|
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. |
United States41991 Posts
My point CnC is that paying off his business debts using his foundation's money is not legal. Sure, by doing it that way he dodged a tax but he also robbed a charity.
|
On October 19 2016 04:06 JinDesu wrote:
I would assume that a good portion of that 1/4 choosing the meteor is choosing it out of humour.
Yes, but it speaks to their dissatisfaction with this election. If people were hillary supporters, they would say hillary. Same for trump. But if they pick a third option, be it meteor or ham sandwich, it still shows how unenthused they are. I think its probably how a lot of people feel right now.
|
On October 19 2016 04:22 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 04:06 JinDesu wrote:
I would assume that a good portion of that 1/4 choosing the meteor is choosing it out of humour. Yes, but it speaks to their dissatisfaction with this election. If people were hillary supporters, they would say hillary. Same for trump. But if they pick a third option, be it meteor or ham sandwich, it still shows how unenthused they are. I think its probably how a lot of people feel right now.
538's polls on whites vs non-white and males vs females shows that the primary anti-hillary crowd is white men. So when I hear things like "unenthused" its so hard not to hear understand it as meaning "why isn't she a he?"
|
On October 19 2016 03:50 TheYango wrote:
I think it's plausible that the Clintons are corrupt, but given the connections that both no doubt already have in place from their terms as president/SoS, their high-profile charity that's consistently subject to scrutiny seems like just about the dumbest possible vehicle for said corruption available to them. If they wanted to do some questionable things why the hell would they do it through the Clinton Foundation?
There's an investigation now, and multiple records of ethics violations and improprieties that are made public long after the fact. Otherwise, what scrutiny? They ran it for years with aggressive fundraising from foreign governments without backlash for clear conflicts of interest.
Well, that and Hillary's inept handling of coverups and corruption seen in the email scandal. Hubris may still be the death of her.
|
On October 19 2016 04:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 03:56 Nyxisto wrote:
I still don't understand the significance of this. Compared to your average Calvinist farmer every single high profile politician qualifies as "corrupt", it's a completely meaningless thing to point out. At this point the term just means "prominent people with power who also move a lot of money around", this has always been the case, why is this suddenly so important in this election? There is a big undercurrent of opposition to the political elites this election and Hillary is a symbol of those elites. Corruption accusations are therefore important ammunition. What makes it silly is that there is no evidence that Hillary is corrupt and an awful lot of evidence to suggest that she is not. Meanwhile Trump brags about making the right contributions to get the right tax breaks/access/cases dropped. It's a strange fucking year. But corruption is very relevant to the current political debate.
I think it's just interesting to see how and why these "trust" issues explode right now. I mean politics was always shady as hell, Nixon was probably worse than ten Hillarys, but it never seemed like anybody would go as far as to vote for a totalitarian demagogue as a replacement of 'establishment politics'. Not dividing the nation always seemed to be more important than than some kind of strong man purge.
This kind of over-reaction to corruption is something you expect in a country with a very unstable democracy, it's scary to see it in the US.
|
On October 19 2016 04:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 03:50 TheYango wrote:
I think it's plausible that the Clintons are corrupt, but given the connections that both no doubt already have in place from their terms as president/SoS, their high-profile charity that's consistently subject to scrutiny seems like just about the dumbest possible vehicle for said corruption available to them. If they wanted to do some questionable things why the hell would they do it through the Clinton Foundation? There's an investigation now, and multiple records of ethics violations and improprieties that are made public long after the fact. Otherwise, what scrutiny? They ran it for years with aggressive fundraising from foreign governments without backlash for clear conflicts of interest. Well, that and Hillary's inept handling of coverups and corruption seen in the email scandal. Hubris may still be the death of her.
Care to share any of those charges so they can be discussed in detail?
|
On October 19 2016 04:30 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 04:01 KwarK wrote:On October 19 2016 03:56 Nyxisto wrote:
I still don't understand the significance of this. Compared to your average Calvinist farmer every single high profile politician qualifies as "corrupt", it's a completely meaningless thing to point out. At this point the term just means "prominent people with power who also move a lot of money around", this has always been the case, why is this suddenly so important in this election? There is a big undercurrent of opposition to the political elites this election and Hillary is a symbol of those elites. Corruption accusations are therefore important ammunition. What makes it silly is that there is no evidence that Hillary is corrupt and an awful lot of evidence to suggest that she is not. Meanwhile Drumpf brags about making the right contributions to get the right tax breaks/access/cases dropped. It's a strange fucking year. But corruption is very relevant to the current political debate. I think it's just interesting to see how and why these "trust" issues explode right now. I mean politics was always shady as hell, Nixon was probably worse than ten Hillarys, but it never seemed like anybody would go as far as to vote for a totalitarian demagogue as a replacement of 'establishment politics'. Not dividing the nation always seemed to be more important than than some kind of strong man purge. This kind of over-reaction to corruption is something you expect in a country with a very unstable democracy, it's scary to see it in the US.
Yeah, for people who have no clue about corruption anything morally grey just becomes corrupt. Especially when they operate of incomplete information and snippets and shit and just keep demanding more and more.
The bolded part is a hallmark of third world democracy politics. People spend more time whining, yelling and cursing at each other for perceived and real improprieties than actually getting anything done.
|
On October 19 2016 04:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 04:22 Ayaz2810 wrote:On October 19 2016 04:06 JinDesu wrote:
I would assume that a good portion of that 1/4 choosing the meteor is choosing it out of humour. Yes, but it speaks to their dissatisfaction with this election. If people were hillary supporters, they would say hillary. Same for trump. But if they pick a third option, be it meteor or ham sandwich, it still shows how unenthused they are. I think its probably how a lot of people feel right now. 538's polls on whites vs non-white and males vs females shows that the primary anti-hillary crowd is white men. So when I hear things like "unenthused" its so hard not to hear understand it as meaning "why isn't she a he?"
I don't think you can just combine the two different data sets like that unfortunately. White Women still tend to lean republican. Though it's difficult to find any recent polling on this specific election, and it's likely dipped below 50% total.
Still a significant portion of Trump's support is coming from white women even as women as a whole are strongly anti-trump.
|
On October 19 2016 04:01 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +Young Americans are so dissatisfied with their choices in this presidential election that nearly one in four told an opinion poll they would rather have a giant meteor destroy the Earth than see Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton in the White House.
The tongue-in-cheek question was intended to gauge young Americans' level of unhappiness about their choices in the Nov. 8 election, said Joshua Dyck, co-director of UMass Lowell’s Center for Public Opinion, which conducted the poll alongside Odyssey Millennials.
The choice alluded to the Twitter hashtag "#GiantMeteor2016," a reference to an imaginary presidential candidate used to express frustration about this year's election choices.
Some 53 percent of the 1,247 people aged 18 to 35 said they would prefer to see a meteor destroy the world than have Republican New York real estate developer Trump in the Oval Office, with some 34 percent preferring planetary annihilation to seeing the Democratic former Secretary of State win.
Some 39 percent said they would prefer that U.S. President Barack Obama declare himself president for life than hand over power to Clinton or Trump, with 26 percent saying the nation would do better to select its next leader in a random lottery.
Some 23 percent, nearly one in four, preferred the giant meteor outcome to either Trump or Clinton.
"Obviously we don't think that they're serious," Dyck said in a phone interview on Tuesday. "The fact that one in four of our young people pick 'Giant Meteor' tells you something about the political disaffection that is being shown by American youth."
That contrasts with the surge of participation by young voters that helped propel Obama into the White House for his first term in the 2008 election.
When asked to choose between the actual candidates, Clinton easily led Trump with 54 percent of respondents to 21 percent in a two-way race.
In a four-way race also including Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein, Clinton led with 48 percent support, to Trump's 20 percent, Johnson's 10 percent and Stein's 4 percent.
In national polls surveying the whole population, Clinton is leading Trump, but not by nearly as much.
The poll, conducted Oct. 10-13, intentionally included a large number of people seen as unlikely to vote, with just 680 described as likely voters. It had a margin of error of 3.2 percent. uk.reuters.com
Not really. Picking the single non-realistic option out of 3 options could also mean 1 in 4 young people are trolls. To me that sounds like it's on the low side.
|
Looks like the National Enquirer may be a better news source than Wikileaks.
|
On October 19 2016 04:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 04:22 Ayaz2810 wrote:On October 19 2016 04:06 JinDesu wrote:
I would assume that a good portion of that 1/4 choosing the meteor is choosing it out of humour. Yes, but it speaks to their dissatisfaction with this election. If people were hillary supporters, they would say hillary. Same for trump. But if they pick a third option, be it meteor or ham sandwich, it still shows how unenthused they are. I think its probably how a lot of people feel right now. 538's polls on whites vs non-white and males vs females shows that the primary anti-hillary crowd is white men. So when I hear things like "unenthused" its so hard not to hear understand it as meaning "why isn't she a he?"
Is Hillary's problem with white men the only instance where you blame a candidate's trailing with a specific demographic on the demographic themselves?
|
Please tell me you are not referring to the “Clinton’s hitman tell all” story.
|
On October 19 2016 04:37 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 04:01 RvB wrote:Young Americans are so dissatisfied with their choices in this presidential election that nearly one in four told an opinion poll they would rather have a giant meteor destroy the Earth than see Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton in the White House.
The tongue-in-cheek question was intended to gauge young Americans' level of unhappiness about their choices in the Nov. 8 election, said Joshua Dyck, co-director of UMass Lowell’s Center for Public Opinion, which conducted the poll alongside Odyssey Millennials.
The choice alluded to the Twitter hashtag "#GiantMeteor2016," a reference to an imaginary presidential candidate used to express frustration about this year's election choices.
Some 53 percent of the 1,247 people aged 18 to 35 said they would prefer to see a meteor destroy the world than have Republican New York real estate developer Trump in the Oval Office, with some 34 percent preferring planetary annihilation to seeing the Democratic former Secretary of State win.
Some 39 percent said they would prefer that U.S. President Barack Obama declare himself president for life than hand over power to Clinton or Trump, with 26 percent saying the nation would do better to select its next leader in a random lottery.
Some 23 percent, nearly one in four, preferred the giant meteor outcome to either Trump or Clinton.
"Obviously we don't think that they're serious," Dyck said in a phone interview on Tuesday. "The fact that one in four of our young people pick 'Giant Meteor' tells you something about the political disaffection that is being shown by American youth."
That contrasts with the surge of participation by young voters that helped propel Obama into the White House for his first term in the 2008 election.
When asked to choose between the actual candidates, Clinton easily led Trump with 54 percent of respondents to 21 percent in a two-way race.
In a four-way race also including Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein, Clinton led with 48 percent support, to Trump's 20 percent, Johnson's 10 percent and Stein's 4 percent.
In national polls surveying the whole population, Clinton is leading Trump, but not by nearly as much.
The poll, conducted Oct. 10-13, intentionally included a large number of people seen as unlikely to vote, with just 680 described as likely voters. It had a margin of error of 3.2 percent. uk.reuters.com Not really. Picking the single non-realistic option out of 3 options could also mean 1 in 4 young people are trolls. To me that sounds like it's on the low side.
The more interesting part was that 53% preferred that to Trump.
Also, there was a poll recently where millennial men sided with Clinton more than women by a sizable amount for some reason
|
On October 19 2016 04:37 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 04:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 19 2016 04:22 Ayaz2810 wrote:On October 19 2016 04:06 JinDesu wrote:
I would assume that a good portion of that 1/4 choosing the meteor is choosing it out of humour. Yes, but it speaks to their dissatisfaction with this election. If people were hillary supporters, they would say hillary. Same for trump. But if they pick a third option, be it meteor or ham sandwich, it still shows how unenthused they are. I think its probably how a lot of people feel right now. 538's polls on whites vs non-white and males vs females shows that the primary anti-hillary crowd is white men. So when I hear things like "unenthused" its so hard not to hear understand it as meaning "why isn't she a he?" Is Hillary's problem with white men the only instance where you blame a candidate's trailing with a specific demographic on the demographic themselves?
Agreed, that is Clinton’s problem to solve. And Trump trailing in the rest of the population is 100% his fault for being terrible at attracting voters beyond white dudes.
|
On October 19 2016 04:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 04:37 oBlade wrote:On October 19 2016 04:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 19 2016 04:22 Ayaz2810 wrote:On October 19 2016 04:06 JinDesu wrote:
I would assume that a good portion of that 1/4 choosing the meteor is choosing it out of humour. Yes, but it speaks to their dissatisfaction with this election. If people were hillary supporters, they would say hillary. Same for trump. But if they pick a third option, be it meteor or ham sandwich, it still shows how unenthused they are. I think its probably how a lot of people feel right now. 538's polls on whites vs non-white and males vs females shows that the primary anti-hillary crowd is white men. So when I hear things like "unenthused" its so hard not to hear understand it as meaning "why isn't she a he?" Is Hillary's problem with white men the only instance where you blame a candidate's trailing with a specific demographic on the demographic themselves? Agreed, that is Clinton’s problem to solve. And Trump trailing in the rest of the population is 100% his fault for being terrible at attracting voters beyond white dudes.
No it's not, like 50% of that fault is on the GoP for being terrible to minorities for many many years. You can't ignore that aspect of it either :/.
|
On October 19 2016 04:35 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 04:30 Nyxisto wrote:On October 19 2016 04:01 KwarK wrote:On October 19 2016 03:56 Nyxisto wrote:
I still don't understand the significance of this. Compared to your average Calvinist farmer every single high profile politician qualifies as "corrupt", it's a completely meaningless thing to point out. At this point the term just means "prominent people with power who also move a lot of money around", this has always been the case, why is this suddenly so important in this election? There is a big undercurrent of opposition to the political elites this election and Hillary is a symbol of those elites. Corruption accusations are therefore important ammunition. What makes it silly is that there is no evidence that Hillary is corrupt and an awful lot of evidence to suggest that she is not. Meanwhile Drumpf brags about making the right contributions to get the right tax breaks/access/cases dropped. It's a strange fucking year. But corruption is very relevant to the current political debate. I think it's just interesting to see how and why these "trust" issues explode right now. I mean politics was always shady as hell, Nixon was probably worse than ten Hillarys, but it never seemed like anybody would go as far as to vote for a totalitarian demagogue as a replacement of 'establishment politics'. Not dividing the nation always seemed to be more important than than some kind of strong man purge. This kind of over-reaction to corruption is something you expect in a country with a very unstable democracy, it's scary to see it in the US. Yeah, for people who have no clue about corruption anything morally grey just becomes corrupt. Especially when they operate of incomplete information and snippets and shit and just keep demanding more and more. The bolded part is a hallmark of third world democracy politics. People spend more time whining, yelling and cursing at each other for perceived and real improprieties than actually getting anything done.
Yup, action for action's sake is a very dangerous impulse. Democracies are slow by design, it's a feature and not a bug. "We are fed up with the status quo" is something that you hear a lot in this election and nobody pays attention to it, but it's actually a fairly disastrous mindset and intrinsically anti-democratic. Exercising precaution and patience is a requirement for any stable democracy to work, all of Trump's policies are a desperate attempt to just "do something" rather than nothing even if it's completely ineffective or destructive.
It's how third world countries end up in a never-ending circle of "crazy person overthrows crazy person" every ten years.
|
On October 19 2016 04:42 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 04:41 Plansix wrote:On October 19 2016 04:37 oBlade wrote:On October 19 2016 04:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 19 2016 04:22 Ayaz2810 wrote:On October 19 2016 04:06 JinDesu wrote:
I would assume that a good portion of that 1/4 choosing the meteor is choosing it out of humour. Yes, but it speaks to their dissatisfaction with this election. If people were hillary supporters, they would say hillary. Same for trump. But if they pick a third option, be it meteor or ham sandwich, it still shows how unenthused they are. I think its probably how a lot of people feel right now. 538's polls on whites vs non-white and males vs females shows that the primary anti-hillary crowd is white men. So when I hear things like "unenthused" its so hard not to hear understand it as meaning "why isn't she a he?" Is Hillary's problem with white men the only instance where you blame a candidate's trailing with a specific demographic on the demographic themselves? Agreed, that is Clinton’s problem to solve. And Trump trailing in the rest of the population is 100% his fault for being terrible at attracting voters beyond white dudes. No it's not, like 50% of that fault is on the GoP for being terrible to minorities for many many years. You can't ignore that aspect of it either :/.
Their ability to alienate almost every minor vote this election has been astounding. Even demographics that normally lean Republican all but abandoned the party.
|
|
|
On October 19 2016 04:46 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 04:35 Rebs wrote:On October 19 2016 04:30 Nyxisto wrote:On October 19 2016 04:01 KwarK wrote:On October 19 2016 03:56 Nyxisto wrote:
I still don't understand the significance of this. Compared to your average Calvinist farmer every single high profile politician qualifies as "corrupt", it's a completely meaningless thing to point out. At this point the term just means "prominent people with power who also move a lot of money around", this has always been the case, why is this suddenly so important in this election? There is a big undercurrent of opposition to the political elites this election and Hillary is a symbol of those elites. Corruption accusations are therefore important ammunition. What makes it silly is that there is no evidence that Hillary is corrupt and an awful lot of evidence to suggest that she is not. Meanwhile Drumpf brags about making the right contributions to get the right tax breaks/access/cases dropped. It's a strange fucking year. But corruption is very relevant to the current political debate. I think it's just interesting to see how and why these "trust" issues explode right now. I mean politics was always shady as hell, Nixon was probably worse than ten Hillarys, but it never seemed like anybody would go as far as to vote for a totalitarian demagogue as a replacement of 'establishment politics'. Not dividing the nation always seemed to be more important than than some kind of strong man purge. This kind of over-reaction to corruption is something you expect in a country with a very unstable democracy, it's scary to see it in the US. Yeah, for people who have no clue about corruption anything morally grey just becomes corrupt. Especially when they operate of incomplete information and snippets and shit and just keep demanding more and more. The bolded part is a hallmark of third world democracy politics. People spend more time whining, yelling and cursing at each other for perceived and real improprieties than actually getting anything done. Yup, action for action's sake is a very dangerous impulse. Democracies are slow by design, it's a feature and not a bug. "We are fed up with the status quo" is something that you hear a lot in this election and nobody pays attention to it, but it's actually a fairly disastrous mindset and intrinsically anti-democratic. Exercising precaution and patience is a requirement for any stable democracy to work, all of Drumpf's policies are a desperate attempt to just "do something" rather than nothing even if it's completely ineffective or destructive. It's how third world countries end up in a never-ending circle of "crazy person overthrows crazy person" every ten years.
Yes having spent 2 thirds of my life in one I can assure you that the road being followed here is depressingly predictable for me. Like literally thats why I took a 30 percent paycut and moved to Canad and this was 2015
|
On October 19 2016 04:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 04:42 Logo wrote:On October 19 2016 04:41 Plansix wrote:On October 19 2016 04:37 oBlade wrote:On October 19 2016 04:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 19 2016 04:22 Ayaz2810 wrote:On October 19 2016 04:06 JinDesu wrote:
I would assume that a good portion of that 1/4 choosing the meteor is choosing it out of humour. Yes, but it speaks to their dissatisfaction with this election. If people were hillary supporters, they would say hillary. Same for trump. But if they pick a third option, be it meteor or ham sandwich, it still shows how unenthused they are. I think its probably how a lot of people feel right now. 538's polls on whites vs non-white and males vs females shows that the primary anti-hillary crowd is white men. So when I hear things like "unenthused" its so hard not to hear understand it as meaning "why isn't she a he?" Is Hillary's problem with white men the only instance where you blame a candidate's trailing with a specific demographic on the demographic themselves? Agreed, that is Clinton’s problem to solve. And Trump trailing in the rest of the population is 100% his fault for being terrible at attracting voters beyond white dudes. No it's not, like 50% of that fault is on the GoP for being terrible to minorities for many many years. You can't ignore that aspect of it either :/. Their ability to alienate almost every minor vote this election has been astounding. Even demographics that normally lean Republican all but abandoned the party.
A LatinoDecisions poll showed that Florida Hispanics are voting Clinton/Trump about the same as other states, suggesting that Cuban support for Trump has collapsed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
