|
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 April 06 2016 05:36 IgnE wrote:
I think GH should admit he was wrong on condition that ghan admit he's wrong every time henceforward that he is wrong or be perma banned.
I have no problem with that  Bets are silly, but, mods, feel free to perm me if I become an obstinate ass. You'll be doing me a favour.
Edit: Looks like my crusade has ended ingloriously as they generally tend to.
|
Barack Obama has called for international tax reform in the wake of the revelations contained in the Panama Papers.
“There is no doubt that the problem of global tax avoidance generally is a huge problem,” he told reporters at the White House on Tuesday. “The problem is that a lot of this stuff is legal, not illegal.”
The US president said the leak from Panama illustrated the scale of tax avoidance involving Fortune 500 companies and running into trillions of dollars worldwide.
“We shouldn’t make it legal to engage in transactions just to avoid taxes,” he added, praising instead “the basic principle of making sure everyone pays their fair share”.
Obama described the Panama revelations as “important stuff” and highlighting the impact upon ordinary citizens, added that “a lot of these loopholes come at the expense of middle-class families, because that lost revenue has to be made up somewhere.
“Alternatively, it means that we’re not investing as much as we should in schools, in making college more affordable, in putting people back to work rebuilding our roads, our bridges, our infrastructure, creating more opportunities for our children.”
Obama spoke in favour of his administration’s new rules to close corporate inversions, by which companies move their headquarters overseas to avoid taxes. He described the practice as “one of the most insidious tax loopholes out there”.
His unscripted remarks came as he made a rare and unscheduled appearance in the White House press briefing room and follows confirmation that US authorities are reviewing an international offshore law firm, exposed for helping the wealthy and powerful avoid US sanctions against regimes in Syria, North Korea, Russia and Iran.
Source
|
On April 06 2016 05:29 Plansix wrote:
Clutz, How do you respond to the fact that the GOP has let is slip during interviews that voter suppression is their goal with these laws? That they cut "Obama's margin by 5%". It was so blatant John Oliver pointed it out.
Edit: And I am not in favor of laws that restrict voting when we have almost no voter fraud in the country. They are laws addressing issued that don't exist.
If John Oliver pointed it out then gollllly.
Like I said, the assertion that there is almost no voter fraud is impossible to verify statistically because there is no reason to know what it would look like statistically. People are not caught doing it because its hard to catch them, because there is no way to verify, or if they do get "caught" or suspect they will be they can just walk out of the polling place.
Only a systematic FBI sting can determine how easy it is to commit voter fraud.
Moreover, that fraud is likely a goal of the Democrats (insomuch that suppression is a goal of Republicans) is demonstrated when they oppose things like purging inactive voter rolls. Which is a mantra by the way, "look at these easier ways to commit fraud" then they oppose ways to reduce that fraud as well.
|
To make something clear, while I am all for voter ID laws they come with the fact that it has to be easy and cheap for everyone to acquire a legal ID.
If its not easy to get an ID then its just strait up voter suppression.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
whats the point of stinging a lax process. fbi has better ways to use its resources, such as monitoring organized networks conducting election fraud. these things need organization to be problems, are you suggesting dems are doing this en masse ?
|
On April 06 2016 05:43 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 05:29 Plansix wrote:
Clutz, How do you respond to the fact that the GOP has let is slip during interviews that voter suppression is their goal with these laws? That they cut "Obama's margin by 5%". It was so blatant John Oliver pointed it out.
Edit: And I am not in favor of laws that restrict voting when we have almost no voter fraud in the country. They are laws addressing issued that don't exist. If John Oliver pointed it out then gollllly. Like I said, the assertion that there is almost no voter fraud is impossible to verify statistically because there is no reason to know what it would look like statistically. People are not caught doing it because its hard to catch them, because there is no way to verify, or if they do get "caught" or suspect they will be they can just walk out of the polling place. Only a systematic FBI sting can determine how easy it is to commit voter fraud. Moreover, that fraud is likely a goal of the Democrats (insomuch that suppression is a goal of Republicans) is demonstrated when they oppose things like purging inactive voter rolls.
It really doesn’t matter who pointed it out, the GOP member talked specifically about cutting into the Obama’s results through voter ID laws. Like it was a good thing.
Wouldn’t it be more productive to have someone investigate if this is an issue and then write the law if it is? Rather than assuming it’s a problem and then placing additional burdens on voters?
|
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) emerged from an hour-long Tuesday meeting with Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland “more convinced than ever” that the Republican-controlled Senate should hold hearings for him.
“The next step in my view should be public hearings before the Judiciary Committee,” Collins told journalists gathered outside their meeting, according to NBC’s Luke Russert.
Collins said she found Garland “impressive” and refused to rule out voting for him if hearings do proceed. She also suggested other Republican senators may change their mind about moving forward with the process if they met with him, according to CNN’s Manu Raju.
Republican Senate leaders have insisted they will not hold hearings for Garland because they want the presidential candidate elected in November to be able to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Collins and several other GOP senators, including Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), have asked their colleagues to move away from that hardline stance.
The Maine senator argued in a March interview that there was “no basis” for the current blockade, given that President Obama “is our President until next January.”
After meeting with Garland on Tuesday, Collins pointed out that Republican senators could face an even less appealing option should a Democrat win the presidency in November.
Source
|
On April 06 2016 05:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 05:43 cLutZ wrote:On April 06 2016 05:29 Plansix wrote:
Clutz, How do you respond to the fact that the GOP has let is slip during interviews that voter suppression is their goal with these laws? That they cut "Obama's margin by 5%". It was so blatant John Oliver pointed it out.
Edit: And I am not in favor of laws that restrict voting when we have almost no voter fraud in the country. They are laws addressing issued that don't exist. If John Oliver pointed it out then gollllly. Like I said, the assertion that there is almost no voter fraud is impossible to verify statistically because there is no reason to know what it would look like statistically. People are not caught doing it because its hard to catch them, because there is no way to verify, or if they do get "caught" or suspect they will be they can just walk out of the polling place. Only a systematic FBI sting can determine how easy it is to commit voter fraud. Moreover, that fraud is likely a goal of the Democrats (insomuch that suppression is a goal of Republicans) is demonstrated when they oppose things like purging inactive voter rolls. It really doesn’t matter who pointed it out, the GOP member talked specifically about cutting into the Obama’s results through voter ID laws. Like it was a good thing. Wouldn’t it be more productive to have someone investigate if this is an issue and then write the law if it is? Rather than assuming it’s a problem and then placing additional burdens on voters?
Yes. It would be more productive. But just look at oneofthem's response, there is one side heavily invested in NOT investigating the ease of voter fraud.
On April 06 2016 05:46 oneofthem wrote:
whats the point of stinging a lax process. fbi has better ways to use its resources, such as monitoring organized networks conducting election fraud. these things need organization to be problems, are you suggesting dems are doing this en masse ?
Its probably 50/50 that Al Franken was elected to the Senate due to voter fraud. It should be clear to anyone with a brain that Miami-Dade county tried to alter their results in 2000 once it became clear how close Florida was. Its willful blindness to claim otherwise.
Just as it would be blindness by me to not acknowledge that the GOP would benefit from some increased obstacles to voting such as IDs, or verification of residency/citizenship. I, however think those do not amount to substantial burdens on the right to vote. They are trivial, and in fact necessary if we are to ever modernize the entire voting system (which we should do as well).
|
Exit polls will be out in five minutes, here's a reminder of what we're looking at.
Democrats
Here's the Sanders target for catch-up according to 538:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JT37UW1.png)
Here's another one that doesn't quite take demographics into account (can't remember who by but the info's in the thread from earlier):
+ Show Spoiler +
On 538, the polling average has Sanders ahead 48% to 45%.
GOP
The original 538 demographic prediction had Trump targeting 18, Cruz 33 and Kasich 39 delegates.
The revised panel projected that Trump gets 25 delegates from Wisconsin.
Cruz is currently averaging 38% on polls, Trump 34% and Kasich 19%.
This is where it gets interesting, as without those delegates, Trump will have a hard time getting anywhere close to 1237 delegates by the convention without a California blow-out.
Edit: and this came out too:
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 06 2016 05:53 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 05:47 Plansix wrote:On April 06 2016 05:43 cLutZ wrote:On April 06 2016 05:29 Plansix wrote:
Clutz, How do you respond to the fact that the GOP has let is slip during interviews that voter suppression is their goal with these laws? That they cut "Obama's margin by 5%". It was so blatant John Oliver pointed it out.
Edit: And I am not in favor of laws that restrict voting when we have almost no voter fraud in the country. They are laws addressing issued that don't exist. If John Oliver pointed it out then gollllly. Like I said, the assertion that there is almost no voter fraud is impossible to verify statistically because there is no reason to know what it would look like statistically. People are not caught doing it because its hard to catch them, because there is no way to verify, or if they do get "caught" or suspect they will be they can just walk out of the polling place. Only a systematic FBI sting can determine how easy it is to commit voter fraud. Moreover, that fraud is likely a goal of the Democrats (insomuch that suppression is a goal of Republicans) is demonstrated when they oppose things like purging inactive voter rolls. It really doesn’t matter who pointed it out, the GOP member talked specifically about cutting into the Obama’s results through voter ID laws. Like it was a good thing. Wouldn’t it be more productive to have someone investigate if this is an issue and then write the law if it is? Rather than assuming it’s a problem and then placing additional burdens on voters? Yes. It would be more productive. But just look at oneofthem's response, there is one side heavily invested in NOT investigating the ease of voter fraud. Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 05:46 oneofthem wrote:
whats the point of stinging a lax process. fbi has better ways to use its resources, such as monitoring organized networks conducting election fraud. these things need organization to be problems, are you suggesting dems are doing this en masse ? Its probably 50/50 that Al Franken was elected to the Senate due to voter fraud. It should be clear to anyone with a brain that Miami-Dade county tried to alter their results in 2000 once it became clear how close Florida was. Its willful blindness to claim otherwise. Just as it would be blindness by me to not acknowledge that the GOP would benefit from some increased obstacles to voting such as IDs, or verification of residency/citizenship. I, however think those do not amount to substantial burdens on the right to vote. They are trivial, and in fact necessary if we are to ever modernize the entire voting system (which we should do as well).
you know what to sting or tap in that case? thr organizing committees of the parties. whats the point of setting up an old lady manning the rolls?
|
It's interesting to note just how many people are voting for Clinton. I feel like the Sanders campaign is always trying to frame Clinton as a default candidate that people only vote for because they are uninformed. It's plain and simply not the case. There are so many people who look at all the information and decide to vote for Clinton. It is no wonder that this group, which seems to incapable of understanding the diversity of ideas in our country, also doesn't realize Bernie or bust is incredibly self-centered and ignorant.
|
On April 06 2016 06:04 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 05:53 cLutZ wrote:On April 06 2016 05:47 Plansix wrote:On April 06 2016 05:43 cLutZ wrote:On April 06 2016 05:29 Plansix wrote:
Clutz, How do you respond to the fact that the GOP has let is slip during interviews that voter suppression is their goal with these laws? That they cut "Obama's margin by 5%". It was so blatant John Oliver pointed it out.
Edit: And I am not in favor of laws that restrict voting when we have almost no voter fraud in the country. They are laws addressing issued that don't exist. If John Oliver pointed it out then gollllly. Like I said, the assertion that there is almost no voter fraud is impossible to verify statistically because there is no reason to know what it would look like statistically. People are not caught doing it because its hard to catch them, because there is no way to verify, or if they do get "caught" or suspect they will be they can just walk out of the polling place. Only a systematic FBI sting can determine how easy it is to commit voter fraud. Moreover, that fraud is likely a goal of the Democrats (insomuch that suppression is a goal of Republicans) is demonstrated when they oppose things like purging inactive voter rolls. It really doesn’t matter who pointed it out, the GOP member talked specifically about cutting into the Obama’s results through voter ID laws. Like it was a good thing. Wouldn’t it be more productive to have someone investigate if this is an issue and then write the law if it is? Rather than assuming it’s a problem and then placing additional burdens on voters? Yes. It would be more productive. But just look at oneofthem's response, there is one side heavily invested in NOT investigating the ease of voter fraud. On April 06 2016 05:46 oneofthem wrote:
whats the point of stinging a lax process. fbi has better ways to use its resources, such as monitoring organized networks conducting election fraud. these things need organization to be problems, are you suggesting dems are doing this en masse ? Its probably 50/50 that Al Franken was elected to the Senate due to voter fraud. It should be clear to anyone with a brain that Miami-Dade county tried to alter their results in 2000 once it became clear how close Florida was. Its willful blindness to claim otherwise. Just as it would be blindness by me to not acknowledge that the GOP would benefit from some increased obstacles to voting such as IDs, or verification of residency/citizenship. I, however think those do not amount to substantial burdens on the right to vote. They are trivial, and in fact necessary if we are to ever modernize the entire voting system (which we should do as well). you know what to sting or tap in that case? thr organizing committees of the parties. whats the point of setting up an old lady manning the rolls?
Obviously it would not solve the problem, it would, however, reveal the problem, which is half the problem: that one side denies a problem even exists.
If Federal law enforcement takes their fingers out of their ears, and takes off the blindfolds, and conducts a sting, and get turned away by all the old ladies who aren't allowed to check IDs then there is no need for a voter ID law. If they don't get turned away, then there is cause to start an investigation of the kind you are talking about.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you can get some review process to check fraud rates.
|
Atlantic ran a pretty damning article on Sanders:
How Much Does Bernie Sanders Know About Policy?The Democratic presidential hopeful had a rough interview with the New York Daily News editorial board, struggling to explain what he would do to break up the banks and more if elected. There’s little doubting Bernie Sanders’s core political convictions—he’s been saying the same things for decades, with remarkable consistency. But turning convictions into policy is the challenge, and the Vermont senator’s interview with the editorial board of the New York Daily News raises some questions about his policy chops. Throughout his interview, Sanders seemed taken aback when he was pressed on policy—and not just on the matters that are peripheral to his approach, like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or interrogation of detainees, but even on bread-and-butter matters like breaking up the big banks, the Democratic presidential hopeful came across as tentative, unprepared, or unaware. It’s striking that there hasn’t been more coverage of Sanders’s policy ideas so far during the campaign, even at this late date, with most of the primary season concluded. He’s even acquired a reputation as something of a wonk, the kind of guy who eschews soaring rhetoric for dry nuts and bolts on the stump—and gets people to love him anyway. The gaps uncovered by the Daily News are not just about pragmatism. (There have, of course, been plenty of accusations, not least from Hillary Clinton’s campaign, that Sanders is offering a deeply unrealistic program. He tends to answer that they fail to grasp that he is building a political revolution.) The question here is not how Sanders would enact policies, but what those policies would be. If the Sanders campaign has shied away from deep dives into policy, this interview might be why: The candidate reveals himself as a far defter diagnostician than clinician. ... Read the rest here
|
Sanders is in a similar position as Trump right now. He does not benefit from policy specifics. It is far and away his weakest quality and he would be wise to keep relying on fog horns to increase his turnout.
|
On April 06 2016 06:49 Mohdoo wrote:
Sanders is in a similar position as Trump right now. He does not benefit from policy specifics. It is far and away his weakest quality and he would be wise to keep relying on fog horns to increase his turnout.
Trump has the advantage of being the frontrunner. He can afford to lose some votes because of being vague. Sanders can't.
|
On April 06 2016 06:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 06:49 Mohdoo wrote:
Sanders is in a similar position as Trump right now. He does not benefit from policy specifics. It is far and away his weakest quality and he would be wise to keep relying on fog horns to increase his turnout. Trump has the advantage of being the frontrunner. He can afford to lose some votes because of being vague. Sanders can't.
Its really about which loses him more votes. Being vague versus being stupid.
|
On April 06 2016 06:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 06:49 Mohdoo wrote:
Sanders is in a similar position as Trump right now. He does not benefit from policy specifics. It is far and away his weakest quality and he would be wise to keep relying on fog horns to increase his turnout. Trump has the advantage of being the frontrunner. He can afford to lose some votes because of being vague. Sanders can't.
I would argue Sanders' only chance is to keep on doin what he's doin and hope the air horns can build steam. It's effective. It's not nearly effective enough, but he is putting on a good show and justifying my symbolic donation. If Sanders tries to play the policy game, he's gonna be shattering a lot of people's image of him.
|
On April 06 2016 06:56 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 06:55 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2016 06:49 Mohdoo wrote:
Sanders is in a similar position as Trump right now. He does not benefit from policy specifics. It is far and away his weakest quality and he would be wise to keep relying on fog horns to increase his turnout. Trump has the advantage of being the frontrunner. He can afford to lose some votes because of being vague. Sanders can't. Its really about which loses him more votes. Being vague versus being stupid.
On April 06 2016 07:18 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 06:55 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2016 06:49 Mohdoo wrote:
Sanders is in a similar position as Trump right now. He does not benefit from policy specifics. It is far and away his weakest quality and he would be wise to keep relying on fog horns to increase his turnout. Trump has the advantage of being the frontrunner. He can afford to lose some votes because of being vague. Sanders can't. I would argue Sanders' only chance is to keep on doin what he's doin and hope the air horns can build steam. It's effective. It's not nearly effective enough, but he is putting on a good show and justifying my symbolic donation. If Sanders tries to play the policy game, he's gonna be shattering a lot of people's image of him.
Yes, if Sanders doesn't know how to put his ideas into practice then its best to keep quiet. And he is going to (rightfully) lose the primary.
If he knew what he was doing then giving details could help him actually close the gap (tho its most likely to late for that).
But I guess its becoming more apparent which of the two is correct by these interviews.
|
On April 06 2016 06:29 oneofthem wrote:
you can get some review process to check fraud rates.
By what mechanism? Your vote is not connected to you once cast. You going to send a mobile alert to voters when they "vote" so they can report fraud to the FBI? That is basically an ID check+
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FwNivER.png)
