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 23 2016 01:04 xDaunt wrote: I'm sure that these numbers will shift in Hillary's favor as times goes on, but, damn!
In the two weeks since Hillary Clinton wrapped up the Democratic presidential primary, runner-up Bernie Sanders has promised to work hard to defeat Donald Trump — but he’s given no sign he’ll soon embrace Clinton, his party’s presumptive nominee. Neither have many of Sanders’s supporters. A June 14th Bloomberg Politics national poll of likely voters in November’s election found that barely half of those who favored Sanders — 55 percent — plan to vote for Clinton. Instead, 22 percent say they’ll vote for Trump, while 18 percent favor Libertarian Gary Johnson. “I’m a registered Democrat, but I cannot bring myself to vote for another establishment politician like Hillary,” says Laura Armes, a 43-year-old homemaker from Beeville, Texas, who participated in the Bloomberg poll and plans to vote for Trump. “I don’t agree with a lot of what Trump says. But he won’t owe anybody. What you see is what you get.”
Conversations with two dozen Sanders supporters revealed a lingering distrust of Clinton as too establishment-friendly, hawkish or untrustworthy. As some Sanders fans see it, the primary was not a simple preference for purity over pragmatism, but a moral choice between an honest figure and someone whom they consider fundamentally corrupted by the ways of Washington. Sanders has fed these perceptions throughout his campaign, which is one reason he's having a hard time coming around to an endorsement.
What's funny is if Bernie had endorsed he could have claimed credit for the bump in polls and uniting the party
Do we have any data regarding the idea of needing momentum going into the general? I look at 1.3M on hand and just wonder what could possibly turn things around. Sure, more money doesn't win elections, but that seems critically low and likely highlights the fact that there is still a ton of skepticism, even after he clinched the nomination. If he's the nominee, and money still isn't coming, when will the money flow? What can they do? Being 12 points down, and having less than 1/20 the money of the competition, how do you make a case for big donors?
On June 23 2016 01:04 xDaunt wrote: I'm sure that these numbers will shift in Hillary's favor as times goes on, but, damn!
In the two weeks since Hillary Clinton wrapped up the Democratic presidential primary, runner-up Bernie Sanders has promised to work hard to defeat Donald Trump — but he’s given no sign he’ll soon embrace Clinton, his party’s presumptive nominee. Neither have many of Sanders’s supporters. A June 14th Bloomberg Politics national poll of likely voters in November’s election found that barely half of those who favored Sanders — 55 percent — plan to vote for Clinton. Instead, 22 percent say they’ll vote for Trump, while 18 percent favor Libertarian Gary Johnson. “I’m a registered Democrat, but I cannot bring myself to vote for another establishment politician like Hillary,” says Laura Armes, a 43-year-old homemaker from Beeville, Texas, who participated in the Bloomberg poll and plans to vote for Trump. “I don’t agree with a lot of what Trump says. But he won’t owe anybody. What you see is what you get.”
Conversations with two dozen Sanders supporters revealed a lingering distrust of Clinton as too establishment-friendly, hawkish or untrustworthy. As some Sanders fans see it, the primary was not a simple preference for purity over pragmatism, but a moral choice between an honest figure and someone whom they consider fundamentally corrupted by the ways of Washington. Sanders has fed these perceptions throughout his campaign, which is one reason he's having a hard time coming around to an endorsement.
What's funny is if Bernie had endorsed he could have claimed credit for the bump in polls and uniting the party
funny thing is he genuinely believes he's helping.
and funding wise it's bad for trump but the form of warfare has also changed due to media landscape. it's more like guerrilla warfare on social media and random conspiracy blogs/sites vs ad buys. the free publicity and negative coverage from cable news etc plays a big part as well.
"Donald Trump says" is starting to really lose its value. By being so hyerbolic and offensive for so long, it's like the stuff he says doesn't even matter anymore. We're desensitized at this point and his plummeting numbers are putting him in a Bernie'esque situation where he is technically the competitor but has no clear way to victory.
Whats funny is that this time republicans actually introduced gun control legislature and voted for it this time. Democrats voted against it because they didn't like it. So they can't say that they refuse any gun control being voted on in congress just the measures that they support.
On another note, the man who created the rule that is currently paralyzing the House just reported to jail for being a garbage human.
Hastert will serve 15 months in a federal prison hospital in Minnesota for illegally paying money to keep an alleged sex abuse victim quiet. (The Chicago Tribune reports the sentence is expected to be about 12½ months with credits for good behavior.)
Hastert is among the highest-ranking American politicians ever to serve jail time. He's the first former U.S. House speaker to be convicted and sentenced in a criminal case, and the first former speaker since the 19th century to be incarcerated.
It's a stunning fall from grace for the longest-serving Republican House speaker, who had apparently been carrying around a dark secret from his past as he rose to and then served in Congress's top job from 1999 to 2007.
Here's a quick recap of the case and Hastert's sentencing.
What, exactly, he did wrong Hastert pleaded guilty in October to charges that he violated federal banking laws and lied to the FBI to keep secret the fact that he molested a high school wrestler he coached. (Scroll down for more on that.)
But the reason he's going to prison is less about the sexual abuse allegations and more about the banking laws he broke while trying to to keep an alleged victim quiet — and lying to the FBI about it as they started investigating.
How it unfolded Hastert first drew attention from the FBI and IRS three years ago for withdrawing large amounts of cash from various banks. Investigators first thought Hastert was being extorted; The Washington Post's Matt Zapotosky reported that Hastert claimed as much in an interview with investigators. Hastert said a man was making false claims that Hastert had molested him.
Investigators looked into it but soon suspected it was Hastert who might be lying.
Zapotosky reported: "After listening to Hastert talk to the man he alleged was blackmailing him on a recorded call, though, FBI agents were skeptical. And when they interviewed the man, they concluded that he was making believable claims. Other victims emerged with similar stories."
The law Hastert actually broke Hastert admitted in October that he withdrew money in increments just small enough to avoid having to report them.
Federal law mandates cash transactions exceeding $10,000 be reported using a Currency Transaction Report, The Fix's Philip Bump reported in May of 2015: "The reason for this is pretty obvious: It is meant to allow criminal activity to be traced. It is also illegal to break up large transactions into smaller ones to avoid the reporting requirement. That's known as 'structuring.'"
Investigators later pieced together that Hastert was trying to pull out money to buy silence from a man who accused him of sexual assault. According to court documents, the man said Hastert agreed to pay him $3.5 million. To do so, Hastert engaged in structuring.
It is not necessarily illegal to pay someone hush money.
The sex crimes angle Judge: "I can't sentence you as a child molester. It's not what you were charged with, it's not what you pled guilty to."
— Matt Zapotosky (@mattzap) April 27, 2016
Federal investigators did not charge Hastert with sexual misconduct, though they said they wanted to. There are five alleged victims from the former congressman's days as a high school wrestling coach in the 1970s. Several of them spoke powerfully at Hastert's sentencing hearing in April. (Scroll down for more on that.)
U.S. attorneys told reporters at Hastert's sentencing that they originally wanted to pursue the sexual misconduct charges but that the statute of limitations had run out. And they agreed to a plea deal with Hastert on the banking laws because one of Hastert's alleged victims didn't want to have to take the stand during a trial.
The closest Hastert ever got to admitting the sexual misconduct was telling a courtroom at his April sentencing he was "deeply ashamed" to be in court and that he "mistreated some of my athletes that I coached."
Hastert: "The thing I want to do today is say I'm sorry to those that I've hurt and misled."
— Matt Zapotosky (@mattzap) April 27, 2016
Hastert, on boys he coached: "They looked at me, and I took advantage of them."
— Matt Zapotosky (@mattzap) April 27, 2016
The sentencing It was an emotional day for many involved on the case. Hastert, now 74 and in deteriorating health, was rolled into the Chicago courtroom in a wheelchair.
Hastur (The Unspeakable One, Him Who Is Not to be Named, Assatur, Xastur, H'aaztre, or Kaiwan) is an entity of the Cthulhu Mythos. Hastur first appeared in Ambrose Bierce's short story "Haïta the Shepherd" (1893) as a benign god of shepherds. Hastur is briefly mentioned in H.P. Lovecraft's The Whisperer in Darkness; previously, Robert W. Chambers had used the name in his own stories to represent both a person and a place associated with the names of several stars, including Aldebaran.[1]
On June 23 2016 03:35 Mohdoo wrote: "Donald Trump says" is starting to really lose its value. By being so hyerbolic and offensive for so long, it's like the stuff he says doesn't even matter anymore. We're desensitized at this point and his plummeting numbers are putting him in a Bernie'esque situation where he is technically the competitor but has no clear way to victory.
trump supporters are basically bernieorbusters? yeah definitely.
Looks like I didn't miss much from Trump's speech. A bunch of hyperbole, blatant lies, conspiracy theories, and ironic statements. Par for the course. Won't change his 70% unfavorable's or 55% that said they will never vote for him.
On June 23 2016 05:17 On_Slaught wrote: Looks like I didn't miss much from Trump's speech. A bunch of hyperbole, blatant lies, conspiracy theories, and ironic statements. Par for the course. Won't change his 70% unfavorable's or 55% that said they will never vote for him.
very insightful and well thought out reaction to his speech. cant wait to hear more of your dialogue
On June 23 2016 05:17 On_Slaught wrote: Looks like I didn't miss much from Trump's speech. A bunch of hyperbole, blatant lies, conspiracy theories, and ironic statements. Par for the course. Won't change his 70% unfavorable's or 55% that said they will never vote for him.
very insightful and well thought out reaction to his speech. cant wait to hear more of your dialogue
And what, this post is some sort of hallmark of dialogue?
Trump decided to call the $43M Clinton has raised "blood money". Unbelievable. Sure, my money is blood money, lol. By taking my money, she is allowing me to go kill people.
"I don't want to devote the rest of my life to raising money from people," he told O'Donnell. "All of the money [Clinton] is raising is blood money."
On June 23 2016 05:17 On_Slaught wrote: Looks like I didn't miss much from Trump's speech. A bunch of hyperbole, blatant lies, conspiracy theories, and ironic statements. Par for the course. Won't change his 70% unfavorable's or 55% that said they will never vote for him.
very insightful and well thought out reaction to his speech. cant wait to hear more of your dialogue
And what, this post is some sort of hallmark of dialogue?
His post is pretty proportionate to the post he was responding to. How is that fair to compare them as the same?
One is an opinion making a blanket dismissal of a candidate's speech covering a vast range of topics.
The other is sarcastically mocking the former's disparity between lack of substantiation of claims inversely proportional with the amount of information implied in said claims.
Demanding action on gun control, about 30 Democratic members of the United States House of Representatives are staging a sit-in.
"Lawmakers are grouped in the well of the chamber, in front of the speaker's dais and in chairs in the front row," NPR's Sue Davis reports. "Some members are literally sitting on the floor of the House."
When the House was gaveled back into session a little after noon, Rep. Ted Poe, a Republican from Texas who was speaker pro tempore at the time, was shouted down by members.
"No bill, no break," they chanted. The House is scheduled to break on Sunday, and Democrats are demanding a vote on two bills before they go: one that bars anyone on the no-fly list from buying a firearm and another that broadens background checks for firearm purchases.
A prayer was said and members recited the Pledge of Allegiance, but once it became clear that regular business would not take place, Poe called for another recess.
AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for House Speaker Paul Ryan, said the House "cannot operate without members following the rules of the institution, so the House has recessed subject to the call of the chair."
Rep. John Lewis, a Democrat from Georgia, announced the sit-in earlier this morning.
On June 23 2016 05:17 On_Slaught wrote: Looks like I didn't miss much from Trump's speech. A bunch of hyperbole, blatant lies, conspiracy theories, and ironic statements. Par for the course. Won't change his 70% unfavorable's or 55% that said they will never vote for him.
very insightful and well thought out reaction to his speech. cant wait to hear more of your dialogue
Yawn. Everything I've said is already widely recognized as true. Don't blame me if your search-fu is weak or you've been living under a rock and haven't heard these things said countless times. He isn't changing at all.
Folks say that there are no principled politicians in Washington. John Lewis is the sort of leader who serves as an excellent reminder that those folks are wrong
On June 23 2016 05:17 On_Slaught wrote: Looks like I didn't miss much from Trump's speech. A bunch of hyperbole, blatant lies, conspiracy theories, and ironic statements. Par for the course. Won't change his 70% unfavorable's or 55% that said they will never vote for him.
very insightful and well thought out reaction to his speech. cant wait to hear more of your dialogue
Yawn. Everything I've said is already widely recognized as true. Don't blame me if your search-fu is weak or you've been living under a rock and haven't heard these things said countless times. He isn't changing at all.
You're blaming him for mocking the fact that you didn't bother to substantiate your argument that a presidential candidate's speech was full of hyperbole, lies, and conspiracy theories.
On June 23 2016 05:17 On_Slaught wrote: Looks like I didn't miss much from Trump's speech. A bunch of hyperbole, blatant lies, conspiracy theories, and ironic statements. Par for the course. Won't change his 70% unfavorable's or 55% that said they will never vote for him.
very insightful and well thought out reaction to his speech. cant wait to hear more of your dialogue
Yawn. Everything I've said is already widely recognized as true. Don't blame me if your search-fu is weak or you've been living under a rock and haven't heard these things said countless times. He isn't changing at all.
You're blaming him for mocking the fact that you didn't bother to substantiate your argument that a presidential candidate's speech was full of hyperbole, lies, and conspiracy theories.
Can't make this shit up...
On June 23 2016 06:32 Plansix wrote: Agreed that it is tiring to be told that we have to discredit Trumps wild claims of how reality works every time he decides to repeat them.
On June 23 2016 05:17 On_Slaught wrote: Looks like I didn't miss much from Trump's speech. A bunch of hyperbole, blatant lies, conspiracy theories, and ironic statements. Par for the course. Won't change his 70% unfavorable's or 55% that said they will never vote for him.
very insightful and well thought out reaction to his speech. cant wait to hear more of your dialogue
Yawn. Everything I've said is already widely recognized as true. Don't blame me if your search-fu is weak or you've been living under a rock and haven't heard these things said countless times. He isn't changing at all.
You're blaming him for mocking the fact that you didn't bother to substantiate your argument that a presidential candidate's speech was full of hyperbole, lies, and conspiracy theories.
On June 23 2016 06:32 Plansix wrote: Agreed that it is tiring to be told that we have to discredit Trumps wild claims of how reality works every time he decides to repeat them.
I just skimmed through the factcheck article you linked and over half the claims were marked as true in that article.
It even marked the 'small loan' one as 'false' because 'for most americans, one million dollars is not a small loan'. He's a billionaire.
EPT
