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 28 2016 10:37 SK.Testie wrote: Hillary's new attack line seems a little more upbeat, entertaining and fun. Doesn't hurt that she's using someone with actual charisma.
He's right though. Paying someone for not working is an inconvenience to business.
Yeah this one-liner comment from Trump even seems like a quote mine too, and isn't nearly as staggering as some of the other things he's said. One could easily say something like "Paid family leave is bad for business... but I hope that businesses care enough about their employees to allow for a respectable amount of time off during pregnancy/ birth/ raising babies, etc." Quote mine: "Paid family leave is bad for business." Meh.
lol that ad..
How on earth is a (valuable) employee taking a paid leave not an inconvenience? How could it not be? Is that supposed to be an attack ad?
The left is so deep in their political correctness they can't even see reality anymore, it seems.
On May 28 2016 19:36 LemOn wrote: I really don't see what the big deal is - everyone at this point knows that in public she will say what the polls say/what strategy she's picking with her advisors, and that will naturally change over time - she's a career politician and that doesn't mean at all she'll be a bad president. On the contrary in my opinion, she will be way more likely to be able to influence policy and play the game than Trump will.
And unlike her counterpart in the GOP, Cruz, she doesn't seem to be evil, her agenda is more or less about the status-quo while keeping power and making her stakeholders (establishment leaders, large donors) satisfied and that's by no means that bad for US or the world, especially if she at least a little bit acts on the ideas she's acquired from Bernie to take over some of his demographics.
I dont know why you think thats a good thing, considering it was the people who sponsor her that caused the housing market crash of 2008. and who she among others bailed out on the expense of the rest of tax paying citizens. As far as I am able to tell the effect of globalisation and mega corporations on the most abstract level is the extinction of the middle class citizens and thats why Trump is getting such huge following. It is the rich getting richer, poor getting porer syndrome which is ammplified dramatically in modern capitalism.
On May 18 2016 15:39 NukeD wrote: What are the chances of Hillary going to jail? And how deserving of jail is she in your eyes?
As an outsider, from the stuff I read imo she should be locked for high treason, so I was wondering what the average US citizens view on this is. I also don't think she will infact end up in jail because of her political ties, however.
Uhhh I am actually curious what you read if you get high treason out of even the worst interpretation of whatever she did. I assume this is about the email thing which what she did was not even against the rules let alone the intentionally leaking of classified documents that you are basically implying happened which would be needed for treason.
Its not political connections its just that no crime was committed except for maybe a crime of poor judgement (though considering her email server seems to have held up better then the government one I would even cast doubt on that) and even then I just think it seems like a very overblown story. Basically you got baited by people who want to cast an image on someone (like how they admitted they set up a Benghazi commission to tank her numbers) and are letting the people with an agenda be the people who inform you.
I mostly came to my conclusion from Trey Gowdy videos interogating her about the email situation, where she quitte obviously lied about lots of stuff. Thers other vids that show her as person of very low moral and political integrity.
On May 28 2016 10:37 SK.Testie wrote: Hillary's new attack line seems a little more upbeat, entertaining and fun. Doesn't hurt that she's using someone with actual charisma.
He's right though. Paying someone for not working is an inconvenience to business.
Yeah this one-liner comment from Trump even seems like a quote mine too, and isn't nearly as staggering as some of the other things he's said. One could easily say something like "Paid family leave is bad for business... but I hope that businesses care enough about their employees to allow for a respectable amount of time off during pregnancy/ birth/ raising babies, etc." Quote mine: "Paid family leave is bad for business." Meh.
lol that ad..
How on earth is a (valuable) employee taking a paid leave not an inconvenience? How could it not be? Is that supposed to be an attack ad?
The left is so deep in their political correctness they can't even see reality anymore, it seems.
On May 18 2016 15:39 NukeD wrote: What are the chances of Hillary going to jail? And how deserving of jail is she in your eyes?
As an outsider, from the stuff I read imo she should be locked for high treason, so I was wondering what the average US citizens view on this is. I also don't think she will infact end up in jail because of her political ties, however.
Uhhh I am actually curious what you read if you get high treason out of even the worst interpretation of whatever she did. I assume this is about the email thing which what she did was not even against the rules let alone the intentionally leaking of classified documents that you are basically implying happened which would be needed for treason.
Its not political connections its just that no crime was committed except for maybe a crime of poor judgement (though considering her email server seems to have held up better then the government one I would even cast doubt on that) and even then I just think it seems like a very overblown story. Basically you got baited by people who want to cast an image on someone (like how they admitted they set up a Benghazi commission to tank her numbers) and are letting the people with an agenda be the people who inform you.
I mostly came to my conclusion from Trey Gowdy videos interogating her about the email situation, where she quitte obviously lied about lots of stuff. Thers other vids that show her as person of very low moral and political integrity.
Trump can once again just attack Hillary and shame her integrity while never elaborating on his plans, he has too much ammo. Once Hillary doubts herself because she lacks integrity, she could give a thesis on how to end world hunger and it won't save her. This is going to be such an easy election for trump. Hillary's strategy should be to avoid the issues, stand her ground and relentlessly attack trump, but after having kumbaya debates with Bernie I doubt she can.
Trump won every republican debate not on the issues, but on his presence and dominance. Once his opponents doubt themselves, it's over. From what I've seen I don't think trump even knows how to doubt himself so that is never going to happen.
Those videos make her look awful btw, that gowdy guy was relentless
On May 18 2016 15:39 NukeD wrote: What are the chances of Hillary going to jail? And how deserving of jail is she in your eyes?
As an outsider, from the stuff I read imo she should be locked for high treason, so I was wondering what the average US citizens view on this is. I also don't think she will infact end up in jail because of her political ties, however.
Uhhh I am actually curious what you read if you get high treason out of even the worst interpretation of whatever she did. I assume this is about the email thing which what she did was not even against the rules let alone the intentionally leaking of classified documents that you are basically implying happened which would be needed for treason.
Its not political connections its just that no crime was committed except for maybe a crime of poor judgement (though considering her email server seems to have held up better then the government one I would even cast doubt on that) and even then I just think it seems like a very overblown story. Basically you got baited by people who want to cast an image on someone (like how they admitted they set up a Benghazi commission to tank her numbers) and are letting the people with an agenda be the people who inform you.
I mostly came to my conclusion from Trey Gowdy videos interogating her about the email situation, where she quitte obviously lied about lots of stuff. Thers other vids that show her as person of very low moral and political integrity.
Yeah, it's not a very good video for Hillary. That's not even the bad one, there's a much worse one out there that's more Trump's style.
Ye i knew I shouldn't have posted that one. Takes away from the more relevant one which is the Trey Gowdy video.
The Trey Gowdy video is taken from the 11-hour hearing from which Hillary came out looking extremely good, just so you know.
Okay. I'll take your word for it. At least from the Gowdy part she came out, if not a liar, then an extremelly incompetent state official.
No she didn't. Gowdy focused on a non-issue and couldn't get anything out of it. You don't have to take my word for it, just look at journalistic accounts of the hearing and look at what the committee has produced so far.
So the Sanders campaign is now asking for Barney Frank and Gov. Malloy to be removed as Co-Chair of the Standing Rules Committee and Co-Chair of the Standing Platform Committee, respectively, at the Democratic convention, because they would be too partial towards Clinton (imagine the horror! being partial towards the winner of the primary!). You know, Barney Frank, the steadfast progressive who actually passed the most substantial positive reform of the financial industry in recent years -- while Sanders was nowhere to be seen.
Also remember that the Sanders campaign put Cornel West on that same Platform Committee, the guy who called President Obama a "Republican in blackface".
So the Republican senators apparently don't give a fuck about the zika epidemic every scientist is warning about. Instead Ryan and his phonies are using the issue to blackmail Democrats in cutting the budget. Isn't that wonderful?
Put a gun on the head of pregnant women and their future babies (remember, we talk about good conservative who care sooo much about unborn babies), and tell the Democrats to do what you want or you pull the trigger.
I mean, at what point is it fair to just call those guys a bunch of criminals?
On May 28 2016 21:11 biology]major wrote: Trump can once again just attack Hillary and shame her integrity while never elaborating on his plans, he has too much ammo. Once Hillary doubts herself because she lacks integrity, she could give a thesis on how to end world hunger and it won't save her. This is going to be such an easy election for trump. Hillary's strategy should be to avoid the issues, stand her ground and relentlessly attack trump, but after having kumbaya debates with Bernie I doubt she can.
Trump won every republican debate not on the issues, but on his presence and dominance. Once his opponents doubt themselves, it's over. From what I've seen I don't think trump even knows how to doubt himself so that is never going to happen.
Those videos make her look awful btw, that gowdy guy was relentless
Nah.
Trump won the republican debates because none of his contradictors could say that what he said made no sense at all because it would have angered the base. Trump was fighting opponents who had both hands tied behind their back because the Republicans are hostage of the extremists that typically like his propositions.
Hillary will have an easy time destroying him, having not to worry about angering far right nuts who will never vote for her anyway.
Right now is the worst moment for her, but as soon as Sanders boys find a better thing to do in life than helping Trump with negative publicity and ad hominem attacks, I think she will roflstomp him.
On May 18 2016 15:39 NukeD wrote: What are the chances of Hillary going to jail? And how deserving of jail is she in your eyes?
As an outsider, from the stuff I read imo she should be locked for high treason, so I was wondering what the average US citizens view on this is. I also don't think she will infact end up in jail because of her political ties, however.
Uhhh I am actually curious what you read if you get high treason out of even the worst interpretation of whatever she did. I assume this is about the email thing which what she did was not even against the rules let alone the intentionally leaking of classified documents that you are basically implying happened which would be needed for treason.
Its not political connections its just that no crime was committed except for maybe a crime of poor judgement (though considering her email server seems to have held up better then the government one I would even cast doubt on that) and even then I just think it seems like a very overblown story. Basically you got baited by people who want to cast an image on someone (like how they admitted they set up a Benghazi commission to tank her numbers) and are letting the people with an agenda be the people who inform you.
I mostly came to my conclusion from Trey Gowdy videos interogating her about the email situation, where she quitte obviously lied about lots of stuff. Thers other vids that show her as person of very low moral and political integrity.
I mean, the amazing thing is that no one seems to care about the fact that Trump has been lying absolutely all the time this campaign.
I mean, seriously, people supporting someone who says that unemployment is between 35 and 42% in the US make videos about Clinton lying. It's just wonderful.
On May 28 2016 21:11 biology]major wrote: Trump can once again just attack Hillary and shame her integrity while never elaborating on his plans, he has too much ammo. Once Hillary doubts herself because she lacks integrity, she could give a thesis on how to end world hunger and it won't save her. This is going to be such an easy election for trump. Hillary's strategy should be to avoid the issues, stand her ground and relentlessly attack trump, but after having kumbaya debates with Bernie I doubt she can.
Trump won every republican debate not on the issues, but on his presence and dominance. Once his opponents doubt themselves, it's over. From what I've seen I don't think trump even knows how to doubt himself so that is never going to happen.
Those videos make her look awful btw, that gowdy guy was relentless
Trump didn't win any Republican debate unless you count the ones where Rubio failed as Trump winning, and one of those Christie dumpstered Rubio not Trump and at the other Rubio dumpstered himself. He held even at the debates at best (bar the silly "who won" online aggregators). I don't think there was a single one he got a poll bounce out of-Rubio's implosion helped Kasich and Cruz more than Trump.
Trump won the primary because of dominating the media and multiple colossal errors from his opponents, not good debating skills.
I guess you could say not losing poll numbers while saying complete falsities and gibberish is winning of a sort?
On May 28 2016 21:11 biology]major wrote: Trump can once again just attack Hillary and shame her integrity while never elaborating on his plans, he has too much ammo. Once Hillary doubts herself because she lacks integrity, she could give a thesis on how to end world hunger and it won't save her. This is going to be such an easy election for trump. Hillary's strategy should be to avoid the issues, stand her ground and relentlessly attack trump, but after having kumbaya debates with Bernie I doubt she can.
Trump won every republican debate not on the issues, but on his presence and dominance. Once his opponents doubt themselves, it's over. From what I've seen I don't think trump even knows how to doubt himself so that is never going to happen.
Those videos make her look awful btw, that gowdy guy was relentless
Trump didn't win any Republican debate unless you count the ones where Rubio failed as Trump winning, and one of those Christie dumpstered Rubio not Trump and at the other Rubio dumpstered himself. He held even at the debates at best (bar the silly "who won" online aggregators). I don't think there was a single one he got a poll bounce out of-Rubio's implosion helped Kasich and Cruz more than Trump.
Trump won the primary because of dominating the media and multiple colossal errors from his opponents, not good debating skills.
I guess you could say not losing poll numbers while saying complete falsities and gibberish is winning of a sort?
Fine, he won the campaign rather than the debates. What I've said apply there too: Clinton can attack him on the fact that his platform is an incoherent mess that doesn't make a shadow of sense, while the Republican candidates couldn't do that without angering their base. Clinton will shred him to pieces as soon as she has free hands and is not attacked by that weird Trump Sanders alliance that seems to be taking place.
Sad thing, when Sanders started to do well I thought it was a tremendous opportunity for American politics and a very positive phenomenon. The guy has really fucked it up massively.
On May 28 2016 21:11 biology]major wrote: Trump can once again just attack Hillary and shame her integrity while never elaborating on his plans, he has too much ammo. Once Hillary doubts herself because she lacks integrity, she could give a thesis on how to end world hunger and it won't save her. This is going to be such an easy election for trump. Hillary's strategy should be to avoid the issues, stand her ground and relentlessly attack trump, but after having kumbaya debates with Bernie I doubt she can.
Trump won every republican debate not on the issues, but on his presence and dominance. Once his opponents doubt themselves, it's over. From what I've seen I don't think trump even knows how to doubt himself so that is never going to happen.
Those videos make her look awful btw, that gowdy guy was relentless
Trump didn't win any Republican debate unless you count the ones where Rubio failed as Trump winning, and one of those Christie dumpstered Rubio not Trump and at the other Rubio dumpstered himself. He held even at the debates at best (bar the silly "who won" online aggregators). I don't think there was a single one he got a poll bounce out of-Rubio's implosion helped Kasich and Cruz more than Trump.
Trump won the primary because of dominating the media and multiple colossal errors from his opponents, not good debating skills.
I guess you could say not losing poll numbers while saying complete falsities and gibberish is winning of a sort?
Fine, he won the campaign rather than the debates. What I've said apply there too: Clinton can attack him on the fact that his platform is an incoherent mess that doesn't make a shadow of sense, while the Republican candidates couldn't do that without angering their base. Clinton will shred him to pieces as soon as she has free hands and is not attacked by that weird Trump Sanders alliance that seems to be taking place.
Sad thing, when Sanders started to do well I thought it was a tremendous opportunity for American politics and a very positive phenomenon. The guy has really fucked it up massively.
I'd totally agree that the primary campaign and general election campaign, as well as the debates, will be totally different environments for Trump. I also think that just as the GOP undoubtedly has been prepping Clinton ammunition for their nominee, Clinton has been stockpiling and strategizing against Trump to a degree none of his primary opponents have been able to (since they were all strategizing against each other until the end). It's going to be a different animal.
I'm not 100% sure he'll get shredded, just because this election cycle has been a bizarre one, but it will certainly not be like what he's been running against before.
I do hope we get a Trump-blasting speech from Sanders if he pulls out of the race after California/failing that at the convention. The man has had too many choice words about Trump to really believe his presidency for a second would be preferable to Clinton's-whatever his supporters might think.
I dunno, I definitely think Trump won the debates. He had the most solid debate metagame, in that he said enough controversial stuff to make the debates revolve around him, then made his opponents look like petty and weak losers when they attacked him. He also took a lot of Republican positions to their logical extremes, which made it awkward for anyone to attack his positions. To his credit he has been remarkably effective at getting the media to give him the attention he needs, and I think that was by design.
On May 28 2016 03:26 Plansix wrote: By that argument, all politicians are corrupt and so are business people. And Judges. And anyone in any position of power for a period of time.
Most likely, yes. Power is a breeding ground for corruption.
Then, by that argument, we can't hold it against anyone who participates in the system. Or all of our discussions are about relative corruption.
To some degree true. Relative corruption is important here.
Some people on here have flat out said that hillary is not corrupt and laugh at even the hint of possibility.
I am merely demonstrating that is absurd, and some people need to be a little bit more honest about Hillary instead of just jumping to her defense.
I will say it. She is not corrupt at all*. When she got paid for Wall Street speeches and Corporate board speeches, it was because she wanted money and doesn't hate the people she was speaking to. If you look at her actual policy history, there is nothing to suggest she is some Occupy Wall Street burn it all down politician. Center-left politicians don't want to destroy the financial system. The Clinton2 administration, much like the Obama and Clinton1 administration, will not destroy Wall Street. She was never corrupted by Wall Street and turned away from wanting to burn it all down because she never wanted to burn it all down! She is perfectly happy to continue the Democratic party tradition of keeping the financial system working, but regulated**.
*If you disagree, then you need to show where Money was provided to Clinton, and then in return she changed her position based on that money and against her previously held beliefs.
** Contrast the Wall Street boom days where investment bankers had models and bottles on Saturdays during the Bush2 administration to the relative poverty during the Obama era. Dodd-Frank did real damage.
I wish i had that faith in humanity but i don't.
I blame Bernie. He is running on an Occupy Wall Street platform of waging war on the 1% so Hillary had to pretend she wasn't a center-left liberal. HRC has always been okay with financiers and the continuing existence of Wall Street. So is Obama. So was Clinton1. But because Bernie is in the race she has to dance around acting like she is going to stick it to Wall Street when we all know she is just going to keep up the current Obama regulations.
Fuck Obama's regulations with its job growth, high approval rating, health care reforms, finance reforms, reduced war involvement, tax reduction, market growth, and increased social reforms. Only Bernie, Trump, and the GOP are against that.
I remain firmly convinced that, just as Bush Jr. saw a massive unilateral over-commitment of our military and resources abroad in response to 9/11 (quite a shame: his administration, raised the amount of international development aid [esp. in regards to HIV/AIDS] the US gave during his term, the Obama administration has since seen several [unnecessary] cuts), Obama has similarly overcompensated in the other direction, in terms of being overly, hrmmm, passive? withdrawn? Difficult for me to put it in good terms right now. I understand why he did and his own mentality regarding the role of the US in the modern world (and in putting much more stock in the use of drones to fight terrorism), I simply don't agree with it and believe in a much more activist role in the US, especially over the next one/two decades where it's critical for setting the tone of the next century.
We likely needed to leave some US forces based in Iraq to forestall the development of ISIS, and we're facing issues in Afghanistan because of the commitment to a firm deadline for withdrawal, and my opinion on Syria (and Libya) is quite clear. This doesn't diminish the positive accomplishments he's achieved re. US-Cuban relations, the Iran deal (in all likelihood), the recent agreements with Vietnam, and overall repairing US image and brand abroad after a fairly disastrous second Bush term (let's be honest though, it was mostly Iraq). However, with really the exception of the Iran deal, the rapproachement between the US and Cuba/Vietnam were bound to have occurred recently, due to shifting geopolitics and attitudes since the Cold War, and Vietnam is extremely anxious about recent Chinese moves/buildup in the South China Seas (did you know Vietnam is the 5th largest arms purchaser in the world? I didn't, but I probably should've guessed).
How did you know Vietnam is the 5th largest arms purchaser in the world? What the source?
EPT
