|
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. |
Canada2764 Posts
On March 18 2016 20:23 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 20:15 Soularion wrote:On March 18 2016 20:11 Simberto wrote: Independent-Vermont
Also, i find it very weird to assume that wall street would give loads of money to Hillary and not expect anything in return. Usually, if a bank pays someone a lot of money, they do expect to get their moneys worth back in some way. The whole 'wall street donation' thing, to me - which doesn't mean much, as I'm not even from america! - just means she'll be more in Obama's vein than Bernie Sanders. Still, I think people way overrate how bad 'Obama-tier' is, and overall Hillary Clintons's domestic policy is quite great. The only big problem I have with her is tone and how sketchy she is and how many ugh-sounding things she said.. But really, she's still a million times better than anyone from the right (other than Rubio) in that regard. Well, yes, it goes without saying that the complete republican lineup is just a bunch of complete lunatics, and i am still utterly confused how a single person is still voting for any of these people. So i guess if your choice is "hillary or republican", Hillary is obviously the better choice. I can't think of many people who would be a worse choice than the republican candidates. The only interesting question is "Hillary vs Sanders", and here Sanders does look a lot better than Hillary, mostly because he has a lot of policies that are common sense to Europeans, but which are for some reason "completely impossible" in America. Like public Healthcare or affordable education. I'm sure there's other arguments for Hillary > Sanders (which I respectfully disagree with, I'm for Sanders!) but the best argument I can come up with is.. Well, Hillary has more time in the spotlight- so she's less likely to be screwed over by republicans attacking her, because they've always attacked her, and she also takes a more 'cautious' step forward instead of the massive leap forward that Sanders is proposing. I'm sure the fear of Trump galvanizes the 'oh god stay with the status quo please' vote, which is most likely to go towards Hillary.
Most of the reason why Hillary beat Sanders is just out of pure name recognition and some pretty poor planning from Sanders. He ran a good campaign, but in order to beat Hillary he would've had to run a beyond amazing campaign- which just didn't happen.
|
On March 18 2016 20:27 Soularion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 20:23 Simberto wrote:On March 18 2016 20:15 Soularion wrote:On March 18 2016 20:11 Simberto wrote: Independent-Vermont
Also, i find it very weird to assume that wall street would give loads of money to Hillary and not expect anything in return. Usually, if a bank pays someone a lot of money, they do expect to get their moneys worth back in some way. The whole 'wall street donation' thing, to me - which doesn't mean much, as I'm not even from america! - just means she'll be more in Obama's vein than Bernie Sanders. Still, I think people way overrate how bad 'Obama-tier' is, and overall Hillary Clintons's domestic policy is quite great. The only big problem I have with her is tone and how sketchy she is and how many ugh-sounding things she said.. But really, she's still a million times better than anyone from the right (other than Rubio) in that regard. Well, yes, it goes without saying that the complete republican lineup is just a bunch of complete lunatics, and i am still utterly confused how a single person is still voting for any of these people. So i guess if your choice is "hillary or republican", Hillary is obviously the better choice. I can't think of many people who would be a worse choice than the republican candidates. The only interesting question is "Hillary vs Sanders", and here Sanders does look a lot better than Hillary, mostly because he has a lot of policies that are common sense to Europeans, but which are for some reason "completely impossible" in America. Like public Healthcare or affordable education. I'm sure there's other arguments for Hillary > Sanders (which I respectfully disagree with, I'm for Sanders!) but the best argument I can come up with is.. Well, Hillary has more time in the spotlight- so she's less likely to be screwed over by republicans attacking her, because they've always attacked her, and she also takes a more 'cautious' step forward instead of the massive leap forward that Sanders is proposing. I'm sure the fear of Trump galvanizes the 'oh god stay with the status quo please' vote, which is most likely to go towards Hillary. Most of the reason why Hillary beat Sanders is just out of pure name recognition and some pretty poor planning from Sanders. He ran a good campaign, but in order to beat Hillary he would've had to run a beyond amazing campaign- which just didn't happen. I think Sanders has the merit of showing to the world the fact that all Democrats don't think the same and don't support the establishment, and that there is room for support for socialist policies in the US. I mean if Sanders doesn't abandon before the Convention, the delegates (superdelegates excluded) count will probably be something like 60% to 40% in favor of Clinton. It means 40% of the Democratic electorate is not afeared by socialist policies, and that's pretty huge.
|
Canada2764 Posts
On March 18 2016 20:50 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 20:27 Soularion wrote:On March 18 2016 20:23 Simberto wrote:On March 18 2016 20:15 Soularion wrote:On March 18 2016 20:11 Simberto wrote: Independent-Vermont
Also, i find it very weird to assume that wall street would give loads of money to Hillary and not expect anything in return. Usually, if a bank pays someone a lot of money, they do expect to get their moneys worth back in some way. The whole 'wall street donation' thing, to me - which doesn't mean much, as I'm not even from america! - just means she'll be more in Obama's vein than Bernie Sanders. Still, I think people way overrate how bad 'Obama-tier' is, and overall Hillary Clintons's domestic policy is quite great. The only big problem I have with her is tone and how sketchy she is and how many ugh-sounding things she said.. But really, she's still a million times better than anyone from the right (other than Rubio) in that regard. Well, yes, it goes without saying that the complete republican lineup is just a bunch of complete lunatics, and i am still utterly confused how a single person is still voting for any of these people. So i guess if your choice is "hillary or republican", Hillary is obviously the better choice. I can't think of many people who would be a worse choice than the republican candidates. The only interesting question is "Hillary vs Sanders", and here Sanders does look a lot better than Hillary, mostly because he has a lot of policies that are common sense to Europeans, but which are for some reason "completely impossible" in America. Like public Healthcare or affordable education. I'm sure there's other arguments for Hillary > Sanders (which I respectfully disagree with, I'm for Sanders!) but the best argument I can come up with is.. Well, Hillary has more time in the spotlight- so she's less likely to be screwed over by republicans attacking her, because they've always attacked her, and she also takes a more 'cautious' step forward instead of the massive leap forward that Sanders is proposing. I'm sure the fear of Trump galvanizes the 'oh god stay with the status quo please' vote, which is most likely to go towards Hillary. Most of the reason why Hillary beat Sanders is just out of pure name recognition and some pretty poor planning from Sanders. He ran a good campaign, but in order to beat Hillary he would've had to run a beyond amazing campaign- which just didn't happen. I think Sanders has the merit of showing to the world the fact that all Democrats don't think the same and don't support the establishment, and that there is room for support for socialist policies in the US. I mean if Sanders doesn't abandon before the Convention, the delegates (superdelegates excluded) count will probably be something like 60% to 40% in favor of Clinton. It means 40% of the Democratic electorate is not afeared by socialist policies, and that's pretty huge. Of course! He's a very good 'message' type of candidate, and he's done almost impossibly well in that regard. His goal was never to win the presidency, but rather to expose as many people as possible to new ideas and to pull Clinton to the left, both of which were immensely successful
|
538 is updated and the 110% is from the 3/15 primaries. I don't think you read the link to it or just don't understand part of it. But nothing about what you said makes sense if you understand it.
The target delegates comes from where the candidate wants to be to be on track to win the nomination with a majority. currently Hillary is on pace to win 110% of the delegates she needs to win with pledged delegates. I think the confusion comes from the superdelegatets that are in hillaries camp already. 538 doesn't take into account those beacuse they have no statistical basis to account for.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-doesnt-need-momentum-he-needs-to-win-these-states/
this is a good article if people want to keep up on how the race is going. I don't think an 8 point margin is really large of a gap. I'm not saying I think its going to happen but I don't see how you can dismiss how it can go the other way Expecialy from where Sanders was at the start of the campaign.
|
Well then...
+ Show Spoiler +EDIT: In case it's not clear this isn't the email but some reasons why overthrowing Assad was/is a bad idea right now. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard said, “Here are 10 reasons the U.S. must end its war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad: 1. Because if we succeed in overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad, it will open the door for ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other Islamic extremists to take over all of Syria. There will be genocide and suffering on a scale beyond our imagination. These Islamic extremists will take over all the weaponry, infrastructure, and military hardware of the Syrian army and be more dangerous than ever before. 2. Because overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad is the goal of ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other Islamic extremist groups. We should not be allying ourselves with these Islamic extremists by helping them achieve their goal because it is against the security interests of the United States and all of civilization. 3. Because the money and weapons the CIA is providing to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad are going directly or indirectly into the hands of the Islamic extremist groups, including al-Qaeda affiliates, al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, and others who are the actual enemies of the United States. These groups make up close to 90 percent of the so-called opposition forces, and are the most dominant fighters on the ground. 4. Because our efforts to overthrow Assad have increased and will continue to increase the strength of ISIS and other Islamic extremists, thus making them a bigger regional and global threat. 5. Because this war has exacerbated the chaos and carnage in Syria and, along with the terror inflicted by ISIS and other Islamic extremist groups fighting to take over Syria, continues to increase the number of Syrians forced to flee their country. 6. Because we should learn from our past mistakes in Iraq and Libya that U.S. wars to overthrow secular dictators (Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi) cause even more chaos and human suffering and open the door for Islamic extremists to take over in those countries. 7. Because the U.S. has no credible government or government leader ready to bring order, security, and freedom to the people of Syria. 8. Because even the ‘best case’ scenario—that the U.S. successfully overthrows the Syrian government of Assad—would obligate the United States to spend trillions of dollars and the lives of American service members in the futile effort to create a new Syria. This is what we have been trying to do in Iraq for twelve years, and we still have not succeeded. The situation in Syria will be much more difficult than in Iraq. 9. Because our war against the Syrian government of Assad is interfering with our being one-pointedly focused on the war to defeat ISIS, al-Qaeda, and the other Islamic extremists who are our actual enemy. 10. Because our war to overthrow the Assad government puts us in direct conflict with Russia and increases the likelihood of war between the United States and Russia and the possibility of another world war.” Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard said, “To destroy ISIS will take international alliances. If we are serious about defeating ISIS and solving the refugee problem, we’ll work in partnership with Russia, France, and anyone else who is serious about destroying ISIS and affiliated Islamic extremist organizations worldwide. “The problem is, because the U.S. is trying to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad and Russia is supporting the government of Assad, it is impossible for us to have an effective, cooperative relationship with Russia in our mutual fight against ISIS. Our focus on overthrowing Assad is interfering with our ability to destroy ISIS.” “We must immediately end the illegal, counter-productive war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad and ally ourselves with any countries willing to focus on destroying the Islamic extremists who pose a genuine threat to civilization,” Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard concluded. Source
This feels like one of those types of emails that would be "retroactively classified".
The target delegates comes from where the candidate wants to be to be on track to win the nomination with a majority. currently Hillary is on pace to win 110%
She fell from 113% before Mar 15, not sure if people noticed that.
|
The last part where she talks about another world war with Russia makes me really wonder if talked to anyone at all before forming this opinion. Or what defeating ISIS looks like. We put Assad back in power and then he beats ISIS, even though every other power in the Middle East is like “Nah, son, we good.” That putting him back in power doesn’t really make the powers that created ISIS go away, they will just move to another unstable region.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
wikileaks is basically working for mother russia at this point. good for google though
|
I was always amazed at how much unearned creditability wikileaks received. They would dump stolen information and people would just assume it wasn’t cherry picked or that they didn’t hold anything back. But I guess that is really the fault of the news agencies and other groups tone when they reported on the leaks.
|
I suppose that's one way to react to finding out about this particular email. Not sure what they could be holding back that would make this look better?
|
On March 18 2016 22:53 Plansix wrote: I was always amazed at how much unearned creditability wikileaks received. They would dump stolen information and people would just assume it wasn’t cherry picked or that they didn’t hold anything back. But I guess that is really the fault of the news agencies and other groups tone when they reported on the leaks.
I think a lot of the trust for conventional media was lost when Snowden released 45 or so slides about the NSA domestic spy programme, and Washington Post and NYT published only two of those slides.
|
On March 18 2016 23:00 GreenHorizons wrote: I suppose that's one way to react to finding out about this particular email. Not sure what they could be holding back that would make this look better? There isn’t a lot to say about that email. It’s from a random member of the junior member House of Representatives and she is expressing her views on the war in Syria. Some of her views seem pretty surface level or poorly informed. I am sure Hilary gets a lot of emails.
|
On March 18 2016 23:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 23:00 GreenHorizons wrote: I suppose that's one way to react to finding out about this particular email. Not sure what they could be holding back that would make this look better? There isn’t a lot to say about that email. It’s from a random member of the junior member House of Representatives and she is expressing her views on the war in Syria. Some of her views seem pretty surface level or poorly informed. I am sure Hilary gets a lot of emails.
I guess you didn't actually read the email and you just read Gabbard's list of why overthrowing Assad wouldn't be helpful?
|
Cool thing is that if Clinton isn't indicted now, we know for sure she won't be during the general. And really, even disregarding the fact that she's clearly safe, she's a Clinton. You think a Clinton is going to jail? It's not possible. Guilty or not, sadly but actually thankfully in this specific case lolol. Especially at her age, especially being the presidential frontrunner. It just ain't happenin.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
these emails should actually be good publicity at large. it shows hillary works really hard and also the united states does care about human rights and so on at a basic level
|
California's insurance exchange is threatening to cut hospitals from its networks for poor performance or high costs, a novel proposal that is drawing heavy fire from medical providers and insurers.
The goal is to boost the overall quality of patient care and make coverage more affordable, said Peter Lee, executive director of the Covered California exchange.
"The first few years were about getting people in the door for coverage," said Lee, a key figure in the rollout of the federal health law. "We are now shifting our attention to changing the underlying delivery system to make it more cost effective and higher quality. We don't want to throw anyone out, but we don't want to pay for bad quality care either."
It appears to be the first proposal of its kind in the country. The exchange's five-member board is slated to vote on it next month. If approved, insurers would need to identify hospital "outliers" on cost and quality starting in 2018. Medical groups and doctors would be rated after that.
Providers who don't measure up stand to lose insured patients and suffer a black eye that could sully their reputations with employers and other big customers.
By 2019, health plans would be expected to expel poor performers from their exchange networks.
Source
|
On March 18 2016 23:33 Mohdoo wrote: Cool thing is that if Clinton isn't indicted now, we know for sure she won't be during the general. And really, even disregarding the fact that she's clearly safe, she's a Clinton. You think a Clinton is going to jail? It's not possible. Guilty or not, sadly but actually thankfully in this specific case lolol. Especially at her age, especially being the presidential frontrunner. It just ain't happenin. If David Petraeus didn’t get jail time, there is no chance Clinton will. And I don’t even know if they will charge her. I don’t think they can charge her alone. Other people would need to be charged. And I don’t really see much of a gain for the FBI or justice department beyond creating a political football.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's a really serious breach of procedures and incredibly dumb of her. but there is always some discretion with prosecution. it is a case of the political too big to fail lol.
|
Yes, but the case allows her to raise defenses like proving that the issue was wide spread, that she isn’t the only one using private email for government business and so on. That the people sending her the classified information have sent it to other government members that they know are using unsecured data storage or unsafe practices.
IT and data security has been notoriously bad in Washington for a long time now. There is no way she is the only official in Washington dodging security practices in the hopes they didn’t get caught.
I get that it was bad, but this is not the hill I am going to die on when I read stories about Bush administration storing things on external hardrives, rather than updating the office PCs.
|
No one bothered enforcing IT protocols.
Clinton asked the NSA for a Blackberry-like device because she didn't want to drag a laptop around the world as SoS and got denied (somehow they were ok with Obama using Blackberry, and they gave previous SoS's waivers). Anyways, she continued using it, the NSA never stopped her and pretty much everyone knew (there was even a short-lived meme about it for crying out loud)... but it never became an issue until now.
Also personally, I think Google being able to track what's going on on the ground in Syria is super cool. Having these big companies be able to use people's data is something we need to figure out, but this is a pretty benign application of it.
|
Here's a crucial piece of info from 538: primary turnout doesn't predict the general election.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Nv7sYnH.png)
People in this thread have been pushing ideas such as bringing new people to vote, or enthusiasm, etc. But it seems to only indicate how competitive the race is at the primary level. Once it's not competitive, people stop turning up (such as when Dems showed up to vote for Kasich in Ohio).
|
|
|
|
|
|