|
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 August 16 2016 09:31 Danglars wrote:
Does Manafort advising Yanukovych really matter today? Trump voters excuse the Twitter and lashing out at Kahn, the media, X ... and his campaign managers employment history is the last straw??? I'd more fault him for the handling of Dole's campaign than the rest. I can only imagine this is a feeble attempt to link the email leak's sinister origins to some conspiracy involving Manafort and Russia. A fucking hilarious distraction from the very truthful criticism that can be leveled at Trump.
He can make it in debates. Hillary is prodigiously awful at connecting with ordinary Americans. The Trump campaign has not shown promise for staying on message and defining their own position to attack hers. I agree with the natesilver crowd that Hillary enjoys a solid lead here in August. She's still a weak candidate and the Trump camp can turn this around.
Yes the existing Trump voters excuse everything but other people don't. So things like this do matter if we're just comparing Trump to Hillary. The Clinton Foundation corruption is an issue Trump won't be able to credibly attack? Manafort was engaged with oligarchs in a sea of corruption. Yanukovych had allies in Russia, and Manafort was doing business with them, so really this doesn't only involve Ukraine.
Obviously it's not proof of some conspiracy about the email leak, but Manafort is just about completely obscured by smoke. Trump also claims to be anti-establishment and all, when he too has associated with corruption his whole life. So yes I would say this matters.
|
Haha, sad and funny watching the nonsense the trump shills spout on the news shows; as if any of trump's speeches are actually detailed policy speeches rather than vague and usually unsound collections of drivel.
When they actually cover hillary (who's far more boring to cover, so doesn't get much), I should watch to see how bad those shills are.
|
On August 16 2016 10:19 zlefin wrote:
Haha, sad and funny watching the nonsense the trump shills spout on the news shows; as if any of trump's speeches are actually detailed policy speeches rather than vague and usually unsound collections of drivel.
When they actually cover hillary (who's far more boring to cover, so doesn't get much), I should watch to see how bad those shills are.
She has some pretty weak ones. Claire McCaskill had a pretty absurd interview with Chris Wallace recently, and Madeleine Albright downright makes me want to vote Trump every time she's interviewed.
|
Norway28806 Posts
I don't think Trump supporters will care about this Manafort thingy. I have a hard time seeing what can possibly push away the people who are still trump supporters, but does that really matter? Because I also have a hard time seeing how he can possibly convince people who aren't trump supporters.. His current persona is so cemented, the pivot seems like an impossibility.
|
Aiming to address a recent slew of “mainstream media” polls showing Hillary Clinton holding a decisive lead over of Donald Trump, Breitbart News conducted its own survey. But the conservative news site came up with similar results.
In a poll out Sunday from Breitbart and Gravis Marketing, Clinton led a four-way contest with 42 percent of the vote to Trump’s 37 percent. Libertarian Gary Johnson earned 9 percent of the vote, while the Green Party’s Jill Stein received 3 percent.
Breitbart editor-in-chief Alex Marlow explained in a statement accompanying the survey that the site would launch its own series of polls to provide “an accurate assessment” of the 2016 race.
“It’s an open secret that polls are often manipulated and spun to create momentum for a particular candidate or issue,” Marlow said. “Breitbart News Network’s first national poll marks the start of a major initiative to give our readers an accurate assessment on where the American people stand on the key topics and people of the day — without the mainstream media filter.”
As NBC, Bloomberg, Quinnipiac University and Monmouth University have showed Clinton leading in both national and state surveys in recent days, Trump supporters have lobbed charges of “skewed” polls released by a media that favors Clinton. Yet Clinton’s lead in those polls, which ranged between six and twelve points, is not so far from the five-point advantage she held in Breitbart's survey.
The conservative news site has been criticized for heavily favoring Trump in its coverage, reporting his assertions about President Barack Obama having secret ties to the Islamic State terror group as fact.
Breitbart plans to release more 2016 polls in partnership with Gravis, a Florida-based marketing firm that has a less than stellar record of tracking state congressional races. In the 2014 midterm elections, Gravis published polls that were way off in predicting the results of Senate races in Kentucky and Texas. An “informed ballot” survey conducted by Gravis this spring was mocked for getting a Maryland congressional race wrong by 96 percentage points.
The national Breitbart-Gravis poll was conducted Aug. 9 among 2,832 likely voters. Voters were reached by automated telephone calls, and the margin of error was 1.8 percentage points.
Source
|
Canada13407 Posts
On August 16 2016 11:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Aiming to address a recent slew of “mainstream media” polls showing Hillary Clinton holding a decisive lead over of Donald Trump, Breitbart News conducted its own survey. But the conservative news site came up with similar results.
In a poll out Sunday from Breitbart and Gravis Marketing, Clinton led a four-way contest with 42 percent of the vote to Trump’s 37 percent. Libertarian Gary Johnson earned 9 percent of the vote, while the Green Party’s Jill Stein received 3 percent.
Breitbart editor-in-chief Alex Marlow explained in a statement accompanying the survey that the site would launch its own series of polls to provide “an accurate assessment” of the 2016 race.
“It’s an open secret that polls are often manipulated and spun to create momentum for a particular candidate or issue,” Marlow said. “Breitbart News Network’s first national poll marks the start of a major initiative to give our readers an accurate assessment on where the American people stand on the key topics and people of the day — without the mainstream media filter.”
As NBC, Bloomberg, Quinnipiac University and Monmouth University have showed Clinton leading in both national and state surveys in recent days, Trump supporters have lobbed charges of “skewed” polls released by a media that favors Clinton. Yet Clinton’s lead in those polls, which ranged between six and twelve points, is not so far from the five-point advantage she held in Breitbart's survey.
The conservative news site has been criticized for heavily favoring Trump in its coverage, reporting his assertions about President Barack Obama having secret ties to the Islamic State terror group as fact.
Breitbart plans to release more 2016 polls in partnership with Gravis, a Florida-based marketing firm that has a less than stellar record of tracking state congressional races. In the 2014 midterm elections, Gravis published polls that were way off in predicting the results of Senate races in Kentucky and Texas. An “informed ballot” survey conducted by Gravis this spring was mocked for getting a Maryland congressional race wrong by 96 percentage points.
The national Breitbart-Gravis poll was conducted Aug. 9 among 2,832 likely voters. Voters were reached by automated telephone calls, and the margin of error was 1.8 percentage points. Source
When breitbart does a poll and trump isn't winning, then trump isn't winning.
Then breitbart will ACTUALLY skew the results in trumps favour and they will claim its bias when other people call them on it rofl.
|
|
|
On August 16 2016 06:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 05:58 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 16 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:On August 16 2016 03:43 Godwrath wrote:On August 16 2016 03:30 LegalLord wrote:
I wouldn't mind a government news channel being made, and in general I think a direct government mouthpiece is a good thing. Most Americans would lose their shit if one was to be proposed though. Hmm, probably is my country bias talking here, but i don't think news channels tied to the goverment are a good idea. They will end up being as propaganda tool for the ruling party. To be perfectly honest, if the nation that sent people to the moon can’t create a publicly run news network that can survive more than one administration, we might as well just quit right now and go back to being ruled by the UK. The BBC is fine. But they also have 50 years of public trust built up behind them. Seriously, think about that. If we can’t trust our government to build an independent entity that sole purpose is to keep the public informed, why do we trust them with anything? We entrust them with the power of lethal force, but not the power to provide information to the public. I find your belief in "government" as some magnanimous omnipowerful entity mind blowing. In the total opposite with myself, as I believe it is an organized entity with the monopoly of force to simply serve itself and it's members, trough cohersion. Shows why I'm close to libertarian and you belong to the left, as I honestly believe government entities are all incompetent (relative to their private counter parts) or just flat out evil and thirsty of power. Just wanted to point that out. Well cynicism is the refuge of those afraid to put their faith in something because they could be let down. The libertarian is simply a cynic who only believes in themselves and claims to believe in others. And a Republican you block on Facebook because they keep commenting on your posts. Really, libertarians are the vegans of the political world. I don't mind they exist, but holy fuck I don't care.
Huh I am afraid to put faith in something? I believe in individuals and that they do marvelous things cooperating voluntarely, without a central cohersive power telling them what to do. I am not sure why you reply offensively to something you could prolly agree? I simply pointed what I believe are different belief systems.
|
On August 16 2016 12:02 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 06:06 Plansix wrote:On August 16 2016 05:58 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 16 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:On August 16 2016 03:43 Godwrath wrote:On August 16 2016 03:30 LegalLord wrote:
I wouldn't mind a government news channel being made, and in general I think a direct government mouthpiece is a good thing. Most Americans would lose their shit if one was to be proposed though. Hmm, probably is my country bias talking here, but i don't think news channels tied to the goverment are a good idea. They will end up being as propaganda tool for the ruling party. To be perfectly honest, if the nation that sent people to the moon can’t create a publicly run news network that can survive more than one administration, we might as well just quit right now and go back to being ruled by the UK. The BBC is fine. But they also have 50 years of public trust built up behind them. Seriously, think about that. If we can’t trust our government to build an independent entity that sole purpose is to keep the public informed, why do we trust them with anything? We entrust them with the power of lethal force, but not the power to provide information to the public. I find your belief in "government" as some magnanimous omnipowerful entity mind blowing. In the total opposite with myself, as I believe it is an organized entity with the monopoly of force to simply serve itself and it's members, trough cohersion. Shows why I'm close to libertarian and you belong to the left, as I honestly believe government entities are all incompetent (relative to their private counter parts) or just flat out evil and thirsty of power. Just wanted to point that out. Well cynicism is the refuge of those afraid to put their faith in something because they could be let down. The libertarian is simply a cynic who only believes in themselves and claims to believe in others. And a Republican you block on Facebook because they keep commenting on your posts. Really, libertarians are the vegans of the political world. I don't mind they exist, but holy fuck I don't care. Huh I am afraid to put faith in something? I believe in individuals and that they do marvelous things cooperating voluntarely, without a central cohersive power telling them what to do. I am not sure why you reply offensively to something you could prolly agree? I simply pointed what I believe are different belief systems.
It is deeply meaningful that you felt the need to share this with me of your own free will and just because you felt it was important for me to know.
|
|
|
We talked about cannabis a bit after the DEA said it has no medical value, one small problem...
The Drug Enforcement Administration says marijuana lacks medical value. So why did the U.S. government file a patent for cannabis — specifying that the plant has multiple therapeutic benefits — as far back as 1999?
Source
Our government deserves the distrust it gets.
|
On August 16 2016 13:39 GreenHorizons wrote:We talked about cannabis a bit after the DEA said it has no medical value, one small problem... Show nested quote +The Drug Enforcement Administration says marijuana lacks medical value. So why did the U.S. government file a patent for cannabis — specifying that the plant has multiple therapeutic benefits — as far back as 1999? SourceOur government deserves the distrust it gets.
As a patent lawyer, but one who does not work in Pharma, I'll note that the "utility" requirement of patents is essentially 0. Also, I worked at the DOE for an internship and we filed on anything we thought could get past the Examiners at the USPTO (which is basically anything that you write with enough details). I thought it was quite confusing at the time that the government would petition itself for a patent, but, it happens, and its because an intern and/or a government employee thinks they can get it past a USPTO Examiner (another government employee).
|
So i keep seeing people say hillery should nominate obama as a justice as a big FU to republicans if she wins and garlend gets withdrawn but am i the only one that sees that a a bad idea. He would have to recluse himself on a ton of cases for like the next 3-4 years and we would effectively lose the 5-4 majority we are going to get.
|
On August 16 2016 15:36 Shingi11 wrote:
So i keep seeing people say hillery should nominate obama as a justice as a big FU to republicans if she wins and garlend gets withdrawn but am i the only one that sees that a a bad idea. He would have to recluse himself on a ton of cases for like the next 3-4 years and we would effectively lose the 5-4 majority we are going to get.
Your argument is terrible for a couple of reasons.
1. Obama isn't that old and he'd have WAY more then 3-4 years on the bench.
2. People aren't serious about putting Obama as a justice hes not even licensed to practice law at the moment.
3. You aren't even pretending to make it about the nation and that you only care about your "team".
|
On August 16 2016 15:44 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 15:36 Shingi11 wrote:
So i keep seeing people say hillery should nominate obama as a justice as a big FU to republicans if she wins and garlend gets withdrawn but am i the only one that sees that a a bad idea. He would have to recluse himself on a ton of cases for like the next 3-4 years and we would effectively lose the 5-4 majority we are going to get. Your argument is terrible for a couple of reasons. 1. Obama isn't that old and he'd have WAY more then 3-4 years on the bench. 2. People aren't serious about putting Obama as a justice hes not even licensed to practice law at the moment. 3. You aren't even pretending to make it about the nation and that you only care about your "team".
I know he would have more then 4 years, but a lot of important things could be coming to the court that are important to liberals and Obama would have to take himself off those. I guess he could just follow sclera and just refuse to recluse himself though.
And i have seen meany arguments that Obama would be a good justice and is more then qualified. I think even one of the sitting justices, i think it was ginsburg said it would be even good to have a non judge on the bench as it gives another perspective that they dont see. It is certainly debatable though.
Yes i would like my team win, I am a democrat so i would want a liberal SC. Just like republicans think it is there god given right to keep a conservative SC as we have seen.
|
Canada11535 Posts
I think that's a really bad idea. I mean if they really want Obama back, get rid of the 22nd Amendment. But throwing in a non-judge in a position for top judges is terrible.
It is certainly debatable though.
A really short debate I hope- ending in No.
I am a democrat so i would want a liberal SC.
Actual liberal judges cannot be in such short supply, surely.
I, personally, take a slightly longer view of such things and consider if I am opening up this precedent, would I want the same thing wielded against me when my opponents take power. If no, then purge the idea.
|
On August 16 2016 16:12 Falling wrote:I think that's a really bad idea. I mean if they really want Obama back, get rid of the 22nd Amendment. But throwing in a non-judge in a position for top judges is terrible. A really short debate I hope- ending in No. Actual liberal judges cannot be in such short supply, surely. I, personally, take a slightly longer view of such things and consider if I am opening up this precedent, would I want the same thing wielded against me when my opponents take power. If no, then purge the idea.
Actually in France, former presidents are automatically members of the conseil constitutionel (which is our SC).
Obama would make a great justice, that being said politically it would probably be a terrible move. Are there even any precedent of a potus becoming a justice?
|
Canada11535 Posts
I think Taft is the only guy.
But it defeats the entire purpose of the 22nd Amendment, so you might as well nix that rather than appointing presidents as chief justices.
|
On August 16 2016 16:12 Falling wrote:I think that's a really bad idea. I mean if they really want Obama back, get rid of the 22nd Amendment. But throwing in a non-judge in a position for top judges is terrible. A really short debate I hope- ending in No. Actual liberal judges cannot be in such short supply, surely. I, personally, take a slightly longer view of such things and consider if I am opening up this precedent, would I want the same thing wielded against me when my opponents take power. If no, then purge the idea.
I want to preface this by saying i actually like garland a lot, just seen the idea brought up a couple times here and there.
I am not quite understanding what you mean in that last sentence. I dont think a justice should be picked just to piss the other side off but i think that leftward ideas are the right thing for the nation just like repubs think that rightward ideas are right for the nation. So yes i do think it is right that the presdent gets to pick someone that alines with there ideas. Its why we voted for them. God forbid if trump won and he put one of the justices on the bench that he has suggested i would not think it was not a good judge and i would disagree with there ideals but it is his right being the president.
And while i dont think the augments are the strongest but i think they are there.. Basically is a Constitutional scholar vs a trial judge type thing. I think it could be made though.
|
Norway28806 Posts
pretty much everyone who brings up obama as SC is joking. It's just like a, 'haha, the outrage would be hilarious' kinda thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
