|
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 October 19 2016 11:04 plasmidghost wrote:
I'd really like it if the US could gradually stop allying with Saudi Arabia (or give their citizens the same rights most Western societies have), and under Hillary, that alliance is only going to increase since she's taken loads of money from them in the past
Sometimes you have shitty allies because they have enough strategic importance that you can't just drop them without getting severely burned for it.
|
United States44168 Posts
On October 19 2016 12:08 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 12:05 KwarK wrote:On October 19 2016 12:01 plasmidghost wrote:On October 19 2016 11:56 KwarK wrote:On October 19 2016 11:04 plasmidghost wrote:
I'd really like it if the US could gradually stop allying with Saudi Arabia (or give their citizens the same rights most Western societies have), and under Hillary, that alliance is only going to increase since she's taken loads of money from them in the past That's not how it works. Like at all. Sad but true, it's just a wish You think Hillary Clinton, multimillionaire President Elect of the United States, is going to reverse her pro-Iran anti-Saudi Arabia policy from the last few years because an individual linked to the Saudi royal family donated $10m to the help Bill Clinton build his library in 1997? Walk me through that logic please. Step by step. Whoa, you need to calm down there. Given how many times Hillary has reversed her position in the past (on building a border fence, on gay marriage, etc.), it wouldn't surprise me
No, I don't need to calm down. I'm not angry. I'm just doing the thing where you make an outrageous claim about Hillary Clinton being corrupt and I ask you to provide details. We did this earlier with GH saying Bill's presidential library meant Hillary was corrupt and it turned out he was referring to a special room that Bill may have had installed purely for masturbation (allegedly). If you want to argue that Saudi Arabia has bought Hillary then you need to be able to argue it. At the very least you should be able to say how much was given, when, who by and for what. We can wait.
|
|
|
On October 19 2016 12:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The president of Liberty University censored an article critical of Donald Trump, according to the sports editor of the school's official newspaper, the Liberty Champion.
The editor, Joel Schmieg, posted a statement on his Facebook account claiming it was Jerry Falwell Jr., the university's president and a Trump supporter, who spiked the column, which criticized Trump for lewd comments he made on a hot mic during a 2005 taping of "Access Hollywood."
"Yesterday I was told [Falwell] was not allowing me to express my personal opinion in an article I wrote for my weekly column in the Liberty Champion about Trump and his 'locker room talk,'" Schmieg wrote.
"I understand Joel's frustration regarding the situation," Cierra Carter, the opinion editor for the Liberty Champion, told POLITICO. "Our president has been very vocal with his opinions during this election season and we'd like that same privilege."
In his Facebook post, Schmieg poked fun at a statement by Falwell earlier in the week, in which he said: "It is a testament to the fact that Liberty University promotes the free expression of ideas unlike many major universities where political correctness prevents conservative students from speaking out."
"I find these words from Jerry amusing and extremely hypocritical," Schmieg wrote.
Falwell's statement came after a group of students at Liberty University criticized him for defending Trump after the release of the recording, in which the real estate mogul boasted about grabbing women's genitals and getting away with it.
"Any faculty or staff member at Liberty would be terminated for such comments, and yet when Donald Trump makes them, President Falwell rushes eagerly to his defense — taking the name 'Liberty University' with him," the students wrote.
"I think this whole tape … videotape thing was planned, I think it was timed, I think it might have even been a conspiracy among establishment Republicans who have known about it for weeks and who tried to time it to do the maximum damage to Donald Trump, and I just … I just think it just backfired on them," Falwell told radio host Rita Cosby on Oct. 10.
Falwell went on to suggest that the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives was a beneficiary of the leak, despite "Access Hollywood" saying it discovered the recording after digging through the show's archives. "It wasn't a coincidence that it came out right before Trump was supposed to appear with Paul Ryan at a rally, and it conveniently gave Paul Ryan a way to disinvite Trump," Falwell told Cosby.
Schmieg's article is heavily critical of the Republican nominee and his language in the 11-year-old recording, in which Trump described grabbing women "by the p---y."
"This is not locker room talk," Shmieg wrote. "Anyone who says otherwise is just trying to excuse the terrible things they or others have said."
He went on to argue that a high school student would be punished for saying what Trump says in the recording. "When an adult in his late 50's says things like "when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything," that should be a major red flag," he added.
"Donald Trump may have issued an apology for the words he said, but the fact that he can brush them off with a description of 'locker room talk,' tells me that he does not believe what he said is truly bad."
Emails and phone calls asking Liberty University for comment were not immediately returned. Source
Yeah, I just saw this. Sad part is how little I was surprised by it. Well, other than the fact that even the students at Liberty University apparently hate Trump.
|
There is a distinction between Hillary Clinton taking money from somebody in Saudi Arabia and the Clinton Foundation taking money from somebody in Saudi Arabia that I am not sure is being observed here.
|
The gay marriage argument is a tepid one, just like Obama Hillary flip flopped because the American electorate wasn't yet ready to embrace the position openly ten years ago and she wanted to be elected. Blame the electorate. Makes about as much sense as blaming presidential candidates for the fact that they don't openly state that they're atheists.
|
United States44168 Posts
|
United States44168 Posts
On October 19 2016 12:16 plasmidghost wrote:
I never alleged she was corrupt, I just said that she took money from them, which she absolutely did. Usually, when someone gives you money, you try to return the favor
You said that she would follow a different policy than would otherwise be the case regarding Saudi Arabia because they gave her Foundation money. If you don't think that's calling her corrupt then honestly you have no clue what the words you're saying even mean. You argued that foreign policy under President Clinton would be for sale. That's corrupt. Her duty is to the nation, if she sells out the nation for personal gain, that's corrupt. So yes, you said she was corrupt.
As for returning the favour when people donate to your charitable foundation, do you? And again, which money? Are you referring to the money they gave Bill in 1997 for his library? If not, which money are you referring to?
The Clintons are worth hundreds of millions of dollars, the foreign policy of the United States is worth hundreds of billions, the idea that a few million donated towards AIDS research buys you a change in foreign policy doesn't pass the sniff test. Not even slightly. It's just a silly idea. It doesn't make any sense.
|
On October 19 2016 12:11 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 11:04 plasmidghost wrote:
I'd really like it if the US could gradually stop allying with Saudi Arabia (or give their citizens the same rights most Western societies have), and under Hillary, that alliance is only going to increase since she's taken loads of money from them in the past Sometimes you have shitty allies because they have enough strategic importance that you can't just drop them without getting severely burned for it.
I bet China feels the same way about North Korea
|
|
|
On October 19 2016 12:26 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 12:19 Nyxisto wrote:
The gay marriage argument is a tepid one, just like Obama Hillary flip flopped because the American electorate wasn't yet ready to embrace the position openly ten years ago and she wanted to be elected. Blame the electorate. Makes about as much sense as blaming presidential candidates for the fact that they don't openly state that they're atheists. Coming out against it under any circumstances is not okay if that's not what you honestly believe. I know there's no politician on Earth that's honest, but when you attempt to serve the public, they deserve the right to know what your actual position is. Sure, she supports it now, but it's only because it was favorable for her to do so (I mean, gay rights activists have been around for 50 years or whenever Stonewall was, and she didn't come out and support it until 2013 according to Politifact after actively opposing it for over a decade)
Were you alive in the 90s? It was political suicide to support gay marriage on the national level. If the Democrats ever wanted to make it legal, they needed judges on the highest court that would upload it. There was no way to do that and openly support it. That is just the reality.
|
On October 19 2016 12:23 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 12:11 LegalLord wrote:On October 19 2016 11:04 plasmidghost wrote:
I'd really like it if the US could gradually stop allying with Saudi Arabia (or give their citizens the same rights most Western societies have), and under Hillary, that alliance is only going to increase since she's taken loads of money from them in the past Sometimes you have shitty allies because they have enough strategic importance that you can't just drop them without getting severely burned for it. I bet China feels the same way about North Korea
Between the nuclear tests and randomly shelling South Korea I've heard there's a lot of buyer's remorse there right now.
|
Half of all American adults are included in databases police use to identify citizens with facial recognition technology, according to new research that raises serious concerns about privacy violations and the widespread use of racially biased surveillance technology.
A report from Georgetown Law’s Center on Privacy and Technology found that more than 117 million adults are captured in a “virtual, perpetual lineup”, which means law enforcement offices across the US can scan their photos and use unregulated software to track law-abiding citizens in government datasets.
Numerous major police departments have “real-time face recognition” technology that allows surveillance cameras to scan the faces of pedestrians walking down the street, the report found. In Maryland, police have been using software to identify faces in protest photos and match them to people with warrants, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
The report’s findings, along with revelations from the ACLU on police monitoring in Baltimore, suggest that the technology may be violating the rights of millions of Americans and is disproportionately impacting communities of color, advocates said.
“Face recognition, when it’s used most aggressively, can change the nature of public spaces,” said Alvaro Bedoya, executive director of Georgetown’s privacy and technology center. “It can change the basic freedom we have to go about our lives without people identifying us from afar and in secret.”
The center’s year-long investigation, based on more than 100 police records requests, has produced the most comprehensive survey of facial databases to date and raises numerous questions about the lack of transparency and privacy protections.
Law enforcement biometric databases have traditionally captured DNA profiles related to criminal arrests or forensic investigations. What’s alarming about the FBI’s “face recognition unit”, according to the report, is that it is “overwhelmingly made up of non-criminal entries”.
The FBI database photos come from state driver’s licenses, passports and visa applications, meaning police can easily identify and monitor people who haven’t had any run-ins with the law.
“In the case of face recognition, there appears to be very few controls or safeguards to ensure it’s not used in situations in which people are engaged in first amendment activity,” said Neema Singh Guliani, ACLU’s legislative counsel.
The ACLU recently found that police in Baltimore may have used the recognition technology along with social media accounts to identify and arrest people with outstanding warrants during high-profile police protests last year. That alleged surveillance relied on tools from Geofeedia, a controversial social media monitoring company that partners with police.
Source
|
|
|
On October 19 2016 12:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 12:26 plasmidghost wrote:On October 19 2016 12:19 Nyxisto wrote:
The gay marriage argument is a tepid one, just like Obama Hillary flip flopped because the American electorate wasn't yet ready to embrace the position openly ten years ago and she wanted to be elected. Blame the electorate. Makes about as much sense as blaming presidential candidates for the fact that they don't openly state that they're atheists. Coming out against it under any circumstances is not okay if that's not what you honestly believe. I know there's no politician on Earth that's honest, but when you attempt to serve the public, they deserve the right to know what your actual position is. Sure, she supports it now, but it's only because it was favorable for her to do so (I mean, gay rights activists have been around for 50 years or whenever Stonewall was, and she didn't come out and support it until 2013 according to Politifact after actively opposing it for over a decade) Were you alive in the 90s? It was political suicide to support gay marriage on the national level. If the Democrats ever wanted to make it legal, they needed judges on the highest court that would upload it. There was no way to do that and openly support it. That is just the reality.
I remember this proposition from 2000 growing up in California that restricted same sex marriage. It won by quite a margin, and California was still a pretty blue state back then. A lot has changed over the last 16 years thankfully, but man it really wasn't too long ago that most of the nation was not in support of equal gay rights.
|
|
|
United States44168 Posts
On October 19 2016 12:38 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 12:21 KwarK wrote:On October 19 2016 12:16 plasmidghost wrote:
I never alleged she was corrupt, I just said that she took money from them, which she absolutely did. Usually, when someone gives you money, you try to return the favor You said that she would follow a different policy than would otherwise be the case regarding Saudi Arabia because they gave her Foundation money. If you don't think that's calling her corrupt then honestly you have no clue what the words you're saying even mean. You argued that foreign policy under President Clinton would be for sale. That's corrupt. Her duty is to the nation, if she sells out the nation for personal gain, that's corrupt. So yes, you said she was corrupt. As for returning the favour when people donate to your charitable foundation, do you? And again, which money? Are you referring to the money they gave Bill in 1997 for his library? If not, which money are you referring to? The Clintons are worth hundreds of millions of dollars, the foreign policy of the United States is worth hundreds of billions, the idea that a few million donated towards AIDS research buys you a change in foreign policy doesn't pass the sniff test. Not even slightly. It's just a silly idea. It doesn't make any sense. Alright then, I will come out and claim that she is somewhat corrupt. Given all the Wikileaks emails that reveal her selling ambassadorship positions, supporting TARP funds being given to the companies that donated to her and her foundation (if not corruption, at least a serious conflict of interest, and just one of many such instances), coordinating with the DNC to influence the election in her favor, and plenty others (there are so many sources I could post, so here's a few): http://observer.com/2016/05/corruption-is-catching-up-to-the-clintons-and-their-associates/http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clintons-scandal-playbookhttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-charity.html
I'm still waiting on you to let us know who donated, when, how much and what they bought re: Saudi Arabia. I can wait.
|
Can we please remember who signed TARP, who wasn't in office at the time and that TRAP has nothing to do with being SoS?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
