|
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 June 18 2016 17:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 17:40 kwizach wrote:On June 18 2016 15:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
So the DNC and Hillary were colluding as far back as May 2015 and not a peep. I know HRC hasn't given guidance on this yet, but are her supporters thinking dismissal or denial is the better route? Sermokala already addressed this, so I'm not sure why you're going for the copy/paste. The DNC assumed Hillary was going to be the nominee and started planning their strategy to beat the GOP accordingly. It turns out they were right. Did you expect them to sit on their thumbs until the convention and only start planning what to do for the general election then? That's not what they (or the people who defended them) said they were doing, but I suppose that doesn't bother anyone if they're already supporting Hillary.
Yes it was. They were preparing how they would conduct the campaign against the GOP based on who they thought would be the most likely to become the nominees on both sides.
|
On June 18 2016 17:51 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 17:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2016 17:40 kwizach wrote:On June 18 2016 15:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
So the DNC and Hillary were colluding as far back as May 2015 and not a peep. I know HRC hasn't given guidance on this yet, but are her supporters thinking dismissal or denial is the better route? Sermokala already addressed this, so I'm not sure why you're going for the copy/paste. The DNC assumed Hillary was going to be the nominee and started planning their strategy to beat the GOP accordingly. It turns out they were right. Did you expect them to sit on their thumbs until the convention and only start planning what to do for the general election then? That's not what they (or the people who defended them) said they were doing, but I suppose that doesn't bother anyone if they're already supporting Hillary. Yes it was. They were preparing how they would conduct the campaign against the GOP based on who they thought would be the most likely to become the nominees on both sides.
How could I have missed when they said "yes we are preparing for Hillary to be the nominee", back in May 2015? All I seem to remember is them vociferously denying that they had any such leanings. Not as if they were trying to usher in their presumed nominee, though that's what Bernie supporters were claiming while Hillary supporters claimed it was crazy. I think it's a little soon for the revisionist history already.
|
On June 18 2016 18:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 17:51 kwizach wrote:On June 18 2016 17:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2016 17:40 kwizach wrote:On June 18 2016 15:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
So the DNC and Hillary were colluding as far back as May 2015 and not a peep. I know HRC hasn't given guidance on this yet, but are her supporters thinking dismissal or denial is the better route? Sermokala already addressed this, so I'm not sure why you're going for the copy/paste. The DNC assumed Hillary was going to be the nominee and started planning their strategy to beat the GOP accordingly. It turns out they were right. Did you expect them to sit on their thumbs until the convention and only start planning what to do for the general election then? That's not what they (or the people who defended them) said they were doing, but I suppose that doesn't bother anyone if they're already supporting Hillary. Yes it was. They were preparing how they would conduct the campaign against the GOP based on who they thought would be the most likely to become the nominees on both sides. How could I have missed when they said "yes we are preparing for Hillary to be the nominee", back in May 2015? All I seem to remember is them vociferously denying that they had any such leanings. Not as if they were trying to usher in their presumed nominee, though that's what Bernie supporters were claiming while Hillary supporters claimed it was crazy. I think it's a little soon for the revisionist history already.
What revisionist history? Do you not understand the difference between preparing for a likely scenario and actively trying to undermine the process to favor a nominee? Again, were you expecting the Democrats to sit on their thumbs until July 2016 before they started planning how they were going to campaign against the GOP?
|
On June 18 2016 18:50 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 18:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2016 17:51 kwizach wrote:On June 18 2016 17:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2016 17:40 kwizach wrote:On June 18 2016 15:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
So the DNC and Hillary were colluding as far back as May 2015 and not a peep. I know HRC hasn't given guidance on this yet, but are her supporters thinking dismissal or denial is the better route? Sermokala already addressed this, so I'm not sure why you're going for the copy/paste. The DNC assumed Hillary was going to be the nominee and started planning their strategy to beat the GOP accordingly. It turns out they were right. Did you expect them to sit on their thumbs until the convention and only start planning what to do for the general election then? That's not what they (or the people who defended them) said they were doing, but I suppose that doesn't bother anyone if they're already supporting Hillary. Yes it was. They were preparing how they would conduct the campaign against the GOP based on who they thought would be the most likely to become the nominees on both sides. How could I have missed when they said "yes we are preparing for Hillary to be the nominee", back in May 2015? All I seem to remember is them vociferously denying that they had any such leanings. Not as if they were trying to usher in their presumed nominee, though that's what Bernie supporters were claiming while Hillary supporters claimed it was crazy. I think it's a little soon for the revisionist history already. What revisionist history? Do you not understand the difference between preparing for a likely scenario and actively trying to undermine the process to favor a nominee? Again, were you expecting the Democrats to sit on their thumbs until July 2016 before they started planning how they were going to campaign against the GOP?
I expect them to be honest about working with a candidate like they were, or the money from the Koch brothers or any of the other crap trickling out. Truthfully, I was mostly just curious about the denial or the dismissal aspect. I figured we'd disagree on what the information meant.
|
There is a difference between preparing for likely scenarios and preparing for exactly one scenario with exclusion of every other possibility. The tone of the document was not even considering the possibility of another candidate.
|
On June 18 2016 18:58 RolleMcKnolle wrote:
There is a difference between preparing for likely scenarios and preparing for exactly one scenario with exclusion of every other possibility. The tone of the document was not even considering the possibility of another candidate.
Because no one was considering the possibility of any other candidate.
No other big name democrat was willing to run against Hillary and no one gave Bernie a snowballs chance in hell.
|
On June 18 2016 18:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 18:50 kwizach wrote:On June 18 2016 18:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2016 17:51 kwizach wrote:On June 18 2016 17:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2016 17:40 kwizach wrote:On June 18 2016 15:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
So the DNC and Hillary were colluding as far back as May 2015 and not a peep. I know HRC hasn't given guidance on this yet, but are her supporters thinking dismissal or denial is the better route? Sermokala already addressed this, so I'm not sure why you're going for the copy/paste. The DNC assumed Hillary was going to be the nominee and started planning their strategy to beat the GOP accordingly. It turns out they were right. Did you expect them to sit on their thumbs until the convention and only start planning what to do for the general election then? That's not what they (or the people who defended them) said they were doing, but I suppose that doesn't bother anyone if they're already supporting Hillary. Yes it was. They were preparing how they would conduct the campaign against the GOP based on who they thought would be the most likely to become the nominees on both sides. How could I have missed when they said "yes we are preparing for Hillary to be the nominee", back in May 2015? All I seem to remember is them vociferously denying that they had any such leanings. Not as if they were trying to usher in their presumed nominee, though that's what Bernie supporters were claiming while Hillary supporters claimed it was crazy. I think it's a little soon for the revisionist history already. What revisionist history? Do you not understand the difference between preparing for a likely scenario and actively trying to undermine the process to favor a nominee? Again, were you expecting the Democrats to sit on their thumbs until July 2016 before they started planning how they were going to campaign against the GOP? I expect them to be honest about working with a candidate like they were, or the money from the Koch brothers or any of the other crap trickling out. Truthfully, I was mostly just curious about the denial or the dismissal aspect. I figured we'd disagree on what the information meant.
Again: the document describes how they were preparing to wage their campaign against the GOP. You have yet to point what is supposed to be problematic about it.
On June 18 2016 18:58 RolleMcKnolle wrote:
There is a difference between preparing for likely scenarios and preparing for exactly one scenario with exclusion of every other possibility. The tone of the document was not even considering the possibility of another candidate.
This is one document, and at the time (May 2015) it was indeed unlikely that any other candidate would get the nomination. They were preparing for a HRC victory, and it turns out they were right. Again, what is supposed to be the issue here?
|
On June 18 2016 19:02 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 18:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2016 18:50 kwizach wrote:On June 18 2016 18:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2016 17:51 kwizach wrote:On June 18 2016 17:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2016 17:40 kwizach wrote:On June 18 2016 15:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
So the DNC and Hillary were colluding as far back as May 2015 and not a peep. I know HRC hasn't given guidance on this yet, but are her supporters thinking dismissal or denial is the better route? Sermokala already addressed this, so I'm not sure why you're going for the copy/paste. The DNC assumed Hillary was going to be the nominee and started planning their strategy to beat the GOP accordingly. It turns out they were right. Did you expect them to sit on their thumbs until the convention and only start planning what to do for the general election then? That's not what they (or the people who defended them) said they were doing, but I suppose that doesn't bother anyone if they're already supporting Hillary. Yes it was. They were preparing how they would conduct the campaign against the GOP based on who they thought would be the most likely to become the nominees on both sides. How could I have missed when they said "yes we are preparing for Hillary to be the nominee", back in May 2015? All I seem to remember is them vociferously denying that they had any such leanings. Not as if they were trying to usher in their presumed nominee, though that's what Bernie supporters were claiming while Hillary supporters claimed it was crazy. I think it's a little soon for the revisionist history already. What revisionist history? Do you not understand the difference between preparing for a likely scenario and actively trying to undermine the process to favor a nominee? Again, were you expecting the Democrats to sit on their thumbs until July 2016 before they started planning how they were going to campaign against the GOP? I expect them to be honest about working with a candidate like they were, or the money from the Koch brothers or any of the other crap trickling out. Truthfully, I was mostly just curious about the denial or the dismissal aspect. I figured we'd disagree on what the information meant. Again: the document describes how they were preparing to wage their campaign against the GOP. You have yet to point what is supposed to be problematic about it. Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 18:58 RolleMcKnolle wrote:
There is a difference between preparing for likely scenarios and preparing for exactly one scenario with exclusion of every other possibility. The tone of the document was not even considering the possibility of another candidate. This is one document, and at the time (May 2015) it was indeed unlikely that any other candidate would get the nomination. They were preparing for a HRC victory, and it turns out they were right. Again, what is supposed to be the issue here?
When asked about the race they were not claiming that "well internally we think Hillary is the only person who can win so we're preparing for that, while externally we claim that's not the case as to give the appearance that we aren't already coordinating with her campaign".
They were already discussing how they would defend Hillary (their chosen nominee) and then at the same time try to tell us they didn't do anything to protect their pick winning the nomination is actually a little insulting if anyone from her camp thinks people are that naive.
|
On June 18 2016 19:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 19:02 kwizach wrote:On June 18 2016 18:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2016 18:50 kwizach wrote:On June 18 2016 18:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2016 17:51 kwizach wrote:On June 18 2016 17:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2016 17:40 kwizach wrote:On June 18 2016 15:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
So the DNC and Hillary were colluding as far back as May 2015 and not a peep. I know HRC hasn't given guidance on this yet, but are her supporters thinking dismissal or denial is the better route? Sermokala already addressed this, so I'm not sure why you're going for the copy/paste. The DNC assumed Hillary was going to be the nominee and started planning their strategy to beat the GOP accordingly. It turns out they were right. Did you expect them to sit on their thumbs until the convention and only start planning what to do for the general election then? That's not what they (or the people who defended them) said they were doing, but I suppose that doesn't bother anyone if they're already supporting Hillary. Yes it was. They were preparing how they would conduct the campaign against the GOP based on who they thought would be the most likely to become the nominees on both sides. How could I have missed when they said "yes we are preparing for Hillary to be the nominee", back in May 2015? All I seem to remember is them vociferously denying that they had any such leanings. Not as if they were trying to usher in their presumed nominee, though that's what Bernie supporters were claiming while Hillary supporters claimed it was crazy. I think it's a little soon for the revisionist history already. What revisionist history? Do you not understand the difference between preparing for a likely scenario and actively trying to undermine the process to favor a nominee? Again, were you expecting the Democrats to sit on their thumbs until July 2016 before they started planning how they were going to campaign against the GOP? I expect them to be honest about working with a candidate like they were, or the money from the Koch brothers or any of the other crap trickling out. Truthfully, I was mostly just curious about the denial or the dismissal aspect. I figured we'd disagree on what the information meant. Again: the document describes how they were preparing to wage their campaign against the GOP. You have yet to point what is supposed to be problematic about it. On June 18 2016 18:58 RolleMcKnolle wrote:
There is a difference between preparing for likely scenarios and preparing for exactly one scenario with exclusion of every other possibility. The tone of the document was not even considering the possibility of another candidate. This is one document, and at the time (May 2015) it was indeed unlikely that any other candidate would get the nomination. They were preparing for a HRC victory, and it turns out they were right. Again, what is supposed to be the issue here? When asked about the race they were not claiming that "well internally we think Hillary is the only person who can win so we're preparing for that, while externally we claim that's not the case as to give the appearance that we aren't already coordinating with her campaign". They were already discussing how they would defend Hillary (their chosen nominee) and then at the same time try to tell us they didn't do anything to protect their pick winning the nomination is actually a little insulting if anyone from her camp thinks people are that naive.
Well apparently you are that naive since planning for the likely winner while claiming complete impartiality is something that happens in almost every competition.
|
On June 18 2016 19:17 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 19:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2016 19:02 kwizach wrote:On June 18 2016 18:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2016 18:50 kwizach wrote:On June 18 2016 18:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2016 17:51 kwizach wrote:On June 18 2016 17:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2016 17:40 kwizach wrote:On June 18 2016 15:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
So the DNC and Hillary were colluding as far back as May 2015 and not a peep. I know HRC hasn't given guidance on this yet, but are her supporters thinking dismissal or denial is the better route? Sermokala already addressed this, so I'm not sure why you're going for the copy/paste. The DNC assumed Hillary was going to be the nominee and started planning their strategy to beat the GOP accordingly. It turns out they were right. Did you expect them to sit on their thumbs until the convention and only start planning what to do for the general election then? That's not what they (or the people who defended them) said they were doing, but I suppose that doesn't bother anyone if they're already supporting Hillary. Yes it was. They were preparing how they would conduct the campaign against the GOP based on who they thought would be the most likely to become the nominees on both sides. How could I have missed when they said "yes we are preparing for Hillary to be the nominee", back in May 2015? All I seem to remember is them vociferously denying that they had any such leanings. Not as if they were trying to usher in their presumed nominee, though that's what Bernie supporters were claiming while Hillary supporters claimed it was crazy. I think it's a little soon for the revisionist history already. What revisionist history? Do you not understand the difference between preparing for a likely scenario and actively trying to undermine the process to favor a nominee? Again, were you expecting the Democrats to sit on their thumbs until July 2016 before they started planning how they were going to campaign against the GOP? I expect them to be honest about working with a candidate like they were, or the money from the Koch brothers or any of the other crap trickling out. Truthfully, I was mostly just curious about the denial or the dismissal aspect. I figured we'd disagree on what the information meant. Again: the document describes how they were preparing to wage their campaign against the GOP. You have yet to point what is supposed to be problematic about it. On June 18 2016 18:58 RolleMcKnolle wrote:
There is a difference between preparing for likely scenarios and preparing for exactly one scenario with exclusion of every other possibility. The tone of the document was not even considering the possibility of another candidate. This is one document, and at the time (May 2015) it was indeed unlikely that any other candidate would get the nomination. They were preparing for a HRC victory, and it turns out they were right. Again, what is supposed to be the issue here? When asked about the race they were not claiming that "well internally we think Hillary is the only person who can win so we're preparing for that, while externally we claim that's not the case as to give the appearance that we aren't already coordinating with her campaign". They were already discussing how they would defend Hillary (their chosen nominee) and then at the same time try to tell us they didn't do anything to protect their pick winning the nomination is actually a little insulting if anyone from her camp thinks people are that naive. Well apparently you are that naive since planning for the likely winner while claiming complete impartiality is something that happens in almost every competition.
To be clear they aren't just talking about preparing for the eventual nominee, they are talking positioning the chosen nominee for the general (before the nomination).
Not to mention the whole "muddy the waters" strategy around ethics, campaign financing, and transparency is pretty telling.
|
On June 18 2016 19:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 19:17 Gorsameth wrote:On June 18 2016 19:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2016 19:02 kwizach wrote:On June 18 2016 18:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2016 18:50 kwizach wrote:On June 18 2016 18:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2016 17:51 kwizach wrote:On June 18 2016 17:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2016 17:40 kwizach wrote:[quote] Sermokala already addressed this, so I'm not sure why you're going for the copy/paste. The DNC assumed Hillary was going to be the nominee and started planning their strategy to beat the GOP accordingly. It turns out they were right. Did you expect them to sit on their thumbs until the convention and only start planning what to do for the general election then? That's not what they (or the people who defended them) said they were doing, but I suppose that doesn't bother anyone if they're already supporting Hillary. Yes it was. They were preparing how they would conduct the campaign against the GOP based on who they thought would be the most likely to become the nominees on both sides. How could I have missed when they said "yes we are preparing for Hillary to be the nominee", back in May 2015? All I seem to remember is them vociferously denying that they had any such leanings. Not as if they were trying to usher in their presumed nominee, though that's what Bernie supporters were claiming while Hillary supporters claimed it was crazy. I think it's a little soon for the revisionist history already. What revisionist history? Do you not understand the difference between preparing for a likely scenario and actively trying to undermine the process to favor a nominee? Again, were you expecting the Democrats to sit on their thumbs until July 2016 before they started planning how they were going to campaign against the GOP? I expect them to be honest about working with a candidate like they were, or the money from the Koch brothers or any of the other crap trickling out. Truthfully, I was mostly just curious about the denial or the dismissal aspect. I figured we'd disagree on what the information meant. Again: the document describes how they were preparing to wage their campaign against the GOP. You have yet to point what is supposed to be problematic about it. On June 18 2016 18:58 RolleMcKnolle wrote:
There is a difference between preparing for likely scenarios and preparing for exactly one scenario with exclusion of every other possibility. The tone of the document was not even considering the possibility of another candidate. This is one document, and at the time (May 2015) it was indeed unlikely that any other candidate would get the nomination. They were preparing for a HRC victory, and it turns out they were right. Again, what is supposed to be the issue here? When asked about the race they were not claiming that "well internally we think Hillary is the only person who can win so we're preparing for that, while externally we claim that's not the case as to give the appearance that we aren't already coordinating with her campaign". They were already discussing how they would defend Hillary (their chosen nominee) and then at the same time try to tell us they didn't do anything to protect their pick winning the nomination is actually a little insulting if anyone from her camp thinks people are that naive. Well apparently you are that naive since planning for the likely winner while claiming complete impartiality is something that happens in almost every competition. To be clear they aren't just talking about preparing for the eventual nominee, they are talking positioning the chosen nominee for the general (before the nomination).
Yes, which is again a completely normal thing. As has been said plenty already. They are not going to wait for the convention to begin serious work on the general and at the time of the report there was no credible opposition towards Hillary.
|
On June 18 2016 19:21 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 19:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2016 19:17 Gorsameth wrote:On June 18 2016 19:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2016 19:02 kwizach wrote:On June 18 2016 18:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2016 18:50 kwizach wrote:On June 18 2016 18:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2016 17:51 kwizach wrote:On June 18 2016 17:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
That's not what they (or the people who defended them) said they were doing, but I suppose that doesn't bother anyone if they're already supporting Hillary. Yes it was. They were preparing how they would conduct the campaign against the GOP based on who they thought would be the most likely to become the nominees on both sides. How could I have missed when they said "yes we are preparing for Hillary to be the nominee", back in May 2015? All I seem to remember is them vociferously denying that they had any such leanings. Not as if they were trying to usher in their presumed nominee, though that's what Bernie supporters were claiming while Hillary supporters claimed it was crazy. I think it's a little soon for the revisionist history already. What revisionist history? Do you not understand the difference between preparing for a likely scenario and actively trying to undermine the process to favor a nominee? Again, were you expecting the Democrats to sit on their thumbs until July 2016 before they started planning how they were going to campaign against the GOP? I expect them to be honest about working with a candidate like they were, or the money from the Koch brothers or any of the other crap trickling out. Truthfully, I was mostly just curious about the denial or the dismissal aspect. I figured we'd disagree on what the information meant. Again: the document describes how they were preparing to wage their campaign against the GOP. You have yet to point what is supposed to be problematic about it. On June 18 2016 18:58 RolleMcKnolle wrote:
There is a difference between preparing for likely scenarios and preparing for exactly one scenario with exclusion of every other possibility. The tone of the document was not even considering the possibility of another candidate. This is one document, and at the time (May 2015) it was indeed unlikely that any other candidate would get the nomination. They were preparing for a HRC victory, and it turns out they were right. Again, what is supposed to be the issue here? When asked about the race they were not claiming that "well internally we think Hillary is the only person who can win so we're preparing for that, while externally we claim that's not the case as to give the appearance that we aren't already coordinating with her campaign". They were already discussing how they would defend Hillary (their chosen nominee) and then at the same time try to tell us they didn't do anything to protect their pick winning the nomination is actually a little insulting if anyone from her camp thinks people are that naive. Well apparently you are that naive since planning for the likely winner while claiming complete impartiality is something that happens in almost every competition. To be clear they aren't just talking about preparing for the eventual nominee, they are talking positioning the chosen nominee for the general (before the nomination). Yes, which is again a completely normal thing. As has been said plenty already. They are not going to wait for the convention to begin serious work on the general and at the time of the report there was no credible opposition towards Hillary.
There's a huge difference between May 2015 and the convention, like I don't know maybe after some people vote? I'm not interested in discussing the content with Hillary supporters though, Starting from "it's not like they would wait till the convention" means there's nothing to even discuss. Just HRC and the DNC are silent on even whether they are real or not so I just was curious what her supporters would say. Looks like denial passed over pretty quick and it's just "it's perfectly normal" has taken hold.
I am curious why Hillary supporters think her campaign wanted to employ the "muddy the waters" strategy around ethics other than she is a candidate of questionable ethics? If they're interested in talking about the content itself, that is.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On June 18 2016 16:46 WhiteDog wrote:I don't know if it has been linked, but this shit is gross, true or not : Show nested quote +A newly-released Hilary Clinton email confirmed that the Obama administration has deliberately provoked the civil war in Syria as the “best way to help Israel.” In an indication of her murderous and psychopathic nature, Clinton also wrote that it was the “right thing” to personally threaten Bashar Assad’s family with death. In the email, released by Wikileaks, then Secretary of State Clinton says that the “best way to help Israel” is to “use force” in Syria to overthrow the government. The document was one of many unclassified by the US Department of State under case number F-2014-20439, Doc No. C05794498, following the uproar over Clinton’s private email server kept at her house while she served as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013. Although the Wikileaks transcript dates the email as December 31, 2000, this is an error on their part, as the contents of the email (in particular the reference to May 2012 talks between Iran and the west over its nuclear program in Istanbul) show that the email was in fact sent on December 31, 2012. The email makes it clear that it has been US policy from the very beginning to violently overthrow the Syrian government—and specifically to do this because it is in Israel’s interests. ![[image loading]](http://i0.wp.com/newobserveronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/C05794498-1.jpg?resize=730%2C537) http://whatsupic.com/news-politics-usa/1465992351.html
read the actual email. it is a reasonable realist position
|
On June 18 2016 20:03 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 16:46 WhiteDog wrote:I don't know if it has been linked, but this shit is gross, true or not : A newly-released Hilary Clinton email confirmed that the Obama administration has deliberately provoked the civil war in Syria as the “best way to help Israel.” In an indication of her murderous and psychopathic nature, Clinton also wrote that it was the “right thing” to personally threaten Bashar Assad’s family with death. In the email, released by Wikileaks, then Secretary of State Clinton says that the “best way to help Israel” is to “use force” in Syria to overthrow the government. The document was one of many unclassified by the US Department of State under case number F-2014-20439, Doc No. C05794498, following the uproar over Clinton’s private email server kept at her house while she served as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013. Although the Wikileaks transcript dates the email as December 31, 2000, this is an error on their part, as the contents of the email (in particular the reference to May 2012 talks between Iran and the west over its nuclear program in Istanbul) show that the email was in fact sent on December 31, 2012. The email makes it clear that it has been US policy from the very beginning to violently overthrow the Syrian government—and specifically to do this because it is in Israel’s interests. read the actual email. it is a reasonable realist position
I never said it was unrealistic or stupid, I said it was gross. You don't think it is gross to consider a civil war in a specific country (Syria) to be beneficial to another country (Israel) in its fight against a third party (Iran) ????
Realpolitik should have limits, bad means usually corrupts even the best ends.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On June 18 2016 20:29 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 20:03 oneofthem wrote:On June 18 2016 16:46 WhiteDog wrote:I don't know if it has been linked, but this shit is gross, true or not : A newly-released Hilary Clinton email confirmed that the Obama administration has deliberately provoked the civil war in Syria as the “best way to help Israel.” In an indication of her murderous and psychopathic nature, Clinton also wrote that it was the “right thing” to personally threaten Bashar Assad’s family with death. In the email, released by Wikileaks, then Secretary of State Clinton says that the “best way to help Israel” is to “use force” in Syria to overthrow the government. The document was one of many unclassified by the US Department of State under case number F-2014-20439, Doc No. C05794498, following the uproar over Clinton’s private email server kept at her house while she served as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013. Although the Wikileaks transcript dates the email as December 31, 2000, this is an error on their part, as the contents of the email (in particular the reference to May 2012 talks between Iran and the west over its nuclear program in Istanbul) show that the email was in fact sent on December 31, 2012. The email makes it clear that it has been US policy from the very beginning to violently overthrow the Syrian government—and specifically to do this because it is in Israel’s interests. read the actual email. it is a reasonable realist position I never said it was unrealistic or stupid, I said it was gross. You don't think it is gross to consider a civil war in a specific country (Syria) to be beneficial to another country (Israel) in its fight against a third party (Iran) ???? Realpolitik should have limits, bad means usually corrupts even the best ends.
what is the context of the email in the overall position or strategy?
perhaps the israel angle was mere accessory for an advocacy for civilian human rights, a direction hillary has consistently advocated all of her foreign policy life?
|
Trumps muslim ban is already on the books.
U.S Code 1182:
“Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president. Whenever the president finds
that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be
detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for
such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens
as immigrants or nonimmigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
|
That's not a valid legal citation.....you need to include the title, dawg. I'm sure you mean 8 USC 1128(f), and yes, the scope of immigration law has always given the president wide discretion to narrow or broaden entry into the US. That's why folks are legitimately fearful of a Trump presidency  .
|
The soda industry says it will fight to repeal the tax on sweetened beverages voted in by the Philadelphia City Council this week.
"The tax passed [in Philadelphia] is a regressive tax that unfairly singles out beverages — including low- and no-calorie choices. But most importantly, it is against the law," reads a statement from the American Beverage Association.
The group says it will take legal action to stop the tax. "Similar tax proposals have been rejected 43 times across the country in the past eight years," the ABA says. And the industry points to polling data that suggest the majority of Philadelphia residents don't support it.
But supporters of the tax on sweetened drinks say the victory in Philadelphia could set the stage for similar actions in cities across the country.
"Philadelphia will almost certainly not be the last city to adopt a sugary drinks tax. In fact, the question now is not whether any city will follow suit, but rather how many — and how quickly?" wrote Michael Bloomberg in a statement released Friday.
As we've reported, Bloomberg — who took on sodas as mayor of New York City — contributed significantly to a media campaign in Philadelphia aimed at passing the soda-tax measure.
"Obesity and poverty are both intractable national problems. No policy takes more direct aim at both than Philadelphia's tax on sugary drinks," Bloomberg wrote in the statement.
Bloomberg says he will continue to support cities and nations pursuing
these anti-obesity strategies, and help them "get the support they need to level the playing field with the soda industry." As we've reported, the American Beverage Association spent more than $4.2 million to fight the tax in Philadelphia.
In November, the California cities of Oakland and San Francisco are expected to take up the issue. And voters in Boulder, Colo., may see a ballot initiative, too. As The Denver Post has reported, a group called Healthy Boulder Kids is trying to rally support for a tax on sugary drinks to fund programs aimed at increasing access to healthy food and physical activity.
Source
|
Oh I had completely missed that.
In 2007 Trump cheered for the housing crisis because he would be able to buy and make money when people would be evicted from their houses:
"I sort of hope that happens because then people like me would go in and buy" property and "make a lot of money."
That's from an audio recording.
Such a despicable, despicable figure.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKCN0YF2GQ
|
On June 18 2016 15:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
So the DNC and Hillary were colluding as far back as May 2015 and not a peep. I know HRC hasn't given guidance on this yet, but are her supporters thinking dismissal or denial is the better route?
Are you talking about the email/memo from Clinton's campaign to the DNC detailing her strategy for the general in May 2015 when Bernie was polling at 7% nationally and wasn't even technically in the race or something else here? Because I've only seen that memo, which is so far from collusion it's pretty amusing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
