|
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 25 2016 08:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 08:15 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 08:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 25 2016 07:40 Gorsameth wrote:
The transcripts could be the most friendly, pro people thing she has ever said and they will stick pick apart every sentence to find something they can use to attack her, however much it has to be pulled out of context.
There is no upside, regardless of what she said. So no, ofc she isn't going to release them. If they were her campaign would have released them already. It's not "her campaign", it's most likely her who made the decision. Over the years, it has clearly emerged that her personal privacy matters a lot to her, and I'm guessing she's not interested in getting bullied into releasing something that has never been asked of any presidential candidate ever, just because Sanders wants to subject her to his ideological purity test. It's obvious that her speeches were nothing out of the ordinary (as people who listened to her have said), that they most likely contain benign praise for what a robust and stable financial sector can bring to the economy, and that she and her campaign know that the Sanders campaign would likely look for excerpts to take out of context in order to brand her as in the pocket of banks, as they have already been doing without a shred of evidence or decency. She might release them once the primary is over, and she might not, but not releasing them doesn't reveal anything other than her unwillingness to bend the knee to demands she thinks are unwarranted, and a justified concern that her words would be distorted (as were Obama's "you didn't build that" by Republicans in the previous election). According to your logic, though, I suppose you feel that there's something very fishy about Sanders' tax returns? Because as opposed to transcripts of speeches, releasing full tax returns is actually the norm for presidential candidates, and Sanders has so far only released his incomplete 2014 tax returns. He's helping set a dangerous precedent. I'm guessing you don't think there's anything fishy in them despite his reluctance to release them, so I suggest you drop the double standard for Clinton's speeches. You don't get paid millions in financial speeches then claim them to be personal privacy while running for the most powerful office in the world. Especially after Citizens United, and the 08 crash. All the while moving the conditions of releasing them. First saying it was it is what they offered to my opponent must released his paid speeches, to the GOP must release their tax returns etc. It is just scummy.
She got paid essentially the same as any distinguished speaker of similar status does. There's absolutely nothing scummy about being cognizant of how your words are going to be taken out of context, and of being subjected to a standard that no other politician has been subjected to.
You seem to have conveniently left out the second part of my post, though, so I'll just c/p it here: According to your logic, I suppose you feel that there's something very fishy about Sanders' tax returns? Because as opposed to transcripts of speeches, releasing full tax returns is actually the norm for presidential candidates, and Sanders has so far only released his incomplete 2014 tax returns. He's helping set a dangerous precedent. I'm guessing you don't think there's anything fishy in them despite his reluctance to release them, so I suggest you drop the double standard for Clinton's speeches.
Also, since you don't like Clinton's reasons for not releasing her transcripts, I'm sure you hate Sanders' bs about his wife doing the returns, them not having been home recently, and his wife not being sure of where the old returns are. You probably found his wife lying on live television about releasing previous returns pretty scummy too, right?
|
On April 25 2016 05:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 05:36 IgnE wrote:On April 25 2016 04:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2016 02:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2016 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Sandernistas have become the useful idiots of the Republican party.
Basically they have been doing their whole campaign on personal attacks about Hillary being corrupt, dishonest and sold to Wall Street.
In fact there is not the slightest evidence that HC has ever been corrupt or bought by anyone, or that she is dishonest. This is right wing propaganda, based on nothing. When Sanders was asked when she had done anything that could be linked to her being "bought by Wall Street", he was left speechless.
This is rather sad because Sanders has plenty to bring to american politics. But if all his troops can do is hate speech, insults and defamation against their own side, they are not worth much better than Republicans. I feel like her being dishonest is somewhat irrefutable. As an example, the transcripts, there is no explanation for how her excuse isn't dishonest. The rest just takes removing the idea that these folks are giving millions of dollars without any expectation to influence policy. Which the Democrats did in 2014, but have since abandoned due to Hillary's fundraising. How does the change in fundraising rules at the DNC not signal that lobbyists will be more influential under her potential administration, not less? It's not that they are giving her $1million cash so she votes X, I don't think many politicians are that stupid. There's no question she would be more heavily influenced to lean toward her donors when making policy considerations. Yes but no. The transcripts are absolutely not a proof of her being dishonest. She might not want to release things she said to a closed circle of people during her campaign for strategic reasons, or because she thinks it could be used in a way or an other against her. How is that dishonesty?? And that's all you have to call someone dishonest? That's quite slim. Now she is playing american politics by the book, and yes, it is contributors who pay for campaigns. It doesn't make her sold. There is a problem with the system, not with her. Blaming her for the system is sterile and unfair. A question: if Sanders wins the primaries, how do you think he will fund his election campaign? With 10$ donations? He'll probably turn down all the big donor's money, right? Just think about that. If accepting money from big donors means being bought, Bernie will be bought the second he is up against Trump or whichever monster the Republican chose for themselves. What does Sanders and his campaign have answered about that? Nothing. They just pretend the problem doesn't exist. So let's recap. Sanders is playing an ad hominem campaign based on right wing propaganda "Hillary is dishonest and corrupt!!" and the fact her opponent is playing american politics by the book the exact same way he will have to play them the moment he is chosen. And that's the guy who will make american politics better. Wow. (I am not voting for that election since I am not american, and I am much closer ideologically to Sanders - I do agree with most of what he says - than Clinton. But the disgraceful campaign he is leading makes me want to root for Clinton. When your troops are so toxic they turn people who are perfectly aligned politically with you away, you have to change something. And that would apply to you. Instead of discussing proposals and policies, you basically concentrate on defaming the most likely candidate to face Trump. Not smart.) What about WhiteWater guys??? Good idea : let's base that campaign on a twenty five years old minor "scandal" that didn't lead to any kind of conviction for the Clinton and in which nobody has ever had a clue who was involved and at what level. Jesus... You REALLY think that when we talk of the Clinton, that's the important stuff? Bill Clinton has been 8 years in office, had had a major, major influence on how the world is today, Hillary has been secretary of State, we are discussing policies that could potentially change America, and more importantly, chosing someone to make sure that the most important person in the world won't be Trump, and all you guys find to debate about is a shit scandal from the 80's and the fact that Clinton doesn't want to release transcripts. That's fucking sad if you ask me.
That's exactly the point : the clinton familly was in power, much like the bush familly, and their actions were basically either detrimental to the average US citizen or useless. Bill deregulated finance (which helped get a surge of income for a few years, but effectively facilitated the bubble and 2008), he didn't do anything in regards to inequalities that had risen quite a lot after reagan and bush the first, he agreed himself that he made mass incarceration worse during his mandate... I also believe they have some kind of link to the student debt fiasco ? But firm margin greatly increase during his presidency, it's true. On every topic that are central to Bernie's success the Clinton franchise did a bad job.
Why would you want people to vote for someone that basicallyis the archetype of the politicians that created the situation that so many people are rejecting ? I think it's the main reason people stress so much on anything that could support this idea that she is "the system" ; it's a virtual confirmation to the fears of many that she is just another mainstream politicians.
|
Sorry for taking so long to reply.
+ Show Spoiler [reply to a March 26 farvacola post] +On March 27 2016 08:53 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2016 19:53 kwizach wrote:On March 26 2016 02:57 Mohdoo wrote:
This is my favorite thing about this election. Did we see this coming 48 hours ago? Did we have a fucking CLUE this would be the hot shit topic? What a wild ride. I never want it to end. + Show Spoiler +I strongly disagree. Even though I'm happy that the disgrace that is the Republican primary is going to hand over the White House to Hillary, secure a progressive Supreme Court and hopefully result in the Democrats gaining seats in both the House and Senate, a healthy democracy needs healthy political parties. The GOP absolutely has had its implosion coming, and it's their systematic obstructionism and the lies and extremism they've been feeding their base that brought them where they are today. In this respect, there's a part of me that does enjoy seeing them reaping what they've sown. Despite this, however, the broader picture is that trust in elected representatives has been falling for quite some time, and that there is a growing sentiment that politicians are all the same, crooked, liars, and only interested in securing their own power. I'm obviously not saying this sentiment appeared out of thin air -- it has some legitimate foundations that I don't think I have to develop here. Yet it remains a very inaccurate picture of politics, of the U.S. system of government, and of a majority of elected officials at all levels of government. And seeing this sentiment spread is not a good sign for the health of democracy in the country. It results in people like Donald Trump getting traction, getting votes, and getting a real chance of being elected in positions of power, in which they will do lasting harm. Trump may only be the tip of the iceberg, however. If he remains an anomaly -- great. But if he heralds a new area in which far-right and authoritarian demagogues can attract as many people as him, it'll be a serious and very dangerous development. I'm hoping it won't come to that, and two huge factors will be how the state of the economy evolves and the way the Republican party deals with him, his electorate and his message going forward. How is this connected to Cruz' affair? Well, this is obviously a minor element with respect to the broad picture I just referred to, but if die-hard conservatives who have resisted Trump so far realize that they can't trust the guy who made trust such an integral part of his campaign, it's again going to contribute to the disillusion felt by many. I hate Cruz with a passion, I disagree with him on almost everything, and he spreads lies constantly about Obama, the Democrats, their policies, minorities, and pretty much every aspect of the world we live in. Still, he embodies a version of conservatism that appeals to many people, and I would rather see these people vote for someone like Ted Cruz than for an authoritarian out of disgust with the political system. Now, although this is much more of an issue on the right than on the left, I have to say that the way Sanders' campaign has evolved also makes me quite uneasy, albeit on a much smaller scale (I am NOT equating the two in any way). I've mentioned already that the way he promises policies that simply cannot be achieved in the time frame he mentions, or uses numbers that have no solid basis in reality, is something I strongly dislike (even though I do agree with many of his objectives and with the said policies -- only he's not being honest with regards to how to get to them). I've also argued that his increased attacks on Hillary's character have been dishonest and could do some damage to the Democrats' chances in the general election (probably not much, but still). But the larger issue is that Sanders and his campaign (mostly his campaign, but him as well) have started to indulge in populism, demagoguery, and even sometimes conspiratorial discourse. This began by demonizing "the establishment" as a monolithic block, then by characterizing as "part of the establishment" every progressive official and organization who dared endorse Hillary or criticize aspects of Sanders' platform, such as Planned Parenthood (even though Sanders eventually walked back from his comments on the organization). It continued by painting Clinton (and, logically, many officials beyond her) as a puppet of Wall Street and "Big Pharma" for receiving donations from people and organizations in the finance and pharmaceutical industries. Do those donations exist? Sure. Do they make her a puppet, or corrupt? No they don't, just like Obama was never a puppet of Wall Street. Now, Sanders is completely dishonestly claiming that the Democratic party is currently not interested in the working class and the young, is not a 50-state party (this one is especially rich given how it is his campaign which basically left the South to Clinton), and is instead "to a significant degree" "a party of the upper middle class and the cocktail crowd and the heavy campaign contributors". Now, can the DNC, and people in the Democratic party be criticized for plenty of things? Of course. Yet the picture that Sanders is painting is not only fundamentally dishonest and wrong (in addition to being completely ignorant of the work, efforts and policies of many Democrats at all levels of government, including at the local and state levels), but it is also dangerous, because it simultaneously feeds into and nourishes the exact same kind of sentiment that I described earlier: "politicians don't care about us in the slightest". I hope that the reasonable Sanders supporters that post in this thread (farvacola and plenty of others) recognize this for what it is: dangerous rhetoric which reinforces disillusion with the political system and turns people away from the political process once their favorite candidate is no longer in the race. Again, does this mean that one can't legitimately and rightly denounce the role of money in U.S. politics, want to overturn Citizens United, fight the corruption that does exist, criticize the policies who hurt the most vulnerable, etc.? Absolutely not -- I subscribe to all of that, and I subscribe to a progressive agenda that goes significantly beyond maintaining the status quo; I am myself very critical of plenty of policies that a majority of Democrats in Congress have supported in the past. But there's a difference between holding those positions, and pretending that all politicians are completely disconnected from the people, only care about donations and power, and that only a single enlightened figure can change all this. This is dangerous rhetoric, and although it is currently much more of a problem on the right with regards to its effects, we shouldn't be blind to the damage that such populist messages can result in when they come from the left. So, before getting into the meat of the above post, I should preface this with an acknowledgement as to Sanders', and politicians generally, imperfection and how said acknowledgements are essential to a functioning electoral democracy, particularly when it comes to offices as important as the presidency. This super-human lens with which the popular media views candidates does real harm to the public's grasp of what actually goes into a functioning government led by real people, and it is along this vein that I do take issue with Sanders' rhetoric relative to money's influence on politics. Political donations, lobbyism, and special interest policy-making are all divisive yet essential components of US democracy, and Sanders' lack of nuance in this area does seem problematic, particularly against the backdrop of Trump's rise to the top of the Republican ticket. Furthermore, I definitely do not buy into the notion that Hillary's having accepted money from Wall Street automatically taints her beyond repair. Successfully furthering ones' agenda necessarily requires use of the devil's tools, so to speak, and in that sense, Hillary is far more qualified than Sanders as she has a long track-record of being able to successfully play the game in a way that Sanders simply does not. Yes, Sanders has carved himself out a nice niche in which he's been able to be an effective politician and legislator without eating from the apple tree, but the fact that other members of his political caucus have been making apple pie all along is a big part of what has enabled him to operate in such a way. I mostly agree, although I would add that Sanders has, in fact, been "eating from the apple tree" like everyone else, just not in the form of a Super PAC  On March 27 2016 08:53 farvacola wrote:
However, Sanders' lack of precision, broad rhetorical gestures, and idealistic bordering on unrealistic perspective must be weighed against other factors, and the specifics regarding said balancing act are where a "reasonable" individual's ideology is most likely to rear its head. It is in that sense that I'm willing to overlook Sanders' rough edges in favor of both what his campaign represents and what I'd expect to happen should he win the presidency. First, though, it is worth mentioning that I don't think an equivocation across both sides of the aisle as to "anti-establishment" sentiment holds up once scrutinized. While there are definitely similarities between Sanders and Trump when it comes to their indictment of the status quo, both camps inevitably rely on ideologies that are incommensurate with one another when viewed with a certain level of granularity, particularly in terms of platform specifics. Trump's base inevitably incorporates notions of individualism, "hard work," and a very stilted concept of success into its view of the world. Sanders's base, on the other hand, emphasizes community, a focus on the weakest in society, and fundamental notions of "fairness" relative to opportunity and interaction with authorities. Consequently, I really don't think that the "anti-establishment-ness" of both sides reduces down into the same brand of populism, and it is for that reason that I'm not concerned about Sanders taking liberties with his message in the same way that I am relative to Trump. I agree that a comparison between the two falls very short on most levels. As I highlighted in my original post, though, I do think that Sanders' populism is problematic and very counter-productive, although we disagree on how much. On March 27 2016 08:53 farvacola wrote:
Additionally, I still maintain that outlets like reddit, supporters like GH, and detractors like oneofthem overshadow and misrepresent the silent majority of Sanders supporters who will, in fact, vote for Hillary should the primary turn out in her favor. Again, I'm lead to this conclusion based on, polls notwithstanding, the fact that Sanders' populist appeal hinges on a focus on those most vulnerable in society; it will become abundantly clear to general election voters, even those bumfuck, entitled, white-kid Sanders supporters that oneofthem likes to talk about so much, that the Democrat will, at the very least, do less harm than his/her Republican counterpart, and this notion of harm reduction will mitigate whatever damage ends up being done during the primary, especially because Trump's presence is very likely to transfer primary energy into the general in a way that has not happened in prior election cycles. Agreed. The "Bernie or Bust" movement is very vocal on reddit and echoes on some other websites online, but it will be extremely marginal at best on election day. Reducing its impact as much as possible will require Sanders to support Hillary and down-ballot Democrats enthusiastically, however. On March 27 2016 08:53 farvacola wrote:
As for what would actually happen should Sanders win the presidency, I think Sanders would operate in much the same way that he did in the House and Senate. Specifically, he'd perform the role of a pragmatic ideologue who reaches across the aisle in the interest of actually getting things done while maintaining that there are certain principles that one ought not discount, namely that government ought focus on those on the bottom of the totem while being persistently aware of the creeping influence of monied interests. Furthermore, given Trump's popularity and the likelihood that Democrats capitalize on down-ticket success accordingly, Sanders has the unique opportunity to reformulate the federal agenda, particularly in terms of spending reprioritization and a focus on infrastructure. This notion that Sanders would surround himself with only like-minded administrative heads is nonsense that ignores his very real record of utilizing the expertise of those who don't agree with him ideologically. I'm not familiar enough with Sanders' record and practices while in office to voice an informed opinion here, but I've read testimonies from some of his colleagues (Barney Frank, notably) who've said he has a tendency to demonize those who disagree with him, making it harder to get things passed. On March 27 2016 08:53 farvacola wrote:
The Democratic Party, as an "establishment" entity, has become entirely too comfortable in its role as Republican backstop, and though Sanders is running a demonstrably flawed campaign, his brand of populist yet moral progressive politics is precisely the sort of energizing framework that the party so desperately needs. I would have agreed in the initial stages of the campaign. Not anymore -- his message is too simplistic and he simply has not worked enough on the issues he defends to present workable plans to advance his agenda, which in turns risks damaging how his ideas are perceived by skeptics or people who are on the fence. As I argued previously, the negative turn of his campaign also to a significant extent turned the attention away from his positive agenda and towards its negative attacks on Hillary, which have been counter-productive both with regards to the objective of achieving as large a victory as possible in November and with regards to the pushing of an ambitious progressive vision for the future of the country.
|
On April 25 2016 07:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
1. Campaign finance reform is a policy issue (at the core of every other issue as well) and the veracity and sincerity of their positions is one of the most relevant issues in this election. So what you seem to view as ad hominems are actually legitimate concerns. I'd like to see you explain how her transcripts excuse isn't her being dishonest, for example.
2. Primary or general, I won't be terrorized by a potential Trump presidency into voting for Hillary. If Hillary can't win enough support without the looming threat of the alternative, that's her own shortcoming, not ours for not being willing to vote for someone we don't support.
1.) having no support in the house and senate means that you will never get anything past. If bernie does not have support of the democratic party, he will not get any reform done. Bernie's strategy might work for the minority (he's far behind in all metrics from popular to delegate to super delagate and only seems to win states are already blue and does not have support of any state that isn't already far left, which means that he will likely lose the swing states if he stays but that's just math.
2.) Destroying america because you don't get your way is one of the most 1st world problems mentalities that we have here in the US. the goal of fixing a far right house and senate does not start with letting the government become 100% red. This is the issue with Bernie and his policies, he'd rather see the entire country in flames than ever admit he was wrong in anything.
|
On April 25 2016 09:01 kwizach wrote:Sorry for taking so long to reply. + Show Spoiler [reply to a March 26 farvacola post] +On March 27 2016 08:53 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2016 19:53 kwizach wrote:On March 26 2016 02:57 Mohdoo wrote:
This is my favorite thing about this election. Did we see this coming 48 hours ago? Did we have a fucking CLUE this would be the hot shit topic? What a wild ride. I never want it to end. + Show Spoiler +I strongly disagree. Even though I'm happy that the disgrace that is the Republican primary is going to hand over the White House to Hillary, secure a progressive Supreme Court and hopefully result in the Democrats gaining seats in both the House and Senate, a healthy democracy needs healthy political parties. The GOP absolutely has had its implosion coming, and it's their systematic obstructionism and the lies and extremism they've been feeding their base that brought them where they are today. In this respect, there's a part of me that does enjoy seeing them reaping what they've sown. Despite this, however, the broader picture is that trust in elected representatives has been falling for quite some time, and that there is a growing sentiment that politicians are all the same, crooked, liars, and only interested in securing their own power. I'm obviously not saying this sentiment appeared out of thin air -- it has some legitimate foundations that I don't think I have to develop here. Yet it remains a very inaccurate picture of politics, of the U.S. system of government, and of a majority of elected officials at all levels of government. And seeing this sentiment spread is not a good sign for the health of democracy in the country. It results in people like Donald Trump getting traction, getting votes, and getting a real chance of being elected in positions of power, in which they will do lasting harm. Trump may only be the tip of the iceberg, however. If he remains an anomaly -- great. But if he heralds a new area in which far-right and authoritarian demagogues can attract as many people as him, it'll be a serious and very dangerous development. I'm hoping it won't come to that, and two huge factors will be how the state of the economy evolves and the way the Republican party deals with him, his electorate and his message going forward. How is this connected to Cruz' affair? Well, this is obviously a minor element with respect to the broad picture I just referred to, but if die-hard conservatives who have resisted Trump so far realize that they can't trust the guy who made trust such an integral part of his campaign, it's again going to contribute to the disillusion felt by many. I hate Cruz with a passion, I disagree with him on almost everything, and he spreads lies constantly about Obama, the Democrats, their policies, minorities, and pretty much every aspect of the world we live in. Still, he embodies a version of conservatism that appeals to many people, and I would rather see these people vote for someone like Ted Cruz than for an authoritarian out of disgust with the political system. Now, although this is much more of an issue on the right than on the left, I have to say that the way Sanders' campaign has evolved also makes me quite uneasy, albeit on a much smaller scale (I am NOT equating the two in any way). I've mentioned already that the way he promises policies that simply cannot be achieved in the time frame he mentions, or uses numbers that have no solid basis in reality, is something I strongly dislike (even though I do agree with many of his objectives and with the said policies -- only he's not being honest with regards to how to get to them). I've also argued that his increased attacks on Hillary's character have been dishonest and could do some damage to the Democrats' chances in the general election (probably not much, but still). But the larger issue is that Sanders and his campaign (mostly his campaign, but him as well) have started to indulge in populism, demagoguery, and even sometimes conspiratorial discourse. This began by demonizing "the establishment" as a monolithic block, then by characterizing as "part of the establishment" every progressive official and organization who dared endorse Hillary or criticize aspects of Sanders' platform, such as Planned Parenthood (even though Sanders eventually walked back from his comments on the organization). It continued by painting Clinton (and, logically, many officials beyond her) as a puppet of Wall Street and "Big Pharma" for receiving donations from people and organizations in the finance and pharmaceutical industries. Do those donations exist? Sure. Do they make her a puppet, or corrupt? No they don't, just like Obama was never a puppet of Wall Street. Now, Sanders is completely dishonestly claiming that the Democratic party is currently not interested in the working class and the young, is not a 50-state party (this one is especially rich given how it is his campaign which basically left the South to Clinton), and is instead "to a significant degree" "a party of the upper middle class and the cocktail crowd and the heavy campaign contributors". Now, can the DNC, and people in the Democratic party be criticized for plenty of things? Of course. Yet the picture that Sanders is painting is not only fundamentally dishonest and wrong (in addition to being completely ignorant of the work, efforts and policies of many Democrats at all levels of government, including at the local and state levels), but it is also dangerous, because it simultaneously feeds into and nourishes the exact same kind of sentiment that I described earlier: "politicians don't care about us in the slightest". I hope that the reasonable Sanders supporters that post in this thread (farvacola and plenty of others) recognize this for what it is: dangerous rhetoric which reinforces disillusion with the political system and turns people away from the political process once their favorite candidate is no longer in the race. Again, does this mean that one can't legitimately and rightly denounce the role of money in U.S. politics, want to overturn Citizens United, fight the corruption that does exist, criticize the policies who hurt the most vulnerable, etc.? Absolutely not -- I subscribe to all of that, and I subscribe to a progressive agenda that goes significantly beyond maintaining the status quo; I am myself very critical of plenty of policies that a majority of Democrats in Congress have supported in the past. But there's a difference between holding those positions, and pretending that all politicians are completely disconnected from the people, only care about donations and power, and that only a single enlightened figure can change all this. This is dangerous rhetoric, and although it is currently much more of a problem on the right with regards to its effects, we shouldn't be blind to the damage that such populist messages can result in when they come from the left. So, before getting into the meat of the above post, I should preface this with an acknowledgement as to Sanders', and politicians generally, imperfection and how said acknowledgements are essential to a functioning electoral democracy, particularly when it comes to offices as important as the presidency. This super-human lens with which the popular media views candidates does real harm to the public's grasp of what actually goes into a functioning government led by real people, and it is along this vein that I do take issue with Sanders' rhetoric relative to money's influence on politics. Political donations, lobbyism, and special interest policy-making are all divisive yet essential components of US democracy, and Sanders' lack of nuance in this area does seem problematic, particularly against the backdrop of Trump's rise to the top of the Republican ticket. Furthermore, I definitely do not buy into the notion that Hillary's having accepted money from Wall Street automatically taints her beyond repair. Successfully furthering ones' agenda necessarily requires use of the devil's tools, so to speak, and in that sense, Hillary is far more qualified than Sanders as she has a long track-record of being able to successfully play the game in a way that Sanders simply does not. Yes, Sanders has carved himself out a nice niche in which he's been able to be an effective politician and legislator without eating from the apple tree, but the fact that other members of his political caucus have been making apple pie all along is a big part of what has enabled him to operate in such a way. I mostly agree, although I would add that Sanders has, in fact, been "eating from the apple tree" like everyone else, just not in the form of a Super PAC On March 27 2016 08:53 farvacola wrote:
However, Sanders' lack of precision, broad rhetorical gestures, and idealistic bordering on unrealistic perspective must be weighed against other factors, and the specifics regarding said balancing act are where a "reasonable" individual's ideology is most likely to rear its head. It is in that sense that I'm willing to overlook Sanders' rough edges in favor of both what his campaign represents and what I'd expect to happen should he win the presidency. First, though, it is worth mentioning that I don't think an equivocation across both sides of the aisle as to "anti-establishment" sentiment holds up once scrutinized. While there are definitely similarities between Sanders and Trump when it comes to their indictment of the status quo, both camps inevitably rely on ideologies that are incommensurate with one another when viewed with a certain level of granularity, particularly in terms of platform specifics. Trump's base inevitably incorporates notions of individualism, "hard work," and a very stilted concept of success into its view of the world. Sanders's base, on the other hand, emphasizes community, a focus on the weakest in society, and fundamental notions of "fairness" relative to opportunity and interaction with authorities. Consequently, I really don't think that the "anti-establishment-ness" of both sides reduces down into the same brand of populism, and it is for that reason that I'm not concerned about Sanders taking liberties with his message in the same way that I am relative to Trump. I agree that a comparison between the two falls very short on most levels. As I highlighted in my original post, though, I do think that Sanders' populism is problematic and very counter-productive, although we disagree on how much. On March 27 2016 08:53 farvacola wrote:
Additionally, I still maintain that outlets like reddit, supporters like GH, and detractors like oneofthem overshadow and misrepresent the silent majority of Sanders supporters who will, in fact, vote for Hillary should the primary turn out in her favor. Again, I'm lead to this conclusion based on, polls notwithstanding, the fact that Sanders' populist appeal hinges on a focus on those most vulnerable in society; it will become abundantly clear to general election voters, even those bumfuck, entitled, white-kid Sanders supporters that oneofthem likes to talk about so much, that the Democrat will, at the very least, do less harm than his/her Republican counterpart, and this notion of harm reduction will mitigate whatever damage ends up being done during the primary, especially because Trump's presence is very likely to transfer primary energy into the general in a way that has not happened in prior election cycles. Agreed. The "Bernie or Bust" movement is very vocal on reddit and echoes on some other websites online, but it will be extremely marginal at best on election day. Reducing its impact as much as possible will require Sanders to support Hillary and down-ballot Democrats enthusiastically, however. On March 27 2016 08:53 farvacola wrote:
As for what would actually happen should Sanders win the presidency, I think Sanders would operate in much the same way that he did in the House and Senate. Specifically, he'd perform the role of a pragmatic ideologue who reaches across the aisle in the interest of actually getting things done while maintaining that there are certain principles that one ought not discount, namely that government ought focus on those on the bottom of the totem while being persistently aware of the creeping influence of monied interests. Furthermore, given Trump's popularity and the likelihood that Democrats capitalize on down-ticket success accordingly, Sanders has the unique opportunity to reformulate the federal agenda, particularly in terms of spending reprioritization and a focus on infrastructure. This notion that Sanders would surround himself with only like-minded administrative heads is nonsense that ignores his very real record of utilizing the expertise of those who don't agree with him ideologically. I'm not familiar enough with Sanders' record and practices while in office to voice an informed opinion here, but I've read testimonies from some of his colleagues (Barney Frank, notably) who've said he has a tendency to demonize those who disagree with him, making it harder to get things passed. On March 27 2016 08:53 farvacola wrote:
The Democratic Party, as an "establishment" entity, has become entirely too comfortable in its role as Republican backstop, and though Sanders is running a demonstrably flawed campaign, his brand of populist yet moral progressive politics is precisely the sort of energizing framework that the party so desperately needs. I would have agreed in the initial stages of the campaign. Not anymore -- his message is too simplistic and he simply has not worked enough on the issues he defends to present workable plans to advance his agenda, which in turns risks damaging how his ideas are perceived by skeptics or people who are on the fence. As I argued previously, the negative turn of his campaign also to a significant extent turned the attention away from his positive agenda and towards its negative attacks on Hillary, which have been counter-productive both with regards to the objective of achieving as large a victory as possible in November and with regards to the pushing of an ambitious progressive vision for the future of the country.
To give you an idea on who Bernie is as a senator.
When Obama first got into office and helped put together the ACA, 0% of republicans sided with him, and even when it passed 0% of republicans voted on it--this was despite a majority. There wasn't even really a filibuster--yet it took months to get anything through. Why?
The reason was because when the ACA got put forward, it was held back by non-republicans. Do you know who one of those non-republicans were? Bernie Sanders. All those changes gutting and weakening the ACA--those were because people like Bernie Sanders held it up for months and months not wanting anything to pass unless he also got a piece of the pie.
For the most part, if you look at all the amendments the supposed "amendment king" was part of, he mainly has a legacy of being bribed into a bill so that they can get another vote in. Those pork expenses that makes bills and laws grow massively costing taxpayers untold millions--that's Bernie Sanders. Can't get something through but need an extra vote? Go to Sanders, doesn't matter if you're red or blue if you throw money Vermont's way Sanders is willing to join in. Want to know why he has a 15 trillion dollar plan that he doesn't know how to pay for? He assumes taxpayers will do it. "I'll tax the rich" he keeps saying, despite not having the support from the house and senate to make those changes.
Want to actually work with Sanders on something? Be ready to curse your lungs out because if someone is NOT on your side during acts of cooperation its Bernie.
Ever wonder why none of the Superdelates are helping Bernie? Because they know what working with him is like, they've been working with him for 25 years.
|
On April 25 2016 08:50 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 05:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2016 05:36 IgnE wrote:On April 25 2016 04:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2016 02:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2016 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Sandernistas have become the useful idiots of the Republican party.
Basically they have been doing their whole campaign on personal attacks about Hillary being corrupt, dishonest and sold to Wall Street.
In fact there is not the slightest evidence that HC has ever been corrupt or bought by anyone, or that she is dishonest. This is right wing propaganda, based on nothing. When Sanders was asked when she had done anything that could be linked to her being "bought by Wall Street", he was left speechless.
This is rather sad because Sanders has plenty to bring to american politics. But if all his troops can do is hate speech, insults and defamation against their own side, they are not worth much better than Republicans. I feel like her being dishonest is somewhat irrefutable. As an example, the transcripts, there is no explanation for how her excuse isn't dishonest. The rest just takes removing the idea that these folks are giving millions of dollars without any expectation to influence policy. Which the Democrats did in 2014, but have since abandoned due to Hillary's fundraising. How does the change in fundraising rules at the DNC not signal that lobbyists will be more influential under her potential administration, not less? It's not that they are giving her $1million cash so she votes X, I don't think many politicians are that stupid. There's no question she would be more heavily influenced to lean toward her donors when making policy considerations. Yes but no. The transcripts are absolutely not a proof of her being dishonest. She might not want to release things she said to a closed circle of people during her campaign for strategic reasons, or because she thinks it could be used in a way or an other against her. How is that dishonesty?? And that's all you have to call someone dishonest? That's quite slim. Now she is playing american politics by the book, and yes, it is contributors who pay for campaigns. It doesn't make her sold. There is a problem with the system, not with her. Blaming her for the system is sterile and unfair. A question: if Sanders wins the primaries, how do you think he will fund his election campaign? With 10$ donations? He'll probably turn down all the big donor's money, right? Just think about that. If accepting money from big donors means being bought, Bernie will be bought the second he is up against Trump or whichever monster the Republican chose for themselves. What does Sanders and his campaign have answered about that? Nothing. They just pretend the problem doesn't exist. So let's recap. Sanders is playing an ad hominem campaign based on right wing propaganda "Hillary is dishonest and corrupt!!" and the fact her opponent is playing american politics by the book the exact same way he will have to play them the moment he is chosen. And that's the guy who will make american politics better. Wow. (I am not voting for that election since I am not american, and I am much closer ideologically to Sanders - I do agree with most of what he says - than Clinton. But the disgraceful campaign he is leading makes me want to root for Clinton. When your troops are so toxic they turn people who are perfectly aligned politically with you away, you have to change something. And that would apply to you. Instead of discussing proposals and policies, you basically concentrate on defaming the most likely candidate to face Trump. Not smart.) What about WhiteWater guys??? Good idea : let's base that campaign on a twenty five years old minor "scandal" that didn't lead to any kind of conviction for the Clinton and in which nobody has ever had a clue who was involved and at what level. Jesus... You REALLY think that when we talk of the Clinton, that's the important stuff? Bill Clinton has been 8 years in office, had had a major, major influence on how the world is today, Hillary has been secretary of State, we are discussing policies that could potentially change America, and more importantly, chosing someone to make sure that the most important person in the world won't be Trump, and all you guys find to debate about is a shit scandal from the 80's and the fact that Clinton doesn't want to release transcripts. That's fucking sad if you ask me. That's exactly the point : the clinton familly was in power, much like the bush familly, and their actions were basically either detrimental to the average US citizen or useless. Bill deregulated finance (which helped get a surge of income for a few years, but effectively facilitated the bubble and 2008), he didn't do anything in regards to inequalities that had risen quite a lot after reagan and bush the first, he agreed himself that he made mass incarceration worse during his mandate... I also believe they have some kind of link to the student debt fiasco ? But firm margin greatly increase during his presidency, it's true. On every topic that are central to Bernie's success the Clinton franchise did a bad job. Why would you want people to vote for someone that basicallyis the archetype of the politicians that created the situation that so many people are rejecting ? I think it's the main reason people stress so much on anything that could support this idea that she is "the system" ; it's a virtual confirmation to the fears of many that she is just another mainstream politicians.
The 2008 crisis was actually because of derivatives--which sanders was on the people who made it happen. Bernie does not point this out though, because why would he point out how he was one of the helpers of the crisis and not Bill.
|
On April 25 2016 08:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 08:15 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 08:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 25 2016 07:40 Gorsameth wrote:
The transcripts could be the most friendly, pro people thing she has ever said and they will stick pick apart every sentence to find something they can use to attack her, however much it has to be pulled out of context.
There is no upside, regardless of what she said. So no, ofc she isn't going to release them. If they were her campaign would have released them already. It's not "her campaign", it's most likely her who made the decision. Over the years, it has clearly emerged that her personal privacy matters a lot to her, and I'm guessing she's not interested in getting bullied into releasing something that has never been asked of any presidential candidate ever, just because Sanders wants to subject her to his ideological purity test. It's obvious that her speeches were nothing out of the ordinary (as people who listened to her have said), that they most likely contain benign praise for what a robust and stable financial sector can bring to the economy, and that she and her campaign know that the Sanders campaign would likely look for excerpts to take out of context in order to brand her as in the pocket of banks, as they have already been doing without a shred of evidence or decency. She might release them once the primary is over, and she might not, but not releasing them doesn't reveal anything other than her unwillingness to bend the knee to demands she thinks are unwarranted, and a justified concern that her words would be distorted (as were Obama's "you didn't build that" by Republicans in the previous election). According to your logic, though, I suppose you feel that there's something very fishy about Sanders' tax returns? Because as opposed to transcripts of speeches, releasing full tax returns is actually the norm for presidential candidates, and Sanders has so far only released his incomplete 2014 tax returns. He's helping set a dangerous precedent. I'm guessing you don't think there's anything fishy in them despite his reluctance to release them, so I suggest you drop the double standard for Clinton's speeches. You don't get paid millions in financial speeches then claim them to be personal privacy while running for the most powerful office in the world. Especially after Citizens United, and the 08 crash. All the while moving the conditions of releasing them. First saying it was it is what they offered to my opponent must released his paid speeches, to the GOP must release their tax returns etc. It is just scummy.
What's actually scummy:
Woman learns to make money, old white candidate complains that she's making money. Woman gets popular vote and is accused of being most qualified for job, old white candidate still thinks he's a better person for job because he says so.
|
On April 25 2016 09:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 08:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 25 2016 08:15 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 08:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 25 2016 07:40 Gorsameth wrote:
The transcripts could be the most friendly, pro people thing she has ever said and they will stick pick apart every sentence to find something they can use to attack her, however much it has to be pulled out of context.
There is no upside, regardless of what she said. So no, ofc she isn't going to release them. If they were her campaign would have released them already. It's not "her campaign", it's most likely her who made the decision. Over the years, it has clearly emerged that her personal privacy matters a lot to her, and I'm guessing she's not interested in getting bullied into releasing something that has never been asked of any presidential candidate ever, just because Sanders wants to subject her to his ideological purity test. It's obvious that her speeches were nothing out of the ordinary (as people who listened to her have said), that they most likely contain benign praise for what a robust and stable financial sector can bring to the economy, and that she and her campaign know that the Sanders campaign would likely look for excerpts to take out of context in order to brand her as in the pocket of banks, as they have already been doing without a shred of evidence or decency. She might release them once the primary is over, and she might not, but not releasing them doesn't reveal anything other than her unwillingness to bend the knee to demands she thinks are unwarranted, and a justified concern that her words would be distorted (as were Obama's "you didn't build that" by Republicans in the previous election). According to your logic, though, I suppose you feel that there's something very fishy about Sanders' tax returns? Because as opposed to transcripts of speeches, releasing full tax returns is actually the norm for presidential candidates, and Sanders has so far only released his incomplete 2014 tax returns. He's helping set a dangerous precedent. I'm guessing you don't think there's anything fishy in them despite his reluctance to release them, so I suggest you drop the double standard for Clinton's speeches. You don't get paid millions in financial speeches then claim them to be personal privacy while running for the most powerful office in the world. Especially after Citizens United, and the 08 crash. All the while moving the conditions of releasing them. First saying it was it is what they offered to my opponent must released his paid speeches, to the GOP must release their tax returns etc. It is just scummy. What's actually scummy: Woman learns to make money, old white candidate complains that she's making money. Woman gets popular vote and is accused of being most qualified for job, old white candidate still thinks he's a better person for job because he says so.
Bernie, a candidate for president, can't think he's a better person for the job than his opponent? They're both old white candidates.
|
Or that any Clinton needs to learn how to make money...
|
On April 25 2016 10:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Or that any Clinton needs to learn how to make money...
And here's an Internet poster, telling us that the woman doesn't need to be earn money,
|
On April 25 2016 09:55 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 09:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 25 2016 08:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 25 2016 08:15 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 08:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 25 2016 07:40 Gorsameth wrote:
The transcripts could be the most friendly, pro people thing she has ever said and they will stick pick apart every sentence to find something they can use to attack her, however much it has to be pulled out of context.
There is no upside, regardless of what she said. So no, ofc she isn't going to release them. If they were her campaign would have released them already. It's not "her campaign", it's most likely her who made the decision. Over the years, it has clearly emerged that her personal privacy matters a lot to her, and I'm guessing she's not interested in getting bullied into releasing something that has never been asked of any presidential candidate ever, just because Sanders wants to subject her to his ideological purity test. It's obvious that her speeches were nothing out of the ordinary (as people who listened to her have said), that they most likely contain benign praise for what a robust and stable financial sector can bring to the economy, and that she and her campaign know that the Sanders campaign would likely look for excerpts to take out of context in order to brand her as in the pocket of banks, as they have already been doing without a shred of evidence or decency. She might release them once the primary is over, and she might not, but not releasing them doesn't reveal anything other than her unwillingness to bend the knee to demands she thinks are unwarranted, and a justified concern that her words would be distorted (as were Obama's "you didn't build that" by Republicans in the previous election). According to your logic, though, I suppose you feel that there's something very fishy about Sanders' tax returns? Because as opposed to transcripts of speeches, releasing full tax returns is actually the norm for presidential candidates, and Sanders has so far only released his incomplete 2014 tax returns. He's helping set a dangerous precedent. I'm guessing you don't think there's anything fishy in them despite his reluctance to release them, so I suggest you drop the double standard for Clinton's speeches. You don't get paid millions in financial speeches then claim them to be personal privacy while running for the most powerful office in the world. Especially after Citizens United, and the 08 crash. All the while moving the conditions of releasing them. First saying it was it is what they offered to my opponent must released his paid speeches, to the GOP must release their tax returns etc. It is just scummy. What's actually scummy: Woman learns to make money, old white candidate complains that she's making money. Woman gets popular vote and is accused of being most qualified for job, old white candidate still thinks he's a better person for job because he says so. Bernie, a candidate for president, can't think he's a better person for the job than his opponent? They're both old white candidates.
He didn't think he was better. As he said in the interview, he only ran to make waves and to bring up his ideas as fodder for discussion. Millions of votes later it turns out he was initially correct that he was unqualified.
|
On April 25 2016 09:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 08:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 25 2016 08:15 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 08:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 25 2016 07:40 Gorsameth wrote:
The transcripts could be the most friendly, pro people thing she has ever said and they will stick pick apart every sentence to find something they can use to attack her, however much it has to be pulled out of context.
There is no upside, regardless of what she said. So no, ofc she isn't going to release them. If they were her campaign would have released them already. It's not "her campaign", it's most likely her who made the decision. Over the years, it has clearly emerged that her personal privacy matters a lot to her, and I'm guessing she's not interested in getting bullied into releasing something that has never been asked of any presidential candidate ever, just because Sanders wants to subject her to his ideological purity test. It's obvious that her speeches were nothing out of the ordinary (as people who listened to her have said), that they most likely contain benign praise for what a robust and stable financial sector can bring to the economy, and that she and her campaign know that the Sanders campaign would likely look for excerpts to take out of context in order to brand her as in the pocket of banks, as they have already been doing without a shred of evidence or decency. She might release them once the primary is over, and she might not, but not releasing them doesn't reveal anything other than her unwillingness to bend the knee to demands she thinks are unwarranted, and a justified concern that her words would be distorted (as were Obama's "you didn't build that" by Republicans in the previous election). According to your logic, though, I suppose you feel that there's something very fishy about Sanders' tax returns? Because as opposed to transcripts of speeches, releasing full tax returns is actually the norm for presidential candidates, and Sanders has so far only released his incomplete 2014 tax returns. He's helping set a dangerous precedent. I'm guessing you don't think there's anything fishy in them despite his reluctance to release them, so I suggest you drop the double standard for Clinton's speeches. You don't get paid millions in financial speeches then claim them to be personal privacy while running for the most powerful office in the world. Especially after Citizens United, and the 08 crash. All the while moving the conditions of releasing them. First saying it was it is what they offered to my opponent must released his paid speeches, to the GOP must release their tax returns etc. It is just scummy. What's actually scummy: Woman learns to make money, old white candidate complains that she's making money. Woman gets popular vote and is accused of being most qualified for job, old white candidate still thinks he's a better person for job because he says so.
I hope plenty of your own camp is going to jump on you there because you're asserting sexism without evidence, cause I heard it was so terrible to assert corruption without evidence when it was adressed against your side...
Of course it's not going to happen, cause we're not having an honest discussion. But hey, at least I can point it out, right?
|
On April 25 2016 10:55 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 09:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 25 2016 08:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 25 2016 08:15 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 08:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 25 2016 07:40 Gorsameth wrote:
The transcripts could be the most friendly, pro people thing she has ever said and they will stick pick apart every sentence to find something they can use to attack her, however much it has to be pulled out of context.
There is no upside, regardless of what she said. So no, ofc she isn't going to release them. If they were her campaign would have released them already. It's not "her campaign", it's most likely her who made the decision. Over the years, it has clearly emerged that her personal privacy matters a lot to her, and I'm guessing she's not interested in getting bullied into releasing something that has never been asked of any presidential candidate ever, just because Sanders wants to subject her to his ideological purity test. It's obvious that her speeches were nothing out of the ordinary (as people who listened to her have said), that they most likely contain benign praise for what a robust and stable financial sector can bring to the economy, and that she and her campaign know that the Sanders campaign would likely look for excerpts to take out of context in order to brand her as in the pocket of banks, as they have already been doing without a shred of evidence or decency. She might release them once the primary is over, and she might not, but not releasing them doesn't reveal anything other than her unwillingness to bend the knee to demands she thinks are unwarranted, and a justified concern that her words would be distorted (as were Obama's "you didn't build that" by Republicans in the previous election). According to your logic, though, I suppose you feel that there's something very fishy about Sanders' tax returns? Because as opposed to transcripts of speeches, releasing full tax returns is actually the norm for presidential candidates, and Sanders has so far only released his incomplete 2014 tax returns. He's helping set a dangerous precedent. I'm guessing you don't think there's anything fishy in them despite his reluctance to release them, so I suggest you drop the double standard for Clinton's speeches. You don't get paid millions in financial speeches then claim them to be personal privacy while running for the most powerful office in the world. Especially after Citizens United, and the 08 crash. All the while moving the conditions of releasing them. First saying it was it is what they offered to my opponent must released his paid speeches, to the GOP must release their tax returns etc. It is just scummy. What's actually scummy: Woman learns to make money, old white candidate complains that she's making money. Woman gets popular vote and is accused of being most qualified for job, old white candidate still thinks he's a better person for job because he says so. I hope plenty of your own camp is going to jump on you there because you're asserting sexism without evidence, cause I heard it was so terrible to assert corruption without evidence when it was adressed against your side... Of course it's not going to happen, cause we're not having an honest discussion. But hey, at least I can point it out, right?
It felt more like the logical end parody of a hilariously dishonest line of discussion. Unless he's serious, in which case it's more of the same.
Feels like I'm in a JFK conspiracy thread or something. Page after page of talk involving smoking guns that people imagine must exist somewhere.
|
On April 25 2016 11:07 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 10:55 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 09:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 25 2016 08:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 25 2016 08:15 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 08:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 25 2016 07:40 Gorsameth wrote:
The transcripts could be the most friendly, pro people thing she has ever said and they will stick pick apart every sentence to find something they can use to attack her, however much it has to be pulled out of context.
There is no upside, regardless of what she said. So no, ofc she isn't going to release them. If they were her campaign would have released them already. It's not "her campaign", it's most likely her who made the decision. Over the years, it has clearly emerged that her personal privacy matters a lot to her, and I'm guessing she's not interested in getting bullied into releasing something that has never been asked of any presidential candidate ever, just because Sanders wants to subject her to his ideological purity test. It's obvious that her speeches were nothing out of the ordinary (as people who listened to her have said), that they most likely contain benign praise for what a robust and stable financial sector can bring to the economy, and that she and her campaign know that the Sanders campaign would likely look for excerpts to take out of context in order to brand her as in the pocket of banks, as they have already been doing without a shred of evidence or decency. She might release them once the primary is over, and she might not, but not releasing them doesn't reveal anything other than her unwillingness to bend the knee to demands she thinks are unwarranted, and a justified concern that her words would be distorted (as were Obama's "you didn't build that" by Republicans in the previous election). According to your logic, though, I suppose you feel that there's something very fishy about Sanders' tax returns? Because as opposed to transcripts of speeches, releasing full tax returns is actually the norm for presidential candidates, and Sanders has so far only released his incomplete 2014 tax returns. He's helping set a dangerous precedent. I'm guessing you don't think there's anything fishy in them despite his reluctance to release them, so I suggest you drop the double standard for Clinton's speeches. You don't get paid millions in financial speeches then claim them to be personal privacy while running for the most powerful office in the world. Especially after Citizens United, and the 08 crash. All the while moving the conditions of releasing them. First saying it was it is what they offered to my opponent must released his paid speeches, to the GOP must release their tax returns etc. It is just scummy. What's actually scummy: Woman learns to make money, old white candidate complains that she's making money. Woman gets popular vote and is accused of being most qualified for job, old white candidate still thinks he's a better person for job because he says so. I hope plenty of your own camp is going to jump on you there because you're asserting sexism without evidence, cause I heard it was so terrible to assert corruption without evidence when it was adressed against your side... Of course it's not going to happen, cause we're not having an honest discussion. But hey, at least I can point it out, right? It felt more like the logical end parody of a hilariously dishonest line of discussion. Unless he's serious, in which case it's more of the same. Feels like I'm in a JFK conspiracy thread or something. Page after page of talk involving smoking guns that people imagine must exist somewhere.
If the only thing arguments needs is correlations we disagree with I'm willing to go down that route
|
On April 25 2016 11:07 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 10:55 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 09:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 25 2016 08:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 25 2016 08:15 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 08:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 25 2016 07:40 Gorsameth wrote:
The transcripts could be the most friendly, pro people thing she has ever said and they will stick pick apart every sentence to find something they can use to attack her, however much it has to be pulled out of context.
There is no upside, regardless of what she said. So no, ofc she isn't going to release them. If they were her campaign would have released them already. It's not "her campaign", it's most likely her who made the decision. Over the years, it has clearly emerged that her personal privacy matters a lot to her, and I'm guessing she's not interested in getting bullied into releasing something that has never been asked of any presidential candidate ever, just because Sanders wants to subject her to his ideological purity test. It's obvious that her speeches were nothing out of the ordinary (as people who listened to her have said), that they most likely contain benign praise for what a robust and stable financial sector can bring to the economy, and that she and her campaign know that the Sanders campaign would likely look for excerpts to take out of context in order to brand her as in the pocket of banks, as they have already been doing without a shred of evidence or decency. She might release them once the primary is over, and she might not, but not releasing them doesn't reveal anything other than her unwillingness to bend the knee to demands she thinks are unwarranted, and a justified concern that her words would be distorted (as were Obama's "you didn't build that" by Republicans in the previous election). According to your logic, though, I suppose you feel that there's something very fishy about Sanders' tax returns? Because as opposed to transcripts of speeches, releasing full tax returns is actually the norm for presidential candidates, and Sanders has so far only released his incomplete 2014 tax returns. He's helping set a dangerous precedent. I'm guessing you don't think there's anything fishy in them despite his reluctance to release them, so I suggest you drop the double standard for Clinton's speeches. You don't get paid millions in financial speeches then claim them to be personal privacy while running for the most powerful office in the world. Especially after Citizens United, and the 08 crash. All the while moving the conditions of releasing them. First saying it was it is what they offered to my opponent must released his paid speeches, to the GOP must release their tax returns etc. It is just scummy. What's actually scummy: Woman learns to make money, old white candidate complains that she's making money. Woman gets popular vote and is accused of being most qualified for job, old white candidate still thinks he's a better person for job because he says so. I hope plenty of your own camp is going to jump on you there because you're asserting sexism without evidence, cause I heard it was so terrible to assert corruption without evidence when it was adressed against your side... Of course it's not going to happen, cause we're not having an honest discussion. But hey, at least I can point it out, right? It felt more like the logical end parody of a hilariously dishonest line of discussion. Unless he's serious, in which case it's more of the same. Feels like I'm in a JFK conspiracy thread or something. Page after page of talk involving smoking guns that people imagine must exist somewhere.
That's a valid position: I don't think there is anything shady happening, I don't think the system is corrupt. There is no conspiracy.
Another valid position: I think there is something shady happening, I think the system is corrupt. There is a conspiracy.
What I take issue with: I think there is something shady happening, I think the system is corrupt. But Hillary Clinton, who has been chosen by the democratic establishment to represent them, is completely exempt of that.
That seems to be a pretty popular position here.
|
On April 25 2016 10:15 TMagpie wrote:
On April 25 2016 09:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Alt alert!
|
On April 25 2016 11:30 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 11:07 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2016 10:55 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 09:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 25 2016 08:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 25 2016 08:15 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 08:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 25 2016 07:40 Gorsameth wrote:
The transcripts could be the most friendly, pro people thing she has ever said and they will stick pick apart every sentence to find something they can use to attack her, however much it has to be pulled out of context.
There is no upside, regardless of what she said. So no, ofc she isn't going to release them. If they were her campaign would have released them already. It's not "her campaign", it's most likely her who made the decision. Over the years, it has clearly emerged that her personal privacy matters a lot to her, and I'm guessing she's not interested in getting bullied into releasing something that has never been asked of any presidential candidate ever, just because Sanders wants to subject her to his ideological purity test. It's obvious that her speeches were nothing out of the ordinary (as people who listened to her have said), that they most likely contain benign praise for what a robust and stable financial sector can bring to the economy, and that she and her campaign know that the Sanders campaign would likely look for excerpts to take out of context in order to brand her as in the pocket of banks, as they have already been doing without a shred of evidence or decency. She might release them once the primary is over, and she might not, but not releasing them doesn't reveal anything other than her unwillingness to bend the knee to demands she thinks are unwarranted, and a justified concern that her words would be distorted (as were Obama's "you didn't build that" by Republicans in the previous election). According to your logic, though, I suppose you feel that there's something very fishy about Sanders' tax returns? Because as opposed to transcripts of speeches, releasing full tax returns is actually the norm for presidential candidates, and Sanders has so far only released his incomplete 2014 tax returns. He's helping set a dangerous precedent. I'm guessing you don't think there's anything fishy in them despite his reluctance to release them, so I suggest you drop the double standard for Clinton's speeches. You don't get paid millions in financial speeches then claim them to be personal privacy while running for the most powerful office in the world. Especially after Citizens United, and the 08 crash. All the while moving the conditions of releasing them. First saying it was it is what they offered to my opponent must released his paid speeches, to the GOP must release their tax returns etc. It is just scummy. What's actually scummy: Woman learns to make money, old white candidate complains that she's making money. Woman gets popular vote and is accused of being most qualified for job, old white candidate still thinks he's a better person for job because he says so. I hope plenty of your own camp is going to jump on you there because you're asserting sexism without evidence, cause I heard it was so terrible to assert corruption without evidence when it was adressed against your side... Of course it's not going to happen, cause we're not having an honest discussion. But hey, at least I can point it out, right? It felt more like the logical end parody of a hilariously dishonest line of discussion. Unless he's serious, in which case it's more of the same. Feels like I'm in a JFK conspiracy thread or something. Page after page of talk involving smoking guns that people imagine must exist somewhere. That's a valid position: I don't think there is anything shady happening, I don't think the system is corrupt. There is no conspiracy. Another valid position: I think there is something shady happening, I think the system is corrupt. There is a conspiracy. What I take issue with: I think there is something shady happening, I think the system is corrupt. But Hillary Clinton, who has been chosen by the democratic establishment to represent them, is completely exempt of that. That seems to be a pretty popular position here.
Do quote one post arguing that position here.
|
On April 25 2016 11:56 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 11:30 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 11:07 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2016 10:55 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 09:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 25 2016 08:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 25 2016 08:15 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 08:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 25 2016 07:40 Gorsameth wrote:
The transcripts could be the most friendly, pro people thing she has ever said and they will stick pick apart every sentence to find something they can use to attack her, however much it has to be pulled out of context.
There is no upside, regardless of what she said. So no, ofc she isn't going to release them. If they were her campaign would have released them already. It's not "her campaign", it's most likely her who made the decision. Over the years, it has clearly emerged that her personal privacy matters a lot to her, and I'm guessing she's not interested in getting bullied into releasing something that has never been asked of any presidential candidate ever, just because Sanders wants to subject her to his ideological purity test. It's obvious that her speeches were nothing out of the ordinary (as people who listened to her have said), that they most likely contain benign praise for what a robust and stable financial sector can bring to the economy, and that she and her campaign know that the Sanders campaign would likely look for excerpts to take out of context in order to brand her as in the pocket of banks, as they have already been doing without a shred of evidence or decency. She might release them once the primary is over, and she might not, but not releasing them doesn't reveal anything other than her unwillingness to bend the knee to demands she thinks are unwarranted, and a justified concern that her words would be distorted (as were Obama's "you didn't build that" by Republicans in the previous election). According to your logic, though, I suppose you feel that there's something very fishy about Sanders' tax returns? Because as opposed to transcripts of speeches, releasing full tax returns is actually the norm for presidential candidates, and Sanders has so far only released his incomplete 2014 tax returns. He's helping set a dangerous precedent. I'm guessing you don't think there's anything fishy in them despite his reluctance to release them, so I suggest you drop the double standard for Clinton's speeches. You don't get paid millions in financial speeches then claim them to be personal privacy while running for the most powerful office in the world. Especially after Citizens United, and the 08 crash. All the while moving the conditions of releasing them. First saying it was it is what they offered to my opponent must released his paid speeches, to the GOP must release their tax returns etc. It is just scummy. What's actually scummy: Woman learns to make money, old white candidate complains that she's making money. Woman gets popular vote and is accused of being most qualified for job, old white candidate still thinks he's a better person for job because he says so. I hope plenty of your own camp is going to jump on you there because you're asserting sexism without evidence, cause I heard it was so terrible to assert corruption without evidence when it was adressed against your side... Of course it's not going to happen, cause we're not having an honest discussion. But hey, at least I can point it out, right? It felt more like the logical end parody of a hilariously dishonest line of discussion. Unless he's serious, in which case it's more of the same. Feels like I'm in a JFK conspiracy thread or something. Page after page of talk involving smoking guns that people imagine must exist somewhere. That's a valid position: I don't think there is anything shady happening, I don't think the system is corrupt. There is no conspiracy. Another valid position: I think there is something shady happening, I think the system is corrupt. There is a conspiracy. What I take issue with: I think there is something shady happening, I think the system is corrupt. But Hillary Clinton, who has been chosen by the democratic establishment to represent them, is completely exempt of that. That seems to be a pretty popular position here. Do quote one post arguing that position here.
Well, your posts.. I was under the impression that you agreed the system is corrupt. If you don't, then I apologize, some of what I've said to you in the past was misplaced.
|
On April 25 2016 11:30 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 11:07 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2016 10:55 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 09:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 25 2016 08:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 25 2016 08:15 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 08:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 25 2016 07:40 Gorsameth wrote:
The transcripts could be the most friendly, pro people thing she has ever said and they will stick pick apart every sentence to find something they can use to attack her, however much it has to be pulled out of context.
There is no upside, regardless of what she said. So no, ofc she isn't going to release them. If they were her campaign would have released them already. It's not "her campaign", it's most likely her who made the decision. Over the years, it has clearly emerged that her personal privacy matters a lot to her, and I'm guessing she's not interested in getting bullied into releasing something that has never been asked of any presidential candidate ever, just because Sanders wants to subject her to his ideological purity test. It's obvious that her speeches were nothing out of the ordinary (as people who listened to her have said), that they most likely contain benign praise for what a robust and stable financial sector can bring to the economy, and that she and her campaign know that the Sanders campaign would likely look for excerpts to take out of context in order to brand her as in the pocket of banks, as they have already been doing without a shred of evidence or decency. She might release them once the primary is over, and she might not, but not releasing them doesn't reveal anything other than her unwillingness to bend the knee to demands she thinks are unwarranted, and a justified concern that her words would be distorted (as were Obama's "you didn't build that" by Republicans in the previous election). According to your logic, though, I suppose you feel that there's something very fishy about Sanders' tax returns? Because as opposed to transcripts of speeches, releasing full tax returns is actually the norm for presidential candidates, and Sanders has so far only released his incomplete 2014 tax returns. He's helping set a dangerous precedent. I'm guessing you don't think there's anything fishy in them despite his reluctance to release them, so I suggest you drop the double standard for Clinton's speeches. You don't get paid millions in financial speeches then claim them to be personal privacy while running for the most powerful office in the world. Especially after Citizens United, and the 08 crash. All the while moving the conditions of releasing them. First saying it was it is what they offered to my opponent must released his paid speeches, to the GOP must release their tax returns etc. It is just scummy. What's actually scummy: Woman learns to make money, old white candidate complains that she's making money. Woman gets popular vote and is accused of being most qualified for job, old white candidate still thinks he's a better person for job because he says so. I hope plenty of your own camp is going to jump on you there because you're asserting sexism without evidence, cause I heard it was so terrible to assert corruption without evidence when it was adressed against your side... Of course it's not going to happen, cause we're not having an honest discussion. But hey, at least I can point it out, right? It felt more like the logical end parody of a hilariously dishonest line of discussion. Unless he's serious, in which case it's more of the same. Feels like I'm in a JFK conspiracy thread or something. Page after page of talk involving smoking guns that people imagine must exist somewhere. That's a valid position: I don't think there is anything shady happening, I don't think the system is corrupt. There is no conspiracy. Another valid position: I think there is something shady happening, I think the system is corrupt. There is a conspiracy. What I take issue with: I think there is something shady happening, I think the system is corrupt. But Hillary Clinton, who has been chosen by the democratic establishment to represent them, is completely exempt of that. That seems to be a pretty popular position here.
There's also another position: There are things happening that fall under the grey areas, but the truth is actually really boring.
|
Kasich and Cruz blocking Trump from hitting the number doesn't fix anything. He still has far and away the most votes. There's just no way you don't give it to Trump. What a silly thing. How can they ever imagine the majority accepting that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
