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.
Would there be anything wrong with S4P being run by a marketing agency? If Sanders manufactured hype at first to get the ball rolling, what would be wrong with that?
You linked not only to reddit, but to a hate subreddit?
Trying reading the source and evidence m8
What evidence?
Metrics: as far as I can tell, every single one of these peaks corresponds to a major event or milestone in the campaign. The two spikes in May 2015 that are referred to are when he announced (surprise, Sanders' message is popular on reddit) and his reddit AMA, which obviously attracted some people that missed the first one.
Revolution Messaging and #feelthebern: Stuff like starting the hashtag is exactly what I'd expect a normal online campaign to do, and hopefully we can agree there isn't a problem there. There is also no actual evidence listed there that points to them taking over the subreddit.
On May 31 2016 12:33 Jaaaaasper wrote: It wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't for the non stop freak out by sanders supporters calling everyone who disagrees with them shills.
Also classy move on Bernies part, napping through a memorial day ceremony celebrating the men and women who have given their lives for their country.
You do know you'll need those sanders supporters to help beat trump in the fall right? You need to reign your hate in tword them.
On May 31 2016 12:33 Jaaaaasper wrote: Also classy move on Bernies part, napping through a memorial day ceremony celebrating the men and women who have given their lives for their country.
Maybe people shouldn't ever take shit randos post on the Internet as creditable evidence of anything without independent, supporting evidence. And even then m, it's still safe to assume it's all made up. Because it's the Internet and any fool can steal photoshop.
Trump supporter who never thought I'd be a Trump supporter 9 months ago here Shingi.
I don't see too much confidence in here from Trump supporters. Some are pretty confident and I hope it's true. But when looking at the big picture I simply think Hillary will win handily. I hope she doesn't even though I'm one of the few people that really likes her. Because Trump's movement is bigger than Bernies and it's given young men and women a vision of what they want their America to be like again. The fact that they're so respectful of each other and law enforcement compared to the rioters on the left is really the nail in the coffin. One side wants the rule of law and to uphold it. The other burns the flag, waves other countries flags, and disrespects America on its own soil. They're free to do so, but it's constant.
Like, which side would you rather be on in the video below? The cops just trying to do their job? Or the people who keep attacking the cops? I always see Trump supporters say, "hey don't be like them. Don't break stuff don't steal stuff don't tear down their signs, we respect other peoples property." Meanwhile facebook was full of people stealing trump signs, defacing them, defecating on his star in hollywood. This is no way for civilized people to act. There's just so much wrong on the other side that I cannot see myself ever being one of them. Ask the police why they're voting for Trump this election.
My question is more to the left... how do you justify this? How can you actually justify this? In what world does any of this look like a good idea? And it's happening at every event. Who the hell is on the left that condones this? Apparently a lot of people seeing as it keeps happening.
On May 31 2016 12:52 SK.Testie wrote: Trump supporter who never thought I'd be a Trump supporter 9 months ago here Shingi.
I don't see too much confidence in here from Trump supporters. Some are pretty confident and I hope it's true. But when looking at the big picture I simply think Hillary will win handily. I hope she doesn't even though I'm one of the few people that really likes her. Because Trump's movement is bigger than Bernies and it's given young men and women a vision of what they want their America to be like again. The fact that they're so respectful of each other and law enforcement compared to the rioters on the left is really the nail in the coffin. One side wants the rule of law and to uphold it. The other burns the flag, waves other countries flags, and disrespects America on its own soil. They're free to do so, but it's constant.
Like, which side would you rather be on in the video below? The cops just trying to do their job? Or the people who keep attacking the cops? I always see Trump supporters say, "hey don't be like them. Don't break stuff don't steal stuff don't tear down their signs, we respect other peoples property." Meanwhile facebook was full of people stealing trump signs, defacing them, defecating on his star in hollywood. This is no way for civilized people to act. There's just so much wrong on the other side that I cannot see myself ever being one of them. Ask the police why they're voting for Trump this election. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCTqL-Tjofw
My question is more to the left... how do you justify this? How can you actually justify this? In what world does any of this look like a good idea? And it's happening at every event. Who the hell is on the left that condones this? Apparently a lot of people seeing as it keeps happening.
I don't condone people acting violent against officers (except in reasonably rare & extreme circumstances) but I do understand why they are doing it. A great swath of America has a very different experience with law enforcement than the typical white person, until white people (especially the pocket constitution crowd) understand what that really means I'd only expect it to get worse.
The anti-Trump people (especially the organized protests) have been non-violent, the violence usually comes from the crowds who stay after the lawful protests.
Trump supporters are hardly innocent either, they've gone out of their way to be confrontational with protesters plenty.
On May 31 2016 12:52 SK.Testie wrote: Trump supporter who never thought I'd be a Trump supporter 9 months ago here Shingi.
I don't see too much confidence in here from Trump supporters. Some are pretty confident and I hope it's true. But when looking at the big picture I simply think Hillary will win handily. I hope she doesn't even though I'm one of the few people that really likes her. Because Trump's movement is bigger than Bernies and it's given young men and women a vision of what they want their America to be like again. The fact that they're so respectful of each other and law enforcement compared to the rioters on the left is really the nail in the coffin. One side wants the rule of law and to uphold it. The other burns the flag, waves other countries flags, and disrespects America on its own soil. They're free to do so, but it's constant.
Like, which side would you rather be on in the video below? The cops just trying to do their job? Or the people who keep attacking the cops? I always see Trump supporters say, "hey don't be like them. Don't break stuff don't steal stuff don't tear down their signs, we respect other peoples property." Meanwhile facebook was full of people stealing trump signs, defacing them, defecating on his star in hollywood. This is no way for civilized people to act. There's just so much wrong on the other side that I cannot see myself ever being one of them. Ask the police why they're voting for Trump this election. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCTqL-Tjofw
My question is more to the left... how do you justify this? How can you actually justify this? In what world does any of this look like a good idea? And it's happening at every event. Who the hell is on the left that condones this? Apparently a lot of people seeing as it keeps happening.
There are certainly a lot of things (apologies for radical Islam and black criminals, identity politics, arguments appealing to emotion over fact, expanding the welfare state, defending socialism etc) on the left that I disagree with. For me they are reasons why I would prefer Trump over Sanders, but none of them are reasons for me to support Trump over Hillary. He is, at the end of the day, still a supremely unqualified candidate for president.
On May 31 2016 12:52 SK.Testie wrote: Trump supporter who never thought I'd be a Trump supporter 9 months ago here Shingi.
I don't see too much confidence in here from Trump supporters. Some are pretty confident and I hope it's true. But when looking at the big picture I simply think Hillary will win handily. I hope she doesn't even though I'm one of the few people that really likes her. Because Trump's movement is bigger than Bernies and it's given young men and women a vision of what they want their America to be like again. The fact that they're so respectful of each other and law enforcement compared to the rioters on the left is really the nail in the coffin. One side wants the rule of law and to uphold it. The other burns the flag, waves other countries flags, and disrespects America on its own soil. They're free to do so, but it's constant.
Like, which side would you rather be on in the video below? The cops just trying to do their job? Or the people who keep attacking the cops? I always see Trump supporters say, "hey don't be like them. Don't break stuff don't steal stuff don't tear down their signs, we respect other peoples property." Meanwhile facebook was full of people stealing trump signs, defacing them, defecating on his star in hollywood. This is no way for civilized people to act. There's just so much wrong on the other side that I cannot see myself ever being one of them. Ask the police why they're voting for Trump this election. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCTqL-Tjofw
My question is more to the left... how do you justify this? How can you actually justify this? In what world does any of this look like a good idea? And it's happening at every event. Who the hell is on the left that condones this? Apparently a lot of people seeing as it keeps happening.
I don't condone people acting violent against officers (except in reasonably rare & extreme circumstances) but I do understand why they are doing it. A great swath of America has a very different experience with law enforcement than the typical white person, until white people (especially the pocket constitution crowd) understand what that really means I'd only expect it to get worse.
The anti-Trump people (especially the organized protests) have been non-violent, the violence usually comes from the crowds who stay after the lawful protests.
Trump supporters are hardly innocent either, they've gone out of their way to be confrontational with protesters plenty.
You can't just pass this off as racism, as the left almost always accuses other people of in controversial situations. Do you really believe 100% of those protesting violently are non-white?? Or even 90%? And even if they were, on what basis do you assume their violence has anything to do with issues they have with racist police officers, or that so many officers are racist to begin with. It just seems like you're making way too many assumptions here, unless you are actually an expert in this area and know all of it to be true.
Anyway I'm not sure this is really new. When protesters get violent at any rally, and the riot police are called in, frequently they will throw things at the riot police and physical assault them. Its not unique to this situation and has been going on for decades. It exists in other countries as well. When people are enraged by someone or something, frequently they are unable to restrain themselves when they are organized into crowds. I think its more of a psychological phenomenon than anything; in groups it seems like people feed off each other easily, to the point where you had riots in Vancouver (and burning of police cars, etc.) just for losing a hockey game.
Of course you need something to really inspire that level of anger (hockey is apparently pretty important in certain parts of Canada ). I feel like the media has a large role to play, in that they generally misinterpret Trump's comments to be much worse than they really are. At worst he is a conspiracy theorist, who thinks Mexico deliberately sends criminals over the border, believes global warming is a Chinese hoax, and is hyper-protective about America's security to the point where he is willing to shut down immigration of Muslims (somehow). And he said offensive things about women (and his opponents). These are for the most part some crazy ideas, but nothing to inspire violence-inducing hatred. Instead people seem to treat him like he's the next Adolf Hitler due to various misinterpretations of extreme racism and islamophobia. At least that's my hypothesis.
What are your guys thoughts on the idea that the break up of the family is the leading reason why blacks are in the position they are today vs racism in the workplace/cops/society in current year.
Larry Elder seems to back this up with numbers but I'm curious as to what you guys think about it. He also brings up the blacks killing blacks is much more common than blacks being killed by a racist white person, something that BLM chooses to ignore.
Two ignorant points. Firstly, yes, blacks kill blacks in gang violence etc, nobody is saying they don't or that those deaths don't matter. But equally nobody is defending criminal thugs who murder black people. Nobody is saying that's okay. It's a tragedy but everyone universally understands that it is a tragedy that we need to try and fight. It's a problem but it's not an argument, we're all on the same side. Systematic oppression and racism by the police is a completely different animal. For every traffic stop that turns into an execution because the police profiled the victim based on their skin colour you have a large section of the American population justifying the use of force as appropriate in a way they would not if the victim had looked like they do. And police violence matters more than civilian violence. Murderers murder people, it sucks but that's more or less what they're supposed to do. We wish they wouldn't but when they do it just sucks for everyone involved. When police fuck up they don't just kill someone, they do irrevocable damage to the entire social contract, to society as a whole. How are we meant to tell black communities that they need to respect police officers, the law, the institutions we put in place to protect them and society as a whole, democracy, the justice system, all of it, if the most visible part of that system is abusing its power over them. That is why police violence matters, a murderer murdering someone doesn't completely undermine the social contract and destroy all faith in the institutions we rely upon to have a functioning society, a police officer displaying racial prejudice, lying to cover up abuse and so forth does.
There seems to be an idea that blacks like black on black violence but hate the police. It's nonsense. It does not merit response beyond explaining why police violence merits its own special response.
As for the family bit, it's like they completely missed the time that the war on drugs was created specifically to target undesirables, soicalists, hispanics and blacks and works chiefly by imprisoning the breadwinners. But whenever anyone on the right talks about the destruction of the family they seem to universally mean that they miss when women stayed in the home, where the police dismissed domestic violence and rape accusations, particularly in minority populations where it was viewed as not their problem, where gays were stoned and WASP men held all the power. I'm not against families, nobody is, but when conservatives talk about families they're not talking about happy two parent middle class families, they're talking about an oppressive power structure that has been lost. I wish they weren't and that they'd actually do shit to help families like maternity leave or whatever but that's not the game they play. Single parent households typically do worse than happy stable two parent households. But that is not an argument for bringing back the 1950s, nor should we assume that every two parent household in the 1950s was a happy stable two parent household. But either way, maybe black men would stick around longer if we didn't lock quite so many of them up for non violent drug offences and other bullshit.
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:
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
I know that is what you meant. Which is why I said: "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". You didn't mean it as a compliment at all and you know it.
On May 31 2016 11:29 GreenHorizons wrote: 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.
Easy -- match Hillary and make his tax returns dating back at least two decades publicly available. Two years' worth of returns is what Romney and McCain released, which is pretty pathetic and which was already well below the existing standard: before McCain, no major party nominee had released less than five years’ worth of tax returns in the last thirty years. Speeches are a completely different matter, regardless of how badly you want to make a false equivalence, since there is no precedent whatsoever for releasing transcripts of such speeches. The precedent would be requiring someone to release them, not the opposite. I don't get why Sanders is being so dodgy with regards to his returns, honestly. It's pretty sad to see him lie about releasing them and oppose transparency.
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:
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.
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
I know that is what you meant. Which is why I said: "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". You didn't mean it as a compliment at all and you know it.
On May 31 2016 11:29 GreenHorizons wrote: 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.
Easy -- match Hillary and make his tax returns dating back at least two decades publicly available. Two years' worth of returns is what Romney and McCain released, which is pretty pathetic and which was already well below the existing standard: before McCain, no major party nominee had released less than five years’ worth of tax returns in the last thirty years. Speeches are a completely different matter, regardless of how badly you want to make a false equivalence, since there is no precedent whatsoever for releasing transcripts of such speeches. The precedent would be requiring someone to release them, not the opposite. I don't get why Sanders is being so dodgy with regards to his returns, honestly. It's pretty sad to see him lie about it and oppose transparency.
I wouldn't be shy to own it if that's how I meant it. I genuinely meant you are on point when it comes to putting out the counter information for every point being raised by Sanders and his supporters. I obviously don't agree with a lot of it but you are doing what he said he is paying people for better than wherever those people are. Learn how to take a compliment
As for the second part, he's not the nominee though. The precedent for a challenger (particularly to a presumed nominee) is much more speckled. There's no reason for two decades worth, and I wouldn't expect most people to even have that handy.
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:
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
I know that is what you meant. Which is why I said: "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". You didn't mean it as a compliment at all and you know it.
On May 31 2016 11:29 GreenHorizons wrote: 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.
Easy -- match Hillary and make his tax returns dating back at least two decades publicly available. Two years' worth of returns is what Romney and McCain released, which is pretty pathetic and which was already well below the existing standard: before McCain, no major party nominee had released less than five years’ worth of tax returns in the last thirty years. Speeches are a completely different matter, regardless of how badly you want to make a false equivalence, since there is no precedent whatsoever for releasing transcripts of such speeches. The precedent would be requiring someone to release them, not the opposite. I don't get why Sanders is being so dodgy with regards to his returns, honestly. It's pretty sad to see him lie about it and oppose transparency.
I wouldn't be shy to own it if that's how I meant it. I genuinely meant you are on point when it comes to putting out the counter information for every point being raised by Sanders and his supporters. I obviously don't agree with a lot of it but you are doing what he said he is paying people for better than wherever those people are. Learn how to take a compliment
Stop insulting everyone's intelligence by pretending that you meant something positive by implying I might be paid (and saying I should be if I wasn't) by David Brock, whom you despise.
On May 31 2016 17:26 GreenHorizons wrote: As for the second part, he's not the nominee though. The precedent for a challenger (particularly to a presumed nominee) is much more speckled. There's no reason for two decades worth, and I wouldn't expect most people to even have that handy.
You don't need to "have that handy", all you need to do is make a request for them. That's why the Sanders' repeated excuses of not having enough time to release them because of being busy with the campaign was bogus. Challenger or not, Sanders is already asking for people's votes to become the next president. It's inexcusable for him to still be dodging what has become a standard for three decades. Again, go read David Cay Johnston's columns on the topic. He's undermining an established transparency standard, which makes him quite hypocritical on the subject of transparency and money in politics.
You are like two reiligous zealots arguing with each other. In the end no one gains anything but at least your both angry and made everyone else shake their heads.
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:
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
I know that is what you meant. Which is why I said: "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". You didn't mean it as a compliment at all and you know it.
On May 31 2016 11:29 GreenHorizons wrote: 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.
Easy -- match Hillary and make his tax returns dating back at least two decades publicly available. Two years' worth of returns is what Romney and McCain released, which is pretty pathetic and which was already well below the existing standard: before McCain, no major party nominee had released less than five years’ worth of tax returns in the last thirty years. Speeches are a completely different matter, regardless of how badly you want to make a false equivalence, since there is no precedent whatsoever for releasing transcripts of such speeches. The precedent would be requiring someone to release them, not the opposite. I don't get why Sanders is being so dodgy with regards to his returns, honestly. It's pretty sad to see him lie about it and oppose transparency.
I wouldn't be shy to own it if that's how I meant it. I genuinely meant you are on point when it comes to putting out the counter information for every point being raised by Sanders and his supporters. I obviously don't agree with a lot of it but you are doing what he said he is paying people for better than wherever those people are. Learn how to take a compliment
Stop insulting everyone's intelligence by pretending that you meant something positive by implying I might be paid (and saying I should be if I wasn't) by David Brock, whom you despise.
On May 31 2016 17:26 GreenHorizons wrote: As for the second part, he's not the nominee though. The precedent for a challenger (particularly to a presumed nominee) is much more speckled. There's no reason for two decades worth, and I wouldn't expect most people to even have that handy.
You don't need to "have that handy", all you need to do is make a request for them. That's why the Sanders' repeated excuses of not having enough time to release them because of being busy with the campaign was bogus. Challenger or not, Sanders is already asking for people's votes to become the next president. It's inexcusable for him to still be dodging what has become a standard for three decades. Again, go read David Cay Johnston's columns on the topic. He's undermining an established transparency standard, which makes him quite hypocritical on the subject of transparency and money in politics.
Brock's a despicable person I wouldn't want my president to be associated with, but I got no beef with a guy making a living (in this case you) getting payed to say things you believe. But I think folks are right about the cat fighting so I'll just let you do your thing undisturbed by me for a while.
OK, I get that the bulk of US public is easily swayed by the supposed "scandals" and similar personal stuff, but why you guys? Why so many people in this thread are so bent on the e-mail thing? Don't you see how childish is this approach to politics? By accepting the importance of "scandals" you are basically letting the marketers to run the politics for you.
If I were American, I wouldn't give a shit about which side has what dirt dug up on them, because at this point, it has just become a one-upping contest. You should focus on policies much more.
EPT
). I feel like the media has a large role to play, in that they generally misinterpret Trump's comments to be much worse than they really are. At worst he is a conspiracy theorist, who thinks Mexico deliberately sends criminals over the border, believes global warming is a Chinese hoax, and is hyper-protective about America's security to the point where he is willing to shut down immigration of Muslims (somehow). And he said offensive things about women (and his opponents). These are for the most part some crazy ideas, but nothing to inspire violence-inducing hatred. Instead people seem to treat him like he's the next Adolf Hitler due to various misinterpretations of extreme racism and islamophobia. At least that's my hypothesis.
