US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3910

On May 31 2016 19:25 opisska wrote:
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.

On May 31 2016 12:07 oBlade wrote:

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?

On May 31 2016 20:38 Yurie wrote:


Some types of dirt are important. Somebody bathing nude 1967 while being drunk doesn't really matter. Somebody while working in a government office (possibly) leaking classified data to other countries is a bit different.

On May 31 2016 19:25 opisska wrote:
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.

On May 31 2016 22:10 Godwrath wrote:
Pretty sure it wasn't a clinton vs trump until kwizach started to make it so with whataboutism when asked about Hillary, but anyways, most people don't call Trump crooked because they call him a crazy nutjob and a unqualified piece of shit.

On May 31 2016 21:06 opisska wrote:


I would be really surprised if she did that on purpose to leak classified data to enemies. Hillary doesn't really strike me as a Snowden type ... So it was probably just a mistake. Then, because of the existing culture of dragging people though mud for the slightest mistake, she lied to cover it, leading top more drama. Still I don't see stuff like this as really relevant to the election - well maybe, to come back to that topic, if it was a system with many candidates, you could say "this one is probably not very good at the job, next", but it is absolutely not so when there is only one other option.

On May 31 2016 22:21 farvacola wrote:
Besides, the extent to which Clinton's email practices actually put national security at risk has yet to be substantiated by anyone outside the conservative hit-piece squad.

Immigrants fleeing gang violence in Central America are again surging across the U.S.-Mexico border, approaching the numbers that created an immigration crisis in the summer of 2014. While the flow of immigrants slowed for much of last year, nothing the U.S. government does seems to deter the current wave of travelers.

Immigration officials opened controversial family detention camps in south Texas. They publicized immigration roundups earlier this year, with more to come. A big U.S. public relations campaign is under way in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, warning would-be immigrants they are not welcome. And recently, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson traveled to Central America to say it in person.

"I am here today to send a message that our borders in the United States are not open to irregular migration," he said.

But that message isn't getting through.

That's apparent in the parish hall of Sacred Heart Catholic Church in McAllen, Texas. Every day, it's full of young mothers and children who've been released by the U.S. Border Patrol. They get a shower, clean clothes, a hot meal and supplies. Sister Norma Pimentel is director of Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley, which runs the shelter.

"It's like 50, 60, 100, 200 backpacks that we need every day; 200, or 50 or 80 deodorants or shoes," she says. "Can you imagine coming up with 50, 60, 80 pairs of shoes every day? It's amazing."

Immigration officials don't seem worried about a repeat of the humanitarian crisis on the border that made international news two years ago. Caught unawares at the time, the Border Patrol packed dirty, bewildered young immigrants elbow-to-elbow into frigid cells.

On May 31 2016 22:21 farvacola wrote:
Besides, the extent to which Clinton's email practices actually put national security at risk has yet to be substantiated by anyone outside the conservative hit-piece squad.

On May 31 2016 15:53 KwarK wrote:
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 23:38 xDaunt wrote:

This isn't the type of information that I would expect to see the light of day. The impact of security breaches concerning intelligence matters and espionage aren't the type of dirty laundry that countries air publicly.

On May 31 2016 22:21 Godwrath wrote:
It's irrelevant when you use it to make it sound as petty to point out her being an inept regarding the email thing. If you are talking about choosing who to vote for, i agree, but i still don't understand why you would just throw things under the closet because her opponent is a fucktwat.

On May 31 2016 23:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:

So Hillary is crooked based on information you don't have or I misunderstand?

- "No valid info that Clinton put national security at risk"
- "Yes but we don't know everything therefore she has to have done it"

Cool logic bro.
.

On May 31 2016 23:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:

So Hillary is crooked based on information you don't have or I misunderstand?

- "No valid info that Clinton put national security at risk"
- "Yes but we don't know everything therefore she has to have done it"

Cool logic bro.

On June 01 2016 00:01 zlefin wrote:

the way I read it; daunt was just saying that the extent of damage (large or small) won't be revealed; as a matter of policy you just don't reveal details like that, as that gives more info to enemies.

On June 01 2016 00:01 zlefin wrote:

the way I read it; daunt was just saying that the extent of damage (large or small) won't be revealed; as a matter of policy you just don't reveal details like that, as that gives more info to enemies.

NEW YORK — Donald Trump claims a net worth of more than $10 billion and an income of $557 million. But he appears to get there only by overvaluing properties and ignoring his expenses.

POLITICO spoke with more than a dozen financial experts and Trump’s fellow multimillionaires about the presumptive Republican nominee’s financial statement. Their conclusion: The real estate magnate’s bottom line — what he actually puts in his own pocket — could be much lower than he suggests. Some financial analysts said this, and a very low tax rate, is why Trump won’t release his tax returns.

“I know Donald, I’ve known him a long time, and it gets under his skin if you start writing about the reasons he won’t disclose his returns,” said one prominent hedge fund manager who declined to be identified by name so as not to draw Trump’s ire. “You would see that he doesn’t have the money that he claims to have and he’s not paying much of anything in taxes.”

Trump is certainly wealthy. But in a campaign where the New Yorker has portrayed himself as the biggest, the richest, the classiest and the best at everything, disclosing that he is less rich than he lets on could be damaging. And it is a line of attack Democrats are already using and hope to pound away on until November.

The case against Trump’s accounting of his wealth: His businesses apparently generate a lot of revenue but may not put much cash in his pocket; he assigns himself a net worth that is impossible to verify and may be based in part on fantasy; and he is selling assets and increasing debt in ways that suggest a man scrambling for ready cash.
In response to a list of questions for this story, Trump campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks emailed: “The report speaks for itself.” If it does, the report does not speak clearly.

The financial disclosure form showed Trump adding fresh debt of at least $50 million, though a campaign news release said Trump is using increased revenue to reduce his debt, which is now at least $315 million and possibly more than $500 million. The disclosure also suggests that Trump sold fund assets to raise as much as $7 million in cash and individual securities to raise up to $9 million more.