|
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 31 2016 08:39 oBlade wrote:
I haven't said anything about any Tiahrt Amendment, what are you talking about?
You said Obama wanted to repeal the second amendment in 2008? He did want to repeal the Tiahrt amendment back in 2008 which has to do with guns so I just assumed that was what you were talking about.
On May 31 2016 08:01 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2016 07:17 Gorsameth wrote:On May 31 2016 07:13 SK.Testie wrote:
Donald is electable if you trust the USA's system of checks and balances. The US could do without another 8 years of complete political inaction. Also if your preferred candidate is only electable because you trust in the checks build into the system then your candidate is shit. I don't get it, if this were 2008 and someone said Obama wanted to repeal the second amendment, and you said not to worry, that's not in the president's power, and they said "if that's your only defense he's a shit candidate," are they not just as correct?
My point here is Obama never said he wanted to repeal the second amendment so your example is stupid. If you weren't actually talking about the Tiahrt amendment then I don't know what to tell you.
|
your Country52797 Posts
On May 31 2016 10:47 Jaaaaasper wrote:I still want to know when Bernie Supporters scream about shills when Bernie spent 16 million dollars on revolution messaging by January (who claim to be running the subreddit btw) vs the one million she spent. Source
Correct the Record will work in support of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for president, aggressively responding to false attacks and misstatements of the secretary’s exemplary record
A Sanders campaign official told [...] that the money paid to Revolution Messaging was spent on “online ads, email fundraising, web development, graphic design, photography and videography.”
How are these even remotely the same thing?
Source Source
|
On May 31 2016 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2016 10:33 JW_DTLA wrote:On May 31 2016 10:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 31 2016 09:57 kwizach wrote:On May 31 2016 09:30 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Hell, favoring Sanders over Hillary due to personal trustworthiness and transparency (where I can certainly concede that a transparent private life is more likely to lead to a transparent presidency) is also legitimate imo - even if it requires some degree of naivete to accept his political platform as attainable. Actually, when it comes to tax transparency, Clinton is the transparent candidate and Sanders isn't. As David Cay Johnston argues here, Sanders is helping the future candidates who will want to keep their tax returns secret. He's doing a disservice to existing standards of transparency. If Brock isn't paying you, he should be. This right here is exactly why the Sander's movement will collapse into nothing. Every argument, even from Bernie, rapidly devolves into ad hominem accusations of corruption. Even my Bernie friends on Facebook do it. You go straight to personal insults even when dealing with other Liberals. How do you think that will go over with Conservatives? Conservatives and Liberals can have real political convictions without being in the thrall of Wall Street or some other imaginary Bernie boogieman. EDIT: prediction: when Bernie gets voted down by the delegates and his campaign loses finally, all Bernie will have left are his accusations that everyone who beat him is Corrupt. He is a small man who belittles anyone who disagrees with him as being Corrupted by Wall Street or the Establishment. He will flame out with nothing left but the recriminations. That's not even a comment on corruption, that's a comment on Kwiz doing what Brock is paying people to do (his version, not the internet's interpretation). It's actually a compliment, though I understand the confusion.
If you're going to go for ad hominems, at least own up to them instead of pretending you're not trying to be insulting. The irony of you making that comment is quite remarkable, though.
On May 31 2016 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2016 10:42 kwizach wrote:On May 31 2016 10:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 31 2016 09:57 kwizach wrote:On May 31 2016 09:30 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Hell, favoring Sanders over Hillary due to personal trustworthiness and transparency (where I can certainly concede that a transparent private life is more likely to lead to a transparent presidency) is also legitimate imo - even if it requires some degree of naivete to accept his political platform as attainable. Actually, when it comes to tax transparency, Clinton is the transparent candidate and Sanders isn't. As David Cay Johnston argues here, Sanders is helping the future candidates who will want to keep their tax returns secret. He's doing a disservice to existing standards of transparency. If Brock isn't paying you, he should be. What's interesting now, is because it's leveraged against Hillary's transcripts, she has control over both the "existing standard of transparency" and future standards. If Hillary want's to keep her transcripts private and her supporters are willing to defend her on it, there will now be a precedent for candidates/spouses to collect millions of dollars for "speaking" to big money donors and then turn around and say that there's no reason the American public should want to know what they said in at those private speeches they got paid millions of dollars to give. At best the "standard" is one more year. I wish Bernie would release them just to kill the talking point altogether, since Hillary isn't releasing what she said for the money (which is the part people want to know) no matter what, and they are just going to come out in the general anyway. But alas, Bernie doesn't have the "wingin' it" skills Trump has employed in creating a new campaign rule book, nor does he have quite the widespread brooding contempt with the party to work with. Too bad lifespans aren't a bit longer so his age wasn't such an issue, because in 4-8 years America is finally going to be ready for him. Ah, the usual deflection. Releasing speech transcripts like these is not something that has ever been expected of any presidential candidate. Releasing one's tax returns is the standard, and it's a very important standard, which is why there was so much pressure on Romney to release his in the 2012 election. But sure, keep pretending that David Cay Johnston is a "paid shill" as well. The fact is that by refusing to release his tax returns, and by lying about doing so, Sanders is undermining an important standard in presidential politics, and it's a standard that should be absolutely fundamental to anyone who thinks the role of money in politics is an important issue. To quote the article by DCJ I linked to: In comments to Wolf Blitzer on CNN midday Tuesday, Jane Sanders revealed that she and her husband either lack an understanding of the historic reasons it is crucial that presidential candidates release many years of complete tax returns, that they lack a broad regard for integrity in government, or that they have something to hide.
The latter concern grows from Jane Sanders’ own conduct. First, she falsely asserted that the couple had repeatedly released tax returns, an assertion with no basis in fact as my April 13 National Memo column showed. Then there was her role as the president of a small, financially struggling nonprofit college, where she reportedly funneled $500,000 to her daughter and may have made false statements on bank loan papers.
But even if the Sanders tax returns are clean as a whistle, we should care about the Sanders tax returns. [...] We should care because we want every single person running for president to make public their complete tax returns – including schedules, statements and worksheets – for many years so that we do not ever again have an unindicted felon in the White House or an admitted tax cheat just a heartbeat away.
If a white hat politician like Sanders will not follow a tradition dating to the corrupt, tax-cheating presidency of Richard Nixon and his first vice president, Spiro Agnew, it gives aid and comfort to those who want to hide their black hat conduct. [...]
Plenty of people who want to exercise power over us from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will want to keep their tax returns out of public record now and for as long as the United States of America endures. Many of them who have something to hide will cite Sanders as their model. [...] There is simply no excuse for Sanders not to release his tax returns. That's what's expected of presidential candidates. I find the balancing between "it's just what's expected" and "it wasn't illegal" fascinating. Nothing illegal about not releasing one's returns, if "not illegal" is the standard for national security emails, I think people aren't going to buy into the whole not releasing one's returns is disqualifying/some devastating action.
...and again with the deflection. Like I said, there is simply no excuse for Sanders not to release his tax returns, and that has nothing to do with Hillary's e-mails. It's absolutely not illegal for him not to release his returns, but that's utterly irrelevant. It wouldn't have been illegal for Romney not to release his returns, but it's nevertheless a standard that is extremely important to uphold.
|
wow I really messed that up. My bad.
|
|
|
On May 31 2016 11:18 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2016 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 31 2016 10:33 JW_DTLA wrote:On May 31 2016 10:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 31 2016 09:57 kwizach wrote:On May 31 2016 09:30 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Hell, favoring Sanders over Hillary due to personal trustworthiness and transparency (where I can certainly concede that a transparent private life is more likely to lead to a transparent presidency) is also legitimate imo - even if it requires some degree of naivete to accept his political platform as attainable. Actually, when it comes to tax transparency, Clinton is the transparent candidate and Sanders isn't. As David Cay Johnston argues here, Sanders is helping the future candidates who will want to keep their tax returns secret. He's doing a disservice to existing standards of transparency. If Brock isn't paying you, he should be. This right here is exactly why the Sander's movement will collapse into nothing. Every argument, even from Bernie, rapidly devolves into ad hominem accusations of corruption. Even my Bernie friends on Facebook do it. You go straight to personal insults even when dealing with other Liberals. How do you think that will go over with Conservatives? Conservatives and Liberals can have real political convictions without being in the thrall of Wall Street or some other imaginary Bernie boogieman. EDIT: prediction: when Bernie gets voted down by the delegates and his campaign loses finally, all Bernie will have left are his accusations that everyone who beat him is Corrupt. He is a small man who belittles anyone who disagrees with him as being Corrupted by Wall Street or the Establishment. He will flame out with nothing left but the recriminations. That's not even a comment on corruption, that's a comment on Kwiz doing what Brock is paying people to do (his version, not the internet's interpretation). It's actually a compliment, though I understand the confusion. If you're going to go for ad hominems, at least own up to them instead of pretending you're not trying to be insulting. The irony of you making that comment is quite remarkable, though. Show nested quote +On May 31 2016 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 31 2016 10:42 kwizach wrote:On May 31 2016 10:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 31 2016 09:57 kwizach wrote:On May 31 2016 09:30 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Hell, favoring Sanders over Hillary due to personal trustworthiness and transparency (where I can certainly concede that a transparent private life is more likely to lead to a transparent presidency) is also legitimate imo - even if it requires some degree of naivete to accept his political platform as attainable. Actually, when it comes to tax transparency, Clinton is the transparent candidate and Sanders isn't. As David Cay Johnston argues here, Sanders is helping the future candidates who will want to keep their tax returns secret. He's doing a disservice to existing standards of transparency. If Brock isn't paying you, he should be. What's interesting now, is because it's leveraged against Hillary's transcripts, she has control over both the "existing standard of transparency" and future standards. If Hillary want's to keep her transcripts private and her supporters are willing to defend her on it, there will now be a precedent for candidates/spouses to collect millions of dollars for "speaking" to big money donors and then turn around and say that there's no reason the American public should want to know what they said in at those private speeches they got paid millions of dollars to give. At best the "standard" is one more year. I wish Bernie would release them just to kill the talking point altogether, since Hillary isn't releasing what she said for the money (which is the part people want to know) no matter what, and they are just going to come out in the general anyway. But alas, Bernie doesn't have the "wingin' it" skills Trump has employed in creating a new campaign rule book, nor does he have quite the widespread brooding contempt with the party to work with. Too bad lifespans aren't a bit longer so his age wasn't such an issue, because in 4-8 years America is finally going to be ready for him. Ah, the usual deflection. Releasing speech transcripts like these is not something that has ever been expected of any presidential candidate. Releasing one's tax returns is the standard, and it's a very important standard, which is why there was so much pressure on Romney to release his in the 2012 election. But sure, keep pretending that David Cay Johnston is a "paid shill" as well. The fact is that by refusing to release his tax returns, and by lying about doing so, Sanders is undermining an important standard in presidential politics, and it's a standard that should be absolutely fundamental to anyone who thinks the role of money in politics is an important issue. To quote the article by DCJ I linked to: In comments to Wolf Blitzer on CNN midday Tuesday, Jane Sanders revealed that she and her husband either lack an understanding of the historic reasons it is crucial that presidential candidates release many years of complete tax returns, that they lack a broad regard for integrity in government, or that they have something to hide.
The latter concern grows from Jane Sanders’ own conduct. First, she falsely asserted that the couple had repeatedly released tax returns, an assertion with no basis in fact as my April 13 National Memo column showed. Then there was her role as the president of a small, financially struggling nonprofit college, where she reportedly funneled $500,000 to her daughter and may have made false statements on bank loan papers.
But even if the Sanders tax returns are clean as a whistle, we should care about the Sanders tax returns. [...] We should care because we want every single person running for president to make public their complete tax returns – including schedules, statements and worksheets – for many years so that we do not ever again have an unindicted felon in the White House or an admitted tax cheat just a heartbeat away.
If a white hat politician like Sanders will not follow a tradition dating to the corrupt, tax-cheating presidency of Richard Nixon and his first vice president, Spiro Agnew, it gives aid and comfort to those who want to hide their black hat conduct. [...]
Plenty of people who want to exercise power over us from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will want to keep their tax returns out of public record now and for as long as the United States of America endures. Many of them who have something to hide will cite Sanders as their model. [...] There is simply no excuse for Sanders not to release his tax returns. That's what's expected of presidential candidates. I find the balancing between "it's just what's expected" and "it wasn't illegal" fascinating. Nothing illegal about not releasing one's returns, if "not illegal" is the standard for national security emails, I think people aren't going to buy into the whole not releasing one's returns is disqualifying/some devastating action. ...and again with the deflection. Like I said, there is simply no excuse for Sanders not to release his tax returns, and that has nothing to do with Hillary's e-mails. It's absolutely not illegal for him not to release his returns, but that's utterly irrelevant. It wouldn't have been illegal for Romney not to release his returns, but it's nevertheless a standard that is extremely important to uphold.
This is quite literally what I meant.
Correct the Record will work in support of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for president, aggressively responding to false attacks and misstatements of the secretary’s exemplary record
You want him to release more of his tax returns, there's no clear precedent for how many years. I agree that he should release another year to stop the line of attack (and keep the tradition). What I should expect Hillary supporters to agree on is that she shouldn't set a precedent for Trump (or someone like him) to go collect millions in speeches and then not even say what was in them if they run in 2020.
|
On May 31 2016 11:17 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2016 10:47 Jaaaaasper wrote:I still want to know when Bernie Supporters scream about shills when Bernie spent 16 million dollars on revolution messaging by January (who claim to be running the subreddit btw) vs the one million she spent. Source Show nested quote +Correct the Record will work in support of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for president, aggressively responding to false attacks and misstatements of the secretary’s exemplary record Show nested quote +A Sanders campaign official told [...] that the money paid to Revolution Messaging was spent on “online ads, email fundraising, web development, graphic design, photography and videography.” How are these even remotely the same thing? Source Source
I mean Revolution Messaging clains that they're runnign the Bernie subreddit on reddit, so its kind of hard to believe that. But yeah the Sanders campaign is defiantly telling the truth.
|
On May 31 2016 11:33 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2016 11:17 The_Templar wrote:On May 31 2016 10:47 Jaaaaasper wrote:I still want to know when Bernie Supporters scream about shills when Bernie spent 16 million dollars on revolution messaging by January (who claim to be running the subreddit btw) vs the one million she spent. Source Correct the Record will work in support of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for president, aggressively responding to false attacks and misstatements of the secretary’s exemplary record A Sanders campaign official told [...] that the money paid to Revolution Messaging was spent on “online ads, email fundraising, web development, graphic design, photography and videography.” How are these even remotely the same thing? Source Source I mean Revolution Messaging clains that they're runnign the Bernie subreddit on reddit,
What?
|
|
|
On May 31 2016 11:15 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2016 08:39 oBlade wrote:
I haven't said anything about any Tiahrt Amendment, what are you talking about? You said Obama wanted to repeal the second amendment in 2008? He did want to repeal the Tiahrt amendment back in 2008 which has to do with guns so I just assumed that was what you were talking about. Show nested quote +On May 31 2016 08:01 oBlade wrote:On May 31 2016 07:17 Gorsameth wrote:On May 31 2016 07:13 SK.Testie wrote:
Donald is electable if you trust the USA's system of checks and balances. The US could do without another 8 years of complete political inaction. Also if your preferred candidate is only electable because you trust in the checks build into the system then your candidate is shit. I don't get it, if this were 2008 and someone said Obama wanted to repeal the second amendment, and you said not to worry, that's not in the president's power, and they said "if that's your only defense he's a shit candidate," are they not just as correct? My point here is Obama never said he wanted to repeal the second amendment so your example is stupid. If you weren't actually talking about the Tiahrt amendment then I don't know what to tell you.
Why are you repeatedly calling the example "stupid" when you admit to having not understood it? The point is that defending a candidate from spurious attacks isn't a form of proof that a candidate is trash. If someone told me in 2008 that Obama wanted to repeal the second amendment (based on actual statements he'd made as regards guns), and I explained to them that them the president can't do that, and then they told me if that was my only defense then it was just more proof he was a "shit" candidate, I would consider their head was on backwards. It's circular nonsense. Likewise, saying we have a government with bounds that Trump will have to work in before he can put people in camps (or whatever taxingly obnoxious fearmongering it is this week) does not somehow prove that Trump is "shit." Are you up to speed now?
|
So i have been lurking for a while and i have to ask something of trump supporters that are so confident that he is going to win. I am just baffled as to where that confidence comes from.
Now i know Hillary is probably one of the worst that the dems have had in a while and bernie would of been just as bad. Now depending on who you ask trump is at the very least just as bad and by a lot of measures worse.
So we have two very flawed choices to pick from but last time i checked the dems and by extension hillery basically start at the finish line while trump is not even at the start line in the quest for 270. I think of it this way, say we lived in an alternate universe where the blue wall was actually the red wall and hillery had to do what trump has to do. I would laugh at you if you tell me she had a chance. Trump has to not only win almost every battle ground state he also has to flip states that obama won while hilly has to win 1 maybe two states. When both have about a 1/4 of the country that "hates" them last time it was checked i not going to be putting my horses on someone that has to sweep the board with those numbers. Just like i would think you where crazy where the situations reversed.
So for me i just dont where all this faith seems to be coming from, I mean are you the same people that though romeny was going to come anywhere close. Is the media just that good at spinning things to make people eat it up or what.
Bow like i said i know the media is going to try and make this seem close so it is hard to take stock it what they say bit almost all the states that had some type of rating change have been red states. They have ether gone from light red to tossup or from dark red to light light.
Short of hillery going to jail i dont see anything other then a win form her.
|
Hahaha all the times I got called a Shill and the whole time the Sander's campaign was spending even more money than Correct the Record building out their troll army.
Keep reaching for that "How much is Brock paying you?" one liner GH. It will only get better with age.
|
You're joking right?
They point to his subreddit getting more activity when he announced and them creating a hashtag that was quite organically decided on. This is the part where Hillary supporters lambaste such a ridiculous conspiracy theory.
On May 31 2016 12:08 JW_DTLA wrote:
Hahaha all the times I got called a Shill and the whole time the Sander's campaign was spending even more money than Correct the Record building out their troll army.
Keep reaching for that "How much is Brock paying you?" one liner GH. It will only get better with age.
That would not be what I said or what I meant. I was saying Kwiz does a better job than wherever those people are, and if he's not getting paid to put out counter information, he should be.
|
On May 31 2016 12:20 GreenHorizons wrote:You're joking right? They point to his subreddit getting more activity when he announced and them creating a hashtag that was quite organically decided on. This is the part where Hillary supporters lambaste such a ridiculous conspiracy theory. Show nested quote +On May 31 2016 12:08 JW_DTLA wrote:
Hahaha all the times I got called a Shill and the whole time the Sander's campaign was spending even more money than Correct the Record building out their troll army.
Keep reaching for that "How much is Brock paying you?" one liner GH. It will only get better with age.
That would not be what I said or what I meant. I was saying Kwiz does a better job than wherever those people are, and if he's not getting paid to put out counter information, he should be.
Scroll down and it points out that they said they "helped the growth of the subreddit"
How much did Revolution Messaging pay you for that comment?
|
your Country52797 Posts
You linked not only to reddit, but to a hate subreddit?
|
On May 31 2016 12:26 The_Templar wrote:You linked not only to reddit, but to a hate subreddit?
Trying reading the source and evidence m8
|
On May 31 2016 12:07 Shingi11 wrote:
So i have been lurking for a while and i have to ask something of trump supporters that are so confident that he is going to win. I am just baffled as to where that confidence comes from.
Now i know Hillary is probably one of the worst that the dems have had in a while and bernie would of been just as bad. Now depending on who you ask trump is at the very least just as bad and by a lot of measures worse.
So we have two very flawed choices to pick from but last time i checked the dems and by extension hillery basically start at the finish line while trump is not even at the start line in the quest for 270. I think of it this way, say we lived in an alternate universe where the blue wall was actually the red wall and hillery had to do what trump has to do. I would laugh at you if you tell me she had a chance. Trump has to not only win almost every battle ground state he also has to flip states that obama won while hilly has to win 1 maybe two states. When both have about a 1/4 of the country that "hates" them last time it was checked i not going to be putting my horses on someone that has to sweep the board with those numbers. Just like i would think you where crazy where the situations reversed.
So for me i just dont where all this faith seems to be coming from, I mean are you the same people that though romeny was going to come anywhere close. Is the media just that good at spinning things to make people eat it up or what.
Bow like i said i know the media is going to try and make this seem close so it is hard to take stock it what they say bit almost all the states that had some type of rating change have been red states. They have ether gone from light red to tossup or from dark red to light light.
Short of hillery going to jail i dont see anything other then a win form her.
The Democrats don't have that strong of a grasp of the elect college kinda like a 20 to 30 point gap before the swing states come in.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-demographics-will-shape-the-2016-election/
This should be your guide to the election. Nate silver is a mortal man but at least he uses statistics.
|
On May 31 2016 12:27 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2016 12:26 The_Templar wrote:You linked not only to reddit, but to a hate subreddit? Trying reading the source and evidence m8
Your source has less valuable content than a trump speech.
|
On May 31 2016 12:30 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2016 12:27 Jaaaaasper wrote:On May 31 2016 12:26 The_Templar wrote:You linked not only to reddit, but to a hate subreddit? Trying reading the source and evidence m8 Your source has less valuable content than a trump speech.
So twice as much content as the one speach Bernie has given over the entire campaign?
|
On May 31 2016 12:27 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2016 12:26 The_Templar wrote:You linked not only to reddit, but to a hate subreddit? Trying reading the source and evidence m8
None of the sources say anything about the firm controlling the subreddit other then a conspiracy based on activity spikes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
