|
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. |
Yeah, ZeroHedge is pretty shady, it's all Hillary bad and the market's going to crash soon (for any number of reasons)
|
Canada11278 Posts
On October 11 2016 14:10 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 13:33 Danglars wrote:On October 11 2016 11:11 L_Master wrote:On October 11 2016 10:33 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2016 10:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On October 11 2016 10:16 JumboJohnson wrote:
If you were aborted you wouldn't know it, so why would you care if your mother picked that option? This is not a good argument There are no good arguments for banning abortion, only religious ones. Hmm, there are only religious arguments for banning abortions? Interesting because I am definitely not religious, arguably closer to anti-religious than religious and yet I fall into the anti-abortion camp. Abortion arguments can more or less be broken down into two camps: 1) Those that argue that abortion is allowable under all circumstances 2) those that concede that abortion is not morally acceptable in the case of being a person, but seek to argue that some abortions are okay based on whether the fetus is developed enough to constitute "personhood" Most people argue number 2. Arguments for #1 are much rarer, because it's much easier to create similar scenarios involving adults/infants that most reject. For me, as I guess it probably is for most, it becomes fairly "straightforward" from what is for me a fundamental tenant: That the prime and most fundamental right for any human should be to control their own fate to the extent possible. We only get one life, and I believe that control of that life ought to be an unalienable right that cannot be willfully infringed upon by any other person. That pretty much rules out any exceptions to abortion with exception of situations where the life of the mother is in jeopardy. Of course, that does leave open to discussion the point at which something becomes a human being deserving of that right; and I'm not completely sold on my position there, but I've seen good philosophical arguments both for and against various stages of development. Certainly, biology doesn't and won't give us anything to go on their; so it's going to come down to philosophical discussion anyway. Thanks for posting! I don't run into many atheist/agnostic prolife in my area, and I expect most of the "no argument exists" crowd say it because they've never met one. How'd you arrive at that conclusion and how politically dear do you hold that view? What was your take on the sudden switch of the DNC to remove support for the Hyde Amendment this year? Sorry to interrupt your little attempt at an anti abortion circle jerk but I think in your excitement you missed something.For your position to be for or anti abortion you need to have a clear understanding of where you consider life to start in a situation where abortion is purely preferential with no extenuating circumstances (rape, life of mother etc..) i.e "I choose not to have this baby". You cant say you are anti abortion like he did with the "human -> control fate etc etc... " + Show Spoiler +also news flash, even when youare born sadly most humans dont control their own fate. If you have ever worked with street kids, addicts and runaways sometimes you wonder thinking was it worth them even being born. I generally dismiss the thought because who the fuck am I to think like that, but it does strike you momentarily from time to time, especially when faced with all that suffering. anyway sorry for that digression and then say .. well im not quite sure when something becomes human. So really his conclusion was a pretty big "nothing" in terms of solidifying his position. Even if there was a conclusion.. I do agree that anti abortion arguments arent only religious in nature which was the original point he was addressing, thats silly ofcourse some people can just hold a belief that life begins at conception without any religious reasoning for it.
Dude. How is the bolded part necessary? He saw a novel position and was interested to hear more. How is that a circle jerk? Don't inflame an inherently controversial topic.
I didnt say you got there yet.. hence the use of the word attempt. Admittedly I was just basing this of potential and history.
Seems a lot of people have taken this mentality of late and it quite frankly sucks. It sucks because it blocks your ears from hearing any exception to a perceived rule and even if someone were to change their tune on a particular topic, it'll likely be missed because of 'history'.
|
On October 11 2016 14:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 14:10 Rebs wrote:On October 11 2016 13:33 Danglars wrote:On October 11 2016 11:11 L_Master wrote:On October 11 2016 10:33 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2016 10:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On October 11 2016 10:16 JumboJohnson wrote:
If you were aborted you wouldn't know it, so why would you care if your mother picked that option? This is not a good argument There are no good arguments for banning abortion, only religious ones. Hmm, there are only religious arguments for banning abortions? Interesting because I am definitely not religious, arguably closer to anti-religious than religious and yet I fall into the anti-abortion camp. Abortion arguments can more or less be broken down into two camps: 1) Those that argue that abortion is allowable under all circumstances 2) those that concede that abortion is not morally acceptable in the case of being a person, but seek to argue that some abortions are okay based on whether the fetus is developed enough to constitute "personhood" Most people argue number 2. Arguments for #1 are much rarer, because it's much easier to create similar scenarios involving adults/infants that most reject. For me, as I guess it probably is for most, it becomes fairly "straightforward" from what is for me a fundamental tenant: That the prime and most fundamental right for any human should be to control their own fate to the extent possible. We only get one life, and I believe that control of that life ought to be an unalienable right that cannot be willfully infringed upon by any other person. That pretty much rules out any exceptions to abortion with exception of situations where the life of the mother is in jeopardy. Of course, that does leave open to discussion the point at which something becomes a human being deserving of that right; and I'm not completely sold on my position there, but I've seen good philosophical arguments both for and against various stages of development. Certainly, biology doesn't and won't give us anything to go on their; so it's going to come down to philosophical discussion anyway. Thanks for posting! I don't run into many atheist/agnostic prolife in my area, and I expect most of the "no argument exists" crowd say it because they've never met one. How'd you arrive at that conclusion and how politically dear do you hold that view? What was your take on the sudden switch of the DNC to remove support for the Hyde Amendment this year? Sorry to interrupt your little attempt at an anti abortion circle jerk but I think in your excitement you missed something. For your position to be for or anti abortion you need to have a clear understanding of where you consider life to start in a situation where abortion is purely preferential with no extenuating circumstances (rape, life of mother etc..) i.e "I choose not to have this baby". You cant say you are anti abortion like he with the "human -> control fate etc etc... " + Show Spoiler +also news flash, even when youare born sadly most humans dont control their own fate. If you have ever worked with street kids, addicts and runaways sometimes you wonder thinking was it worth them even being born. I generally dismiss the thought because who the fuck am I to think like that, but it does strike you momentarily from time to time, especially when faced with all that suffering. anyway sorry for that digression and then say .. well im not quite sure when something becomes human. So really his conclusion was a pretty big nothing in terms of solidifying his position. I do agree that anti abortion arguments arent only religious in nature which was the original point he was addressing, thats silly ofcourse some people can just hold a belief that life begins at conception without any religious reasoning for it You have a very low bar for circle jerks, I must say. Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 14:11 L_Master wrote:On October 11 2016 13:33 Danglars wrote:On October 11 2016 11:11 L_Master wrote:On October 11 2016 10:33 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2016 10:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On October 11 2016 10:16 JumboJohnson wrote:
If you were aborted you wouldn't know it, so why would you care if your mother picked that option? This is not a good argument There are no good arguments for banning abortion, only religious ones. Hmm, there are only religious arguments for banning abortions? Interesting because I am definitely not religious, arguably closer to anti-religious than religious and yet I fall into the anti-abortion camp. Abortion arguments can more or less be broken down into two camps: 1) Those that argue that abortion is allowable under all circumstances 2) those that concede that abortion is not morally acceptable in the case of being a person, but seek to argue that some abortions are okay based on whether the fetus is developed enough to constitute "personhood" Most people argue number 2. Arguments for #1 are much rarer, because it's much easier to create similar scenarios involving adults/infants that most reject. For me, as I guess it probably is for most, it becomes fairly "straightforward" from what is for me a fundamental tenant: That the prime and most fundamental right for any human should be to control their own fate to the extent possible. We only get one life, and I believe that control of that life ought to be an unalienable right that cannot be willfully infringed upon by any other person. That pretty much rules out any exceptions to abortion with exception of situations where the life of the mother is in jeopardy. Of course, that does leave open to discussion the point at which something becomes a human being deserving of that right; and I'm not completely sold on my position there, but I've seen good philosophical arguments both for and against various stages of development. Certainly, biology doesn't and won't give us anything to go on their; so it's going to come down to philosophical discussion anyway. Thanks for posting! I don't run into many atheist/agnostic prolife in my area, and I expect most of the "no argument exists" crowd say it because they've never met one. How'd you arrive at that conclusion and how politically dear do you hold that view? What was your take on the sudden switch of the DNC to remove support for the Hyde Amendment this year? For clarification, when you say "at that conclusion", which conclusion are you referring to? My prolife stance? Or my overarching tenant that it's a persons right to have control over his fate (which I suppose for obvious reasons my I'm also very much in favor of euthanasia, from which I've gotten some amusing reactions when I say I'm pro life but also in favor of allowing people to take their own lives) As far as the DNC decision, I'd say for obvious reasons I'm not in favor of the decision. As someone who is generally opposed to abortion, I certainly don't have any desire to see federal money go to abortions, especially with so many other high priority things we could be worrying about; whether that's infrastructure, working on the factors that lead to abortions in the first place, energy, etc. More what swayed you to the philosophical argument as you outlined. It's in the kinda Libertarian mode of certain fundamental rights that the state or others have no sway on. In today's debates, you run into biological absolutists of both position #1 and position #2 fetal viability (though medical science keeps winding that date back, so it's generally put unassisted viability). So is this undergraduate philosophy or social group debates or what.
Mostly just doing my own thinking, and not having found a reason to reject such an idea. It's always felt fundamental to me that no one should be allowed control over your right to exist besides you. The thought of someone else being allowed to decide whether you live or die is on ther emotional side highly unappealing. Beyond that, it brings up a litany of problems and complications for deciding when someone else should have the right to decide if you should die or not. It also seems to be the core reason for why we almost unilaterally reject the idea of murder. I'm not sure I've ever heard of a culture where taking someones life without consent is permissible.
For your position to be for or anti abortion you need to have a clear understanding of where you consider life to start in a situation where abortion is purely preferential with no extenuating circumstances
I should be more clear. I certainly have a position on where life begins. What I meant by open to debate is that my position on that is much less "firm" than on my belief about right to be sole decider of your own existence. While I'm certainly open to discussion, I have a strong emotional and gut feeling about that, and I suspect you'd have a hard time convincing me I'm wrong.
When it comes to when life starts I'm not as convinced. My position stems mostly from hearing the opinions about when life starts and always being able to posit a hypothetical that mirrors the fetal situation with an adult surrogate and finding that most would then reject the idea when it's framed around an adult or child. Conception, or at the very least implementation, doesn't have the same problems.
|
On October 11 2016 14:37 plasmidghost wrote:
Yeah, ZeroHedge is pretty shady, it's all Hillary bad and the market's going to crash soon (for any number of reasons)
I tried it out a few days ago, saw an article claiming that Putin's not a dictator and just a victim of Western media lies, and noped right out.
|
On October 11 2016 14:38 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 14:10 Rebs wrote:On October 11 2016 13:33 Danglars wrote:On October 11 2016 11:11 L_Master wrote:On October 11 2016 10:33 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2016 10:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On October 11 2016 10:16 JumboJohnson wrote:
If you were aborted you wouldn't know it, so why would you care if your mother picked that option? This is not a good argument There are no good arguments for banning abortion, only religious ones. Hmm, there are only religious arguments for banning abortions? Interesting because I am definitely not religious, arguably closer to anti-religious than religious and yet I fall into the anti-abortion camp. Abortion arguments can more or less be broken down into two camps: 1) Those that argue that abortion is allowable under all circumstances 2) those that concede that abortion is not morally acceptable in the case of being a person, but seek to argue that some abortions are okay based on whether the fetus is developed enough to constitute "personhood" Most people argue number 2. Arguments for #1 are much rarer, because it's much easier to create similar scenarios involving adults/infants that most reject. For me, as I guess it probably is for most, it becomes fairly "straightforward" from what is for me a fundamental tenant: That the prime and most fundamental right for any human should be to control their own fate to the extent possible. We only get one life, and I believe that control of that life ought to be an unalienable right that cannot be willfully infringed upon by any other person. That pretty much rules out any exceptions to abortion with exception of situations where the life of the mother is in jeopardy. Of course, that does leave open to discussion the point at which something becomes a human being deserving of that right; and I'm not completely sold on my position there, but I've seen good philosophical arguments both for and against various stages of development. Certainly, biology doesn't and won't give us anything to go on their; so it's going to come down to philosophical discussion anyway. Thanks for posting! I don't run into many atheist/agnostic prolife in my area, and I expect most of the "no argument exists" crowd say it because they've never met one. How'd you arrive at that conclusion and how politically dear do you hold that view? What was your take on the sudden switch of the DNC to remove support for the Hyde Amendment this year? Sorry to interrupt your little attempt at an anti abortion circle jerk but I think in your excitement you missed something.For your position to be for or anti abortion you need to have a clear understanding of where you consider life to start in a situation where abortion is purely preferential with no extenuating circumstances (rape, life of mother etc..) i.e "I choose not to have this baby". You cant say you are anti abortion like he did with the "human -> control fate etc etc... " + Show Spoiler +also news flash, even when youare born sadly most humans dont control their own fate. If you have ever worked with street kids, addicts and runaways sometimes you wonder thinking was it worth them even being born. I generally dismiss the thought because who the fuck am I to think like that, but it does strike you momentarily from time to time, especially when faced with all that suffering. anyway sorry for that digression and then say .. well im not quite sure when something becomes human. So really his conclusion was a pretty big "nothing" in terms of solidifying his position. Even if there was a conclusion.. I do agree that anti abortion arguments arent only religious in nature which was the original point he was addressing, thats silly ofcourse some people can just hold a belief that life begins at conception without any religious reasoning for it. Dude. How is the bolded part necessary? He saw a novel position and was interested to hear more. How is that a circle jerk? Don't inflame an inherently controversial topic.
Theres plenty of unnecessary things said all the time, if this is the first one that caught your eye ...well I guess I apologize if anyone was offended. + Show Spoiler +(is what I would say if I was Trumpian..).
Edit:
Also the position isnt particularly novel, not sure where the novelty is. To me it seems rather incoherent and contradictory based on the reasoning. It doesn't have to be, but in this case it is.
Summed up as
Abortion - bad
Why? - Humans destiny not controlled by said human
What is human ? - dono
Wait.. what ? So why do we have problem with abortion again ? What you are talking about is murder.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 11 2016 14:37 plasmidghost wrote:
Yeah, ZeroHedge is pretty shady, it's all Hillary bad and the market's going to crash soon (for any number of reasons)
I've actually seen a few good things there, mostly translations of articles by Russian FP folk. The general content of the website is pretty stupid though, and I'd recommend avoiding it.
|
Canada11278 Posts
On October 11 2016 14:42 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 14:38 Falling wrote:On October 11 2016 14:10 Rebs wrote:On October 11 2016 13:33 Danglars wrote:On October 11 2016 11:11 L_Master wrote:On October 11 2016 10:33 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2016 10:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On October 11 2016 10:16 JumboJohnson wrote:
If you were aborted you wouldn't know it, so why would you care if your mother picked that option? This is not a good argument There are no good arguments for banning abortion, only religious ones. Hmm, there are only religious arguments for banning abortions? Interesting because I am definitely not religious, arguably closer to anti-religious than religious and yet I fall into the anti-abortion camp. Abortion arguments can more or less be broken down into two camps: 1) Those that argue that abortion is allowable under all circumstances 2) those that concede that abortion is not morally acceptable in the case of being a person, but seek to argue that some abortions are okay based on whether the fetus is developed enough to constitute "personhood" Most people argue number 2. Arguments for #1 are much rarer, because it's much easier to create similar scenarios involving adults/infants that most reject. For me, as I guess it probably is for most, it becomes fairly "straightforward" from what is for me a fundamental tenant: That the prime and most fundamental right for any human should be to control their own fate to the extent possible. We only get one life, and I believe that control of that life ought to be an unalienable right that cannot be willfully infringed upon by any other person. That pretty much rules out any exceptions to abortion with exception of situations where the life of the mother is in jeopardy. Of course, that does leave open to discussion the point at which something becomes a human being deserving of that right; and I'm not completely sold on my position there, but I've seen good philosophical arguments both for and against various stages of development. Certainly, biology doesn't and won't give us anything to go on their; so it's going to come down to philosophical discussion anyway. Thanks for posting! I don't run into many atheist/agnostic prolife in my area, and I expect most of the "no argument exists" crowd say it because they've never met one. How'd you arrive at that conclusion and how politically dear do you hold that view? What was your take on the sudden switch of the DNC to remove support for the Hyde Amendment this year? Sorry to interrupt your little attempt at an anti abortion circle jerk but I think in your excitement you missed something.For your position to be for or anti abortion you need to have a clear understanding of where you consider life to start in a situation where abortion is purely preferential with no extenuating circumstances (rape, life of mother etc..) i.e "I choose not to have this baby". You cant say you are anti abortion like he did with the "human -> control fate etc etc... " + Show Spoiler +also news flash, even when youare born sadly most humans dont control their own fate. If you have ever worked with street kids, addicts and runaways sometimes you wonder thinking was it worth them even being born. I generally dismiss the thought because who the fuck am I to think like that, but it does strike you momentarily from time to time, especially when faced with all that suffering. anyway sorry for that digression and then say .. well im not quite sure when something becomes human. So really his conclusion was a pretty big "nothing" in terms of solidifying his position. Even if there was a conclusion.. I do agree that anti abortion arguments arent only religious in nature which was the original point he was addressing, thats silly ofcourse some people can just hold a belief that life begins at conception without any religious reasoning for it. Dude. How is the bolded part necessary? He saw a novel position and was interested to hear more. How is that a circle jerk? Don't inflame an inherently controversial topic. Theres plenty of unnecessary things said all the time, if this is the first one that caught your eye ...well I guess I apologize if anyone was offended. + Show Spoiler +(is what I would say if I was Trumpian..). Seriously though, it wasnt neccessary, my bad.
It may happen all the time, but because it's usually passive aggressive posts directed back and forth at each other, it's difficult to step in. This one stood out because there was genuine curiosity directed at someone else met with a cynical blast from the sideline.
Also the position isnt particularly novel, not sure where the novelty is.
An atheist/agnostic pro-lifer. Can't say I've heard of many myself.
|
On October 11 2016 14:42 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 14:38 Falling wrote:On October 11 2016 14:10 Rebs wrote:On October 11 2016 13:33 Danglars wrote:On October 11 2016 11:11 L_Master wrote:On October 11 2016 10:33 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2016 10:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On October 11 2016 10:16 JumboJohnson wrote:
If you were aborted you wouldn't know it, so why would you care if your mother picked that option? This is not a good argument There are no good arguments for banning abortion, only religious ones. Hmm, there are only religious arguments for banning abortions? Interesting because I am definitely not religious, arguably closer to anti-religious than religious and yet I fall into the anti-abortion camp. Abortion arguments can more or less be broken down into two camps: 1) Those that argue that abortion is allowable under all circumstances 2) those that concede that abortion is not morally acceptable in the case of being a person, but seek to argue that some abortions are okay based on whether the fetus is developed enough to constitute "personhood" Most people argue number 2. Arguments for #1 are much rarer, because it's much easier to create similar scenarios involving adults/infants that most reject. For me, as I guess it probably is for most, it becomes fairly "straightforward" from what is for me a fundamental tenant: That the prime and most fundamental right for any human should be to control their own fate to the extent possible. We only get one life, and I believe that control of that life ought to be an unalienable right that cannot be willfully infringed upon by any other person. That pretty much rules out any exceptions to abortion with exception of situations where the life of the mother is in jeopardy. Of course, that does leave open to discussion the point at which something becomes a human being deserving of that right; and I'm not completely sold on my position there, but I've seen good philosophical arguments both for and against various stages of development. Certainly, biology doesn't and won't give us anything to go on their; so it's going to come down to philosophical discussion anyway. Thanks for posting! I don't run into many atheist/agnostic prolife in my area, and I expect most of the "no argument exists" crowd say it because they've never met one. How'd you arrive at that conclusion and how politically dear do you hold that view? What was your take on the sudden switch of the DNC to remove support for the Hyde Amendment this year? Sorry to interrupt your little attempt at an anti abortion circle jerk but I think in your excitement you missed something.For your position to be for or anti abortion you need to have a clear understanding of where you consider life to start in a situation where abortion is purely preferential with no extenuating circumstances (rape, life of mother etc..) i.e "I choose not to have this baby". You cant say you are anti abortion like he did with the "human -> control fate etc etc... " + Show Spoiler +also news flash, even when youare born sadly most humans dont control their own fate. If you have ever worked with street kids, addicts and runaways sometimes you wonder thinking was it worth them even being born. I generally dismiss the thought because who the fuck am I to think like that, but it does strike you momentarily from time to time, especially when faced with all that suffering. anyway sorry for that digression and then say .. well im not quite sure when something becomes human. So really his conclusion was a pretty big "nothing" in terms of solidifying his position. Even if there was a conclusion.. I do agree that anti abortion arguments arent only religious in nature which was the original point he was addressing, thats silly ofcourse some people can just hold a belief that life begins at conception without any religious reasoning for it. Dude. How is the bolded part necessary? He saw a novel position and was interested to hear more. How is that a circle jerk? Don't inflame an inherently controversial topic. Theres plenty of unnecessary things said all the time, if this is the first one that caught your eye ...well I guess I apologize if anyone was offended. + Show Spoiler +(is what I would say if I was Trumpian..). Seriously though, it wasn't necessary, my bad. Edit: Also the position isnt particularly novel, not sure where the novelty is. To me it seems rather incoherent and contradictory based on the reasoning. It doesn't have to be, but in this case it is. Summed up as Abortion - bad Why? - Humans destiny not controlled by said human What is human ? - dono Wait.. what ? So why do we have problem with abortion again ? What you are talking about is murder.
I didn't say I had no position. I said it was much more open to discussion (with regards to swaying my thoughts). Look above for clarification
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I haven't seen multiple sources yet so take it with a grain of salt.
On October 10, Wikileaks released part two of their emails from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta.
Friday, Wikileaks released their first batch of Podesta’s emails, which included excerpts from Clinton’s Wall Street transcripts that reaffirmed why Clinton refused to release them in full. During the second presidential debate, Clinton confirmed their authenticity by attempting to defend one statement she made in the speech about having a public and private stance on political issues. She cited Abraham Lincoln, a defense comparable to her ridiculous invocation of 9/11 when pressed on her ties to Wall Street during a Democratic primary debate.
The latest release reveals current DNC chair Donna Brazile, when working as a DNC vice chair, forwarded to the Clinton campaign a January 2016 email obtained from the Bernie Sanders campaign, released by Sarah Ford, Sanders’ deputy national press secretary, announcing a Twitter storm from Sanders’ African-American outreach team. “FYI” Brazile wrote to the Clinton staff. “Thank you for the heads up on this Donna,” replied Clinton campaign spokesperson Adrienne Elrod.
The second batch of emails include more evidence of collusion between the mainstream media and Clinton Campaign.
One email, received by prolific Clinton donor Haim Saban, was forwarded to Clinton staff, praising the friendly moderators in the early March 2016 Democratic primary debate co-hosted by Univision in Florida. “Haim, I just wanted to tell you that I thought the moderators for last nights Debate were excellent. They were thoughtful, tough and incisive. I thought it made Hilary appear direct and strong in her resolve. I felt it advanced our candidate. Thanks for Univision,” wrote Rob Friedman, former co-chair of the Motion Picture Group.
Another email discusses planting a favorable Clinton story in The New York Times in March 2015. “NYT heroine. Should she call her today?” Podesta wrote to other Clinton campaign staffers with the subject line ‘Laura Donohoe.’ “I do think it’s a great idea! We can make it happen,” replied Huma Abedin. The story they referred to is likely “In New Hampshire, Clinton Backers Buckle Up,” published in The New York Times on March 12, 2015 about Laura Donohoe, a retired nurse and Clinton supporter in New Hampshire.
John Harwood, New York Times contributor and CNBC correspondent, regularly exchanged emails with Podesta—communicating more as a Clinton surrogate than a journalist.
In an October 2015 email thread, Clinton staff were in damage control over Hillary’s support for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Hillary Clinton would not disavow her support for it. “I’m not saying double down or ever say it again. I’m just saying that she’s not going to want to say she was wrong about that, given she and her husband believe it and have repeated it many times. Better to reiterate evolution, opposition to DOMA when court considered it, and forward looking stance.”
Former Clinton Foundation director, Darnell Strom of the Creative Artist Agency, wrote a condescending email to Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard after she resigned from the DNC to endorse Bernie Sanders, which he then forwarded to Clinton campaign staff. “For you to endorse a man who has spent almost 40 years in public office with very few accomplishments, doesn’t fall in line with what we previously thought of you. Hillary Clinton will be our party’s nominee and you standing on ceremony to support the sinking Bernie Sanders ship is disrespectful to Hillary Clinton,” wrote Strom.
A memo sent from Clinton’s general counsel, Marc Elias of the law firm Perkins Coie, outlined legal tricks to circumvent campaign finance laws to raise money in tandem with Super Pacs.
In a March 2015 email, Clinton Campaign manager Robby Mook expressed frustration DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz hired a Convention CEO without consulting the Clinton campaign, which suggests the DNC and Clinton campaign regularly coordinated together from the early stages of the Democratic primaries.
Source
|
United States41984 Posts
On October 11 2016 13:37 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 13:31 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 11 2016 13:23 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 11 2016 12:32 Leporello wrote:On October 11 2016 12:13 plasmidghost wrote:On October 11 2016 11:50 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 11:44 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2016 11:42 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Somebody needs to train Trump in how to properly spread disinfo while maintaining your image as a non-agent because he's not very good at it
I can only imagine how his conversations about that go. We are 30 days from the election and people are just starting to figure this shit out. Other folks have been pointing this out for months, but now that we are facing the double barrel of the pussy grabber, everyone is like "Man this Russia stuff is weird, right? Its weird." I dunno, the "Trump has Russia ties" line has been consistently used by the Clinton camp for a while, including with the whole Manafort controversy. Has there been any solid proof of the Russia ties? Trump asked for ONE change in the RNC's official platform. Just ONE change. The ONE change Trump asked for, in the platform, was to remove the "hard" stance of protecting Ukraine. His ties to Russia are fucking hilariously blatant. America can't afford to protect other countries anymore. I'm sure there is a ton of savings to be had from all the protection you're providing Ukraine. Anything counts.
The money spent building a peaceful world for American dominated trade pays for itself in American dominated trade. The two are inseparable. You can't withdraw the American backed global aegis while keeping the American economic imperialism. America earns money from its global military dominance and would lose money by ending it.
Imagine a dumb son inherits a family business. He sits down with his father's CFO and starts looking at the books for the first time. He likes the revenues, they're pretty high, lots of money coming in. But he can't help noticing that half the revenues are going straight back out on salaries for his employees. So he declares "we can't afford to keep paying all these people, fire them all" while the CFO looks on in amazement. Trump is the dumb son, every President since Truman is the father, all of the experts criticizing Trump's plan are the CFO.
|
On October 11 2016 15:15 LegalLord wrote:I haven't seen multiple sources yet so take it with a grain of salt. Show nested quote +On October 10, Wikileaks released part two of their emails from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta.
Friday, Wikileaks released their first batch of Podesta’s emails, which included excerpts from Clinton’s Wall Street transcripts that reaffirmed why Clinton refused to release them in full. During the second presidential debate, Clinton confirmed their authenticity by attempting to defend one statement she made in the speech about having a public and private stance on political issues. She cited Abraham Lincoln, a defense comparable to her ridiculous invocation of 9/11 when pressed on her ties to Wall Street during a Democratic primary debate.
The latest release reveals current DNC chair Donna Brazile, when working as a DNC vice chair, forwarded to the Clinton campaign a January 2016 email obtained from the Bernie Sanders campaign, released by Sarah Ford, Sanders’ deputy national press secretary, announcing a Twitter storm from Sanders’ African-American outreach team. “FYI” Brazile wrote to the Clinton staff. “Thank you for the heads up on this Donna,” replied Clinton campaign spokesperson Adrienne Elrod.
The second batch of emails include more evidence of collusion between the mainstream media and Clinton Campaign.
One email, received by prolific Clinton donor Haim Saban, was forwarded to Clinton staff, praising the friendly moderators in the early March 2016 Democratic primary debate co-hosted by Univision in Florida. “Haim, I just wanted to tell you that I thought the moderators for last nights Debate were excellent. They were thoughtful, tough and incisive. I thought it made Hilary appear direct and strong in her resolve. I felt it advanced our candidate. Thanks for Univision,” wrote Rob Friedman, former co-chair of the Motion Picture Group.
Another email discusses planting a favorable Clinton story in The New York Times in March 2015. “NYT heroine. Should she call her today?” Podesta wrote to other Clinton campaign staffers with the subject line ‘Laura Donohoe.’ “I do think it’s a great idea! We can make it happen,” replied Huma Abedin. The story they referred to is likely “In New Hampshire, Clinton Backers Buckle Up,” published in The New York Times on March 12, 2015 about Laura Donohoe, a retired nurse and Clinton supporter in New Hampshire.
John Harwood, New York Times contributor and CNBC correspondent, regularly exchanged emails with Podesta—communicating more as a Clinton surrogate than a journalist.
In an October 2015 email thread, Clinton staff were in damage control over Hillary’s support for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Hillary Clinton would not disavow her support for it. “I’m not saying double down or ever say it again. I’m just saying that she’s not going to want to say she was wrong about that, given she and her husband believe it and have repeated it many times. Better to reiterate evolution, opposition to DOMA when court considered it, and forward looking stance.”
Former Clinton Foundation director, Darnell Strom of the Creative Artist Agency, wrote a condescending email to Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard after she resigned from the DNC to endorse Bernie Sanders, which he then forwarded to Clinton campaign staff. “For you to endorse a man who has spent almost 40 years in public office with very few accomplishments, doesn’t fall in line with what we previously thought of you. Hillary Clinton will be our party’s nominee and you standing on ceremony to support the sinking Bernie Sanders ship is disrespectful to Hillary Clinton,” wrote Strom.
A memo sent from Clinton’s general counsel, Marc Elias of the law firm Perkins Coie, outlined legal tricks to circumvent campaign finance laws to raise money in tandem with Super Pacs.
In a March 2015 email, Clinton Campaign manager Robby Mook expressed frustration DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz hired a Convention CEO without consulting the Clinton campaign, which suggests the DNC and Clinton campaign regularly coordinated together from the early stages of the Democratic primaries. Source
I don't doubt the quotes...but that paper is owned by Trump's son-in-law, so the commentary with a grain of salt. Take the last one. If you were the front-runner for a nomination, wouldn't you hope that the national committee would consult you about planning a key event in your campaign?
|
On October 11 2016 15:15 LegalLord wrote:I haven't seen multiple sources yet so take it with a grain of salt. Show nested quote +On October 10, Wikileaks released part two of their emails from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta.
Friday, Wikileaks released their first batch of Podesta’s emails, which included excerpts from Clinton’s Wall Street transcripts that reaffirmed why Clinton refused to release them in full. During the second presidential debate, Clinton confirmed their authenticity by attempting to defend one statement she made in the speech about having a public and private stance on political issues. She cited Abraham Lincoln, a defense comparable to her ridiculous invocation of 9/11 when pressed on her ties to Wall Street during a Democratic primary debate.
The latest release reveals current DNC chair Donna Brazile, when working as a DNC vice chair, forwarded to the Clinton campaign a January 2016 email obtained from the Bernie Sanders campaign, released by Sarah Ford, Sanders’ deputy national press secretary, announcing a Twitter storm from Sanders’ African-American outreach team. “FYI” Brazile wrote to the Clinton staff. “Thank you for the heads up on this Donna,” replied Clinton campaign spokesperson Adrienne Elrod.
The second batch of emails include more evidence of collusion between the mainstream media and Clinton Campaign.
One email, received by prolific Clinton donor Haim Saban, was forwarded to Clinton staff, praising the friendly moderators in the early March 2016 Democratic primary debate co-hosted by Univision in Florida. “Haim, I just wanted to tell you that I thought the moderators for last nights Debate were excellent. They were thoughtful, tough and incisive. I thought it made Hilary appear direct and strong in her resolve. I felt it advanced our candidate. Thanks for Univision,” wrote Rob Friedman, former co-chair of the Motion Picture Group.
Another email discusses planting a favorable Clinton story in The New York Times in March 2015. “NYT heroine. Should she call her today?” Podesta wrote to other Clinton campaign staffers with the subject line ‘Laura Donohoe.’ “I do think it’s a great idea! We can make it happen,” replied Huma Abedin. The story they referred to is likely “In New Hampshire, Clinton Backers Buckle Up,” published in The New York Times on March 12, 2015 about Laura Donohoe, a retired nurse and Clinton supporter in New Hampshire.
John Harwood, New York Times contributor and CNBC correspondent, regularly exchanged emails with Podesta—communicating more as a Clinton surrogate than a journalist.
In an October 2015 email thread, Clinton staff were in damage control over Hillary’s support for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Hillary Clinton would not disavow her support for it. “I’m not saying double down or ever say it again. I’m just saying that she’s not going to want to say she was wrong about that, given she and her husband believe it and have repeated it many times. Better to reiterate evolution, opposition to DOMA when court considered it, and forward looking stance.”
Former Clinton Foundation director, Darnell Strom of the Creative Artist Agency, wrote a condescending email to Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard after she resigned from the DNC to endorse Bernie Sanders, which he then forwarded to Clinton campaign staff. “For you to endorse a man who has spent almost 40 years in public office with very few accomplishments, doesn’t fall in line with what we previously thought of you. Hillary Clinton will be our party’s nominee and you standing on ceremony to support the sinking Bernie Sanders ship is disrespectful to Hillary Clinton,” wrote Strom.
A memo sent from Clinton’s general counsel, Marc Elias of the law firm Perkins Coie, outlined legal tricks to circumvent campaign finance laws to raise money in tandem with Super Pacs.
In a March 2015 email, Clinton Campaign manager Robby Mook expressed frustration DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz hired a Convention CEO without consulting the Clinton campaign, which suggests the DNC and Clinton campaign regularly coordinated together from the early stages of the Democratic primaries. Source
Trump prefers using fake emails so I think DC politicking will just go down the memory hole.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
|
It must have been a pretty wild ride these past few days for some of you guys. From triumphant proclamations of the demise of Trump, he's finished, done for, people are leaving the building - to hysterical 'b-b-but what about the boogie man?' for the last 4 pages.
What a time to be alive.
|
|
|
On October 11 2016 16:40 zeo wrote:
It must have been a pretty wild ride these past few days for some of you guys. From triumphant proclamations of the demise of Trump, he's finished, done for, people are leaving the building - to hysterical 'b-b-but what about the boogie man?' for the last 4 pages.
What a time to be alive.
I'll humour you and point out that the last few pages have been debating the degree to which Trump is controlled by Russia (and finding I think that the most likely hypothesis is he's being indirectly manipulated), not whether he's done for in the general (which barring a game-changer he probably is).
|
On October 11 2016 16:40 zeo wrote:
It must have been a pretty wild ride these past few days for some of you guys. From triumphant proclamations of the demise of Trump, he's finished, done for, people are leaving the building - to hysterical 'b-b-but what about the boogie man?' for the last 4 pages.
What a time to be alive.
So you haven't noticed the issues the down-ballot republicans face due to last weeks events? Trump is not going to win the election and now he has potentially made some of the down-ballot races much harder for the republicans who ditched him or stuck with him.
It really does appear that some of you guys really live in an alternate reality sometimes~
|
On October 11 2016 16:40 zeo wrote:
It must have been a pretty wild ride these past few days for some of you guys. From triumphant proclamations of the demise of Trump, he's finished, done for, people are leaving the building - to hysterical 'b-b-but what about the boogie man?' for the last 4 pages.
What a time to be alive.
No, Trump is still done. The RNC is going to hang him out to dry, his debate performance didn't do anything, he's still getting slaughtered for the pussy grabbing and there's more videos to come in the next 30 days. Everyone else is playing chess and he's playing some sort of even dumber version of checkers. He chases votes that don't matter, has no policy outlined, he couldn't remember any policy if he did actually have it outlined, he keeps bringing up Bill which loses him votes and makes Hillary sympathetic. He's the George Costanza of politics, everything he does is the wrong thing and he's not smart enough to realize it. He's finished.
|
On October 11 2016 16:40 zeo wrote:
It must have been a pretty wild ride these past few days for some of you guys. From triumphant proclamations of the demise of Trump, he's finished, done for, people are leaving the building - to hysterical 'b-b-but what about the boogie man?' for the last 4 pages.
What a time to be alive.
A clinton fan manipulated the poll so it would look that a Trump fan manipulated the poll, so they would remove the poll that shows that Hillary won so that people would blame Trump supporters to have had the poll removed!!
What a time to be alive indeed.
|
On October 11 2016 14:09 plasmidghost wrote:
Anyone familiar with the site ZeroHedge? I've heard mixed reviews of the place, with some saying it's Infowars for wannabe economists, and was wondering if it's a legitimate site for information
One of the best news sites on the web.
Call it like it is, especially with regard to the Middle East situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
