|
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. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this lol we dont have trump argument is pretty old. people used to say pinochet is decent because at least he isnt full sanders on economics. it is always trying to make the competencies in one area inseparable from the authoritarianism and rent extraction machine part of the regime. if you think china cant be run better or retards swimming in state money that really should be with the private sector is an indispensable structure of good governance you might just be daniel bell level stupid
|
On March 23 2016 05:24 Mohdoo wrote:There's absolutely no chance Bill was bashing Obama. Obama is very popular with liberals right now. Even from the most scheming and manipulative standpoint, Bill would not bash Obama right now. The Clinton machine is all about winning elections no matter what. Bashing Obama is bad for that. Even the Bernie bots on Reddit seem to be like "yeah, I hate Clinton, but that's not what the shit head was saying  ". Usually the stuff I see on /r/B4P is stuff I later go on to hear GH say, but this is the first time I am seeing GH be the only one saying some sorta Clinton related thing.
Well bashing might be a bit strong, but he was certainly saying Hillary is better at getting people to work together and is certainly suggesting that the obstruction was at least in part Obama's fault. If you're not at least admitting that I don't think there's a point to discussing it.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 23 2016 05:25 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2016 05:16 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 23 2016 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 23 2016 05:09 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 23 2016 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 23 2016 04:11 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 23 2016 03:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 23 2016 00:20 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 23 2016 00:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Hillary Clinton’s campaign early Tuesday morning pushed back against reports that former President Bill Clinton called President Barack Obama’s policies “awful,” insisting that only Bernie Sanders' campaign would openly attack the sitting president.
At a campaign stop in Washington state Monday on behalf of his wife, Clinton highlighted the former secretary of state as a change-maker but acknowledged there may be a few reasons people wouldn’t support her. He added, however, that voters should support her “if you believe we’ve finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us and the seven years before that,” according to USA Today.
Hillary Clinton campaign press secretary Brian Fallon sought to clarify early Tuesday that the former president was referring to Republican obstruction of Obama when he used the term “awful.”
“Sanders is only Dem in race who actually attacks @POTUS,” Fallon wrote, retweeting a report from The Hill in which Sanders criticized Bill Clinton for his comments regarding Obama.
Hillary Clinton often embraces Obama’s presidency on the trail. Sanders, meanwhile, hasn’t shied away from being critical of the president. But on Monday night he said he didn’t know that he’d “call President Obama’s 72 straight months of job growth an ‘awful legacy.’”
USA Today updated its report with a statement from Bill Clinton spokesman Angel Urena, who also maintained that Clinton was referring to Republican obstructionism.
Source Far Right PAC Releases Deceptive Video to Make It Seem Like Bill Clinton Was Bashing Obama
Sanders needs to fire his Twitter team tbh, they keep spreading misinformation. Not to mention the couple times they got owned by the Hillary Twitter. lol He sure the hell was talking about Obama. Funny, when the blurb was on that book no one in Hillary's camp cared about the context, they just spread the worst possible interpretation without the full quote. Bill was obviously saying that Hillary would be better than Obama at getting folks to work together, and certainly if he was talking about Bush and his legacy he was also talking about Obama and his. This is more of that faux outrage I've been talking about. I begin to understand how you can be so deluded as to think Sanders has a shot still. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Tell me, what do you think of Bernie's new plan to win the election by peeling off fledged delegates and having superdelegates from states he won switch to him? Lol thanks for the dodge. Well I think we should overhaul the whole nomination process, but you can't do it half way through a nomination. So the rules are the rules, gotta win within the rules. Sounds like a viable strategy to me. Even if we suggest the math is impossible (it's not) she could get indicted at any moment or the Clinton foundation could be further incriminated for arms deals around donations to it while she was at state. Bernie has to stay in it just in case  Nothing to dodge, that's why. You're really stretching if you think Bill is trying to insult Obama. On the other hand, cute dodge about Bernie trying to steal the nomination. It's a plan even lousier than the maybe-Clinton-gets-in-trouble one. It's quite sad to see how far he's fallen since the beginning of the race. I suppose the Clinton bashing is a change from his stump speech though. It's not a stretch, anyone not in her camp can see it plain as day. Give me a break with the "Clinton bashing" too. This is nice compared to Hillary and Obama in 08 Oh that's unfortunate, given that the only minority Bernie seems to have won is his supporters. That's what he gets for not owning the news networks and DNC. If they had treated Bernie with half the seriousness they treated the two pet clowns they hired for the first debate then Hillary wouldn't have stood a chance.
yea if the audience is lobotomized properly sanders would win a policy debate
|
On March 23 2016 05:31 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2016 05:25 Jormundr wrote:On March 23 2016 05:16 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 23 2016 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 23 2016 05:09 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 23 2016 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 23 2016 04:11 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 23 2016 03:57 GreenHorizons wrote:lol He sure the hell was talking about Obama. Funny, when the blurb was on that book no one in Hillary's camp cared about the context, they just spread the worst possible interpretation without the full quote. Bill was obviously saying that Hillary would be better than Obama at getting folks to work together, and certainly if he was talking about Bush and his legacy he was also talking about Obama and his. This is more of that faux outrage I've been talking about. I begin to understand how you can be so deluded as to think Sanders has a shot still. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Tell me, what do you think of Bernie's new plan to win the election by peeling off fledged delegates and having superdelegates from states he won switch to him? Lol thanks for the dodge. Well I think we should overhaul the whole nomination process, but you can't do it half way through a nomination. So the rules are the rules, gotta win within the rules. Sounds like a viable strategy to me. Even if we suggest the math is impossible (it's not) she could get indicted at any moment or the Clinton foundation could be further incriminated for arms deals around donations to it while she was at state. Bernie has to stay in it just in case Nothing to dodge, that's why. You're really stretching if you think Bill is trying to insult Obama. On the other hand, cute dodge about Bernie trying to steal the nomination. It's a plan even lousier than the maybe-Clinton-gets-in-trouble one. It's quite sad to see how far he's fallen since the beginning of the race. I suppose the Clinton bashing is a change from his stump speech though. It's not a stretch, anyone not in her camp can see it plain as day. Give me a break with the "Clinton bashing" too. This is nice compared to Hillary and Obama in 08 Oh that's unfortunate, given that the only minority Bernie seems to have won is his supporters. That's what he gets for not owning the news networks and DNC. If they had treated Bernie with half the seriousness they treated the two pet clowns they hired for the first debate then Hillary wouldn't have stood a chance. yea if the audience is lobotomized properly sanders would win a policy debate
Or if the democratic-leaning networks acknowledged he existed pre-february.
|
On March 23 2016 05:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2016 05:24 Mohdoo wrote:There's absolutely no chance Bill was bashing Obama. Obama is very popular with liberals right now. Even from the most scheming and manipulative standpoint, Bill would not bash Obama right now. The Clinton machine is all about winning elections no matter what. Bashing Obama is bad for that. Even the Bernie bots on Reddit seem to be like "yeah, I hate Clinton, but that's not what the shit head was saying ". Usually the stuff I see on /r/B4P is stuff I later go on to hear GH say, but this is the first time I am seeing GH be the only one saying some sorta Clinton related thing. Well bashing might be a bit strong, but he was certainly saying Hillary is better at getting people to work together and is certainly suggesting that the obstruction was at least in part Obama's fault. If you're not at least admitting that I don't think there's a point to discussing it.
"put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us"
That is about as bashing as bashing gets. He would be saying Obama has an awful legacy. A legacy is basically the entire point of being president. There are two possibilities. Either Bill intentionally bashed the living shit out of Obama, or he was doing a horrendously terrible job conveying his message. He's not senile, so I really don't think he was bashing Obama. He wouldn't be only saying Hilary is better, he'd be saying that Obama is terrible. There's just no world where that's possible.
|
On March 23 2016 05:33 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2016 05:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 23 2016 05:24 Mohdoo wrote:There's absolutely no chance Bill was bashing Obama. Obama is very popular with liberals right now. Even from the most scheming and manipulative standpoint, Bill would not bash Obama right now. The Clinton machine is all about winning elections no matter what. Bashing Obama is bad for that. Even the Bernie bots on Reddit seem to be like "yeah, I hate Clinton, but that's not what the shit head was saying ". Usually the stuff I see on /r/B4P is stuff I later go on to hear GH say, but this is the first time I am seeing GH be the only one saying some sorta Clinton related thing. Well bashing might be a bit strong, but he was certainly saying Hillary is better at getting people to work together and is certainly suggesting that the obstruction was at least in part Obama's fault. If you're not at least admitting that I don't think there's a point to discussing it. "put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us" That is about as bashing as bashing gets. He would be saying Obama has an awful legacy. A legacy is basically the entire point of being president. There are two possibilities. Either Bill intentionally bashed the living shit out of Obama, or he was doing a horrendously terrible job conveying his message. He's not senile, so I really don't think he was bashing Obama. He wouldn't be only saying Hilary is better, he'd be saying that Obama is terrible. There's just no world where that's possible.
Really? He did say "well Jessie Jackson won SC too"
Seems like a calculated "mistake" plus what the hell would he care about the legacy of republicans for?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
they've had a bazillion debates and townhalls. yet bernie still hasnt gone specific with critical assessments of his platforms. if you think he isnt being properly presented maybe he should engage some of the reasonable criticism of his platform at one of these debates
|
On March 23 2016 05:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2016 05:33 Mohdoo wrote:On March 23 2016 05:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 23 2016 05:24 Mohdoo wrote:There's absolutely no chance Bill was bashing Obama. Obama is very popular with liberals right now. Even from the most scheming and manipulative standpoint, Bill would not bash Obama right now. The Clinton machine is all about winning elections no matter what. Bashing Obama is bad for that. Even the Bernie bots on Reddit seem to be like "yeah, I hate Clinton, but that's not what the shit head was saying ". Usually the stuff I see on /r/B4P is stuff I later go on to hear GH say, but this is the first time I am seeing GH be the only one saying some sorta Clinton related thing. Well bashing might be a bit strong, but he was certainly saying Hillary is better at getting people to work together and is certainly suggesting that the obstruction was at least in part Obama's fault. If you're not at least admitting that I don't think there's a point to discussing it. "put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us" That is about as bashing as bashing gets. He would be saying Obama has an awful legacy. A legacy is basically the entire point of being president. There are two possibilities. Either Bill intentionally bashed the living shit out of Obama, or he was doing a horrendously terrible job conveying his message. He's not senile, so I really don't think he was bashing Obama. He wouldn't be only saying Hilary is better, he'd be saying that Obama is terrible. There's just no world where that's possible. Really? He did say "well Jessie Jackson won SC too" Seems like a calculated "mistake" plus what the hell would he care about the legacy of republicans for?
What does Jessie Jackson have to do with anything? And why would this be a calculated mistake? What were they calculating? What is the unintended benefit? In what world does bashing Obama lead to votes for Clinton? The Clinton campaign has a single objective: Delegates. They will say and do what makes their number of delegates larger. Bashing Obama is just so, so, so far from that and would violate so many clear rules of his speeches (make sure you don't ___ or ___ or DEFINITELY DON'T ____). I mean, what are you really saying the Clinton campaign would benefit from bashing Obama?
|
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued its first evenly split ruling since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia: a decision in a minor banking case involving spouses who serve as guarantors for each other’s debts.
The 4-to-4 ruling was “per curiam,” which means it was handed down in the name of the entire court, and nobody really knows what justice was on which side.
The opinion was just one line long: “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.”
That means the ruling sets no nationwide precedent and leaves the lower-court ruling as the final decision in the case.
Leaving the law unsettled for now could potentially be good or bad news for major cases where future splits are a possibility — including pending disputes on abortion, affirmative action, public union fees, immigration and contraception coverage under the Affordable Care Act.
In the public union fees case, for example, a 4-to-4 split would be an important victory for labor, since union advocates won that case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which skews liberal. (The unions didn’t do so well when the Supreme Court heard the case.)
But a split ruling in the abortion case, which is coming from the more conservative 5th Circuit, would represent a blow for women’s access to reproductive services, since the lower-court ruling upheld the Texas abortion clinic regulations being challenged.
Source
|
On March 23 2016 05:22 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2016 04:57 Biff The Understudy wrote:So apparently, the Chinese government is using Trump to show its citizens that democracy is a bad idea. It pains me to say that I wouldn't know what to answer, because for once, they have a point. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/17/democracy-is-a-joke-says-china-just-look-at-donald-trumpI'm still in disbelief that so many people think it's a great idea to give the key of the White House to this clown. That's just absolutely amazing. I would blame low IQs and education level, but apparently not even, since apparently he does well in all categories of the conservative voters. If anything, it shows that the American democracy is very, very sick. Trump is still a farcry better push towards democracy than any bullshit single party candidate China can shit out.
You completely missed the point. They're using it as an example of how bad democracy is, because it allows morons like Trump a real chance to lead the country (their point, not mine).
|
On March 23 2016 05:39 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2016 05:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 23 2016 05:33 Mohdoo wrote:On March 23 2016 05:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 23 2016 05:24 Mohdoo wrote:There's absolutely no chance Bill was bashing Obama. Obama is very popular with liberals right now. Even from the most scheming and manipulative standpoint, Bill would not bash Obama right now. The Clinton machine is all about winning elections no matter what. Bashing Obama is bad for that. Even the Bernie bots on Reddit seem to be like "yeah, I hate Clinton, but that's not what the shit head was saying ". Usually the stuff I see on /r/B4P is stuff I later go on to hear GH say, but this is the first time I am seeing GH be the only one saying some sorta Clinton related thing. Well bashing might be a bit strong, but he was certainly saying Hillary is better at getting people to work together and is certainly suggesting that the obstruction was at least in part Obama's fault. If you're not at least admitting that I don't think there's a point to discussing it. "put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us" That is about as bashing as bashing gets. He would be saying Obama has an awful legacy. A legacy is basically the entire point of being president. There are two possibilities. Either Bill intentionally bashed the living shit out of Obama, or he was doing a horrendously terrible job conveying his message. He's not senile, so I really don't think he was bashing Obama. He wouldn't be only saying Hilary is better, he'd be saying that Obama is terrible. There's just no world where that's possible. Really? He did say "well Jessie Jackson won SC too" Seems like a calculated "mistake" plus what the hell would he care about the legacy of republicans for? What does Jessie Jackson have to do with anything? And why would this be a calculated mistake? What were they calculating? What is the unintended benefit? In what world does bashing Obama lead to votes for Clinton? The Clinton campaign has a single objective: Delegates. They will say and do what makes their number of delegates larger. Bashing Obama is just so, so, so far from that and would violate so many clear rules of his speeches (make sure you don't ___ or ___ or DEFINITELY DON'T ____). I mean, what are you really saying the Clinton campaign would benefit from bashing Obama?
That Bill said some messed up shit in 08 regarding Obama so it wouldn't be something new for him.
If you were familiar with Spokane you would understand why it could be helpful there specifically.
|
On March 23 2016 05:36 oneofthem wrote:
they've had a bazillion debates and townhalls. yet bernie still hasnt gone specific with critical assessments of his platforms. if you think he isnt being properly presented maybe he should engage some of the reasonable criticism of his platform at one of these debates
This isn't accurate.
Just recently he released that public non-speech saying that war in the middle east is bad unless Muslims, Qatar, and Afghanistans are the ones fighting it. Also saying that Israel needs to cede territory to Palestine or Palestine won't stop killing Jewish people.
So its not like he doesn't have a plan--he just has bad ones.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 23 2016 05:51 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2016 05:36 oneofthem wrote:
they've had a bazillion debates and townhalls. yet bernie still hasnt gone specific with critical assessments of his platforms. if you think he isnt being properly presented maybe he should engage some of the reasonable criticism of his platform at one of these debates This isn't accurate. Just recently he released that public non-speech saying that war in the middle east is bad unless Muslims, Qatar, and Afghanistans are the ones fighting it. Also saying that Israel needs to cede territory to Palestine or Palestine won't stop killing Jewish people. So its not like he doesn't have a plan--he just has bad ones.
uh that is a small portion of his platform. his economic stuff is mostly being defended as 'fuck wall street'
|
On March 23 2016 05:53 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2016 05:51 Naracs_Duc wrote:On March 23 2016 05:36 oneofthem wrote:
they've had a bazillion debates and townhalls. yet bernie still hasnt gone specific with critical assessments of his platforms. if you think he isnt being properly presented maybe he should engage some of the reasonable criticism of his platform at one of these debates This isn't accurate. Just recently he released that public non-speech saying that war in the middle east is bad unless Muslims, Qatar, and Afghanistans are the ones fighting it. Also saying that Israel needs to cede territory to Palestine or Palestine won't stop killing Jewish people. So its not like he doesn't have a plan--he just has bad ones. uh that is a small portion of his platform. his economic stuff is mostly being defended as 'fuck wall street'
The accusation is that he hasn't made specific statements. He has. His bad ideas are very specific and his great ideas are very vague. Its not very different from Trump really.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 23 2016 06:00 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2016 05:53 oneofthem wrote:On March 23 2016 05:51 Naracs_Duc wrote:On March 23 2016 05:36 oneofthem wrote:
they've had a bazillion debates and townhalls. yet bernie still hasnt gone specific with critical assessments of his platforms. if you think he isnt being properly presented maybe he should engage some of the reasonable criticism of his platform at one of these debates This isn't accurate. Just recently he released that public non-speech saying that war in the middle east is bad unless Muslims, Qatar, and Afghanistans are the ones fighting it. Also saying that Israel needs to cede territory to Palestine or Palestine won't stop killing Jewish people. So its not like he doesn't have a plan--he just has bad ones. uh that is a small portion of his platform. his economic stuff is mostly being defended as 'fuck wall street' The accusation is that he hasn't made specific statements. He has. His bad ideas are very specific and his great ideas are very vague. Its not very different from Trump really.
no the criticismis his lack of engagement with critics in the debates. ive also elaborated to mean mainly in economics
|
On March 23 2016 06:03 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2016 06:00 Naracs_Duc wrote:On March 23 2016 05:53 oneofthem wrote:On March 23 2016 05:51 Naracs_Duc wrote:On March 23 2016 05:36 oneofthem wrote:
they've had a bazillion debates and townhalls. yet bernie still hasnt gone specific with critical assessments of his platforms. if you think he isnt being properly presented maybe he should engage some of the reasonable criticism of his platform at one of these debates This isn't accurate. Just recently he released that public non-speech saying that war in the middle east is bad unless Muslims, Qatar, and Afghanistans are the ones fighting it. Also saying that Israel needs to cede territory to Palestine or Palestine won't stop killing Jewish people. So its not like he doesn't have a plan--he just has bad ones. uh that is a small portion of his platform. his economic stuff is mostly being defended as 'fuck wall street' The accusation is that he hasn't made specific statements. He has. His bad ideas are very specific and his great ideas are very vague. Its not very different from Trump really. no the criticismis his lack of engagement with critics in the debates. ive also elaborated to mean mainly in economics
Of that I wholeheartedly agree.
|
How long should people have to wait in line to vote really?
I'm glad the lines show people are engaged but it's the 21st gawddamn century, in the richest country in the world. It shouldn't take 3+ hours to cast a vote imo.
|
On March 23 2016 06:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
How long should people have to wait in line to vote really?
I'm glad the lines show people are engaged but it's the 21st gawddamn century, in the richest country in the world. It shouldn't take 3+ hours to cast a vote imo.
Its an optimization problem.
X Total Minutes to introduce yourself, be explained how the ballot works, be told where the areas to mark your ballot is, be told where to put the ballot, and to walk over and get to the right spot. You then spend 0-Y minutes making your decision. Sometimes its just the primaries, sometimes it is lumped in with other stuff.
Each takes a few seconds to a minute. But only Y number of people can really do it at a time, which creates a bottleneck.
If X > Time needed for new person to arrive => Long wait times. Why would this be?
There are break points where sections of the population are all free at once. That clump of people are then filtered through this process.
How many percent of the voters show up after work? What percent show up before work? What about lunch time?
If there are only 3-4 break points for 1,000,000 people, and location can only tackle 20-30 people a minute, except 10,000 of the 1,000,000 showed up at all after work, suddenly it takes 3hours.
|
On March 23 2016 06:40 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2016 06:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
How long should people have to wait in line to vote really?
I'm glad the lines show people are engaged but it's the 21st gawddamn century, in the richest country in the world. It shouldn't take 3+ hours to cast a vote imo. Its an optimization problem. X Total Minutes to introduce yourself, be explained how the ballot works, be told where the areas to mark your ballot is, be told where to put the ballot, and to walk over and get to the right spot. You then spend 0-Y minutes making your decision. Sometimes its just the primaries, sometimes it is lumped in with other stuff. Each takes a few seconds to a minute. But only Y number of people can really do it at a time, which creates a bottleneck. If X > Time needed for new person to arrive => Long wait times. Why would this be? There are break points where sections of the population are all free at once. That clump of people are then filtered through this process. How many percent of the voters show up after work? What percent show up before work? What about lunch time? If there are only 3-4 break points for 1,000,000 people, and location can only tackle 20-30 people a minute, except 10,000 of the 1,000,000 showed up at all after work, suddenly it takes 3hours.
Well there's been lines in practically every state starting from when the polls open. Also absentee ballots are a thing.
I don't accept the idea that it's impossible to resolve at all.
Every state should have absentee options for their primaries and there obviously needs to be more polling locations in major cities. Seems pretty simple and obvious, unless the point is to lower turnout.
Have to say I haven't seen many if any voter registration drives from the DNC in my state not sure if anyone has seen any anywhere from the DNC?
|
1: Send all documents (including informations, ballot, voting id) by post.
2: Let people send it back (signed ballot + voting id).
3: Count.
Rocket Science!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
