|
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. |
Canada11420 Posts
On May 14 2016 12:47 SK.Testie wrote:Well I made two statements. I have an idea that you assume the first one is trolling because banning press isn't necessarily acceptable. But is Buzzfeed really press? Is it really? They have a news section.. but is it really News? Huffington Post... like.. are you trolling by asking me if I'm trolling? + Show Spoiler + They might as well have just posted this on their website instead whenever Trump won a primary and it would have made more sense. + Show Spoiler +But perhaps you were really convinced by Michelle Fields and I really need to debunk her story with multiple views of video evidence that really show that maybe.. just maybe it wasn't "the worst incident in her life since the death of her father."
So then you are serious, because then I have a serious issue with your proposal. Recently, the NDP Alberta government tried to prevent a pretty trollish libertarian media group from showing up to press conferences because 'they weren't press'. A lot of the Canadian mainstream media came out swinging saying that although we dislike them (Rebel Media), government doesn't get to decide what is and is not press. And I think this is right. It's too much power to give to the State, which once ceded can be used against your own preferred media.
Free press is different than unbiased press. Hell, back in the 1800's most newspapers were just the political arms of individual politicians. Run for politics and start your own newspaper... or run your own newspaper and run for politics. I guess there were no delusions of 'fair and balance', but rather what you see is what you get. Regardless, surrendering the free press to government, even the most irritating elements of the media is not a wise thing to do.
|
On May 14 2016 15:39 Falling wrote:
So then you are serious.
No, I'm not serious about banning press. That was clearly a joke at the "press" that he felt comfortable keeping in the running. The other comments were attacks on how silly sites like Buzzfeed and Huffpo usually are. But yes, they can still be in the room.. if anyone takes them seriously enough. I'd be kind of disappointed with Obama if he takes questions from Buzzfeed tbh. Of course I'm serious about Michelle Fields. The woman hasn't an ounce of credibility and the left jumped on it like it was a gift from the heavens. Then they saw the tapes and purposely chose the one in locomotion and still tried to go with it. Then the charges were dropped and they're left looking like complete morons. But I guess in their minds it's... "Haha, the narrative will hold for election. Trump employs woman beating misogynists!" *Conveniently ignores lifetime of hiring practices that run to this day*
The truly golden ticket for perfect politics is here.
![[image loading]](https://i.sli.mg/v4tLau.jpg)
|
On May 14 2016 14:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2016 14:24 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 14:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 13:16 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 12:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 11:47 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 11:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 11:17 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 11:04 TMagpie wrote:
[quote]
Hilary's apology is actually a great example of the difference between Hilary and Bernie.
Hilary will no longer use the word, which is actual change.
Bernie gets stuck on word choice and rhetoric, because he doesn't actually want change.
Their supporters are the same.
Hilary supporters cares more that Hilary won't use the word anymore more than how she feels about it.
Sander's supporters get stuck on word choice and rhetoric because that's all Bernie's ever given them.
Which is sad really, to have people like you wanting what sounds good instead of what is good. Heck, you can't even get past the child comment, wanting specific word choice parallels from it instead of simply taking it for what it is. This is the legacy sander's is leaving behind, fanatics who are as stuck on rhetoric as he is.
She didn't apologize. She said she shouldn't have used it (didn't say why) and that she wouldn't say it again (no one says it). More importantly her and her supporters don't seem to understand what the problem was/is no matter how many times they are told. Rather than deal with the substance of the issues presented she and her supporters have relentlessly resorted to justifying behavior they would criticize if done by anyone else. Justifying? What justifying? People disliked what she said, so she won't say it again. For the most part she probably doesn't care what specific word choices was made more than a decade ago. Especially a word with that had a lot more gray area as to what it meant back then. Violent psychopaths that must be put in jail, that's a much more specific phrase that Bernie called your people. But you're okay with that, probably cause Bernie is white? Old? Doesn't really matter, so long as you're okay with it. You realize even oneofthem said he was intentionally mischaracterizing that quote? Is that what you're doing also, or are you being sincere? Some are saying it wasn't a big deal and she shouldn't apologize, others are saying it was wrong and she did apologize. None of you are even understanding my point, instead you're arguing the point Solar and them were making. Which, was not the one I was making. If you want to argue about the word in isolation, take that up with them. You're the one who's upset with her choosing to use the phrase "I won't do it again" instead "I'm sorry" so I'm not really sure why you're backtracking on her word choice usage now. Unless you're trying to move the goal post? I'm cool with that too, just let me know when you want to move it. Not moving goalposts just addressing the tangential arguments people were making instead of addressing the meat of my point. I'm not upset, I'm pointing out saying you shouldn't of done it and wont do it again is what I've always been taught comes after the "I'm sorry" or "I apologize". I can't possibly be the only person here that is accustomed to a real apology having something along the lines of "I'm Sorry" or "I apologize". Typically it's the part people include even in fake apologies. It's usually the part about why they shouldn't have done it that get's screwed up. She messed up both, she didn't say I'm sorry, and she didn't say why she should be sorry. On May 14 2016 12:11 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 11:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 11:43 Deathstar wrote:Funny thing about calling Hillary racist for the superpredator comment is that black people were the staunchest supporters of Bill Clinton's crime bill and were also the primary beneficiaries of the crime bill. It's not white people that were largely living in the crime infested urban cities. Enjoy the reality check.
Ms. Brock said she had been a social worker in charge of the removal of children from dangerous homes in the South Bronx and Spanish Harlem in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when crack tore a path of destruction through those neighborhoods.
“I saw it all,” Ms. Brock said. “Moms would give birth and leave the hospital to get a hit. My car got broken into every week. People were scared to walk down to the bodega, afraid they’d be followed and robbed.”
She said she was relieved when the crime bill passed. In addition to providing more money for prisons and the police, the law banned assault weapons and offered funding for drug courts and rehabilitation.
“Because of the crime bill,” she said, “anybody that wanted rehabilitation, we could process them and get them a detox bed in a hospital.”
Ms. Brock’s comments underscore a sometimes overlooked reality in today’s re-examination of the crime bill: The legislation was broadly embraced by nonwhite voters, more enthusiastically even than by white voters. About 58 percent of nonwhites supported it in 1994, according to a Gallup poll, compared with 49 percent of white voters.
Mr. Clinton has seemed rattled at times as he tries to defend the measure to younger African-Americans in an era in which concerns about mistreatment by the police and mass incarceration have eclipsed the fear of crime in many black communities.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-crime-bill.html?_r=0 For the umpteenth time, black people can be racist, support racist policies, and say racist things about other black people and it doesn't make it not racist. But I'm not even harping on the "racist" aspect of it. Though, she was talking about black youth gang members, and the notion that them being black had nothing to do with it is bunk. Since that's like the third time the "but black people supported it" line has been thrown out there and it's abundantly clear that my point isn't being engaged I'm just going to let it go. So a black person upset about crimes against blacks and wanting a government to help reduce crime against blacks, is racist? We already told you what Hilary said, she's against gangs, and if people are upset about her word choice to describe that then she will use a different word. It's a non story, calm down. No, I'm saying black people supporting something doesn't mean it's not racist. I'm zen bruh, maybe you need to calm down? But you're the only one upset. The victims of crime agreed with her. Most of her supporters agree with her. And if you don't like her word choice she's willing to change. You're the only one upset by her word choice of the past and her word choice in the present. Literally the primary one pointing it out--no one cares but you. Nothing is tangential, nothing of your argument is being ignored. Literally, nobody cares that she used a common word back then, especially not the people she was helping. So if you agree she wasn't being racist, and you agree that she said she won't do it again--then why do you care other than wanting her to get salty when you're the only one salty. I don't see you gettin mad at sander's for not apologizing calling people violent psychopaths. This is purely an anti Hilary attack because you're upset. Calm down. Maybe here but there's plenty of people upset about it. Some did some didn't. Of course they do. It's not simply a word choice issue for like the 4th time. Again not the only one, not just about "word choice", like that's all that made Trump's comments bad, "word choice", you're way to smart to try to sincerely make that argument. I didn't agree that she wasn't being racist, I said that's wasn't my point. No one uses the word anymore, that's hardly a concession. You're still ignoring that even oneofthem pointed out that's a misrepresentation of what Bernie said. I'll wait for the context Hillary supporters regularly expect/demand before I respond to this silliness. Heres what I don't get then. If her choice of words is not an issue with you, why does her talking about wanting to reduce violence in black communities offend you? What is it about her listening to black communities asking for that bill offend you? What makes a white person in power listening to people of color and providing them with they asked for something you find terrible? I mean, if word choice doesn't matter to you, and only her intention mattered to you--what is it about her agreeing with people of color under siege from the spike in crime in their area so terrible? Because, much like Bernie was trying to say something positive but used words that sound bad when taken out of context, so did Hilary. She knew what she was saying back then, much like the people of color who supported the bill knew what she was saying, and she's not going to change or deny her message just because some people get hung up on word choice. But she understands that if people care so much about word choice that she's willing to not use it--because the fact that she used the word super predator was not the point of the speech. So she's not going to double back and change what she meant back then to fit the narrative her opponents want it to be. You quoted my post but it's like you didn't read it. Me: It's not simply a word choice issue for like the 4th time. ...not just about "word choice" TMag: If her choice of words is not an issue with you. I know you're too smart for that to be unintentional, so I have to presume you're trolling at this point and I'm not going to engage with that.
GH you literally said it didn't count because *you* want her to say the words "I'm sorry" and the words "I should not have said it, I won't say it again" does not count. The only issue you have is that she used the term superpredators when talking about gang members, because *you* associate the word choice with racial attacks on blacks. Without those word choice issues all you have is a First Lady giving a speech about how a poor community in need is finally getting the help that they've been asking for.
Telling me that you don't care about word choice is dishonest.
|
On May 14 2016 22:38 TMagpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2016 14:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 14:24 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 14:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 13:16 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 12:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 11:47 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 11:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 11:17 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
She didn't apologize. She said she shouldn't have used it (didn't say why) and that she wouldn't say it again (no one says it). More importantly her and her supporters don't seem to understand what the problem was/is no matter how many times they are told.
Rather than deal with the substance of the issues presented she and her supporters have relentlessly resorted to justifying behavior they would criticize if done by anyone else. Justifying? What justifying? People disliked what she said, so she won't say it again. For the most part she probably doesn't care what specific word choices was made more than a decade ago. Especially a word with that had a lot more gray area as to what it meant back then. Violent psychopaths that must be put in jail, that's a much more specific phrase that Bernie called your people. But you're okay with that, probably cause Bernie is white? Old? Doesn't really matter, so long as you're okay with it. You realize even oneofthem said he was intentionally mischaracterizing that quote? Is that what you're doing also, or are you being sincere? Some are saying it wasn't a big deal and she shouldn't apologize, others are saying it was wrong and she did apologize. None of you are even understanding my point, instead you're arguing the point Solar and them were making. Which, was not the one I was making. If you want to argue about the word in isolation, take that up with them. You're the one who's upset with her choosing to use the phrase "I won't do it again" instead "I'm sorry" so I'm not really sure why you're backtracking on her word choice usage now. Unless you're trying to move the goal post? I'm cool with that too, just let me know when you want to move it. Not moving goalposts just addressing the tangential arguments people were making instead of addressing the meat of my point. I'm not upset, I'm pointing out saying you shouldn't of done it and wont do it again is what I've always been taught comes after the "I'm sorry" or "I apologize". I can't possibly be the only person here that is accustomed to a real apology having something along the lines of "I'm Sorry" or "I apologize". Typically it's the part people include even in fake apologies. It's usually the part about why they shouldn't have done it that get's screwed up. She messed up both, she didn't say I'm sorry, and she didn't say why she should be sorry. On May 14 2016 12:11 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 11:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 11:43 Deathstar wrote:Funny thing about calling Hillary racist for the superpredator comment is that black people were the staunchest supporters of Bill Clinton's crime bill and were also the primary beneficiaries of the crime bill. It's not white people that were largely living in the crime infested urban cities. Enjoy the reality check.
Ms. Brock said she had been a social worker in charge of the removal of children from dangerous homes in the South Bronx and Spanish Harlem in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when crack tore a path of destruction through those neighborhoods.
“I saw it all,” Ms. Brock said. “Moms would give birth and leave the hospital to get a hit. My car got broken into every week. People were scared to walk down to the bodega, afraid they’d be followed and robbed.”
She said she was relieved when the crime bill passed. In addition to providing more money for prisons and the police, the law banned assault weapons and offered funding for drug courts and rehabilitation.
“Because of the crime bill,” she said, “anybody that wanted rehabilitation, we could process them and get them a detox bed in a hospital.”
Ms. Brock’s comments underscore a sometimes overlooked reality in today’s re-examination of the crime bill: The legislation was broadly embraced by nonwhite voters, more enthusiastically even than by white voters. About 58 percent of nonwhites supported it in 1994, according to a Gallup poll, compared with 49 percent of white voters.
Mr. Clinton has seemed rattled at times as he tries to defend the measure to younger African-Americans in an era in which concerns about mistreatment by the police and mass incarceration have eclipsed the fear of crime in many black communities.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-crime-bill.html?_r=0 For the umpteenth time, black people can be racist, support racist policies, and say racist things about other black people and it doesn't make it not racist. But I'm not even harping on the "racist" aspect of it. Though, she was talking about black youth gang members, and the notion that them being black had nothing to do with it is bunk. Since that's like the third time the "but black people supported it" line has been thrown out there and it's abundantly clear that my point isn't being engaged I'm just going to let it go. So a black person upset about crimes against blacks and wanting a government to help reduce crime against blacks, is racist? We already told you what Hilary said, she's against gangs, and if people are upset about her word choice to describe that then she will use a different word. It's a non story, calm down. No, I'm saying black people supporting something doesn't mean it's not racist. I'm zen bruh, maybe you need to calm down? But you're the only one upset. The victims of crime agreed with her. Most of her supporters agree with her. And if you don't like her word choice she's willing to change. You're the only one upset by her word choice of the past and her word choice in the present. Literally the primary one pointing it out--no one cares but you. Nothing is tangential, nothing of your argument is being ignored. Literally, nobody cares that she used a common word back then, especially not the people she was helping. So if you agree she wasn't being racist, and you agree that she said she won't do it again--then why do you care other than wanting her to get salty when you're the only one salty. I don't see you gettin mad at sander's for not apologizing calling people violent psychopaths. This is purely an anti Hilary attack because you're upset. Calm down. Maybe here but there's plenty of people upset about it. Some did some didn't. Of course they do. It's not simply a word choice issue for like the 4th time. Again not the only one, not just about "word choice", like that's all that made Trump's comments bad, "word choice", you're way to smart to try to sincerely make that argument. I didn't agree that she wasn't being racist, I said that's wasn't my point. No one uses the word anymore, that's hardly a concession. You're still ignoring that even oneofthem pointed out that's a misrepresentation of what Bernie said. I'll wait for the context Hillary supporters regularly expect/demand before I respond to this silliness. Heres what I don't get then. If her choice of words is not an issue with you, why does her talking about wanting to reduce violence in black communities offend you? What is it about her listening to black communities asking for that bill offend you? What makes a white person in power listening to people of color and providing them with they asked for something you find terrible? I mean, if word choice doesn't matter to you, and only her intention mattered to you--what is it about her agreeing with people of color under siege from the spike in crime in their area so terrible? Because, much like Bernie was trying to say something positive but used words that sound bad when taken out of context, so did Hilary. She knew what she was saying back then, much like the people of color who supported the bill knew what she was saying, and she's not going to change or deny her message just because some people get hung up on word choice. But she understands that if people care so much about word choice that she's willing to not use it--because the fact that she used the word super predator was not the point of the speech. So she's not going to double back and change what she meant back then to fit the narrative her opponents want it to be. You quoted my post but it's like you didn't read it. Me: It's not simply a word choice issue for like the 4th time. ...not just about "word choice" TMag: If her choice of words is not an issue with you. I know you're too smart for that to be unintentional, so I have to presume you're trolling at this point and I'm not going to engage with that. GH you literally said it didn't count because *you* want her to say the words "I'm sorry" and the words "I should not have said it, I won't say it again" does not count. The only issue you have is that she used the term superpredators when talking about gang members, because *you* associate the word choice with racial attacks on blacks. Without those word choice issues all you have is a First Lady giving a speech about how a poor community in need is finally getting the help that they've been asking for.
I think it's safe to say we're not going to see this the same way. Knowing families devastated by ignorant policies on crime many directly springing from the crap her and her husband (along with a bunch more schmucks) were pushing in that speech and beyond certainly influences my perspective.
That you're still fixated on the remark itself s(and non-apology) shows you have no clue what people are actually mad about.
|
On May 14 2016 23:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2016 22:38 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 14:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 14:24 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 14:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 13:16 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 12:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 11:47 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 11:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 11:17 TMagpie wrote:
[quote]
Justifying? What justifying? People disliked what she said, so she won't say it again. For the most part she probably doesn't care what specific word choices was made more than a decade ago. Especially a word with that had a lot more gray area as to what it meant back then.
Violent psychopaths that must be put in jail, that's a much more specific phrase that Bernie called your people. But you're okay with that, probably cause Bernie is white? Old? Doesn't really matter, so long as you're okay with it. You realize even oneofthem said he was intentionally mischaracterizing that quote? Is that what you're doing also, or are you being sincere? Some are saying it wasn't a big deal and she shouldn't apologize, others are saying it was wrong and she did apologize. None of you are even understanding my point, instead you're arguing the point Solar and them were making. Which, was not the one I was making. If you want to argue about the word in isolation, take that up with them. You're the one who's upset with her choosing to use the phrase "I won't do it again" instead "I'm sorry" so I'm not really sure why you're backtracking on her word choice usage now. Unless you're trying to move the goal post? I'm cool with that too, just let me know when you want to move it. Not moving goalposts just addressing the tangential arguments people were making instead of addressing the meat of my point. I'm not upset, I'm pointing out saying you shouldn't of done it and wont do it again is what I've always been taught comes after the "I'm sorry" or "I apologize". I can't possibly be the only person here that is accustomed to a real apology having something along the lines of "I'm Sorry" or "I apologize". Typically it's the part people include even in fake apologies. It's usually the part about why they shouldn't have done it that get's screwed up. She messed up both, she didn't say I'm sorry, and she didn't say why she should be sorry. On May 14 2016 12:11 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 11:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 11:43 Deathstar wrote:Funny thing about calling Hillary racist for the superpredator comment is that black people were the staunchest supporters of Bill Clinton's crime bill and were also the primary beneficiaries of the crime bill. It's not white people that were largely living in the crime infested urban cities. Enjoy the reality check. [quote] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-crime-bill.html?_r=0 For the umpteenth time, black people can be racist, support racist policies, and say racist things about other black people and it doesn't make it not racist. But I'm not even harping on the "racist" aspect of it. Though, she was talking about black youth gang members, and the notion that them being black had nothing to do with it is bunk. Since that's like the third time the "but black people supported it" line has been thrown out there and it's abundantly clear that my point isn't being engaged I'm just going to let it go. So a black person upset about crimes against blacks and wanting a government to help reduce crime against blacks, is racist? We already told you what Hilary said, she's against gangs, and if people are upset about her word choice to describe that then she will use a different word. It's a non story, calm down. No, I'm saying black people supporting something doesn't mean it's not racist. I'm zen bruh, maybe you need to calm down? But you're the only one upset. The victims of crime agreed with her. Most of her supporters agree with her. And if you don't like her word choice she's willing to change. You're the only one upset by her word choice of the past and her word choice in the present. Literally the primary one pointing it out--no one cares but you. Nothing is tangential, nothing of your argument is being ignored. Literally, nobody cares that she used a common word back then, especially not the people she was helping. So if you agree she wasn't being racist, and you agree that she said she won't do it again--then why do you care other than wanting her to get salty when you're the only one salty. I don't see you gettin mad at sander's for not apologizing calling people violent psychopaths. This is purely an anti Hilary attack because you're upset. Calm down. Maybe here but there's plenty of people upset about it. Some did some didn't. Of course they do. It's not simply a word choice issue for like the 4th time. Again not the only one, not just about "word choice", like that's all that made Trump's comments bad, "word choice", you're way to smart to try to sincerely make that argument. I didn't agree that she wasn't being racist, I said that's wasn't my point. No one uses the word anymore, that's hardly a concession. You're still ignoring that even oneofthem pointed out that's a misrepresentation of what Bernie said. I'll wait for the context Hillary supporters regularly expect/demand before I respond to this silliness. Heres what I don't get then. If her choice of words is not an issue with you, why does her talking about wanting to reduce violence in black communities offend you? What is it about her listening to black communities asking for that bill offend you? What makes a white person in power listening to people of color and providing them with they asked for something you find terrible? I mean, if word choice doesn't matter to you, and only her intention mattered to you--what is it about her agreeing with people of color under siege from the spike in crime in their area so terrible? Because, much like Bernie was trying to say something positive but used words that sound bad when taken out of context, so did Hilary. She knew what she was saying back then, much like the people of color who supported the bill knew what she was saying, and she's not going to change or deny her message just because some people get hung up on word choice. But she understands that if people care so much about word choice that she's willing to not use it--because the fact that she used the word super predator was not the point of the speech. So she's not going to double back and change what she meant back then to fit the narrative her opponents want it to be. You quoted my post but it's like you didn't read it. Me: It's not simply a word choice issue for like the 4th time. ...not just about "word choice" TMag: If her choice of words is not an issue with you. I know you're too smart for that to be unintentional, so I have to presume you're trolling at this point and I'm not going to engage with that. GH you literally said it didn't count because *you* want her to say the words "I'm sorry" and the words "I should not have said it, I won't say it again" does not count. The only issue you have is that she used the term superpredators when talking about gang members, because *you* associate the word choice with racial attacks on blacks. Without those word choice issues all you have is a First Lady giving a speech about how a poor community in need is finally getting the help that they've been asking for. I think it's safe to say we're not going to see this the same way. Knowing families devastated by ignorant policies on crime many directly springing from the crap her and her husband (along with a bunch more schmucks) were pushing in that speech and beyond certainly influences my perspective. That you're still fixated on the remark itself s(and non-apology) shows you have no clue what people are actually mad about.
It sounds like you're upset about the implementation of a law she didn't vote for, asked for by the community it was meant to help, and using Hilary as a pariah for your issues with the crime bill. It sounds like you need a bad guy to yell at and that the video doesn't actually point to anything wrong.
|
On May 14 2016 23:35 TMagpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2016 23:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 22:38 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 14:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 14:24 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 14:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 13:16 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 12:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2016 11:47 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 11:26 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
You realize even oneofthem said he was intentionally mischaracterizing that quote? Is that what you're doing also, or are you being sincere?
Some are saying it wasn't a big deal and she shouldn't apologize, others are saying it was wrong and she did apologize. None of you are even understanding my point, instead you're arguing the point Solar and them were making. Which, was not the one I was making. If you want to argue about the word in isolation, take that up with them. You're the one who's upset with her choosing to use the phrase "I won't do it again" instead "I'm sorry" so I'm not really sure why you're backtracking on her word choice usage now. Unless you're trying to move the goal post? I'm cool with that too, just let me know when you want to move it. Not moving goalposts just addressing the tangential arguments people were making instead of addressing the meat of my point. I'm not upset, I'm pointing out saying you shouldn't of done it and wont do it again is what I've always been taught comes after the "I'm sorry" or "I apologize". I can't possibly be the only person here that is accustomed to a real apology having something along the lines of "I'm Sorry" or "I apologize". Typically it's the part people include even in fake apologies. It's usually the part about why they shouldn't have done it that get's screwed up. She messed up both, she didn't say I'm sorry, and she didn't say why she should be sorry. On May 14 2016 12:11 TMagpie wrote:On May 14 2016 11:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
For the umpteenth time, black people can be racist, support racist policies, and say racist things about other black people and it doesn't make it not racist.
But I'm not even harping on the "racist" aspect of it. Though, she was talking about black youth gang members, and the notion that them being black had nothing to do with it is bunk.
Since that's like the third time the "but black people supported it" line has been thrown out there and it's abundantly clear that my point isn't being engaged I'm just going to let it go. So a black person upset about crimes against blacks and wanting a government to help reduce crime against blacks, is racist? We already told you what Hilary said, she's against gangs, and if people are upset about her word choice to describe that then she will use a different word. It's a non story, calm down. No, I'm saying black people supporting something doesn't mean it's not racist. I'm zen bruh, maybe you need to calm down? But you're the only one upset. The victims of crime agreed with her. Most of her supporters agree with her. And if you don't like her word choice she's willing to change. You're the only one upset by her word choice of the past and her word choice in the present. Literally the primary one pointing it out--no one cares but you. Nothing is tangential, nothing of your argument is being ignored. Literally, nobody cares that she used a common word back then, especially not the people she was helping. So if you agree she wasn't being racist, and you agree that she said she won't do it again--then why do you care other than wanting her to get salty when you're the only one salty. I don't see you gettin mad at sander's for not apologizing calling people violent psychopaths. This is purely an anti Hilary attack because you're upset. Calm down. Maybe here but there's plenty of people upset about it. Some did some didn't. Of course they do. It's not simply a word choice issue for like the 4th time. Again not the only one, not just about "word choice", like that's all that made Trump's comments bad, "word choice", you're way to smart to try to sincerely make that argument. I didn't agree that she wasn't being racist, I said that's wasn't my point. No one uses the word anymore, that's hardly a concession. You're still ignoring that even oneofthem pointed out that's a misrepresentation of what Bernie said. I'll wait for the context Hillary supporters regularly expect/demand before I respond to this silliness. Heres what I don't get then. If her choice of words is not an issue with you, why does her talking about wanting to reduce violence in black communities offend you? What is it about her listening to black communities asking for that bill offend you? What makes a white person in power listening to people of color and providing them with they asked for something you find terrible? I mean, if word choice doesn't matter to you, and only her intention mattered to you--what is it about her agreeing with people of color under siege from the spike in crime in their area so terrible? Because, much like Bernie was trying to say something positive but used words that sound bad when taken out of context, so did Hilary. She knew what she was saying back then, much like the people of color who supported the bill knew what she was saying, and she's not going to change or deny her message just because some people get hung up on word choice. But she understands that if people care so much about word choice that she's willing to not use it--because the fact that she used the word super predator was not the point of the speech. So she's not going to double back and change what she meant back then to fit the narrative her opponents want it to be. You quoted my post but it's like you didn't read it. Me: It's not simply a word choice issue for like the 4th time. ...not just about "word choice" TMag: If her choice of words is not an issue with you. I know you're too smart for that to be unintentional, so I have to presume you're trolling at this point and I'm not going to engage with that. GH you literally said it didn't count because *you* want her to say the words "I'm sorry" and the words "I should not have said it, I won't say it again" does not count. The only issue you have is that she used the term superpredators when talking about gang members, because *you* associate the word choice with racial attacks on blacks. Without those word choice issues all you have is a First Lady giving a speech about how a poor community in need is finally getting the help that they've been asking for. I think it's safe to say we're not going to see this the same way. Knowing families devastated by ignorant policies on crime many directly springing from the crap her and her husband (along with a bunch more schmucks) were pushing in that speech and beyond certainly influences my perspective. That you're still fixated on the remark itself s(and non-apology) shows you have no clue what people are actually mad about. It sounds like you're upset about the implementation of a law she didn't vote for, asked for by the community it was meant to help, and using Hilary as a pariah for your issues with the crime bill. It sounds like you need a bad guy to yell at and that the video doesn't actually point to anything wrong.
Nope thats the narrative folks want to paint on top of the actual issues.
Just to clear one thing up. My bigger problem with her quote wasnt the superpredator word, it was the fundamental perspective on youth criminals she was displaying. The same bunk thinking that resulted in so much devastation. That you still haven't picked that up and are still so grossly misportraying my position means I'm done engaging you on this at all.
|
Donald Trump has energized millions of Republican voters this primary season with his tough talk of building a wall along the Mexico border and deporting people who entered the country illegally.
But, that same language could have an unintentional side effect in a general election and energize legal immigrants to become citizens before November so they can vote against Trump.
Jose Lovos moved to the U.S. legally 20 years ago from the war-torn country of El Salvador. These days, he lives in Virginia with his wife and three kids.
Lovos was eligible to become a citizen years ago, but he said he never got around to filling out the paperwork.
"I wasn't very interested before in becoming a citizen because we weren't too worried about anything," Lovos said in Spanish outside a hotel in Washington D.C. where he works as a maintenance man. "But now there's all this rhetoric about deporting 11 million undocumented people."
So on Christmas Day, he and his wife decided it was time to become citizens.
"We want to help elect a good president for people in this country who don't have a voice or a vote," said Lovos. "I want to become a citizen to help other people, because other people have done it for me in the past. Citizens are the people who have power to make change."
Lovos said the primary reason he's becoming a citizen now is so that he can vote in November against Trump.
"I don't understand why [Trump] has to generalize. Candidates can't say all immigrants are bad or that we have to deport them all," said Lovos.
There are an estimated 8.8 million people like Lovos in the country — legal permanent residents who are eligible to become citizens.
Source
|
That article..
If he is here legally, he wasn't at risk of being deported.
He acts like we no longer "help" people...we accept immigrants all the time.
I'd love to see where any candidate said immigrants are bad and we need to deport them all.
|
People in general tend to mishear/misinterpret things a lot. It's a common problem in communication.
That's part of the reason for having communications directors; to make sure as many people as possible understand what you actually meant to say by choosing words carefully.
|
What is hiding in Donald Trump's tax returns that he doesn't want people to see?
The last time a Republican candidate's tax returns became the subject of public controversy it was over the very low effective tax rate paid by the very rich Mitt Romney. That's unlikely to be what's up Trump's sleeve, because he's been quite open about the fact that he's taken rather extreme measures to minimize his tax bill.
In an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos on Friday he said, "I fight very hard to pay as little tax as possible." When Stephanopoulos followed up and asked what his tax rate is, exactly, he repeated: "I fight very hard to pay as little tax as possible."
So he's not hiding the fact that he pays a low tax rate.
My guess is that the damaging information he's trying to conceal is that his real net worth is lower than the $9 billion he's claimed. A lot lower. There's pretty good evidence that this is true, and that the evidence for it is lurking in his tax returns. At least that's what Timothy O'Brien — the one man in journalism who's actually seen the tax returns — seems to be saying.
The book contains a section about O'Brien's efforts to ascertain Trump's net worth:
So I asked around for guidance. Three people with direct knowledge of Donald's finances, people who had worked closely with him for years, told me that they thought his net worth was somewhere between $150 million and $250 million. By anyone's standards this still qualified Donald as comfortably wealthy, but none of these people thought he was remotely close to being a billionaire.
Donald dismissed this as naysaying.
"You can go ahead and speak to guys who have four-hundred pound wives at home who are jealous of me, but the guys who really know me know I'm a great builder," he told me.
Trump responded to the publication of the book by suing O'Brien.
The case was dismissed in 2009 on the grounds that Trump is a sufficiently public figure that a libel accusation would have to meet the stringent "actual malice" standard. This would mean that to prevail, Trump would need to prove that O'Brien knew the $150 million to $250 million estimate was wrong and published it anyway to harm Trump. The court ruled that Trump had no evidence that could meet this standard and threw out the case. On appeal, a New Jersey appeals court rejected Trump's claim that reliance on anonymous sources per se constitutes actual malice.
Source
|
On May 15 2016 00:25 Chewbacca. wrote:
That article..
If he is here legally, he wasn't at risk of being deported.
He acts like we no longer "help" people...we accept immigrants all the time.
I'd love to see where any candidate said immigrants are bad and we need to deport them all.
He never implies he thinks he's at risk of being deported. The man's earlier statements in the article make it pretty clear he understands that the policies are about deporting 11 million undocumented people, not immigrants in general, and he doesn't agree with that. He wants to have a voice since they can't. He just didn't mention undocumented in the final statement at the end.
|
edit: aah nevermind probably a misunderstanding.
|
|
|
edit: Don't know if its been posted before
|
This bathroom issue feels like wag the dog to hide the discussion of far more important issues tbh.
|
This just shows the moral bankruptcy of the Sanderistas and most of the left in general. They go on and on about the bigotry of Trump, go on about wealth inequality, go on about student debt, and then vote for a billionaire racist notorious who opened a university to scam people.
At least it is nowhere near as bad as the Sanderistas lecturing people on how they are privileged to not to be able to vote for Hillary and that you gotta pick the lesser of two evils.
|
On May 15 2016 04:35 Shiragaku wrote:This just shows the moral bankruptcy of the Sanderistas and most of the left in general. They go on and on about the bigotry of Trump, go on about wealth inequality, go on about student debt, and then vote for a billionaire racist notorious who opened a university to scam people. At least it is nowhere near as bad as the Sanderistas lecturing people on how they are privileged to not to be able to vote for Hillary and that you gotta pick the lesser of two evils.
Those voters have a bunch of legitimate reasons to vote for Trump over Hillary, not the least of which is Hillary is outright hostile to coal. Beyond that, Trump is actively courting lower to middle class voters with trade policy (this is hurting Hillary badly) and populism. Let's face it: the Democrats have abandoned these people.
|
On May 15 2016 04:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2016 04:35 Shiragaku wrote:This just shows the moral bankruptcy of the Sanderistas and most of the left in general. They go on and on about the bigotry of Trump, go on about wealth inequality, go on about student debt, and then vote for a billionaire racist notorious who opened a university to scam people. At least it is nowhere near as bad as the Sanderistas lecturing people on how they are privileged to not to be able to vote for Hillary and that you gotta pick the lesser of two evils. Those voters have a bunch of legitimate reasons to vote for Trump over Hillary, not the least of which is Hillary is outright hostile to coal. Beyond that, Trump is actively courting lower to middle class voters with trade policy (this is hurting Hillary badly) and populism. Let's face it: the Democrats have abandoned these people.
Unless Trump finally explains how he's going to offset his huge tax cuts and debt reduction at the same time no person dependent on federal funding or social welfare has a good reason to vote for trump
He's appealing in rhetoric only and that's not a legitimate reason
|
On May 15 2016 04:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2016 04:35 Shiragaku wrote:This just shows the moral bankruptcy of the Sanderistas and most of the left in general. They go on and on about the bigotry of Trump, go on about wealth inequality, go on about student debt, and then vote for a billionaire racist notorious who opened a university to scam people. At least it is nowhere near as bad as the Sanderistas lecturing people on how they are privileged to not to be able to vote for Hillary and that you gotta pick the lesser of two evils. Those voters have a bunch of legitimate reasons to vote for Trump over Hillary, not the least of which is Hillary is outright hostile to coal. Beyond that, Trump is actively courting lower to middle class voters with trade policy (this is hurting Hillary badly) and populism. Let's face it: the Democrats have abandoned these people.
They most certainly have good reason to support Trump over Hillary when looking at all the major players on stage. Trump is representing the political class that has been completely abandoned in America, namely the white working class and students are now being thrown into that group and are experiencing misery at the hands of the the mainstream Republicans, and especially the Democrats. It is very similar to the development of the abandonment of center-left in many Western European nations who abandoned much of their constituency only to see them support right-wing populists in the end.
And secondly, with what Trump has demonstrated, he is just a horrid democratic politician. Threatening protesters and hecklers, infantile ad hominen attacks, and his geopolitics is outright buffoonish as head of state. He is no certainly fascist, that is left-wing propaganda, but he is very similar to Berlusconi, a media savvy individual who demonstrates political incompetence and I do not think I have to tell you why that is worrisome.
|
The government could make a lot of money by legalizing marijuana. But it's probably not as much money as you think.
That conclusion is based on a new report by the Tax Foundation. The analysis found that each year a "mature marijuana industry could generate up to $28 billion in tax revenues for federal, state, and local governments, including $7 billion in federal revenue: $5.5 billion from business taxes and $1.5 billion from income and payroll taxes."
What if the federal government imposed extra taxes on marijuana sales? The Tax Foundation found, "A federal tax of $23 per pound of product, similar to the federal tax on tobacco, could generate $500 million per year. Alternatively, a 10 percent sales surtax could generate $5.3 billion per year, with higher tax rates collecting proportionately more."
So up to $12.3 billion in annual federal revenue, based on the Tax Foundation's analysis. That's not bad. But it would only cover a very tiny portion — less than 1 percent — of federal spending, which was estimated at $3.8 trillion in fiscal year 2015.
Similarly, the $28 billion in local, state, and federal tax revenue would cover less than 1 percent of $6.4 trillion in all government spending, including local and state spending, in fiscal year 2015.
The Tax Foundation also suggests that tax revenue will fall as more businesses get into the marijuana industry and "drive down profit margins." That would be partially made up by an increase in pot workers' individual income and payroll taxes, which the Tax Foundation says "are expected to increase as production expands."
But ultimately, the group estimates that tax revenues will fall from $28 billion to $22 billion over time, as long as "all states implement a 25 percent sales surtax and the federal government has an excise tax similar to that of cigarette[s]."
Source
edit: fixed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Screen-shot-Huffington-Post-620x552.jpg)
They might as well have just posted this on their website instead whenever Trump won a primary and it would have made more sense. + Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/2b/78/f2/2b78f2e25f06ed43f7dfe89c0ae9b1bf.jpg)
