|
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. |
As I've pointed out before, there's a pretty clear difference between posters like kwisach and posters like oneofthem. The former tends to provides useful links, conscientious arguments, and is at least somewhat willing to entertain the perspectives of those willing to bring the same. The latter rarely links to anything useful, tends to post one or two liners rife with pejoratively crass relativism, to borrow the term yet again, and seems to delight in reducing discussions among those that otherwise agree (liberals) into candidate-specific partisan squabbles.
We would all do well to attempt to differentiate between the two aforementioned groups moving forward, particularly once the primaries are over. I know this makes me a broken record, but democratic consensus is particularly important this election cycle, and though both sides are very much guilty of playing into the inevitably messy nature of primary politicking, it is critical to remember that we're going to have to work together in order to fight the likes of xDaunt.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On April 04 2016 11:39 farvacola wrote:As I've pointed out before, there's a pretty clear difference between posters like kwisach and posters like oneofthem. The former tends to provides useful links, conscientious arguments, and is at least somewhat willing to entertain the perspectives of those willing to bring the same. The latter rarely links to anything useful, tends to post one or two liners rife with pejoratively crass relativism, to borrow the term yet again, and seems to delight in reducing discussions among those that otherwise agree (liberals) into candidate-specific partisan squabbles. We would all do well to attempt to differentiate between the two aforementioned groups moving forward, particularly once the primaries are over. I know this makes me a broken record, but democratic consensus is particularly important this election cycle, and though both sides are very much guilty of playing into the inevitably messy nature of primary politicking, it is critical to remember that we're going to have to work together in order to fight the likes of xDaunt. + Show Spoiler +
Heh. This thread needs more republicans like xDaunt and less like Testie or Eskenderya. Just as this thread could do with less trolly democrats, even though these have less rabid
|
WAUSAU, Wis. – Bernie Sanders’ campaign spokesman Michael Briggs issued the following statement on Sunday on a debate in New York:
“Sen. Sanders has accepted an invitation from NBC News for a Sunday night prime-time debate on April 10. We hope the Clinton campaign also accepts. The April 10 debate date is one of four dates that the Sanders campaign had proposed for a debate with Secretary Clinton before the New York primary election. He is available on April 10, 11, 12 or 13. He looks forward to a debate on any of those days.
“The Clinton campaign disingenuously announced that it had agreed to a debate on another day when it knew very well that Sen. Sanders already had locked in a park permit for a major rally in New York City. Let’s get serious. Let’s get on with debating the candidates’ stands on serious issues affecting New York and the United States.”
Source
EDIT: Currently the only thing on her public schedule is a fundraiser charging people between $1,000 (to attend) & $33,400 (for a "Host reception with Hillary").
Source
One might wonder how Hillary can have people contributing $33k if the limit is $2.7k, $5.4k if we're counting the general election money. Any Hillary supporters want to explain that for us?
+ Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +I have a feeling it will have something to do with using the DNC/state parties to launder donations she wouldn't otherwise be able to take and letting the DNC/state parties keep a little of the cream.
|
Put or shut up about money laundering and dishonesty. The Hillary camp is sick and tired off all the shit coming from the Bernie campaign.
Meanwhile, continue to dismiss the fact that in NV an official clearly leaked the list of Clinton supporters and that *nothing* wrong is going on. This a completely different situation from NV, and you don't get to call hurrdurr voter suppression like that.
+ Show Spoiler [ranting] +
Your candidate can't win on the issues, and this is basically what he's resorting to. The list of what he's actually done for the progressive cause is awfully thin, but him and you and all the others are willing to tear down people who actually have, like John Lewis, Dolores Huerta, President Obama and Hillary Clinton. It's fucking pathetic.
|
On April 04 2016 13:56 ticklishmusic wrote:Put or shut up about money laundering and dishonesty. The Hillary camp is sick and tired off all the shit coming from the Bernie campaign. Meanwhile, continue to dismiss the fact that in NV an official clearly leaked the list of Clinton supporters and that *nothing* wrong is going on. This a completely different situation from NV, and you don't get to call hurrdurr voter suppression like that. + Show Spoiler [ranting] +
Your candidate can't win on the issues, and this is basically what he's resorting to. The list of what he's actually done for the progressive cause is awfully thin, but him and you and all the others are willing to tear down people who actually have, like John Lewis, Dolores Huerta, President Obama and Hillary Clinton. It's fucking pathetic.
Hillary did far worse to Obama the last time she ran. She also is currently doing the same thing to Bernie. The childish part of me wishes that Bernie would reciprocate Hillary's aggression, but it is his integrity that ultimately wins me over.
P.S.
You only get what you give.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
On April 04 2016 14:01 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 13:56 ticklishmusic wrote:Put or shut up about money laundering and dishonesty. The Hillary camp is sick and tired off all the shit coming from the Bernie campaign. Meanwhile, continue to dismiss the fact that in NV an official clearly leaked the list of Clinton supporters and that *nothing* wrong is going on. This a completely different situation from NV, and you don't get to call hurrdurr voter suppression like that. + Show Spoiler [ranting] +
Your candidate can't win on the issues, and this is basically what he's resorting to. The list of what he's actually done for the progressive cause is awfully thin, but him and you and all the others are willing to tear down people who actually have, like John Lewis, Dolores Huerta, President Obama and Hillary Clinton. It's fucking pathetic.
Hillary did far worse to Obama the last time she ran. She also is currently doing the same thing to Bernie. The childish part of me wishes that Bernie would reciprocate Hillary's aggression, but it is his integrity that ultimately wins me over. P.S. You only get what you give. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Bernie by far is the biggest disappointment of this election for me.
Childish part? You mean all of you?
Bernie has perhaps slightly more integrity than the average politician I'll give you that, but it's not a particularly compelling reason to vote for him.
|
Pooooor ticklish, your political ennemies (not talking about the farvacola's whoe are way too nice people  ) are going to feel really sad and will all stop.
Good luck with the complaining to the reps in tbe general, if Clinton doesn't concede because politics is too much of a dirty world 
As would the great Omar Little say http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cryMVK1PwuQ
|
When Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump launched a crusade against Fox News and its star anchor, Megyn Kelly, last summer, many political insiders saw the move as the beginning of the end of Trump’s upstart campaign.
Why would anyone seeking the Republican presidential nomination attack a network that reaches huge swaths of the Republican primary electorate?
One answer is that Trump was angry with Kelly and Fox News after the anchor asked him a tough question during a Republican presidential debate in August.
But in a newly published article Sunday in New York Magazine, author and journalist Gabriel Sherman reveals how Trump came to possess ultra-insider information about Fox News and its founder, Roger Ailes, that could be damaging if it were ever to be made public.
It’s this leverage, Sherman writes, that has so far discouraged Fox News from launching an all-out war on Trump.
Source
|
but seriously though you people have to vote for the same guy/girl later this year, I do not want to wake up to God emperor Trump
|
On April 04 2016 14:15 Nyxisto wrote:
but seriously though you people have to vote for the same guy/girl later this year, I do not want to wake up to God emperor Trump
It's going to be super cute after the primaries when the Hillary and Bernie supporters get back together, have a good cry, and launch into the makeup sex.
|
Mutually refraining from injury, violence, and exploitation, placing your will on par with the other's: in a certain, crude, sense, these practices can become good manners between individuals when the right conditions are present (namely, that the individuals have genuinely similar quantities of force and measures of value, and belong together within a single body).
But as soon as this principle is taken any further, and maybe even held to be the fundamental principle of society, it immediately shows itself for what it is: the will to negate life, the principle of disintegration and decay. Here we must think things through thoroughly, and ward off any sentimental weakness: life itself is essentially a process of appropriating, injuring, overpowering the alien and the weaker, oppressing, being harsh, imposing your own form, incorporating, at the least, the very least, exploiting, — but what is the point of always using words that have been stamped with slanderous intentions from time immemorial?
Even a body within which (as we presupposed earlier) particular individuals treat each other as equal (which happens in every healthy aristocracy): if this body is living and not dying, it will have to treat other bodies in just those ways that the individuals it contains refrain from treating each other. It will have to be the embodiment of will to power, it will want to grow, spread, win dominance, — not out of any morality and immorality, but because it is alive, and because life is precisely will to power.
But there is no issue on which the base European consciousness is less willing to be instructed than this; these days, people everywhere are lost in rapturous enthusiasms, even in scientific disguise, about a future state of society where "the exploitative character" will fall away: — to my ears, that sounds as if someone is promising to invent a life that dispenses with all organic functions. "Exploitation" does not belong to a corrupted or imperfect, primitive society: it belongs to the essence of being alive as a fundamental organic function; it is a result of genuine will to power, which is just the will of life. — Although this is an innovation at the level of theory, at the level of reality, it is the primal fact of all history. Let us be honest with ourselves to this extent at least!
-- Beyond Good & Evil
anyway im gonna start a revolution see u guys in a few years
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On April 04 2016 14:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 14:15 Nyxisto wrote:
but seriously though you people have to vote for the same guy/girl later this year, I do not want to wake up to God emperor Trump It's going to be super cute after the primaries when the Hillary and Bernie supporters get back together, have a good cry, and launch into the makeup sex.
I'm actually gonna have a good laugh during the general.
Then vote Green bar something insane happening which gives Bernie the nomination.
|
The notion that Sanders has been a disappointment to you is kind of amazing. He's doing exactly what he always said he'd do. Running against corruption in the establishment was part of his campaign from the start. If you think it's a dirty trick and it's dishonest, then you thought the same thing when he started than you're thinking now. I just don't really see how you could possibly be disappointed in a line of thought that hasn't changed or evolved.
|
On April 04 2016 13:56 ticklishmusic wrote:Put or shut up about money laundering and dishonesty. The Hillary camp is sick and tired off all the shit coming from the Bernie campaign. Meanwhile, continue to dismiss the fact that in NV an official clearly leaked the list of Clinton supporters and that *nothing* wrong is going on. This a completely different situation from NV, and you don't get to call hurrdurr voter suppression like that. + Show Spoiler [ranting] +
Your candidate can't win on the issues, and this is basically what he's resorting to. The list of what he's actually done for the progressive cause is awfully thin, but him and you and all the others are willing to tear down people who actually have, like John Lewis, Dolores Huerta, President Obama and Hillary Clinton. It's fucking pathetic.
This is even with the WP spin on it.
A record 32 state parties signed on to the fund, allowing the committee to solicit donations 130 times greater than what a supporter can give to Clinton’s campaign for the primary.
But the states have yet to see a financial windfall. Meanwhile, Clinton’s campaign has been a major beneficiary, getting an infusion of low-dollar contributions through the committee at a time when rival Bernie Sanders’s army of small donors is helping him close in on her financially. The fund is run by Clinton campaign staff, and its treasurer is Clinton’s chief operating officer.
Source
Here's what they managed to leave out...
It's not just big money donors that the party gained and low-dollar contributions Hillary gained access too. It allows people that go to the fundraisers they don't even announce really, but she attends personally, to give heaps of cash at events (up to 130 times the FEC limit for candidates) , to her, by washing it through the DNC and local parties first.
Here's what it looks like. First big donors donate a huge sum of money to the "Hillary Victory Fund"
+ Show Spoiler +
Then the fund distributes it to Hillary
+ Show Spoiler +
Source
Circumventing FEC rules on donation limits to a candidate.
It's amateur hour as far as money laundering goes and it's transparent as hell to anyone with a clue about how it works. Since you chose not to try to preemptively explain it, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just didn't know. Now that you know...?
It goes deeper obviously, but because that's a little tougher to provide irrefutable proof of just from public documents, particularly since 2016 quarterlies haven't been processed yet, anyone with some sense following the money can see what's going on though.
+ Show Spoiler +#ImSoSick 
|
Right, because the FEC is that dumb and didn't notice. Like with Hillary's corruption, only the brave Bernie squad of political neophytes are able to see it!
|
On April 04 2016 14:45 ticklishmusic wrote:
Right, because the FEC is that dumb and didn't notice. Like with Hillary's corruption, only the brave Bernie squad of political neophytes are able to see it!
roflmao. that's the best you have?
You think CARLY for America just pulled the wool over the FEC's eyes too or that they just exploited the impotency of the FEC/the laws and clearly circumvented the FEC rule on having the candidate's name in the superPACs name?
this is why I am hesitant to bother putting together posts like that. Someone like ticklish comes back with a laughably absurd response instead of engaging with the evidence presented anyway.
|
You keep drawing parallels between different situations. There's winkwink nudgenudge stuff going on with coordination b/w a campaign and SuperPACs, but it's very different from campaign donations. You can track the money pretty clearly and if the FEC thought there was anything going on there, they would run an audit. One area is a grey (or black if you prefer) area, the other is far more straightforward.
Hillary does get people who typically support state-level campaigns to chip in some money to her, but she returns that favor by having her big national donors give money to state parties. The amount and source of each donation is tracked. She can't receive more money than legally allowed and there are clear controls in place.
I also thinking setting it up early so big donors can double the amount they give by donating last and this year is a good move.
When does Sanders plan to get le revolution going by helping out downballot candidates?
|
On April 04 2016 14:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The notion that Sanders has been a disappointment to you is kind of amazing. He's doing exactly what he always said he'd do. Running against corruption in the establishment was part of his campaign from the start. If you think it's a dirty trick and it's dishonest, then you thought the same thing when he started than you're thinking now. I just don't really see how you could possibly be disappointed in a line of thought that hasn't changed or evolved.
Could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"?
Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted, according to you, from the said corruption?
|
On April 04 2016 14:57 ticklishmusic wrote:
You keep drawing parallels between different situations. There's winkwink nudgenudge stuff going on with coordination b/w a campaign and SuperPACs, but it's very different from campaign donations. You can track the money pretty clearly and if the FEC thought there was anything going on there, they would run an audit.
You seem to again be engaging with an argument you don't understand/I'm not making.
What I was showing is that Hillary legally circumvents FEC contribution laws by exploiting this loophole (or whatever one wants to call it). On top of that she brags about it as "supporting Democrats down ticket" even while the WP rightly suggests she's the one benefiting from this (and DWS, as it's being used to pay off DNC debt).
Before the Hillary Victory Fund, the money she is receiving directly from the Hillary Victory Fund would of had to go to a superPAC or at least stay within the DNC, as it would be in excess of the $2,700 limit for candidates.
I was attempting to show you what that means. Let's try again this way.
By those donors giving a $300k check to her at an event, then her handing it to her campaign staff, then her campaign staff handing the check to her HVF staff (in at least one case, that's the same person), the HVF staff can then legally hand the check back to Hillary to spend however she pleases. Which is precisely what I just showed you, with pictures and everything.*
Are you refuting that it's happening or are you trying to say that because it's legal that I should use different words to describe it?
EDIT: *I hope you realize that's a simplification. Obviously they have to do the normal accounting for donations but I used the check to illustrate the absurdity of it.
On April 04 2016 15:04 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 14:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The notion that Sanders has been a disappointment to you is kind of amazing. He's doing exactly what he always said he'd do. Running against corruption in the establishment was part of his campaign from the start. If you think it's a dirty trick and it's dishonest, then you thought the same thing when he started than you're thinking now. I just don't really see how you could possibly be disappointed in a line of thought that hasn't changed or evolved. Could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted from the said corruption?
Here's a few on the recent O&G hubbub
|
On April 04 2016 15:04 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 14:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The notion that Sanders has been a disappointment to you is kind of amazing. He's doing exactly what he always said he'd do. Running against corruption in the establishment was part of his campaign from the start. If you think it's a dirty trick and it's dishonest, then you thought the same thing when he started than you're thinking now. I just don't really see how you could possibly be disappointed in a line of thought that hasn't changed or evolved. Could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted, according to you, from the said corruption?
GH answered this, but please do note that this wasn't the point I was making. I'm talking specifically about being disappointed in something that is the exact same as it has always been. I'm not disappointed that Trump is running a racist campaign or makes sexist remarks, cause I had no hope for anything else. The specific notion of being disappointed in Sanders for making the claims he's always made from the start is no different. I would therefore submit that it's a dishonest claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/P2N7f30.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/u2vikZS.jpg)
