|
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 May 11 2016 00:13 ticklishmusic wrote:
howabout
improving healthcare access/cost by lowering drug prices and high insurance premiums
focus on early education and k-12 education
controlling the rising cost of college
reinvesting in heavy industry/ extraction communities
reducing emissions and investing in clean energy
regulating shadow banking, i e insurance, private markets and derivatives
increased research $ for alzheimers
creating an infrastructure bank + bond program to support development
criminal justice reform
etc
these are the ones off the top of my head/ the ones i care about the most
there are plenty of reasons to support hillary but people kind of try to ignore them and reduce it to a "well shes a dislikeable person and corrupt etc etc"
What on that list will Republicans help Hillary make happen?
Hillary's site is full of things she "introduced" (and went nowhere or didn't even have a cosponsor) as if they made a difference. In a townhall she also mentioned her plan is to suggest these things, she's doesn't even try to claim she will pass any of her agenda, just put it out there for Republicans to shoot down.
On the voting thing she's far from earning my vote and is showing no inclination to earn it so I won't be voting for her. Gary Johnson has always been a little crazy, but he's more likely to get my vote than Hillary at the moment. I'm quite flexible when it comes to policy positions, but I won't vote for someone I don't, won't, and can't trust (I'm not alone, most of America doesn't trust her, and for good reason).
|
Cruz's delegates have a lot of power on changing rules, platform, etc. Plus this gives his dejected delegates a reason to go. Not really much to see there, although I'm curious if the rules will change at all.
|
On May 11 2016 02:20 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 02:03 SolaR- wrote:On May 10 2016 08:19 SK.Testie wrote:On May 10 2016 07:26 Acrofales wrote:On May 10 2016 07:03 Ghostcom wrote:On May 10 2016 06:41 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2016 06:37 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2016 06:34 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2016 06:28 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2016 05:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
I don't think we have a whole lot to discuss, you and me, so I will politely leave that discussion. I didn't have you pegged as one of those left wingers who is afflicted with retrograde illiberalism. Looks like I was wrong. Someone politely tells him that they don’t see a lot to be gained by the discussion, XDaunt calls them stupid. As I expected. You may want to try reading what I wrote again. I did not call him stupid. My complaint is very different. I am sure I could perform a full breakdown of the specific wording and use of the world “afflicted” as opposed to “subscriber” or “believer” to prove that you meant to imply he has limited mental capacity due his views. But I don’t have time for that and sometimes it’s nice to cut through the passive aggressive nerd bullshit and just call a spade and spade. Then let's cut through it: Do you really think it reasonable to denigrate someone and then "politely" excuse yourself from the discussion when your unsubstantiated claims meets reality? Because that was exactly what Biff did. He even managed to equate voting for Trump/Le Pen/Fahrad with Hitler and Mussolini and yet you still consider him polite? People voting for Trump is not an argument against democracy - it is an argument against the current politicians and their deafness towards a large segment of the population. If you want people to vote for someone else, listen to their concerns instead of trying to silence them (for the vast majority their concerns aren't founded in neither bigotry nor racism), and then give them a better alternative. It's almost as if the average politician forgot about the "representative" part in a representative democracy. 1. Socioeconomic problems (white privilege eroding, economy not doing well, general instability of where people see themselves and their country down the road) 2. Unrest leads to scapegoating (Mexicans, Muslims) 3. Populist suggests policies targeting scapegoats Trump's points to address point 1 directly are laughable, but we can at least have a sensible discussion about them. His main platform, however, is point number 3. I reject that position outright, and we SHOULD ignore people wanting to talk about policies regarding singling out muslims, or building walls for mexicans, because we should not take that type of stupid scapegoating seriously. We should have a sensible discussion about immigration policy reform. We should not have it on the assumption that mexicans are rapists and murderers. We should have a discussion about how to deal with radical Islam abroad, and foreign policy to deal with it. We should not have it on the basis of banning all muslims from entering the US. "Illegals don't rape at a rate higher than the normal populace!" the left will cry. Actually, they do. By a lot. Again, I need to post this again it seems. From an extremely leftist news source even. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972.html So here is literal proof of saying, "Hey.. 4 out of 5 women are getting raped" and the left responds with righteous indignation, "omg how could you. They don't rape more than anyone else". "Uhh.. but.. 4 out of 5.." "You fucking racist bigot." "No really.. this is a problem and I don't want this on our hands. This problem doesn't belong to us." "RACISTTTTT." Are we seriously to pretend that a country that doesn't solve 99% of its murders and is cartel country is really our loving, totally equal companion? Egalitarian fantasy much? Also, it is the peoples country. And the polls suggest (even among democrats) that banning all Muslim entry temporarily is favorable. If the people of the country agree, how is that not acceptable? Poland is 100% against Muslim immigration and against Islam in general. That's their country, they are very free to do that. Germany and Sweden are not. Does anyone want to live in Malmo Sweden where grenades have gone off because they were top of the charts on tolerance? What did their tolerance get them? Mexican government providing the manual. So yes, it's true for Trump to say, "When Mexico sends its people" http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/world/americas/a-mexican-manual-for-illegal-migrants-upsets-some-in-us.htmlSo answer this after reading those. When Trump says, "When Mexico sends their people, they're not sending their best etc." Is he wrong? Is he wrong on that statement? Does Islam integrate well with western nations? How is building a wall a terrible idea when Mexico is proven to be actively sending their poorest people and trying to get rid of them. Mexico itself treats illegal immigrants very harshly. Why should the US treat them with such tender love and care when these same people did not respect the law? Countries aren't shelters for the needy and you cannot take in all of the worlds poor and somehow give them a better life in America. These are two very popular positions in the US. Since when does anyone else in the world have a right to move into your country against your peoples wishes? If the USA said, "alright, no more Canadians for a while until they say the word about properly" even as silly as that is, they could make that distinction because it is their country. They are 100% ok to make the silliest fucking laws they want if that's their peoples wish. I've found Europeans especially pretentious and overly liberal about Americas problems. Comparing tiny Scandinavian countries to America is ludicrous. Even comparing the UK and Germany to America is ludicrous. I myself used to be on that European side. The left Jon Stewart side. I still am in many ways, but right now I think America desperately needs Trump. They have real issues that have been ignored. But not just ignored, completely ridiculed and then they themselves are ostracized. And don't dodge the question on Mexican illegals up there. Someone from the left had better answer to it. 4 out of 5 women raped, and the mexican government has been proven to be helping them along to break the law to enter America. The question is: Is Trump wrong to be saying that they aren't sending their bests and that a lot of rape, crime, and drugs comes with them? Considering that they've all broken the law to enter the country, the crime rate is literally 100%. Testie, I 100% agree with your reasoning and i believe that we are both coming from the same place in support of Trump. I am too, typically very liberal on many social issues, yet i find myself very intrigued by Trump's proposals. Trump is not a racist or a bigot. He is a man who speaks his mind and openly addresses the issue even if it doesnt fit under political correctness. With that said, i think democrats and liberals are severely underestimating the base of trump supporters. Trump has way more appeal to swing democrats to vote for him than clinton has for republicans. Trump has managed to keep his campaign broad enough to draw in supporters from all walks of life. Are you two literally against the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy in favor of "civil rights only matter to the people I deem they're okay for" This is just sick.
How are we against innocent until proven guilty? How are we against civil rights? If anything it's those arguing with us that have a clear disdain for the rule of law.
|
New York City Board of Elections Executive Director Michael J. Ryan, and the majority of the Board Commissioners knew about the purging of nearly 160,000 residents from the voting rolls as early as July of last year and apparently sat on their hands, Kings County Politics has learned.
According to minutes of the July 7, 2015 meeting, Ryan reported on the Voter Cancellation Process saying, “The total amount of Intent to Cancel (ITC) Letters mailed citywide were 168,197. The total amount of voters cancelled is 157,057. The total amount of National Change of Address (NCOA) Letters that are “Moved Out of the City” are 43,505, and the total amount of “Transfers” are 75,797.
Also according to the minutes Brooklyn BOE Commissioner John Flateau inquired about the high amount of voter cancellations in Brooklyn based on the report. He also requested for cancellation numbers by Assembly District, if possible, for Brooklyn.
According to the minutes, those present at the meeting included: Commissioners Jose Araujo, Ronald Castorina, John Flateau, Maria R. Guastella, Alan Schulkin, Michael Rendino, Simon Shamoun, Frederic M. Umane.
KCP has made an inquiry to the BOE on how the commissioners followed up on this unusually high amount of voters being purged from the rolls, and the results of Flateau’s request for the cancellation numbers in Brooklyn by Assembly District.
Link
|
On May 11 2016 03:51 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 02:20 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 11 2016 02:03 SolaR- wrote:On May 10 2016 08:19 SK.Testie wrote:On May 10 2016 07:26 Acrofales wrote:On May 10 2016 07:03 Ghostcom wrote:On May 10 2016 06:41 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2016 06:37 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2016 06:34 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2016 06:28 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I didn't have you pegged as one of those left wingers who is afflicted with retrograde illiberalism. Looks like I was wrong. Someone politely tells him that they don’t see a lot to be gained by the discussion, XDaunt calls them stupid. As I expected. You may want to try reading what I wrote again. I did not call him stupid. My complaint is very different. I am sure I could perform a full breakdown of the specific wording and use of the world “afflicted” as opposed to “subscriber” or “believer” to prove that you meant to imply he has limited mental capacity due his views. But I don’t have time for that and sometimes it’s nice to cut through the passive aggressive nerd bullshit and just call a spade and spade. Then let's cut through it: Do you really think it reasonable to denigrate someone and then "politely" excuse yourself from the discussion when your unsubstantiated claims meets reality? Because that was exactly what Biff did. He even managed to equate voting for Trump/Le Pen/Fahrad with Hitler and Mussolini and yet you still consider him polite? People voting for Trump is not an argument against democracy - it is an argument against the current politicians and their deafness towards a large segment of the population. If you want people to vote for someone else, listen to their concerns instead of trying to silence them (for the vast majority their concerns aren't founded in neither bigotry nor racism), and then give them a better alternative. It's almost as if the average politician forgot about the "representative" part in a representative democracy. 1. Socioeconomic problems (white privilege eroding, economy not doing well, general instability of where people see themselves and their country down the road) 2. Unrest leads to scapegoating (Mexicans, Muslims) 3. Populist suggests policies targeting scapegoats Trump's points to address point 1 directly are laughable, but we can at least have a sensible discussion about them. His main platform, however, is point number 3. I reject that position outright, and we SHOULD ignore people wanting to talk about policies regarding singling out muslims, or building walls for mexicans, because we should not take that type of stupid scapegoating seriously. We should have a sensible discussion about immigration policy reform. We should not have it on the assumption that mexicans are rapists and murderers. We should have a discussion about how to deal with radical Islam abroad, and foreign policy to deal with it. We should not have it on the basis of banning all muslims from entering the US. "Illegals don't rape at a rate higher than the normal populace!" the left will cry. Actually, they do. By a lot. Again, I need to post this again it seems. From an extremely leftist news source even. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972.html So here is literal proof of saying, "Hey.. 4 out of 5 women are getting raped" and the left responds with righteous indignation, "omg how could you. They don't rape more than anyone else". "Uhh.. but.. 4 out of 5.." "You fucking racist bigot." "No really.. this is a problem and I don't want this on our hands. This problem doesn't belong to us." "RACISTTTTT." Are we seriously to pretend that a country that doesn't solve 99% of its murders and is cartel country is really our loving, totally equal companion? Egalitarian fantasy much? Also, it is the peoples country. And the polls suggest (even among democrats) that banning all Muslim entry temporarily is favorable. If the people of the country agree, how is that not acceptable? Poland is 100% against Muslim immigration and against Islam in general. That's their country, they are very free to do that. Germany and Sweden are not. Does anyone want to live in Malmo Sweden where grenades have gone off because they were top of the charts on tolerance? What did their tolerance get them? Mexican government providing the manual. So yes, it's true for Trump to say, "When Mexico sends its people" http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/world/americas/a-mexican-manual-for-illegal-migrants-upsets-some-in-us.htmlSo answer this after reading those. When Trump says, "When Mexico sends their people, they're not sending their best etc." Is he wrong? Is he wrong on that statement? Does Islam integrate well with western nations? How is building a wall a terrible idea when Mexico is proven to be actively sending their poorest people and trying to get rid of them. Mexico itself treats illegal immigrants very harshly. Why should the US treat them with such tender love and care when these same people did not respect the law? Countries aren't shelters for the needy and you cannot take in all of the worlds poor and somehow give them a better life in America. These are two very popular positions in the US. Since when does anyone else in the world have a right to move into your country against your peoples wishes? If the USA said, "alright, no more Canadians for a while until they say the word about properly" even as silly as that is, they could make that distinction because it is their country. They are 100% ok to make the silliest fucking laws they want if that's their peoples wish. I've found Europeans especially pretentious and overly liberal about Americas problems. Comparing tiny Scandinavian countries to America is ludicrous. Even comparing the UK and Germany to America is ludicrous. I myself used to be on that European side. The left Jon Stewart side. I still am in many ways, but right now I think America desperately needs Trump. They have real issues that have been ignored. But not just ignored, completely ridiculed and then they themselves are ostracized. And don't dodge the question on Mexican illegals up there. Someone from the left had better answer to it. 4 out of 5 women raped, and the mexican government has been proven to be helping them along to break the law to enter America. The question is: Is Trump wrong to be saying that they aren't sending their bests and that a lot of rape, crime, and drugs comes with them? Considering that they've all broken the law to enter the country, the crime rate is literally 100%. Testie, I 100% agree with your reasoning and i believe that we are both coming from the same place in support of Trump. I am too, typically very liberal on many social issues, yet i find myself very intrigued by Trump's proposals. Trump is not a racist or a bigot. He is a man who speaks his mind and openly addresses the issue even if it doesnt fit under political correctness. With that said, i think democrats and liberals are severely underestimating the base of trump supporters. Trump has way more appeal to swing democrats to vote for him than clinton has for republicans. Trump has managed to keep his campaign broad enough to draw in supporters from all walks of life. Are you two literally against the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy in favor of "civil rights only matter to the people I deem they're okay for" This is just sick. How are we against innocent until proven guilty? How are we against civil rights? If anything it's those arguing with us that have a clear disdain for the rule of law.
Arguing that Mexicans in Mexico rapes people hence why Mexicans outside of Mexico rapes people is completely asinine and racist.
Mexico is not America, much like America is not Mexico. The social and judicial norms of Mexico allows for rape to be so high. For you two to believe that the tendency to rape if racially motivate and not sociatelly motivated is what makes it racist.
|
Where did that come across? We're saying that 4/5 women illegally going to the USA will likely be raped or have to use their bodies as some form of payment at the least. Other countries problems are their own. They are not ours. Sending them the message that they are not in fact welcome to just come across the border at any time they choose is a good thing for both countries. And it's a much clearer policy than the complete mess they have now that most importantly is in line with the actual law in place. It upholds the law so that you do not have to target the criminals in your country who already broke the law of not coming legally. There's a legal process there for a reason.
|
On May 11 2016 01:30 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2016 23:29 travis wrote:On May 10 2016 23:18 LemOn wrote:
And I'm wondering to Bernie supporters here - will you get up and vote for Hillary in the general election?
I really hope you won't be bitter and her beating Bernie won't stop you from helping Trump lose. I will not, because I don't support Hillary. I understand the logic behind voting for Hillary because you think she is better than other candidates (trump), but it's not the logic I use. It has nothing to do with being bitter, if Bernie never existed I still wouldn't be voting for Hillary. I do not vote for candidates that I do not believe hold general welfare above all else. Some people strongly believe that it is morally wrong to not vote against the worse candidate. I think there is an interesting philosophical discussion to be had there, it's one I have thought about a lot. It's not the conclusion I have come to. There is no material benefit to your "logic". If someone offers you the ability to be stabbed in the foot instead of the heart, the foot always makes sense. You just sound whiny. There's no candidate you feel great about voting for, so you just sit out. The lesser of two evils is always logical. You are a glowing example of why young people are not catered to. You give up and walk away from the political process when you encounter difficulty.
Material benefit? The benefit is that I am not supporting something I don't believe in.
I don't know how I could sound "whiny" when all I did was give a pretty short and direct reply to a question that was asked of me.
Also, do you know how old I am or something?
|
On May 11 2016 03:51 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 02:20 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 11 2016 02:03 SolaR- wrote:On May 10 2016 08:19 SK.Testie wrote:On May 10 2016 07:26 Acrofales wrote:On May 10 2016 07:03 Ghostcom wrote:On May 10 2016 06:41 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2016 06:37 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2016 06:34 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2016 06:28 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I didn't have you pegged as one of those left wingers who is afflicted with retrograde illiberalism. Looks like I was wrong. Someone politely tells him that they don’t see a lot to be gained by the discussion, XDaunt calls them stupid. As I expected. You may want to try reading what I wrote again. I did not call him stupid. My complaint is very different. I am sure I could perform a full breakdown of the specific wording and use of the world “afflicted” as opposed to “subscriber” or “believer” to prove that you meant to imply he has limited mental capacity due his views. But I don’t have time for that and sometimes it’s nice to cut through the passive aggressive nerd bullshit and just call a spade and spade. Then let's cut through it: Do you really think it reasonable to denigrate someone and then "politely" excuse yourself from the discussion when your unsubstantiated claims meets reality? Because that was exactly what Biff did. He even managed to equate voting for Trump/Le Pen/Fahrad with Hitler and Mussolini and yet you still consider him polite? People voting for Trump is not an argument against democracy - it is an argument against the current politicians and their deafness towards a large segment of the population. If you want people to vote for someone else, listen to their concerns instead of trying to silence them (for the vast majority their concerns aren't founded in neither bigotry nor racism), and then give them a better alternative. It's almost as if the average politician forgot about the "representative" part in a representative democracy. 1. Socioeconomic problems (white privilege eroding, economy not doing well, general instability of where people see themselves and their country down the road) 2. Unrest leads to scapegoating (Mexicans, Muslims) 3. Populist suggests policies targeting scapegoats Trump's points to address point 1 directly are laughable, but we can at least have a sensible discussion about them. His main platform, however, is point number 3. I reject that position outright, and we SHOULD ignore people wanting to talk about policies regarding singling out muslims, or building walls for mexicans, because we should not take that type of stupid scapegoating seriously. We should have a sensible discussion about immigration policy reform. We should not have it on the assumption that mexicans are rapists and murderers. We should have a discussion about how to deal with radical Islam abroad, and foreign policy to deal with it. We should not have it on the basis of banning all muslims from entering the US. "Illegals don't rape at a rate higher than the normal populace!" the left will cry. Actually, they do. By a lot. Again, I need to post this again it seems. From an extremely leftist news source even. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972.html So here is literal proof of saying, "Hey.. 4 out of 5 women are getting raped" and the left responds with righteous indignation, "omg how could you. They don't rape more than anyone else". "Uhh.. but.. 4 out of 5.." "You fucking racist bigot." "No really.. this is a problem and I don't want this on our hands. This problem doesn't belong to us." "RACISTTTTT." Are we seriously to pretend that a country that doesn't solve 99% of its murders and is cartel country is really our loving, totally equal companion? Egalitarian fantasy much? Also, it is the peoples country. And the polls suggest (even among democrats) that banning all Muslim entry temporarily is favorable. If the people of the country agree, how is that not acceptable? Poland is 100% against Muslim immigration and against Islam in general. That's their country, they are very free to do that. Germany and Sweden are not. Does anyone want to live in Malmo Sweden where grenades have gone off because they were top of the charts on tolerance? What did their tolerance get them? Mexican government providing the manual. So yes, it's true for Trump to say, "When Mexico sends its people" http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/world/americas/a-mexican-manual-for-illegal-migrants-upsets-some-in-us.htmlSo answer this after reading those. When Trump says, "When Mexico sends their people, they're not sending their best etc." Is he wrong? Is he wrong on that statement? Does Islam integrate well with western nations? How is building a wall a terrible idea when Mexico is proven to be actively sending their poorest people and trying to get rid of them. Mexico itself treats illegal immigrants very harshly. Why should the US treat them with such tender love and care when these same people did not respect the law? Countries aren't shelters for the needy and you cannot take in all of the worlds poor and somehow give them a better life in America. These are two very popular positions in the US. Since when does anyone else in the world have a right to move into your country against your peoples wishes? If the USA said, "alright, no more Canadians for a while until they say the word about properly" even as silly as that is, they could make that distinction because it is their country. They are 100% ok to make the silliest fucking laws they want if that's their peoples wish. I've found Europeans especially pretentious and overly liberal about Americas problems. Comparing tiny Scandinavian countries to America is ludicrous. Even comparing the UK and Germany to America is ludicrous. I myself used to be on that European side. The left Jon Stewart side. I still am in many ways, but right now I think America desperately needs Trump. They have real issues that have been ignored. But not just ignored, completely ridiculed and then they themselves are ostracized. And don't dodge the question on Mexican illegals up there. Someone from the left had better answer to it. 4 out of 5 women raped, and the mexican government has been proven to be helping them along to break the law to enter America. The question is: Is Trump wrong to be saying that they aren't sending their bests and that a lot of rape, crime, and drugs comes with them? Considering that they've all broken the law to enter the country, the crime rate is literally 100%. Testie, I 100% agree with your reasoning and i believe that we are both coming from the same place in support of Trump. I am too, typically very liberal on many social issues, yet i find myself very intrigued by Trump's proposals. Trump is not a racist or a bigot. He is a man who speaks his mind and openly addresses the issue even if it doesnt fit under political correctness. With that said, i think democrats and liberals are severely underestimating the base of trump supporters. Trump has way more appeal to swing democrats to vote for him than clinton has for republicans. Trump has managed to keep his campaign broad enough to draw in supporters from all walks of life. Are you two literally against the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy in favor of "civil rights only matter to the people I deem they're okay for" This is just sick. How are we against innocent until proven guilty? How are we against civil rights? If anything it's those arguing with us that have a clear disdain for the rule of law.
Just because a mexican in mexico raped someone does not mean the mexican you see outside of mexico will rape someone. You have to wait until there is evidence or proof of guilt before assuming they are guilty of being rapists. The civil rights that America believes in, the rights of fairness, equality, and being given a chance at things--that is something we should give to everyone and not just the select few we allow.
|
On May 11 2016 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +New York City Board of Elections Executive Director Michael J. Ryan, and the majority of the Board Commissioners knew about the purging of nearly 160,000 residents from the voting rolls as early as July of last year and apparently sat on their hands, Kings County Politics has learned.
According to minutes of the July 7, 2015 meeting, Ryan reported on the Voter Cancellation Process saying, “The total amount of Intent to Cancel (ITC) Letters mailed citywide were 168,197. The total amount of voters cancelled is 157,057. The total amount of National Change of Address (NCOA) Letters that are “Moved Out of the City” are 43,505, and the total amount of “Transfers” are 75,797.
Also according to the minutes Brooklyn BOE Commissioner John Flateau inquired about the high amount of voter cancellations in Brooklyn based on the report. He also requested for cancellation numbers by Assembly District, if possible, for Brooklyn.
According to the minutes, those present at the meeting included: Commissioners Jose Araujo, Ronald Castorina, John Flateau, Maria R. Guastella, Alan Schulkin, Michael Rendino, Simon Shamoun, Frederic M. Umane.
KCP has made an inquiry to the BOE on how the commissioners followed up on this unusually high amount of voters being purged from the rolls, and the results of Flateau’s request for the cancellation numbers in Brooklyn by Assembly District. Link
The meeting is on 7/7/2015, while Bernie Sanders's campaign was launched on 5/26/2015... are you seriously suggesting that something come out in a meeting 1 month later, before Bernie established as a serious contender, where the issue discussed most likely was before him even entering the race, was a systematically conspiracy against him??!
|
On May 11 2016 04:18 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 01:30 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2016 23:29 travis wrote:On May 10 2016 23:18 LemOn wrote:
And I'm wondering to Bernie supporters here - will you get up and vote for Hillary in the general election?
I really hope you won't be bitter and her beating Bernie won't stop you from helping Trump lose. I will not, because I don't support Hillary. I understand the logic behind voting for Hillary because you think she is better than other candidates (trump), but it's not the logic I use. It has nothing to do with being bitter, if Bernie never existed I still wouldn't be voting for Hillary. I do not vote for candidates that I do not believe hold general welfare above all else. Some people strongly believe that it is morally wrong to not vote against the worse candidate. I think there is an interesting philosophical discussion to be had there, it's one I have thought about a lot. It's not the conclusion I have come to. There is no material benefit to your "logic". If someone offers you the ability to be stabbed in the foot instead of the heart, the foot always makes sense. You just sound whiny. There's no candidate you feel great about voting for, so you just sit out. The lesser of two evils is always logical. You are a glowing example of why young people are not catered to. You give up and walk away from the political process when you encounter difficulty. Material benefit? The benefit is that I am not supporting something I don't believe in. I don't know how I could sound "whiny" when all I did was give a pretty short and direct reply to a question that was asked of me. Also, do you know how old I am or something?
I think this focus on trust and belief is a little weird. You're voting for a president, not your spiritual savior. The trustworthiness thing is way overstated, we're still talking about politics here.
|
On May 11 2016 04:18 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 01:30 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2016 23:29 travis wrote:On May 10 2016 23:18 LemOn wrote:
And I'm wondering to Bernie supporters here - will you get up and vote for Hillary in the general election?
I really hope you won't be bitter and her beating Bernie won't stop you from helping Trump lose. I will not, because I don't support Hillary. I understand the logic behind voting for Hillary because you think she is better than other candidates (trump), but it's not the logic I use. It has nothing to do with being bitter, if Bernie never existed I still wouldn't be voting for Hillary. I do not vote for candidates that I do not believe hold general welfare above all else. Some people strongly believe that it is morally wrong to not vote against the worse candidate. I think there is an interesting philosophical discussion to be had there, it's one I have thought about a lot. It's not the conclusion I have come to. There is no material benefit to your "logic". If someone offers you the ability to be stabbed in the foot instead of the heart, the foot always makes sense. You just sound whiny. There's no candidate you feel great about voting for, so you just sit out. The lesser of two evils is always logical. You are a glowing example of why young people are not catered to. You give up and walk away from the political process when you encounter difficulty. Material benefit? The benefit is that I am not supporting something I don't believe in. I don't know how I could sound "whiny" when all I did was give a pretty short and direct reply to a question that was asked of me. Also, do you know how old I am or something?
The goal of elections is to build a government, not to elect a friend. If you think voting for 1 member of a thousand+ size industry is about what you believe in and is not about making sure that industry doesn't break--then it shows that what you care about is how you feel instead of actually building a government body. Its what makes you sound whiny, its what makes you sound childish. What moohdoo is implying is that he hopes you're an inexperienced youth, because an adult acting this foolish would have no excuses other than stupidity.
|
On May 11 2016 04:19 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 03:51 SK.Testie wrote:On May 11 2016 02:20 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 11 2016 02:03 SolaR- wrote:On May 10 2016 08:19 SK.Testie wrote:On May 10 2016 07:26 Acrofales wrote:On May 10 2016 07:03 Ghostcom wrote:On May 10 2016 06:41 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2016 06:37 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2016 06:34 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Someone politely tells him that they don’t see a lot to be gained by the discussion, XDaunt calls them stupid. As I expected. You may want to try reading what I wrote again. I did not call him stupid. My complaint is very different. I am sure I could perform a full breakdown of the specific wording and use of the world “afflicted” as opposed to “subscriber” or “believer” to prove that you meant to imply he has limited mental capacity due his views. But I don’t have time for that and sometimes it’s nice to cut through the passive aggressive nerd bullshit and just call a spade and spade. Then let's cut through it: Do you really think it reasonable to denigrate someone and then "politely" excuse yourself from the discussion when your unsubstantiated claims meets reality? Because that was exactly what Biff did. He even managed to equate voting for Trump/Le Pen/Fahrad with Hitler and Mussolini and yet you still consider him polite? People voting for Trump is not an argument against democracy - it is an argument against the current politicians and their deafness towards a large segment of the population. If you want people to vote for someone else, listen to their concerns instead of trying to silence them (for the vast majority their concerns aren't founded in neither bigotry nor racism), and then give them a better alternative. It's almost as if the average politician forgot about the "representative" part in a representative democracy. 1. Socioeconomic problems (white privilege eroding, economy not doing well, general instability of where people see themselves and their country down the road) 2. Unrest leads to scapegoating (Mexicans, Muslims) 3. Populist suggests policies targeting scapegoats Trump's points to address point 1 directly are laughable, but we can at least have a sensible discussion about them. His main platform, however, is point number 3. I reject that position outright, and we SHOULD ignore people wanting to talk about policies regarding singling out muslims, or building walls for mexicans, because we should not take that type of stupid scapegoating seriously. We should have a sensible discussion about immigration policy reform. We should not have it on the assumption that mexicans are rapists and murderers. We should have a discussion about how to deal with radical Islam abroad, and foreign policy to deal with it. We should not have it on the basis of banning all muslims from entering the US. "Illegals don't rape at a rate higher than the normal populace!" the left will cry. Actually, they do. By a lot. Again, I need to post this again it seems. From an extremely leftist news source even. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972.html So here is literal proof of saying, "Hey.. 4 out of 5 women are getting raped" and the left responds with righteous indignation, "omg how could you. They don't rape more than anyone else". "Uhh.. but.. 4 out of 5.." "You fucking racist bigot." "No really.. this is a problem and I don't want this on our hands. This problem doesn't belong to us." "RACISTTTTT." Are we seriously to pretend that a country that doesn't solve 99% of its murders and is cartel country is really our loving, totally equal companion? Egalitarian fantasy much? Also, it is the peoples country. And the polls suggest (even among democrats) that banning all Muslim entry temporarily is favorable. If the people of the country agree, how is that not acceptable? Poland is 100% against Muslim immigration and against Islam in general. That's their country, they are very free to do that. Germany and Sweden are not. Does anyone want to live in Malmo Sweden where grenades have gone off because they were top of the charts on tolerance? What did their tolerance get them? Mexican government providing the manual. So yes, it's true for Trump to say, "When Mexico sends its people" http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/world/americas/a-mexican-manual-for-illegal-migrants-upsets-some-in-us.htmlSo answer this after reading those. When Trump says, "When Mexico sends their people, they're not sending their best etc." Is he wrong? Is he wrong on that statement? Does Islam integrate well with western nations? How is building a wall a terrible idea when Mexico is proven to be actively sending their poorest people and trying to get rid of them. Mexico itself treats illegal immigrants very harshly. Why should the US treat them with such tender love and care when these same people did not respect the law? Countries aren't shelters for the needy and you cannot take in all of the worlds poor and somehow give them a better life in America. These are two very popular positions in the US. Since when does anyone else in the world have a right to move into your country against your peoples wishes? If the USA said, "alright, no more Canadians for a while until they say the word about properly" even as silly as that is, they could make that distinction because it is their country. They are 100% ok to make the silliest fucking laws they want if that's their peoples wish. I've found Europeans especially pretentious and overly liberal about Americas problems. Comparing tiny Scandinavian countries to America is ludicrous. Even comparing the UK and Germany to America is ludicrous. I myself used to be on that European side. The left Jon Stewart side. I still am in many ways, but right now I think America desperately needs Trump. They have real issues that have been ignored. But not just ignored, completely ridiculed and then they themselves are ostracized. And don't dodge the question on Mexican illegals up there. Someone from the left had better answer to it. 4 out of 5 women raped, and the mexican government has been proven to be helping them along to break the law to enter America. The question is: Is Trump wrong to be saying that they aren't sending their bests and that a lot of rape, crime, and drugs comes with them? Considering that they've all broken the law to enter the country, the crime rate is literally 100%. Testie, I 100% agree with your reasoning and i believe that we are both coming from the same place in support of Trump. I am too, typically very liberal on many social issues, yet i find myself very intrigued by Trump's proposals. Trump is not a racist or a bigot. He is a man who speaks his mind and openly addresses the issue even if it doesnt fit under political correctness. With that said, i think democrats and liberals are severely underestimating the base of trump supporters. Trump has way more appeal to swing democrats to vote for him than clinton has for republicans. Trump has managed to keep his campaign broad enough to draw in supporters from all walks of life. Are you two literally against the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy in favor of "civil rights only matter to the people I deem they're okay for" This is just sick. How are we against innocent until proven guilty? How are we against civil rights? If anything it's those arguing with us that have a clear disdain for the rule of law. Just because a mexican in mexico raped someone does not mean the mexican you see outside of mexico will rape someone. You have to wait until there is evidence or proof of guilt before assuming they are guilty of being rapists. The civil rights that America believes in, the rights of fairness, equality, and being given a chance at things--that is something we should give to everyone and not just the select few we allow.
"Not just the select few we allow". You mean the ones who came legally, correct? So you're saying we should have an open border. Correct? Anyone anywhere should just be free to travel anywhere because we're all citizens of the earth? Equality and love for all etc?
Your argument is basically, "fuck the immigration law, it's a stupid law. Just let them come in and we'll take care of them".
|
On May 11 2016 04:24 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 04:18 travis wrote:On May 11 2016 01:30 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2016 23:29 travis wrote:On May 10 2016 23:18 LemOn wrote:
And I'm wondering to Bernie supporters here - will you get up and vote for Hillary in the general election?
I really hope you won't be bitter and her beating Bernie won't stop you from helping Trump lose. I will not, because I don't support Hillary. I understand the logic behind voting for Hillary because you think she is better than other candidates (trump), but it's not the logic I use. It has nothing to do with being bitter, if Bernie never existed I still wouldn't be voting for Hillary. I do not vote for candidates that I do not believe hold general welfare above all else. Some people strongly believe that it is morally wrong to not vote against the worse candidate. I think there is an interesting philosophical discussion to be had there, it's one I have thought about a lot. It's not the conclusion I have come to. There is no material benefit to your "logic". If someone offers you the ability to be stabbed in the foot instead of the heart, the foot always makes sense. You just sound whiny. There's no candidate you feel great about voting for, so you just sit out. The lesser of two evils is always logical. You are a glowing example of why young people are not catered to. You give up and walk away from the political process when you encounter difficulty. Material benefit? The benefit is that I am not supporting something I don't believe in. I don't know how I could sound "whiny" when all I did was give a pretty short and direct reply to a question that was asked of me. Also, do you know how old I am or something? I think this focus on trust and belief is a little weird. You're voting for a president, not your spiritual savior. The trustworthiness thing is way overstated, we're still talking about politics here.
I am sure every corrupt politician loves an opinion like this.
On May 11 2016 04:25 Naracs_Duc wrote:
The goal of elections is to build a government, not to elect a friend. If you think voting for 1 member of a thousand+ size industry is about what you believe in and is not about making sure that industry doesn't break--then it shows that what you care about is how you feel instead of actually building a government body.
If you think that Sanders will "break" the government, then I think you have no idea what you are talking about.
Its what makes you sound whiny, its what makes you sound childish.
so because I have a different opinion about things than you, it means I sound whiny and childish. Meanwhile, I guess you just know everything and are the most mature sounding person in the world. I'm just so stupid and you are so smart.
|
On May 11 2016 04:25 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 04:18 travis wrote:On May 11 2016 01:30 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2016 23:29 travis wrote:On May 10 2016 23:18 LemOn wrote:
And I'm wondering to Bernie supporters here - will you get up and vote for Hillary in the general election?
I really hope you won't be bitter and her beating Bernie won't stop you from helping Trump lose. I will not, because I don't support Hillary. I understand the logic behind voting for Hillary because you think she is better than other candidates (trump), but it's not the logic I use. It has nothing to do with being bitter, if Bernie never existed I still wouldn't be voting for Hillary. I do not vote for candidates that I do not believe hold general welfare above all else. Some people strongly believe that it is morally wrong to not vote against the worse candidate. I think there is an interesting philosophical discussion to be had there, it's one I have thought about a lot. It's not the conclusion I have come to. There is no material benefit to your "logic". If someone offers you the ability to be stabbed in the foot instead of the heart, the foot always makes sense. You just sound whiny. There's no candidate you feel great about voting for, so you just sit out. The lesser of two evils is always logical. You are a glowing example of why young people are not catered to. You give up and walk away from the political process when you encounter difficulty. Material benefit? The benefit is that I am not supporting something I don't believe in. I don't know how I could sound "whiny" when all I did was give a pretty short and direct reply to a question that was asked of me. Also, do you know how old I am or something? The goal of elections is to build a government, not to elect a friend. If you think voting for 1 member of a thousand+ size industry is about what you believe in and is not about making sure that industry doesn't break--then it shows that what you care about is how you feel instead of actually building a government body. Its what makes you sound whiny, its what makes you sound childish. What moohdoo is implying is that he hopes you're an inexperienced youth, because an adult acting this foolish would have no excuses other than stupidity.
What's childish is calling someone who's been in the Air Force stupid because he doesn't feel obligated to vote in an election in a country where it's not compulsory to do so.
|
On May 11 2016 04:32 travis wrote:
I am sure every corrupt politician loves an opinion like this.
I'm not sure in what way you are using this word here, because a lack of "trustworthiness" doesn't equal corruption in any meaningful way. Politicians will have to lie while doing their jobs for several reasons, in a lot of cases this might be happening in public interest.
|
On May 11 2016 04:33 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 04:25 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 11 2016 04:18 travis wrote:On May 11 2016 01:30 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2016 23:29 travis wrote:On May 10 2016 23:18 LemOn wrote:
And I'm wondering to Bernie supporters here - will you get up and vote for Hillary in the general election?
I really hope you won't be bitter and her beating Bernie won't stop you from helping Trump lose. I will not, because I don't support Hillary. I understand the logic behind voting for Hillary because you think she is better than other candidates (trump), but it's not the logic I use. It has nothing to do with being bitter, if Bernie never existed I still wouldn't be voting for Hillary. I do not vote for candidates that I do not believe hold general welfare above all else. Some people strongly believe that it is morally wrong to not vote against the worse candidate. I think there is an interesting philosophical discussion to be had there, it's one I have thought about a lot. It's not the conclusion I have come to. There is no material benefit to your "logic". If someone offers you the ability to be stabbed in the foot instead of the heart, the foot always makes sense. You just sound whiny. There's no candidate you feel great about voting for, so you just sit out. The lesser of two evils is always logical. You are a glowing example of why young people are not catered to. You give up and walk away from the political process when you encounter difficulty. Material benefit? The benefit is that I am not supporting something I don't believe in. I don't know how I could sound "whiny" when all I did was give a pretty short and direct reply to a question that was asked of me. Also, do you know how old I am or something? The goal of elections is to build a government, not to elect a friend. If you think voting for 1 member of a thousand+ size industry is about what you believe in and is not about making sure that industry doesn't break--then it shows that what you care about is how you feel instead of actually building a government body. Its what makes you sound whiny, its what makes you sound childish. What moohdoo is implying is that he hopes you're an inexperienced youth, because an adult acting this foolish would have no excuses other than stupidity. What's childish is calling someone who's been in the Air Force stupid because he doesn't feel obligated to vote in an election in a country where it's not compulsory to do so.
I know plenty of people in the armed services that are dumb as rocks. People are free not to vote and provide their reasoning for doing so. That does not make them immune to people saying their reasoning is really stupid.
|
On May 11 2016 04:40 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 04:32 travis wrote:
I am sure every corrupt politician loves an opinion like this.
I'm not sure in what way you are using this word here, because a lack of "trustworthiness" doesn't equal corruption in any meaningful way. Politicians will have to lie while doing their jobs for several reasons, in a lot of cases this might be happening in public interest.
ah, well, I am not sure I completely agree with that. But, I assumed that you knew my stances well enough to know I care more about corruption than trustworthiness, so I figured you were using trustworthiness to mean that we could trust them to do what is in the public's best interest.
I'd definitely prefer that my politicians don't lie, though. But I could understand there may be reasons why they do so.. or at least manipulate the truth. Or hide things. None of that stuff is as important to me as their actual actions, though.
|
The best hope for what’s left of a serious conservative movement in America is the election in November of a Democratic president, held in check by a Republican Congress. Conservatives can survive liberal administrations, especially those whose predictable failures lead to healthy restorations—think Carter, then Reagan. What isn’t survivable is a Republican president who is part Know Nothing, part Smoot-Hawley and part John Birch. The stain of a Trump administration would cripple the conservative cause for a generation.
This is the reality that wavering Republicans need to understand before casting their lot with a presumptive nominee they abhor only slightly less than his likely opponent. If the next presidency is going to be a disaster, why should the GOP want to own it?
In the 1990s, when another Clinton was president, conservatives became fond of the phrase “character counts.” This was a way of scoring points against Bill Clinton for his sexual predations and rhetorical misdirections, as well as a statement that Americans expected honor and dignity in the Oval Office. I’ll never forget the family friend, circa 1998, who wondered how she was supposed to explain the meaning of a euphemism for oral sex to her then 10-year-old daughter.
Conservatives still play the character card against Hillary Clinton, citing her disdain for other people’s rules, her Marie Antoinette airs and her potential law breaking. It’s a fair card to play, if only the presumptive Republican nominee weren’t himself a serial fabulist, an incorrigible self-mythologizer, a brash vulgarian, and, when it comes to his tax returns, a determined obfuscator. Endorsing Mr. Trump means permanently laying to rest any claim conservatives might ever again make on the character issue.
Source
|
On May 11 2016 04:23 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:New York City Board of Elections Executive Director Michael J. Ryan, and the majority of the Board Commissioners knew about the purging of nearly 160,000 residents from the voting rolls as early as July of last year and apparently sat on their hands, Kings County Politics has learned.
According to minutes of the July 7, 2015 meeting, Ryan reported on the Voter Cancellation Process saying, “The total amount of Intent to Cancel (ITC) Letters mailed citywide were 168,197. The total amount of voters cancelled is 157,057. The total amount of National Change of Address (NCOA) Letters that are “Moved Out of the City” are 43,505, and the total amount of “Transfers” are 75,797.
Also according to the minutes Brooklyn BOE Commissioner John Flateau inquired about the high amount of voter cancellations in Brooklyn based on the report. He also requested for cancellation numbers by Assembly District, if possible, for Brooklyn.
According to the minutes, those present at the meeting included: Commissioners Jose Araujo, Ronald Castorina, John Flateau, Maria R. Guastella, Alan Schulkin, Michael Rendino, Simon Shamoun, Frederic M. Umane.
KCP has made an inquiry to the BOE on how the commissioners followed up on this unusually high amount of voters being purged from the rolls, and the results of Flateau’s request for the cancellation numbers in Brooklyn by Assembly District. Link The meeting is on 7/7/2015, while Bernie Sanders's campaign was launched on 5/26/2015... are you seriously suggesting that something come out in a meeting 1 month later, before Bernie established as a serious contender, where the issue discussed most likely was before him even entering the race, was a systematically conspiracy against him??!
I'm not suggesting anything. Just updating on the massive purge. Doesn't matter to me if they were Bernie voters or not, at best, it shows a gross incompetence not becoming of the BOE. If it goes beyond incompetence/negligence the people responsible should be held accountable and there should be serious consequences if 100k voters were intentionally disenfranchised.
The city/state can't seem to keep their story straight. Though we have to keep in mind they were partially a model for some southern voter suppression laws.
Whole buildings dropped off of voter roles doesn't sound "usual" and if it is, that sounds like a usual problem, not just normal. That's ignoring that the reduction in voters was an anomaly. I'm inclined to agree more with the Comptroller on this one. The bar for running an acceptable elections operation has been abnormally low this cycle for sure though.
Speaking to CNN on Tuesday night, Board of Elections Executive Director Michael Ryan pushed back against the growing criticism, saying, "We're not finding that there were issues throughout the city that are any different than what we experience in other elections."
Of the 126,000 Democratic voters taken off from the rolls in Brooklyn, Ryan said 12,000 had moved out of borough, while 44,000 more had been placed in an inactive file after mailings to their homes bounced back. An additional 70,000 were already inactive and, having failed to vote in two successive federal elections or respond to cancel notices, were removed.
"Since the eyes and ears of the world are on New York, issues that are relatively routine for any election are receiving greater scrutiny," he added.
In pledging to audit the board, the office of New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer issued a much stricter verdict.
"The people of New York City have lost confidence that the Board of Elections can effectively administer elections and we intend to find out why the BOE is so consistently disorganized, chaotic and inefficient," he said.
The Clinton campaign had no immediate comment when asked by CNN.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's voter complaint hotline received more than 1,000 complaints throughout the day, Schneiderman's office said in a statement. The same office, he added, had heard only around 150 on the day of the 2012 general election
Link
|
A week ago Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) commandeered national media attention when he appeared live on CNN to announce that he was not yet able to back Donald Trump as the Republican presidential nominee.
Tuesday his spokesperson sent an email addressed to "The Fourth Estate" begging reporters to stop obsessing over Donald Trump and instead focus on House bills to address the opioid crisis.
"You should know that Thursday’s Ryan/Trump meeting is not the most important thing happening in DC this week. While it's a busy week on the political front, it also happens to be an important week on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives," spokeswoman AshLee Strong wrote in an email to reporters.
Strong noted that the House is scheduled to vote on 18 bills to address the opioid epidemic, listing them out for reporters.
"House Republicans promised swift action to tackle the opioid crisis and they are staying true to their word," she continued. "So while politics may have your attention right now, we hope you'll have time to review and write on this important and thoughtful action the House is about to take to tackle the disturbing opioid epidemic."
Ryan is now set to meet with Trump on Capitol Hill on Thursday. With both the House and Senate back in session this week, lawmakers have been forced to answer whether they will support Trump as the nominee, and they are already sick of it.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
