EPTThe emails did show some favoritism toward Clinton and that should be called out, but it is a far stretch to say the “rigged” the primary to the level were Clinton received 2 million more votes. Especially since delegates were reward proportionally.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5570
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
The emails did show some favoritism toward Clinton and that should be called out, but it is a far stretch to say the “rigged” the primary to the level were Clinton received 2 million more votes. Especially since delegates were reward proportionally. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7888 Posts
On October 15 2016 00:07 GreenHorizons wrote: Unfortunately you don't qualify. Honest question: Do you see the problem with the qualifiers "serious" bribes and "nefarious" purpose? Yup, I don't care about all of those groups/issues (most of which directly impact me)... That's the same "privilege" crap I get from white people telling me I don't care about black people. Maybe, just maybe, we've noticed neither party gives a shit about us other than when we're voting. Which is almost always in the context of "well the other guy will be a worse slave master". Maybe, just maybe, we're fed up with being threatened into supporting someone who will make things worse, using a bigger asshole. Perhaps we're just waiting for others to pull their head out and realize that hostage voting leads us down a path of things getting worse, not better. You are lying to yourself, GH. I just hope for all of us you'll never have to realize it. And no, you don't care. You haven't taken one second to balance what was gonna happen, and if you shouldn't put all your great moral crusade on the side, because your country and all of us, are walking by the abyss. I really wouldn't mind you having your position if Romney or Mc Cain were running. But it's not Romney or Mc Cain. It's an incredibly dangerous man. You are tired of being threatened in supporting someone you don't like. Well, you are not threatened by me or anyone. You are threatened by reality. Last thing and I consider this discussion over: In 2002, in France, the left lost to Jean Marie Le Pen. The second round was between him and Chirac. I swear you that from a left perspective, anything you want to make out of Clinton in terms of honesty, scandals and policy would make her a fucking saint next to Chirac. He was corrupt (really corrupt, not like Clinton: his scandals were real stuff, like having thousand of dead people voting for him etc), a liar (a real one, not like Clinton: like being elected and basically saying next day that voters could fuck themselves if they believed him) and a real, hardcore right winger. But against him was the abyss. Le Pen was maybe a more distinct danger than Trump because we have had a fascist government once. We know who those people are. You don't. You haven't had anything like a true far right populist ruling your country. Well, I voted for Chirac. My father voted for Chirac (and he is a true hardcore lefty). My mom voted fro Chirac. We all voted for Chirac. That was fucking grim. Chirac won with 80%. I would redo that every day of the week and twice on Sunday. The thing is that if Le Pen had been elected, history would have taken a much darker tone. It would have been a historical catastrophe. And as a human being, it's our responsibility to prevent that. Trump is not a regular right wing bad guy. He is a hazard for the world. And if you don't see this, with your ideas, your level of information and your view of the world, you are bat shit nuts. I know I won't change your mind, and I won't try anymore. Do what your conscience tells you to do. Maybe one day you look back and realize how lucky you have been that not more people were as blind as you are. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Two Donald Trump supporters openly carrying firearms sat outside the campaign office of a Democratic candidate for Congress in Virginia for nearly 12 hours on Thursday, according to CBS affiliate Newsplex in Charlottesville. One of the protesters, Daniel Parks, told Newsplex that he held the protest to support Trump. "I'm just trying to provide a voice for someone who might be closet supporters of Trump. Other people that are a little worried to speak out because of possible persecution," he said. Parks and another Trump supporter who later joined him outside the campaign of the campaign office Democrat Jane Dittmar's office in Palmyra, Virginia, were openly carrying guns, Su Wolff, a volunteer for Dittmar, told Newsplex. "He turned sideways to be sure that we would see that he has an open carry gun, which is legal, it’s fine, but it's intimidating," she said of one protester. "If he wants to support his candidate that's fine, but don't come here and stare into the office all day." Parks told Newsplex that he was not a threat and that he was carrying a gun legally. "We're not a threat to anybody, the only threat is ignorance, and ignorance will breed fear," he said. Dittmar is running against State Sen. Thomas A. Garrett Jr. (R) for the 5th Congressional District seat currently held by Rep. Robert Hurt, who is not seeking re-election. Source | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23221 Posts
On October 15 2016 00:28 Aquanim wrote: Look, I attempted to have a conversation with you in good faith. Suppose I say "the people who would have voted Clinton instead don't vote at all". Where are you going to go from there? I appreciate the attempt but in the post you quoted it specifically said "who can vote" so it's not really in "good faith" as you don't meet the qualifying criteria. But because I know they won't answer, I'll entertain the query. If you suggested that: I would say that I shouldn't believe you, as all of her supporters have impressed upon me that simply not voting is an ignorant position, and actually the same as voting for Trump. Then ask again, what would they do? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Don’t ignore me or this gun I am carrying. I am peaceful as long as you don’t ignore me and my belief that Trump should win. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On October 15 2016 00:36 Plansix wrote: Don’t ignore me or this gun I am carrying. I am peaceful as long as you don’t ignore me and my belief that Trump should win. Good description of American foreign policy. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
I heard Gloria allred is holding a press conference sometime today for a new Trump accuser? | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On October 15 2016 00:33 GreenHorizons wrote: I appreciate the attempt but in the post you quoted it specifically said "who can vote" so it's not really in "good faith" as you don't meet the qualifying criteria. But because I know they won't answer, I'll entertain the query. If you suggested that: I would say that I shouldn't believe you, as all of her supporters have impressed upon me that simply not voting is an ignorant position, and actually the same as voting for Drumpf. Then ask again, what would they do? Excellent, pose hypothetical, get answered with hypothetical and reject said hypothetical with your own hypothetical. Meanwhile reality is moving on. But woe the fools for not being interested and ignoring a fruitless discussion. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On October 14 2016 23:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Hopefully some large outside firm picks this up pro bono for the NYT and proceeds to decimate Donald's firm. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12172 Posts
I realize I'm coming after the battle, and I realize some feminists (particularly on internet) don't use rape culture correctly either, but I think it's important that we understand the actual meaning of the word when conversations like this happen. | ||
|
PassiveAce
United States18076 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23221 Posts
On October 15 2016 00:45 Rebs wrote: Excellent, pose hypothetical, get answered with hypothetical and reject said hypothetical with your own hypothetical. Meanwhile reality is moving on. But woe the fools for not being interested and ignoring a fruitless discussion. Sad to see you carrying their water for them, but I get it, you're pot-committed at this point. Rebs gets it, but couldn't help himself, I think you genuinely didn't see it coming Aquanim. But I suspect you see where this is going now? | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
At the same time, it really is true that her opponent is uniquely unqualified to be president, and is backed by a party which is no better. He may not be quite as bad as the hyperbole, but he is much worse than the semi-charitable interpretation I gave him a year ago, And let's be honest, I still don't think I would vote for him in any realistic scenario because he is a reality TV star known for his bluster, not his common sense or policy skill. Even the Trump people here do acknowledge that on some level, even if they don't want to straight up say it. Still, Hillary is a bitter pill to swallow. All her problems are real, if exaggerated, and I really don't want to vote for her. I was hoping she would pick a charismatic, honest idealist for VP to offset her faults, but no, she just picked an even less charismatic career politician who has all the same faults she does. I was hoping she would justify her own platform more, but she chose to build a campaign entirely on anti-Trump and that makes me worried about what she will do when actually in office. That leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth, but I still say sanity matters over personal disappointment. Our democracy gave us two candidates that no one likes. I'm not happy about how things turned out but unfortunately the choice here isn't a difficult one. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15686 Posts
On October 15 2016 00:48 Doodsmack wrote: Hopefully some large outside firm picks this up pro bono for the NYT and proceeds to decimate Donald's firm. "How to triple the prestige of your firm and earn the goodwill of the country in 1 easy step" | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On October 15 2016 00:25 GreenHorizons wrote: Maybe when you ignore the posts you disagree with, but there's a post history we can all look at and see you aren't accurate in that assessment (or your previous one about my posting habits). Right, I'd forgotten about your standard for evidence and proof. Look, there are a couple hundred thousand emails out in the open right now. If the DNC did what you say they did, you should be able to find emails where they say "let's do this to screw Bernie", and then the obvious action of them actually doing it and it screwing Bernie. Thousands of personal and private emails from Hillary Clinton herself are in the wild. Find the ones where she explicitly accepts money for favours. She's been targeted by smears, investigations, and has an unprecedented level of released personal communication for the last decade. She hasn't come out looking clean, but she's also come out looking like a politician (for whatever that may entail). Trump's been under that level of scrutiny for a few months and is already rolling in shit. Closest ideology I ascribe to is realism. With the level of detail that Clinton's life that's on display, I'm not remotely shocked that there's some messy stuff in there, and I would expect the same of most everyone else (including Obama, or Sanders). But when the worst that can be said is that she can be mean, or hawkish, or political, or technologically inept, or whatever, then yes, I'd probably vote for her over some ideologues who can only be seen at surface level. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
As of Monday, U.S. citizens who travel to Cuba will no longer be limited to bringing back goods worth up to $400 — including $100 worth of tobacco and alcohol. President Obama ordered the changes, which also clear the way for Cuban-origin pharmaceuticals to gain U.S. regulatory approval. Instead of those special quotas, normal limits on Americans' importation of foreign products for personal use will apply. The changes are meant to "open up space for Cubans to improve their livelihood," said a senior White House official who spoke about the changes on background. It's the sixth round of amendments to U.S. sanctions on Cuba, in a process that began nearly two years ago. The new rules cover a wide range of areas, from medical-related business projects to a new provision that will allow air cargo to transit Cuba. They also widen the field of grants, scholarships, and awards that can be provided to Cuba or to Cuban citizens, which will now include scientific research and religious activities. Another change will allow U.S. companies or individuals to work on developing or repairing parts of Cuba's infrastructure. The changes "will create more opportunities for Cuban citizens to access American goods and services, further strengthening the ties between our two countries," said U.S. Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker. Detailing the changes, the Treasury Department says that its Office of Foreign Assets Control will now operate under rules that will bring more chances for the U.S. and Cuba to share medical innovations and scientific collaboration. For instance, U.S. nationals will be able to conduct joint medical research alongside Cuban nationals — for commercial or noncommercial use. As a whole, the moves are meant to help the Cuban people and to advance U.S. interests in the region, the White House says. Source | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On October 15 2016 00:50 GreenHorizons wrote: Sad to see you carrying their water for them, but I get it, you're pot-committed at this point. Rebs gets it, but couldn't help himself, I think you genuinely didn't see it coming Aquanim. But I suspect you see where this is going now? I wondered if this was where you were going, but I do prefer not to jump to conclusions about what other people think, or don't think. It doesn't lead to productive conversation, and it's much more polite to just ask. There are certainly some people who would vote for whichever of Trump and Clinton is least bad, on their principles, but I can tell you right now that not everybody who votes for Clinton feels that way. After all, a fair fraction of the population of the US doesn't vote at all. You may take any further silence from me as it being well past my bedtime at this point, instead of some inability on my part to find a rational answer to the things which you say. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 15 2016 00:48 Doodsmack wrote: Hopefully some large outside firm picks this up pro bono for the NYT and proceeds to decimate Donald's firm. The NYT is a billion dollar operation and their legal team is very familiar with the laws relating to liable. I am sure they will be fine. Though I wouldn’t be shocked if the ACLU and civil liberties groups throw their hat in the ring if the matter goes up on appeal. But Trump’s case is completely meritless. He is not the first guy to try this against the Times. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23221 Posts
On October 15 2016 00:52 WolfintheSheep wrote: Right, I'd forgotten about your standard for evidence and proof. Look, there are a couple hundred thousand emails out in the open right now. If the DNC did what you say they did, you should be able to find emails where they say "let's do this to screw Bernie", and then the obvious action of them actually doing it and it screwing Bernie. Yeah, it's my standard that's ridiculous... What are you even suggesting? That the DNC did not break their rules? That they didn't do it explicitly enough to presume it was in favor of their predetermined pick? Or that they didn't send an email that specifically said "let's do this to screw Bernie". Like I said, it's not so much that the DNC did what it did, it's the flagrance with which it's paraded as perfectly acceptable. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
| ||
