|
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. |
GH, you sound like a broken record.
It's actually a curious situation as the questions the media have been discussing are:
a) is Sanders lying on funding? b) is Sanders lying about debates?
That's terrible for Sanders as merely asking those question erodes one of his strengths: being seen as an honest and genuine politician.
|
On April 03 2016 05:39 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2016 04:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 03 2016 04:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 03 2016 04:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 03 2016 03:09 Sermokala wrote:On April 03 2016 02:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 03 2016 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:On April 03 2016 01:29 ticklishmusic wrote: Apparently the Hillary campaign offered 3 options for debates in NY before the primary but Bernie didn't respond. This plus deciding to die on a hill for the Greenpeace thing makes this a bad week for him I think, the media seems to be picking up on it this time too. I don't understand this story. Bernie and Clinton are saying complete opposite things. Both can not be true. But both must have some level of truth for them to not just be blatantly body slammed. So what's the deal? For Debates: Hilary tried to find agreements with Bernie for debates in NY, Bernie refused/didn't respond Now that Bernie is refusing he ups his attacks on Hilary and asks for a debate, Hilary asks him to calm down, Bernie double downs on attacks. TLDR: Hilary tried to negotiate, Bernie refused, now Bernie is trying to negotiate but does not understand what the word actually means. For the Oil Deal: Various donor groups that have given her some amount of money have been linked softly with the fossil fuels industries. Those different groups have been lumped into one group and Bernie is making an alamo move saying Hilary is almost purely in the pockets of fossil fuels. It was debunked as an outright lie but Bernie is hoping to get people riled up against his opponent using lies. TLDR: A bit of money Hilary has came from groups that, at one point, had some kind of relation to the fossil fuels industry. To Bernie that means she is in the pockets of the fossil fuels industry. Pretty sure we don't know anything for sure on the first point beacuse its a case of he said-she said and the second seems like odd semantics. I'm pretty sure its greenpeace that was acuseing hillary of it and she was the one that attacked the person asking the question. Where do you get this "alamo move" wording from? I haven't seen anything other then regular campaign talk on it. Stop shilling for Hillary and just act rationally please. Its not like its a one time thing where she gets money from the oil industry and then does nothing with it. She has an actual history of taking money from the oil lobby and then advancing their interests in government. No one is saying that lobbying is outright bribery or if she is "purely in the pockets of fossil fuels" thats just silly talk. But when she supports oil pipelines, helps mexico expand offshore drilling, and then says that she is likely to support the xl pipline she can't act surprised when Greenpeace comes around in the primary. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/apr/01/sorting-out-clintons-fossil-fuel-contributions/Without Greenpeace the numbers is .2% with Greenpeace accusations its .8% and in the end it turns out both Hilary and Bernie are getting money from the same donors that have ties to the fossil fuel industry (Bernie is only at .04%) so what we are talking about is an argument based on less than a percent at best. So weird to watch liberals defend superPACs and lobbyists so they can attempt to preserve Hillary's credibility. Then they want us to believe she's going to do the opposite of what she did with the DNC once she gets elected. It's laughably stupid. Also lolworthy Did you read the article? Both campaigns got money from them, one got more than the other. Neither are innocent of being pandered to. There's really no need to discuss the issue further. The Washington Post fact checking piece I posted earlier exposes the ridiculousness of the accusation (including with regards to how greenpeace counts as "oil & gas money" some of the funds going to her superpac). Sander's campaign is desperate and grasping at straws. Hopefully, when they have no other choice but to stop lying to themselves about still having a shot at the nomination, they'll stop with the dishonest smears and try to go back to running a positive campaign around a message. Sanders is still somehow who deeply cares about economic inequality, and since he's not an idiot he'll end up supporting Clinton for the presidency. Theres nothing in the piece that says how "ridiculousness" the accusation is. It says that the greenpeace math that sanders is quoting tacks on money from lobbyists that donate money from more then one client. But there isn't any way for anyone to desern from who the money is coming from. that means you can't say it is and you can't say it isn't for sure and in that little gray zone you can say whatever you want and not be false.
You mean a political campaign is exaggerating gray information to attack another candidate?
|
Not really, it's a shift from A. Are there candidates other than hillary clinton? B. Trump
You could run a story about how Bernie stole money from little old ladies at a nursing home and people would still trust him more than Clinton.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
people are morons news at 11
|
On April 03 2016 06:50 oneofthem wrote: people are morons news at 11 You're the one who plans on voting for hillary specifically because you think she is lying and doesn't mean any of the things she has said recently.
|
On April 03 2016 07:17 Jormundr wrote:You're the one who plans on voting for hillary specifically because you think she is lying and doesn't mean any of the things she has said recently. Isn't that the whole challenge of politics? They all lie and we have to filter the lies from truths and figure out what they're really up to and whether we want to support them.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
welding coalitions requires selective messaging. idk what you are expecting.
thanks to unprecedented disclosure by the clintons, there are legitimate questions about the operations of the clinton foundation and their gating of lobbying influences. however, there is not enough to give rise to the type of hating displayed by some.
as an exercise, i want some kind of informed reasoning with the hillary hating, rising above sentiment.
|
Might as well vote for Trump then. He's just pandering to the nutjobs to get the job and then he'll enact sensible legislation to reform immigration while protecting the rights of American minorities while ushering a new era of job growth and reasonably progressive taxation.
/s
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
here's what you want, a customized politician tailored to your values, only campaigning to you. do you see how dumb this standard is, and why violating it does not equate someone with trump?
|
On April 03 2016 08:28 oneofthem wrote: except his policies are shit lol?
Dude come on man. He's just lying about his policies to get votes which is fine, everyone has to do it to become elected president. His real policies which he can't release until he gets elected will be great obviously.
|
On April 03 2016 08:28 oneofthem wrote: except his policies are shit lol? He is obviously lying, the good policies are locked in his deck to when he finally sits in office.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 03 2016 08:31 ZeaL. wrote:Dude come on man. He's just lying about his policies to get votes which is fine, everyone has to do it to become elected president. His real policies which he can't release until he gets elected will be great obviously. if you are clueless enough to not have any informed guesses about their core platforms then okay, you might think you have a gotcha here.
people who know more about trump, and for that matter, hillary, would be able to make judgments about who they are without resorting to crass relativism.
|
No business can operate without bankers — not even the bribery business.
British financial giant HSBC and American bailout kingpin Citibank processed transactions, managed money and vouched for Unaoil, a once-obscure firm that is now at the center of a massive international corruption scandal. Police raided Unaoil’s Monaco offices and interviewed its executives on Thursday, a day after The Huffington Post and Fairfax Media first exposed the company’s practices. Law enforcement agencies in at least four nations are involved in a wide-ranging probe of the company and its partners.
Halliburton, KBR and other corporate conglomerates relied on Unaoil to deliver them lucrative contracts with corrupt regimes in oil-rich nations. But without the help of banks like HSBC and Citibank, none of Unaoil’s operations would have been possible.
Both Citibank and HSBC declined to comment on whether Unaoil or the Ahsani family, who own and operate the firm, remain their clients.
“As a matter of policy, we only maintain relationships with clients who have been vetted through our strict due diligence and compliance checks,” HSBC spokeswoman Sorrel Beynon told HuffPost in a written statement.
Two federal statutes, the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 and the Patriot Act of 2001, make it a crime for banks to knowingly process transactions related to illegal activity or to ignore red flags that they may be allowing illegal cash to flow through the financial system. Whether Citibank or HSBC broke the law depends on whether investigators determine that Unaoil’s deals were illegal and whether the banks knew or should have known about that.
Source
|
“As a matter of policy, we only maintain relationships with clients who have been vetted through our strict due diligence and compliance checks,” HSBC spokeswoman Sorrel Beynon told HuffPost in a written statement.
Wait are they vetting clients to make sure they ARE involved in criminal activities? Because that's the only way that statement makes sense.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
"crass relativism"
lol, it must nice to live in a world with no mirrors.
|
On April 03 2016 08:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +“As a matter of policy, we only maintain relationships with clients who have been vetted through our strict due diligence and compliance checks,” HSBC spokeswoman Sorrel Beynon told HuffPost in a written statement.
Wait are they vetting clients to make sure they ARE involved in criminal activities? Because that's the only way that statement makes sense. No it doesn't.
It does however show how useless the vetting is since (assuming they are indeed diligent about avoiding dirty clients (hint, they don't care)) it completely missed the giant corruption scene running.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 03 2016 08:48 farvacola wrote:"crass relativism" lol, it must nice to live in a world with no mirrors. when you can't tell between trump and hillary because of some use of campaigning tactics, crass relativism is indeed too nice. it's more of a case of flippant idiocy
|
If you want a hilarious read, check out this Trump interview by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa. They start the interview by asking Trump when exactly he decided to run. Look at how long it takes them to actually get him to start answering their question instead of bragging about how much money he made doing the Apprentice. It's like they're talking to a small child :p
edit: I mean seriously, it's to the point where I'm wondering if he has a medical condition or something.
|
On April 03 2016 09:11 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2016 08:48 farvacola wrote:"crass relativism" lol, it must nice to live in a world with no mirrors. when you can't tell between trump and hillary because of some use of campaigning tactics, crass relativism is indeed too nice. it's more of a case of flippant idiocy When you can't even tell that your crassly relativistic sniping has just been deftly turned against you, there's definitely idiocy involved.
Like I've been saying for months now, you're just as bad for democratic consensus as Sanders' idealistic lack of nuance. DWS is hiring interns btw, you might want to consider a career change.
|
|
|
|