|
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 July 31 2016 02:01 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2016 01:55 Lord Tolkien wrote:On July 31 2016 01:54 Gorsameth wrote:On July 31 2016 01:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
No and the debate schedule has been agreed upon by both parties for over a year. Ah well in that case yeah... Trump is being dumb. He's going to try using it as an excuse to duck out of the debates. Just watch. He's complaining because there won't be as many viewers to see him probe HRC with an onslaught of questions regarding emails. I don't know how you reached that conclusion lmao, if anyone will be ducking these debates, it's HRC. As evidenced by her last press conference being like 200 plus days ago. Trump will be 10 times more savage than any news reporter asking questions at a press conference btw. HRC's strategy at this point should not be offense, it should be to play the victim card and gather sympathy and make Trump seem like a bully. If I learned anything from the DNC it's that their target audience loves victims.
Trump is the only one with a track record of running from debates.
It's also pretty easy for Clinto to go on the offensive with the endless supply of sexist and racist comments that Trump has made throughout his career. Not to mention his love of Russia, his refusal to release his tax returns, his long business record of screwing over middle-class workers, etc.
Clinton's been grilled about these emails for years, and was able to make Republicans in Congress look bad after a 12 hour hearing. The idea that a man that is as thin-skinned as Trump could actually grill her in a debate (when a proper debate should actually be moderated anyway) is laughable.
|
The NFL game schedule was decided a year after the debate schedule.
Does Clinton secretly control American football?
|
On July 31 2016 03:00 acker wrote:
The NFL game schedule was decided a year after the debate schedule.
Does Clinton secretly control American football?
No, Trump is assuming people do not know when schedules were made and so think that the debate schedule was drawn up later.
|
If his supporters are that stupid, he should just claim that Hillary is part of a Jewish conspiracy to build infernal engines powered by the souls of small business owners or something.
I guess this election cycle hasn't hit rock bottom yet.
|
I wonder if the RNC leadership are alcoholics yet:
|
On July 31 2016 02:57 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2016 02:01 biology]major wrote:On July 31 2016 01:55 Lord Tolkien wrote:On July 31 2016 01:54 Gorsameth wrote:On July 31 2016 01:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
No and the debate schedule has been agreed upon by both parties for over a year. Ah well in that case yeah... Trump is being dumb. He's going to try using it as an excuse to duck out of the debates. Just watch. He's complaining because there won't be as many viewers to see him probe HRC with an onslaught of questions regarding emails. I don't know how you reached that conclusion lmao, if anyone will be ducking these debates, it's HRC. As evidenced by her last press conference being like 200 plus days ago. Trump will be 10 times more savage than any news reporter asking questions at a press conference btw. HRC's strategy at this point should not be offense, it should be to play the victim card and gather sympathy and make Trump seem like a bully. If I learned anything from the DNC it's that their target audience loves victims. Trump is the only one with a track record of running from debates. It's also pretty easy for Clinto to go on the offensive with the endless supply of sexist and racist comments that Trump has made throughout his career. Not to mention his love of Russia, his refusal to release his tax returns, his long business record of screwing over middle-class workers, etc. Clinton's been grilled about these emails for years, and was able to make Republicans in Congress look bad after a 12 hour hearing. The idea that a man that is as thin-skinned as Trump could actually grill her in a debate (when a proper debate should actually be moderated anyway) is laughable.
If she's so comfortable and transparent when being asked tough questions why has she not had a press conference in over 230 days? The hearings in congress did not have public perception, so she articulated her way around every question for 12 hours (which was impressive). She cannot do the same with the eyes of the public on her without looking like a snake, and she hasn't had to because Bernie was soft as hell "with all due respect secretary clinton..." during every one of their debates.
|
On July 31 2016 03:12 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2016 02:57 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 31 2016 02:01 biology]major wrote:On July 31 2016 01:55 Lord Tolkien wrote:On July 31 2016 01:54 Gorsameth wrote:On July 31 2016 01:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
No and the debate schedule has been agreed upon by both parties for over a year. Ah well in that case yeah... Trump is being dumb. He's going to try using it as an excuse to duck out of the debates. Just watch. He's complaining because there won't be as many viewers to see him probe HRC with an onslaught of questions regarding emails. I don't know how you reached that conclusion lmao, if anyone will be ducking these debates, it's HRC. As evidenced by her last press conference being like 200 plus days ago. Trump will be 10 times more savage than any news reporter asking questions at a press conference btw. HRC's strategy at this point should not be offense, it should be to play the victim card and gather sympathy and make Trump seem like a bully. If I learned anything from the DNC it's that their target audience loves victims. Trump is the only one with a track record of running from debates. It's also pretty easy for Clinto to go on the offensive with the endless supply of sexist and racist comments that Trump has made throughout his career. Not to mention his love of Russia, his refusal to release his tax returns, his long business record of screwing over middle-class workers, etc. Clinton's been grilled about these emails for years, and was able to make Republicans in Congress look bad after a 12 hour hearing. The idea that a man that is as thin-skinned as Trump could actually grill her in a debate (when a proper debate should actually be moderated anyway) is laughable. If she's so comfortable and transparent when being asked tough questions why has she not had a press conference in over 230 days? The hearings in congress did not have public perception, so she articulated her way around every question for 12 hours (which was impressive). She cannot do the same with the eyes of the public on her without looking like a snake, and she hasn't had to because Bernie was soft as hell "with all due respect secretary clinton..." during every one of their debates.
wasn't that congressional hearing public?
Nothing wrong with Bernie being polite.
She doesn't have to hold a press conference to answer questions; she can and has answered questions in other venues. Harping on the one specific communication method of press conferences gets a bit old after awhile.
I wonder what questions would be asked at a press conference that haven't already been answered elsewhere.
|
On July 31 2016 03:12 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2016 02:57 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 31 2016 02:01 biology]major wrote:On July 31 2016 01:55 Lord Tolkien wrote:On July 31 2016 01:54 Gorsameth wrote:On July 31 2016 01:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
No and the debate schedule has been agreed upon by both parties for over a year. Ah well in that case yeah... Trump is being dumb. He's going to try using it as an excuse to duck out of the debates. Just watch. He's complaining because there won't be as many viewers to see him probe HRC with an onslaught of questions regarding emails. I don't know how you reached that conclusion lmao, if anyone will be ducking these debates, it's HRC. As evidenced by her last press conference being like 200 plus days ago. Trump will be 10 times more savage than any news reporter asking questions at a press conference btw. HRC's strategy at this point should not be offense, it should be to play the victim card and gather sympathy and make Trump seem like a bully. If I learned anything from the DNC it's that their target audience loves victims. Trump is the only one with a track record of running from debates. It's also pretty easy for Clinto to go on the offensive with the endless supply of sexist and racist comments that Trump has made throughout his career. Not to mention his love of Russia, his refusal to release his tax returns, his long business record of screwing over middle-class workers, etc. Clinton's been grilled about these emails for years, and was able to make Republicans in Congress look bad after a 12 hour hearing. The idea that a man that is as thin-skinned as Trump could actually grill her in a debate (when a proper debate should actually be moderated anyway) is laughable. If she's so comfortable and transparent when being asked tough questions why has she not had a press conference in over 230 days? The hearings in congress did not have public perception, so she articulated her way around every question for 12 hours (which was impressive). She cannot do the same with the eyes of the public on her without looking like a snake, and she hasn't had to because Bernie was soft as hell "with all due respect secretary clinton..." during every one of their debates.
Yeah, its totally not like the hearings were not broadcasted live...
ps.
Pretending to be bad Zeo clone will not help your position.
|
You're still yammering on about a press conference. What's so special about a press conference exactly?
If it's the unscripted nature of it, then she's been at plenty of debates within that time frame, and she's had numerous unscripted interviews in the interim as well.
|
Also, a one-on-one debate isn't a press conference. Trump doesn't just get to hammer with random probing questions on irrelevant topics with no recourse.
|
A key figure at the Republican national convention where Donald Trump was nominated for president has strong business ties with Ukraine, the Guardian has learned.
The party platform, written at the convention in Cleveland last week, removed references to arming Ukraine in its fight against pro-Russia rebels, who have received material support from the Kremlin. Trump’s links to Russia are under scrutiny after a hack of Democratic national committee emails, allegedly by Russian agents.
The coordinator of the Washington diplomatic corps for the Republicans in Cleveland was Frank Mermoud, a former state department official involved in business ventures in Ukraine via Cub Energy, a Black Sea-focused oil and gas company of which he is a director. He is also on the board of the US Ukraine Business Council.
Mermoud has longstanding ties to Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, who in 2010 helped pro-Russia Viktor Yanukovych refashion his image and win a presidential election in Ukraine. Manafort was brought in earlier this year to oversee the convention operations and its staffing.
Three sources at the convention also told the Guardian that they saw Philip Griffin, a long-time aide to Manafort in Kiev, working with the foreign dignitaries programme.
“After years of working in the Ukraine for Paul and others, it was surprising to run into Phil working at the convention,” one said.
The change to the platform on arming Ukraine was condemned even by some Republicans. Senator Rob Portman of Ohio described it as “deeply troubling”. Veteran party operative and lobbyist Charlie Black said the “new position in the platform doesn’t have much support from Republicans”, adding that the change “was unusual”.
Source
|
On July 31 2016 03:01 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2016 03:00 acker wrote:
The NFL game schedule was decided a year after the debate schedule.
Does Clinton secretly control American football? No, Trump is assuming people do not know when schedules were made and so think that the debate schedule was drawn up later.
And he's right. As he has been most times he's assumed people are too stupid to look things up.
|
On July 31 2016 02:54 zlefin wrote:
What makes a choice the "right" choice?
In part, a good interpretation of what "right" is. Is the nuclear deal with Iran a good thing? Depends on how you look at it.
If you really have no internal moral/ethical ideas about how things go then knowing the consequences of actions is sort of meaningless because you won't be able to pick which one will end better, since "better" is undefined. As I mentioned more than once, that often leads to the path of least resistance to obtaining a position of power, which is simply tracking popular opinion. A strategy likely not to make things go down the shitter, but also one that's not likely to make things better either. Mostly just gradual decline or stagnation.
|
On July 30 2016 23:10 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2016 22:55 OtherWorld wrote:On July 30 2016 18:46 Toadesstern wrote:On July 30 2016 15:47 LegalLord wrote:On July 30 2016 15:37 Dante08 wrote:
Besides the email thing, why is everyone calling Hillary a liar? She has a long history of flip-flopping on issues (consistent with changes in public opinion) and she's had her fair share of shifty dealings in her career. Emails being one of them. I always wondered. Why is that considered a bad thing? I'd rather have a politician who does what the public wants even if she herself disagrees with it on a personal level than someone who ended up in a position to make those decisions due to the whole "package" of her being popular and then forcing one particular aspect that's really, really unpopular onto people just because it's part of what she stands for (1) Because oftentimes when people are divided over an issue, there isn't an overwhelming consensus (see Brexit), thus on these issues we need leaders with vision and strength, not people who hesitate and don't do shit. (2) Because on a good chunk of subjects "public opinion" is irrelevant, as in, there is a clear best possible decision to take based on evidence and experts' advice (see international politics, jail policy, education, etc etc). If the leader decides to take the bad decision because of clueless people in the street and on the Internet, then democracy has failed. about 1), I said "really, really unpopular" for a reason. I agree that it's more complex in most situations but if you have a 10/90 split and the politician is among the 10% people I'd like him/her to ignore that personally if there's not a very good reason to stick to it (see #2) about 2), yeah obviously I'm only talking about things you can discuss to some level and logically go both ways. I'm happy noone exaggerated into something along the lines of "well as long as enough people are in favour of it, we should start killing babies even if I'm personally against it!" because that's obviously not what I'm trying to get at here. in that sense perhaps I should have said that I don't get how it's always perceived as something bad. It doesn't even have to be based on popular opinion, it could very well be something that wasn't well understood at some point, 10 years later we know more about it and thus people can come to better conclusions. Someone sticking to his old conclusion about a topic just for principles sake is certainly something bad for me.
Well yes, it depends on the context. But I don't think what you describe falls under the "flip-flopping" umbrella, more like under the "honest and thought-out change of opinion born out of reason" umbrella. Flip-flopping is more like changing their opinion every two days because it could help their (political) career, give them more votes, etc. Basically flip-flopping is hypocrisy, and hypocrisy is almost always a bad thing.
|
Also in some cases it's simply the population forcing the flip-flopping. Like if you were openly defending gay rights 20 years ago you'd probably have alienated two thirds of the voter base so even if you'd want to do something for gay rights you'd have had to do it secretly.
Of course you can be super principled but if you're not going to get elected as a result that's not helping anybody either
|
On July 31 2016 04:23 Nyxisto wrote:
Also in some cases it's simply the population forcing the flip-flopping. Like if you were openly defending gay rights 20 years ago you'd probably have alienated two thirds of the voter base so even if you'd want to do something for gay rights you'd have had to do it secretly.
Of course you can be super principled but if you're not going to get elected as a result that's not helping anybody either
Usually the way that's done is that you simply pretend to be wishy-washy on the issue and say stuff that doesn't really give a clear conclusion. Like, going from "gay marriage may or may not be a good thing, we'll have to look at it" to "yes, we should allow it" isn't much of a flip-flop, just either changing opinions or a change in statements based on the political environment. Going from "gay marriage is bad" to "gay marriage is good" is a flip-flop.
|
Hillary's duplicitous image goes way beyond flip flopping on issues. It's the product of everything from her defense of her husband to her faux southern accent.
|
On July 31 2016 04:27 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2016 04:23 Nyxisto wrote:
Also in some cases it's simply the population forcing the flip-flopping. Like if you were openly defending gay rights 20 years ago you'd probably have alienated two thirds of the voter base so even if you'd want to do something for gay rights you'd have had to do it secretly.
Of course you can be super principled but if you're not going to get elected as a result that's not helping anybody either Usually the way that's done is that you simply pretend to be wishy-washy on the issue and say stuff that doesn't really give a clear conclusion. Like, going from "gay marriage may or may not be a good thing, we'll have to look at it" to "yes, we should allow it" isn't much of a flip-flop, just either changing opinions or a change in statements based on the political environment. Going from "gay marriage is bad" to "gay marriage is good" is a flip-flop.
"I believed X when I was younger, but after contenplating on it for the past decade I've come to better conclusion" is not a flip flop either.
|
|
|
On July 31 2016 04:09 LegalLord wrote:In part, a good interpretation of what "right" is. Is the nuclear deal with Iran a good thing? Depends on how you look at it. If you really have no internal moral/ethical ideas about how things go then knowing the consequences of actions is sort of meaningless because you won't be able to pick which one will end better, since "better" is undefined. As I mentioned more than once, that often leads to the path of least resistance to obtaining a position of power, which is simply tracking popular opinion. A strategy likely not to make things go down the shitter, but also one that's not likely to make things better either. Mostly just gradual decline or stagnation.
that depends in part on whether that person makes the decisions, or if they simply report their assessments to someone else who makes the decisions. Or that person is given a set of goals and objectives which include moral guidelines, and use those for assessing the results, even if they have none such themselves.
I'd say knowing the consequences of actions is plenty meaningful even if you're wholly amoral (plenty useful for society that is), because you can communicate that information, and then others can make use of it by synthesizing it with the moral factors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
