|
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 27 2016 11:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2016 11:42 Plansix wrote:On May 27 2016 11:33 xDaunt wrote:On May 27 2016 11:12 Mohdoo wrote:On May 27 2016 10:30 xDaunt wrote:
Has anyone been following the Clinton Cash documentary (or book by Schweizer)? Breitbart News seems pretty keen on it. That gives some clues as to its legitimacy. I have a dream, that one day, liberal posters on TL will actually discuss points on the merits rather than rotely discredit the source like mindless boobs. A 10 second look on google lead me to discover it is based on the a book by Peter Schweizer, who is an editor Breitbart News. Who is also the president of the Government Accountability Institute, a conservative think tank. I am sure there are some facts in there, but any attempts to claim that it does not have a clear agenda are patently false. Of course there is a fucking agenda. That doesn't necessarily mean that the contents are inaccurate.
Do spend a lot of time reading books by presidents of liberal think tanks just for fun? Or follow them jut to see if that have any facts you were not aware of? More importantly, don't you think we could get the same information without reading a 300 page hit piece?
|
On May 27 2016 11:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2016 11:42 Plansix wrote:On May 27 2016 11:33 xDaunt wrote:On May 27 2016 11:12 Mohdoo wrote:On May 27 2016 10:30 xDaunt wrote:
Has anyone been following the Clinton Cash documentary (or book by Schweizer)? Breitbart News seems pretty keen on it. That gives some clues as to its legitimacy. I have a dream, that one day, liberal posters on TL will actually discuss points on the merits rather than rotely discredit the source like mindless boobs. A 10 second look on google lead me to discover it is based on the a book by Peter Schweizer, who is an editor Breitbart News. Who is also the president of the Government Accountability Institute, a conservative think tank. I am sure there are some facts in there, but any attempts to claim that it does not have a clear agenda are patently false. Of course there is a fucking agenda. That doesn't necessarily mean that the contents are inaccurate.
It's just a long list of people donating to a non-profit and people giving paid speeches. Toss in a little bit of "What could it mean?" here and there. Kaboom, Breibart journalism.
|
On May 27 2016 11:48 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2016 11:43 xDaunt wrote:On May 27 2016 11:42 Plansix wrote:On May 27 2016 11:33 xDaunt wrote:On May 27 2016 11:12 Mohdoo wrote:On May 27 2016 10:30 xDaunt wrote:
Has anyone been following the Clinton Cash documentary (or book by Schweizer)? Breitbart News seems pretty keen on it. That gives some clues as to its legitimacy. I have a dream, that one day, liberal posters on TL will actually discuss points on the merits rather than rotely discredit the source like mindless boobs. A 10 second look on google lead me to discover it is based on the a book by Peter Schweizer, who is an editor Breitbart News. Who is also the president of the Government Accountability Institute, a conservative think tank. I am sure there are some facts in there, but any attempts to claim that it does not have a clear agenda are patently false. Of course there is a fucking agenda. That doesn't necessarily mean that the contents are inaccurate. It's just a long list of people donating to a non-profit and people giving paid speeches. Toss in a little bit of "What could it mean?" here and there. Kaboom, Breibart journalism.
Mostly written by unpaid interns and then "edited" before being throw up on the internet.
|
Literally every network you guys post news sources from have an agenda. The greatest part about Trump is seeing to what extent each of these networks will go to out themselves on just how hard they shill for X or Y candidate. Almost all of which are pulling for Hillary.
|
If I want the Conservative point of view, I have like 20 options better than that fucking rag that can't even be bothered to spellcheck. Its not about the perspective, its about Breitbart being complete shit. You folks need to not get so fucking offended every time people take a shot at the bottom of the barrel of Conservative media.
|
BISMARCK, N.D. — Donald Trump entered the room and before facing the assemblage of reporters, he shook hands with the 21 formerly unbound North Dakota delegates who had hours earlier committed to putting him past the 1,237 threshold needed to clinch the GOP’s presidential nomination.
“The folks behind me got us right over the top. North Dakota made a very big statement,” Trump said. “We will not forget it."
That, however, was where the humility stopped. Almost immediately, Trump turned back to his blustery, bragging and unapologetic self.
In a 30-minute news conference and the policy speech delivered afterward to a cheering crowd of more than 6,000 people, Trump answered attacks from President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren by insulting them in return. Rather than disputing the Democrats’ characterization of him as a greedy businessman who doesn’t much care about the rest of the world, Trump practically embraced it, emphasizing that he really only does care about America and that he plans to make it great by making it rich.
Laying out an “America First” energy plan weeks after sketching an “America First” foreign policy in another speech, Trump scoffed at Obama’s claim Thursday that world leaders are “rattled” by the new GOP standard-bearer’s unpredictability and seeming incuriosity about the rest of the world. Blasting Obama for “doing a horrible job,” Trump told reporters it’s about time world leaders feel threatened by the United States.
“When you rattle someone that’s good,” Trump said. “Many of the countries in our beautiful world have been absolutely abusing us and taking advantage of us. If they’re rattled about us in a good way, that’s a good thing, not a bad thing.”
Later, as he spoke to an arena full of cheering supporters, he vowed to withdraw from the Paris climate change agreement and to make America energy independent.
Source
|
On May 27 2016 11:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2016 11:12 Mohdoo wrote:On May 27 2016 10:30 xDaunt wrote:
Has anyone been following the Clinton Cash documentary (or book by Schweizer)? Breitbart News seems pretty keen on it. That gives some clues as to its legitimacy. I have a dream, that one day, liberal posters on TL will actually discuss points on the merits rather than rotely discredit the source like mindless boobs.
we're supposed to discuss whether Hillary clinton is supposed to 'dissolve' the border within 100 days? What the fuck does that even mean? This is the border version of birther stuff
|
On May 27 2016 11:48 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2016 11:43 xDaunt wrote:On May 27 2016 11:42 Plansix wrote:On May 27 2016 11:33 xDaunt wrote:On May 27 2016 11:12 Mohdoo wrote:On May 27 2016 10:30 xDaunt wrote:
Has anyone been following the Clinton Cash documentary (or book by Schweizer)? Breitbart News seems pretty keen on it. That gives some clues as to its legitimacy. I have a dream, that one day, liberal posters on TL will actually discuss points on the merits rather than rotely discredit the source like mindless boobs. A 10 second look on google lead me to discover it is based on the a book by Peter Schweizer, who is an editor Breitbart News. Who is also the president of the Government Accountability Institute, a conservative think tank. I am sure there are some facts in there, but any attempts to claim that it does not have a clear agenda are patently false. Of course there is a fucking agenda. That doesn't necessarily mean that the contents are inaccurate. It's just a long list of people donating to a non-profit and people giving paid speeches. Toss in a little bit of "What could it mean?" here and there. Kaboom, Breibart journalism.
Breitbart is basically the Daily Beast of the right side of media. Opinion piece journalism where facts don't really matter because everything can be spun to make your world view look good, because only you would take an article from these organizations seriously... except Brietbart sometimes has actual news.
Its also hilarious how someone that quotes Politifact as a source can say Breitbart is biased. Edit: not saying you personally, just some people on TL.
|
On May 27 2016 06:48 DickMcFanny wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2016 05:52 LegalLord wrote:
I see explicit religious conservatism being a significant driving force for elections for about one more generation. It's not quite dead yet but the youth of today are less religious than most by a significant margin. As opposed to Europe, where religious conservatism will be an increasingly big factor. If you think YOUR fundamentalists are crazy, you're in for a rude surprise. American religious nuts don't want to sell wedding cakes to gays, our religious nuts want to burn gays on the stake. American religious nuts cry about people who leave the religious, our religious nuts want to kill people who leave the religion. American religious nuts discuss which bathroom transgenders are allowed to use, our religious nuts discuss which torture method should be used on transgenders.
Hmm I don't think this is the case.
Its not religious conservatism that is increasing in Europe,as a counter force to the refuge and immigration issue.
What is increasing is (social) nationalism.
The usa is far more religious then specially protestant northern Europe,and the extremes are bigger.
Its kinda interesting that catolisism proved to be more durable then Protestantism in Europe.
|
|
|
The Sanders Debate Gambit
Last night Donald Trump appeared on Jimmy Kimmel and said he would debate Bernie Sanders so long as the profits from the debate go to charity. Sanders quickly agreed via Twitter. There’s your headline for a few days, or more.
Let me tell you how clever that was.
By agreeing to debate Sanders, Trump minimizes Clinton and embarrasses her. It will look to the public as if she’s hiding, afraid to debate.
By tying a Sanders debate to charity, Trump signals that Sanders isn’t a “real” opponent. So Sanders gets minimized at the same time. And it puts Sanders in follower mode. Trump suggested, Sanders followed.
The charity angle will probably make the debate impractical. The networks don’t want to run a freebie. So there is a high chance it won’t happen. But Trump gets credit – and attention – for offering.
Imagine what happens if Trump and Sanders start discussing which charity gets the proceeds. If Trump picks a veterans organization, Sanders would be supporting Trump’s brand. Trump is all about the veterans. And I also imagine Trump making an opening offer to split the money 70-30, with Sanders’ chosen charity getting the smaller part. That opening offer would be headlines for days.
If the debate happens, Trump shows strength by exposing himself to attacks. But it also gives him the opportunity to frame the race as two rebels versus more-of-the-same-Clinton.
Would Trump lose a debate to Sanders? Trump is famously light on policy details, but keep in mind that Sanders would have to explain how he pays for his ideas. Trump can embrace Sanders’ ideals (universal healthcare, free college) while pointing out that we have no way to pay for that stuff in the short run. Compared to Sanders, Trump would start to look like the mainstream candidate. Trump needs that.
Both Trump and Sanders could attack Clinton on stage, to huge ratings, while Clinton has no effective way to respond. Clinton can’t even TALK about the debate without giving it more attention.
The risk to Trump is that Sanders wins the debate. But they have seen each other’s act so often that no one would expect a knockout punch in either direction. In fact, I would expect both of them to show uncharacteristic respect to each other on stage. Trump wants Sanders’ voters, and Sanders has created a brand that is built around civility. I would expect them to play nice. That helps Trump more than Sanders if it makes Trump seem more “presidential.”
As usual, Trump has created multiple ways to win and only one (improbable) way to lose. If the debate never happens, Trump wins by making the offer and getting the attention. If the debate happens, it minimizes both Clinton and Sanders. The only risk is that Trump loses the debate to Sanders in a huge way. And that seems deeply unlikely.
Trump is taking some risk with the offer, but not a big one. I call it a good bet.
For new readers, my political views do not align with Trump or any of the other candidates. My interest is in Trump’s talents for persuasion.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/144955383691/the-sanders-debate-gambit
|
On May 27 2016 15:31 pmh wrote:
Its kinda interesting that catolisism proved to be more durable then Protestantism in Europe.
It's a matter of unity. Catholicism has a central authority in the Catholic Church in the Vatican. The many Protestant movements have had a whole lot of sectarian conflicts over the years for any number of reasons, and as a result formed more than a few splinter groups. That has a tendency to undermine the movements in the long run, which it has done.
|
|
|
On May 27 2016 15:31 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2016 06:48 DickMcFanny wrote:On May 27 2016 05:52 LegalLord wrote:
I see explicit religious conservatism being a significant driving force for elections for about one more generation. It's not quite dead yet but the youth of today are less religious than most by a significant margin. As opposed to Europe, where religious conservatism will be an increasingly big factor. If you think YOUR fundamentalists are crazy, you're in for a rude surprise. American religious nuts don't want to sell wedding cakes to gays, our religious nuts want to burn gays on the stake. American religious nuts cry about people who leave the religious, our religious nuts want to kill people who leave the religion. American religious nuts discuss which bathroom transgenders are allowed to use, our religious nuts discuss which torture method should be used on transgenders. Hmm I don't think this is the case. Its not religious conservatism that is increasing in Europe,as a counter force to the refuge and immigration issue. What is increasing is (social) nationalism. The usa is far more religious then specially protestant northern Europe,and the extremes are bigger. Its kinda interesting that catolisism proved to be more durable then Protestantism in Europe.
Religiously conservative protestants are indeed becoming a rare breed around the world, including Europe. However, I don't think that's what he's referencing. I believe he is referring to the immigration of Muslim people as the culprit of increasing religious conservatism. They are the ones that he is accusing of wanting to burn gays at the stake, kill apostates, and torture transgenders.
|
There are a lot of people who really don't know much about either candidate except for the headlines. Trump wants to deport Mexicans, Bernie wants to make college free, and Clinton is your business as usual politician. These are the views that most people have walked out of the primary election with.
|
On May 27 2016 00:03 Mohdoo wrote:
People hugely overestimate how politically involved the average american is. I have met my fair share of people who really don't know much about either candidate except for the headlines. Trump wants to deport Mexicans, Bernie wants to make college free, and Clinton is your business as usual politician. These are the views that most people have walked out of the primary election with.
On May 27 2016 17:42 Jeremy88 wrote:
There are a lot of people who really don't know much about either candidate except for the headlines. Trump wants to deport Mexicans, Bernie wants to make college free, and Clinton is your business as usual politician. These are the views that most people have walked out of the primary election with.
Jeremy88, I agree and I think that's normal, but why are your posts just pastes of other people's posts?
In the Mexico's Drug War thread...
+ Show Spoiler +On July 28 2010 09:16 vnlegend wrote:
Wow this is terrible. For the cartels to get that big and powerful, there must be corruption at very high levels. Otherwise I don't see how they can survive against the government and the military for this long and cause so much damage. With corruption so entrenched in the government, what can the Mexican people do? On May 26 2016 17:56 Jeremy88 wrote:
For the cartels to get that big and powerful, there must be corruption at very high levels etc.
|
LOL jeremy88 is my favorite..
|
On May 27 2016 11:50 SK.Testie wrote:
Literally every network you guys post news sources from have an agenda. The greatest part about Drumpf is seeing to what extent each of these networks will go to out themselves on just how hard they shill for X or Y candidate. Almost all of which are pulling for Hillary.
I wouldn't put too much stock in that narrative:
Clinton has not only been hammered by the most negative coverage but the media also wrote the smallest proportion of positive stories about her, reports Crimson Hexagon, a social media software analytics company based out of Boston.
www.vox.com
Honestly the study doesn't look that scientific, but it's not as clear cut as "all media loves Hillary, hates Trump."
|
Though Marco Rubio suggested on Thursday that he expect his delegates to be released for Donald Trump and even volunteered to speak on his behalf, Ted Cruz signaled on Friday that he would take a wait-and-see approach when it comes to Cleveland. And the fight for delegates and the party's platform is far from over, he said, despite Trump having clinched the necessary number to become the nominee.
"I am looking and listening to see what the candidates do," the Texas senator told Tulsa, Oklahoma, radio host Pat Campbell, who listened as Cruz spoke about the importance of electing a conservative to the White House.
When Campbell remarked that it sounded as if Trump did not meet his standards, Cruz replied, "I hope that he will."
Cruz talked up Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.) for re-election, his campaign chair in the state, praising him for his backbone, what he called a "rare quality" in Washington.
Before wrapping the interview, Campbell asked Cruz if he could promise to listeners to ensure Republicans in Cleveland do not "screw around with the party platform and remove the abortion plank, or alter it."
“You have my word. One of the reasons that we are continuing to work to elect conservatives to be delegates, even though Donald has the delegates to get the nomination, we intend to do everything we can to fight for conservative principles to prevent Washington forces from watering down the platform," Cruz said. "The platform is a manifestation of what we believe as a party, and I think it is important that it continue to reflect conservative values, free-market values, constitutional liberties, Judeo-Christian principles, the values that built this country, and that is exactly what I intend to fight for.”
Trump said in April that he would push for exceptions to the party's platform on abortion to include rape and incest. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said days later that the platform is "up to the delegates at the convention" and that he would expect it to remain the same.
Source
|
On May 27 2016 23:11 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2016 11:50 SK.Testie wrote:
Literally every network you guys post news sources from have an agenda. The greatest part about Drumpf is seeing to what extent each of these networks will go to out themselves on just how hard they shill for X or Y candidate. Almost all of which are pulling for Hillary. I wouldn't put too much stock in that narrative: Show nested quote +Clinton has not only been hammered by the most negative coverage but the media also wrote the smallest proportion of positive stories about her, reports Crimson Hexagon, a social media software analytics company based out of Boston. www.vox.comHonestly the study doesn't look that scientific, but it's not as clear cut as "all media loves Hillary, hates Trump."
Dude... your source is Vox... I mean just from their wikipedia page
Vox is an American news website run by Vox Media, founded by liberal columnist Ezra Klein and launched in April 2014. Ezra Klein left The Washington Post in January 2014 for a position with Vox Media, the publishers of the sports website SB Nation, technology website The Verge, and video gaming website Polygon.
Ohhhhhh boy, lets read on.
Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry at The Week accused the site as "partisan commentary in question-and-answer disguise" and criticized the site for having a "starting lineup was mostly made up of ideological liberals."[6]
The Federalist's David Harsanyi criticized the site's concept of "explanatory journalism" in an article titled "How Vox Makes Us Stupid", arguing that the website picked and chose what facts to use in order to only reinforce their readers' progressive liberal worldview, and that "explanatory journalism" inherently leaves out opposing viewpoints and different perspectives that should be considered.[7]
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
