then there was agreement. Again, where is the rigging? Like I said, you have been accusing Hillary of rigging the process, not of making unconvincing statements about wanting something or of changing her mind on whether or not more debates would help her. Why do you suppose there was no agreement before Hillary pushed for a NH debate? O'Malley and Bernie wanted more debates from day 1, there was only one person not openly saying it all the time. She said she wanted more debates, yet DWS came out and said there wont be any and it has nothing to do with the candidates. It wasn't until she genuinely wanted another debate that the other candidates opinion had anything to do with more debates. Which was only because the DNC couldn't come out and sanction a debate that only 1 of the candidates agreed to. Which is why Bernie was able to negotiate other debates, if she actually wanted more debates like she said (and could have gotten months ago) she would of got them. She dishonestly manipulated the debate process in order to help herself. I'm not going to stop saying she has tried to rig the process because it's obviously true. There was no agreement because the Hillary campaign was not pushing to come to an agreement for more debates like the others. Sanders and O'Malley thought it would help them to have more debates, so they were pushing for more. Hillary didn't think it would help her to have more debates, so she was not pushing for more. Since when does "not pushing to have more debates" become "rigging the electoral process"? Or do you not know what words mean? This is insanity. Sanders or O'Malley would of taken any debate anywhere when Hillary said she was open to more. Fact is she wasn't open to more until they benefited her. She and her supporters manipulated the debate process to personally benefit her. But I'm not going to argue about it anymore She wasn't pushing for an agreement for more debates until it became clear it would benefit her. And Sanders pushed for more debates from the start because it was clear it would benefit him from the start. That is not synonymous with rigging the process. Still waiting for any other element to support your claim. Or was that it? You're right that we have different definitions of what constitutes rigging and we should just leave it at that.
Yes, to me changing your mind on whether or not to actively push for more debates does not constitute "rigging". Did you have anything else, or was that the extent of Hillary's mischievous ploy to rig the election?
|
On March 01 2016 08:52 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
Yeah, DWS probably put the thumb on the scale when she scheduled that idiotic Saturday night debate. But would having 9 debates really have helped Bernie that much? The debates didn't do much to swing things in Bernie's favor. His marketing and retail campaigning in the early primary states did a lot. But Hillary seemed to handle the debates well. Bernie never landed any hard hits and Hillary never lost her cool/lead. I don't get why another ~3 more debates would have changed things (especially in light of the weekly townhall events).
It wasn't about landing any punches but exposing viewers to the differing Candidates which has never worked in Clintons favor hence the number and the times they were scheduled.
|
On March 01 2016 08:29 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 08:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 01 2016 08:04 Deathstar wrote:On March 01 2016 07:58 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 01 2016 07:53 Deathstar wrote:On March 01 2016 07:46 ticklishmusic wrote:
I'm gonna write some fanfiction about a billionaire parking lot tycoon named Drumpf from Southern California with bad hair who fantasizes about his daughter. Stay tuned. Knowing Trump by now, he probably said it as a joke in the moment. Come on you're going to take what he says on Howard Stern and View seriously? If Trump's wife looked a lot like Ivanka then there is something funky going on but now it's just anti-Trump fantasizing. It's satire. I just want Drumpf-senpai to notice me. On March 01 2016 07:53 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
Considering there is a "town hall" two Candidate question and answer session once a week, I think 6 debates is enough. I initially thought 6 was too low, but with all these other events I think there are plenty of Bernie v Clinton events. I get that at the outset, if there were only going to be 6 events in total, that looks biased. But the townhall style events really helped fill out the airwaves. Pretty much. I've watched every single town hall and it's basically the same thing each time. The only thing that changes is if Hillary and/or Bernie have a cold it seems. The questions aren't bad though. President-senpai will grace us all. Can't wait for his inauguration speech. + Show Spoiler + that is the smile of someone who kind of wishes she was adopted, but then realizes if she were it'd be technically okay for her 'dad' to bang her. Weirdly having sex with an adopted daughter is still considered incest. The law is nonsensical.
We are kind of on a segway here, but here is my opinion regarding the topic of incest.
There are two big problems with incest: Genetical problems for a possible child and ethical problems due to the power difference in the relationship.
The first one is not a problem if it is ensured that they do not procreate. The second one is a major problem between parent and child, no matter whether they are blood related or adopted. I think it is very hard to decide if a parent/child incestual relationship is not based on the parent pushing their desire onto the child (Obviously this changes at some point in life when the child is basically detached from their parents completely.)
As such, i personally don't have a problem with a lot of forms of incest (Though it is definitively not something i personally am interested in). Siblings, cousins, as long as they make sure they don't produce offspring, that sort of thing is pretty ok in my opinion. But anything that involves someone with an obvious power advantage over another person i find very hard to accept.
|
On March 01 2016 08:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 08:39 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 08:28 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 08:18 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 08:14 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:51 kwizach wrote:[quote] So, the DNC decided to sanction six debates, which is the same number of sanctioned debates as in 2004 and 2008. This time, however, they decided to attempt to limit (or avoid completely) unsanctioned debates, with basically the exact same rule as the RNC. Was the RNC also trying to favor Hillary Clinton? Or could the complete debacle that were the high number of Republican debates in the 2012 election perhaps have factored in the decision from both national committees to limit the number of debates in their primaries and have a firmer grasp on them? Now, of course, having a limited number of debates favors the prior front-runner since it gives less opportunity to lesser-known candidates to make their case to the public. And it's likely that Shultz did not see the number of debates as a big issue since she underestimated how interested in Sanders many voters would become. But let's not present the decisions made over the debate process as Hillary dishonestly manipulating the election -- the DNC wanted a smooth process and to avoid the kind of shit-show that were the 2012 Republican debates, and it backfired. Any other element to support the idea that Hillary has tried to rigged the election? Or was that it? Yeah that was more or less the best case interpretation up until it was exposed as bullshit by what happened with NH. You don't have any interest in addressing the truth just putting a pro HRC spin on things. HRC dishonestly suggested she wanted more debates long before NH and nothing happened. She knew she didn't want more debates at the time but she lied and said she did. When she ACTUALLY wanted one, the DNC folded faster than Superman on laundry day. But you knew that before you attempted to defend her. I didn't "attempt to defend her", I answered the one element you managed to bring up, and it wasn't even about Hillary but about the DNC. With regards to the changes that were agreed upon at the end of January, Hillary apparently came to be of the opinion that more debates should be added (she probably thought it would help her, just like Sanders wanted more debates from the start because he felt it would help him), Sanders agreed and both campaigns struck a deal which was validated by the DNC. I'm not sure how that implies any more "rigging" by Hillary. So, any other element to support the idea that Hillary has been rigging the election? Or was that it? Except you aren't even comprehending what happened. Hillary said months before NH that she wanted more debates, when she obviously didn't, that's what makes it dishonest. Except you have been accusing Hillary of rigging the process, not of making unconvincing statements about wanting something. Either substantiate your claim or stop making it. She says she wants more debates(lie), nothing happens. She thinks another debate will help her, suddenly it happens and DWS is on board. Your willful disbelief doesn't mean much to me. There initially was no agreement between the campaigns to make more debates happen. Then there was agreement. Again, where is the rigging? Like I said, you have been accusing Hillary of rigging the process, not of making unconvincing statements about wanting something or of changing her mind on whether or not more debates would help her. Why do you suppose there was no agreement before Hillary pushed for a NH debate? O'Malley and Bernie wanted more debates from day 1, there was only one person not openly saying it all the time. She said she wanted more debates, yet DWS came out and said there wont be any and it has nothing to do with the candidates. It wasn't until she genuinely wanted another debate that the other candidates opinion had anything to do with more debates. Which was only because the DNC couldn't come out and sanction a debate that only 1 of the candidates agreed to. Which is why Bernie was able to negotiate other debates, if she actually wanted more debates like she said (and could have gotten months ago) she would of got them. She dishonestly manipulated the debate process in order to help herself. I'm not going to stop saying she has tried to rig the process because it's obviously true. There was no agreement because the Hillary campaign was not pushing to come to an agreement for more debates like the others. Sanders and O'Malley thought it would help them to have more debates, so they were pushing for more. Hillary didn't think it would help her to have more debates, so she was not pushing for more. Since when does "not pushing to have more debates" become "rigging the electoral process"? Or do you not know what words mean? This is insanity. Sanders or O'Malley would of taken any debate anywhere when Hillary said she was open to more. Fact is she wasn't open to more until they benefited her. She and her supporters manipulated the debate process to personally benefit her. But I'm not going to argue about it anymore
So Bernie and O'Malley (IDK why we don't/didn't call him Martin, was Marty a thing?) wanted more debates when they thought it would benefit them...
And Hillary wanted more debates when it would benefit her.
Uhh, yeah, so all the candidates want things that they think will help them.
|
Honestly, the Democratic Party is so anemic when it comes to leadership that, as a proud lifelong Democrat, I'm ashamed of the fact that DWS is still in charge. The party could be celebrating this dual between Clinton and Sanders through promotion in the form of more debates, more press events, and a media campaign that compares the primaries of the two parties. Some kind of dynamic response to the Trump snowball that at least attempts to generate similar amounts of hype. Instead, DWS plays Clinton fangirl while setting a party agenda that is as sheepish as ever.
Though I'm still quite confident in a Democratic win come November, it'll be in spite of the party, not because of it, and that's a goddamn shame.
|
On March 01 2016 08:52 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
Yeah, DWS probably put the thumb on the scale when she scheduled that idiotic Saturday night debate. But would having 9 debates really have helped Bernie that much? The debates didn't do much to swing things in Bernie's favor. His marketing and retail campaigning in the early primary states did a lot. But Hillary seemed to handle the debates well. Bernie never landed any hard hits and Hillary never lost her cool/lead. I don't get why another ~3 more debates would have changed things (especially in light of the weekly townhall events).
Yeah there's no question more debates earlier in the process would of helped Bernie if we look at how his support has always gone up with name recognition. I'm not even arguing the significance of the impact (I don't think it is outcome determinate) but it certainly would of helped him.
We would all benefit from having more issue specific and well moderated debates. That way we could push past the soundbites and find out who has the necessary depth on the particular topics (that should be picked by the American people to be publicly broadcast).
But as was pointed out by dude from CBS, this is a commercial not an election.
|
I hope we can all agree that scheduling the first three (I think) debates on a Saturday was retarded, though.
|
On March 01 2016 08:55 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 08:29 Deathstar wrote:On March 01 2016 08:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 01 2016 08:04 Deathstar wrote:On March 01 2016 07:58 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 01 2016 07:53 Deathstar wrote:On March 01 2016 07:46 ticklishmusic wrote:
I'm gonna write some fanfiction about a billionaire parking lot tycoon named Drumpf from Southern California with bad hair who fantasizes about his daughter. Stay tuned. Knowing Trump by now, he probably said it as a joke in the moment. Come on you're going to take what he says on Howard Stern and View seriously? If Trump's wife looked a lot like Ivanka then there is something funky going on but now it's just anti-Trump fantasizing. It's satire. I just want Drumpf-senpai to notice me. On March 01 2016 07:53 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
Considering there is a "town hall" two Candidate question and answer session once a week, I think 6 debates is enough. I initially thought 6 was too low, but with all these other events I think there are plenty of Bernie v Clinton events. I get that at the outset, if there were only going to be 6 events in total, that looks biased. But the townhall style events really helped fill out the airwaves. Pretty much. I've watched every single town hall and it's basically the same thing each time. The only thing that changes is if Hillary and/or Bernie have a cold it seems. The questions aren't bad though. President-senpai will grace us all. Can't wait for his inauguration speech. + Show Spoiler + that is the smile of someone who kind of wishes she was adopted, but then realizes if she were it'd be technically okay for her 'dad' to bang her. Weirdly having sex with an adopted daughter is still considered incest. The law is nonsensical. We are kind of on a segway here, but here is my opinion regarding the topic of incest. There are two big problems with incest: Genetical problems for a possible child and ethical problems due to the power difference in the relationship. The first one is not a problem if it is ensured that they do not procreate. The second one is a major problem between parent and child, no matter whether they are blood related or adopted. I think it is very hard to decide if a parent/child incestual relationship is not based on the parent pushing their desire onto the child (Obviously this changes at some point in life when the child is basically detached from their parents completely.) As such, i personally don't have a problem with a lot of forms of incest (Though it is definitively not something i personally am interested in). Siblings, cousins, as long as they make sure they don't produce offspring, that sort of thing is pretty ok in my opinion. But anything that involves someone with an obvious power advantage over another person i find very hard to accept.
Issue with the whole "birth defects" angle is that we don't prevent any other forms of relations that would have similar results. You don't see people pushing for those with certain diseases or severe autism or other mental disabilities to no be able to procreate, even though they would likely breed children with defects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.motherjones.com/files/imagecache/top-of-content-main/ivanka.jpeg)
