|
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 29 2016 06:35 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 06:17 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 29 2016 06:12 oBlade wrote:On October 29 2016 06:02 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 29 2016 05:59 oBlade wrote:
That's a rich tweet, Donald Trump, who everyone knows is a Russian puppet being propped up by Vladimir Putin and his global alt-right network, is McCarthyist. If you don't think Trump reaches conclusions and spreads innuendo based on a total lack of evidence, like McCarthy did, I have a bridge to sell you. Edit: And that's exactly what the tweet says. Not that he hates commies. Keep the bridge and get over it. Also, work on some new and original lines, this thread has enough bridge salesmen. What McCarthy did was use authority and pretense as tools to actually imprison people and destroy their careers and lives. It's not McCarthyist simply to say something you disagree with. Trump doesn't spread innuendo and reach conclusions with 0 evidence because he says things I disagree with. He spreads innuendo and reaches conclusions with 0 evidence because he tweets things are terror attacks before any official confirmation, says these emails are worse than Watergate, says judges are unfit to preside over his cases when they are Mexican, and believes he knows better than U.S. military intelligence. Oh, and says over and over again that HRC coordinated his accusers with 0 evidence about that, too. And that there are tens of thousands of dead people voting. Those are all McCarthyist to you, then?
They're all spreading innuendo and reaching conclusions with 0 evidence, yes. Which is exactly what the tweet you called "rich" said Trump does, and then draws the similarity to McCarthy.
Or are you contesting that McCarthy built a career on spreading innuendo about his political opponents and reaching conclusions with 0 evidence? I can never tell what your point is.
|
The FBI is being a real wiener right now.
|
Time for the hyperventilation regarding polling to start again
|
United States43938 Posts
On October 29 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Time for the hyperventilation regarding polling to start again
For those worried that Trump is going to win 7 of the 6 close races, sure.
|
On October 29 2016 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2016 06:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 29 2016 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2016 05:55 Gorsameth wrote:On October 29 2016 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2016 04:18 Gorsameth wrote:On October 29 2016 03:51 LegalLord wrote:On October 29 2016 03:50 Piledriver wrote:
I'm just sad that the Democrats nominated Clinton. Anyone else, especially Biden or Bernie would have just carried this election in a landslide. I find it pretty ironic that the biggest argument in favor of nominating Hillary was that she is so ungodly electable that it would be folly to choose someone else. No the biggest argument in favor of Hillary was that Bernie did not have a clue as to how he was going to get any of his idea's implemented. Hillary does and her idea's are just Bernie light anyway. This is Hillary's version of "Believe me, we'll get the best people". There's little to no substance behind it, but people just keep saying it. That's why every time I ask specifically what she'll pass that Bernie wouldn't have and how, no one has anything. One of (if not the) biggest proposal for Bernie was the Banking reform. And he got completely exposed as being clueless about it in a Daily news interview www.nydailynews.comAfter it came out you could see a significant change in this thread where people moved away from Bernie towards Hillary based on his lack of knowledge on how to implement his ideas. It's incredible to me that people could interpret him not mentioning something he had explained in detail before so uncharitably while simultaneously being so charitable to Hillary's intentional vagueness, secrecy, and deception. Not sure what policy that gets passed by her that Bernie wouldn't have passed. Unless the idea is that Hillary would take her ball and go home if she lost the election and put none of her efforts/connections toward implementing the policy changes she wants if she couldn't be the one to sign it into law. If you're argument against Hilary is that she would get the same things passed as Bernie, then what is your argument against Hillary? That Bernie could get more, or worst case get what she would have. Plus there's plenty of stuff I think Hillary will pass that Bernie wouldn't, it's just stuff like increased fracking. Bernie couldn't even get his supporters to vote and was facing a hostile house and congress. He folded when interviewed by liberal papers. And somehow you think he could get more than Hillary? Now you're just trolling this thread.
Want to see some of Bernie's amazing organizational skills in action? His too pure for money supporters folded in on themselves before he could even get his advocacy group going. Bernie never passed a major law in 30 years, and his org group died before it started. This is all because Weaver was a big sell out who dared to try and raise money in support of the cause.
This was not a case of a few volunteers deciding they didn’t have the time to work towards a revolution. This was core staff members in key positions deciding Our Revolution was doomed to failure. Eight people quit – from a staff of 15. The entire organising department went. The digital director, Kenneth Pennington, went too.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/26/bernie-sanders-our-revolution-grassroots-jeff-weaver
|
For reference, the last FBI story about the emails, which involved a full hearing before congress and collective outrage at her not being charged, cost her 2 points in the polls. This story is less exciting in almost every way and involves 3 emails. It will likely not have the same juice.
And Trump is likely to fuck up in the next two days and bury it.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you've got the joe stiglitzes and dean bakers in the debate in a potential clinton administration. the left isn't being marginalized if these guys are there.
|
On October 29 2016 07:02 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 29 2016 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2016 06:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 29 2016 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2016 05:55 Gorsameth wrote:On October 29 2016 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2016 04:18 Gorsameth wrote:On October 29 2016 03:51 LegalLord wrote:On October 29 2016 03:50 Piledriver wrote:
I'm just sad that the Democrats nominated Clinton. Anyone else, especially Biden or Bernie would have just carried this election in a landslide. I find it pretty ironic that the biggest argument in favor of nominating Hillary was that she is so ungodly electable that it would be folly to choose someone else. No the biggest argument in favor of Hillary was that Bernie did not have a clue as to how he was going to get any of his idea's implemented. Hillary does and her idea's are just Bernie light anyway. This is Hillary's version of "Believe me, we'll get the best people". There's little to no substance behind it, but people just keep saying it. That's why every time I ask specifically what she'll pass that Bernie wouldn't have and how, no one has anything. One of (if not the) biggest proposal for Bernie was the Banking reform. And he got completely exposed as being clueless about it in a Daily news interview www.nydailynews.comAfter it came out you could see a significant change in this thread where people moved away from Bernie towards Hillary based on his lack of knowledge on how to implement his ideas. It's incredible to me that people could interpret him not mentioning something he had explained in detail before so uncharitably while simultaneously being so charitable to Hillary's intentional vagueness, secrecy, and deception. Not sure what policy that gets passed by her that Bernie wouldn't have passed. Unless the idea is that Hillary would take her ball and go home if she lost the election and put none of her efforts/connections toward implementing the policy changes she wants if she couldn't be the one to sign it into law. If you're argument against Hilary is that she would get the same things passed as Bernie, then what is your argument against Hillary? That Bernie could get more, or worst case get what she would have. Plus there's plenty of stuff I think Hillary will pass that Bernie wouldn't, it's just stuff like increased fracking. Bernie couldn't even get his supporters to vote and was facing a hostile house and congress. He folded when interviewed by liberal papers. And somehow you think he could get more than Hillary? Now you're just trolling this thread. Want to see some of Bernie's amazing organizational skills in action? His too pure for money supporters folded in on themselves before he could even get his advocacy group going. Bernie never passed a major law in 30 years, and his org group died before it started. This is all because Weaver was a big sell out who dared to try and raise money in support of the cause. Show nested quote +This was not a case of a few volunteers deciding they didn’t have the time to work towards a revolution. This was core staff members in key positions deciding Our Revolution was doomed to failure. Eight people quit – from a staff of 15. The entire organising department went. The digital director, Kenneth Pennington, went too. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/26/bernie-sanders-our-revolution-grassroots-jeff-weaver
Holy shit
|
On October 29 2016 07:04 Plansix wrote:
For reference, the last FBI story about the emails, which involved a full hearing before congress and collective outrage at her not being charged, cost her 2 points in the polls. This story is less exciting in almost every way and involves 3 emails. It will likely not have the same juice.
And Trump is likely to fuck up in the next two days and bury it.
where do you see that there are 3 emails? It wouldn't take that long for them to conclude the investigation if that's the case.
|
On October 29 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Time for the hyperventilation regarding polling to start again For those worried that Trump is going to win 7 of the 6 close races, sure.
In which case I hope she gets charged after being elected and Tim Kaine takes over.
|
On October 29 2016 07:21 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Time for the hyperventilation regarding polling to start again For those worried that Trump is going to win 7 of the 6 close races, sure. In which case I hope she gets charged after being elected and Tim Kaine takes over.
Charged with what exactly?
|
On October 29 2016 07:21 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Time for the hyperventilation regarding polling to start again For those worried that Trump is going to win 7 of the 6 close races, sure. In which case I hope she gets charged after being elected and Tim Kaine takes over.
The President can't be charged with a crime. Congress has to remove them from office first.
On October 29 2016 07:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 07:21 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Time for the hyperventilation regarding polling to start again For those worried that Trump is going to win 7 of the 6 close races, sure. In which case I hope she gets charged after being elected and Tim Kaine takes over. Charged with what exactly?
I don't think Bio really cares. Something. Anything. Just charge her because he feels she did something criminal and it should happen.
|
On October 29 2016 07:21 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 07:04 Plansix wrote:
For reference, the last FBI story about the emails, which involved a full hearing before congress and collective outrage at her not being charged, cost her 2 points in the polls. This story is less exciting in almost every way and involves 3 emails. It will likely not have the same juice.
And Trump is likely to fuck up in the next two days and bury it. where do you see that there are 3 emails? It wouldn't take that long for them to conclude the investigation if that's the case.
No it will not take long but Comey was required to inform congress of it to correct the statement he made during the hearing or he could have been held accountable for not reporting it.
|
On October 29 2016 07:21 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 07:04 Plansix wrote:
For reference, the last FBI story about the emails, which involved a full hearing before congress and collective outrage at her not being charged, cost her 2 points in the polls. This story is less exciting in almost every way and involves 3 emails. It will likely not have the same juice.
And Trump is likely to fuck up in the next two days and bury it. where do you see that there are 3 emails? It wouldn't take that long for them to conclude the investigation if that's the case.
Don't have the link handy, but I read that they still need a court order to read them.
I'm kinda curious why suddenly Robby Mook and Huma's tweets are gone. What's that about?
I'm not presuming foul play by anyone, that's just really strange, no?
EDIT: It appears they just don't tweet maybe?
|
Keep in mind Eichenwald is a 20-year investigative reporter with three books who has won Pulitzers (or, well, been a finalist) with good sources in the Justice Department who has a big stake in protecting his reputation. Unlike anyone from Breitbart/etc. So he's probably telling the truth, or something very close to it.
He does fucking hate Trump, though.
|
On October 29 2016 07:26 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 07:21 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 07:04 Plansix wrote:
For reference, the last FBI story about the emails, which involved a full hearing before congress and collective outrage at her not being charged, cost her 2 points in the polls. This story is less exciting in almost every way and involves 3 emails. It will likely not have the same juice.
And Trump is likely to fuck up in the next two days and bury it. where do you see that there are 3 emails? It wouldn't take that long for them to conclude the investigation if that's the case. https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald/status/792079725329907713No it will not take long but Comey was required to inform congress of it to correct the statement he made during the hearing or he could have been held accountable for not reporting it.
We are supposed to take that person at his word? (I don't even know who he is). I am seeing other reports say thousands of emails, sorry but Comey is the one who has to clear this up.
|
On October 29 2016 07:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 07:21 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Time for the hyperventilation regarding polling to start again For those worried that Trump is going to win 7 of the 6 close races, sure. In which case I hope she gets charged after being elected and Tim Kaine takes over. The President can't be charged with a crime. Congress has to remove them from office first. Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 07:25 Gorsameth wrote:On October 29 2016 07:21 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Time for the hyperventilation regarding polling to start again For those worried that Trump is going to win 7 of the 6 close races, sure. In which case I hope she gets charged after being elected and Tim Kaine takes over. Charged with what exactly? I don't think Bio really cares. Something. Anything. Just charge her because he feels she did something criminal and it should happen.
On counts of displaying gross negligence, or intent to transmit classified information illegally, take your pick. How does one break the law and receive absolutely no penalty? Not even a fine or restriction on dealing with classified information or restriction from running for any position that handles classified information. We don't need to do this dance again though, it is clear it won't change anyone's mind.
|
On October 29 2016 07:29 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 07:26 Gorsameth wrote:On October 29 2016 07:21 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 07:04 Plansix wrote:
For reference, the last FBI story about the emails, which involved a full hearing before congress and collective outrage at her not being charged, cost her 2 points in the polls. This story is less exciting in almost every way and involves 3 emails. It will likely not have the same juice.
And Trump is likely to fuck up in the next two days and bury it. where do you see that there are 3 emails? It wouldn't take that long for them to conclude the investigation if that's the case. https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald/status/792079725329907713No it will not take long but Comey was required to inform congress of it to correct the statement he made during the hearing or he could have been held accountable for not reporting it. We are supposed to take that person at his word? (I don't even know who he is). I am seeing other reports say thousands of emails, sorry but Comey is the one who has to clear this up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Eichenwald
Google exists. You can become an informed person all on your own. Also the information is in the post directly above you. He is a reporter of 20 years with a solid record. And GH is likely right that they might need a court order to view those specific emails, as they would not be covered by whatever orders they had for the previous searches.
|
On October 29 2016 07:32 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 07:25 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2016 07:21 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Time for the hyperventilation regarding polling to start again For those worried that Trump is going to win 7 of the 6 close races, sure. In which case I hope she gets charged after being elected and Tim Kaine takes over. The President can't be charged with a crime. Congress has to remove them from office first. On October 29 2016 07:25 Gorsameth wrote:On October 29 2016 07:21 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Time for the hyperventilation regarding polling to start again For those worried that Trump is going to win 7 of the 6 close races, sure. In which case I hope she gets charged after being elected and Tim Kaine takes over. Charged with what exactly? I don't think Bio really cares. Something. Anything. Just charge her because he feels she did something criminal and it should happen. On counts of displaying gross negligence, or intent to transmit classified information illegally, take your pick. How does one break the law and receive absolutely no penalty? Not even a fine or restriction on dealing with classified information or restriction from running for any position that handles classified information. We don't need to do this dance again though, it is clear it won't change anyone's mind.
Here we go again.
Congress has the power to assign a Special Prosecutor to go after Hillary for Emailghazi. It has not done.
Why?
|
On October 29 2016 07:32 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 07:25 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2016 07:21 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Time for the hyperventilation regarding polling to start again For those worried that Trump is going to win 7 of the 6 close races, sure. In which case I hope she gets charged after being elected and Tim Kaine takes over. The President can't be charged with a crime. Congress has to remove them from office first. On October 29 2016 07:25 Gorsameth wrote:On October 29 2016 07:21 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Time for the hyperventilation regarding polling to start again For those worried that Trump is going to win 7 of the 6 close races, sure. In which case I hope she gets charged after being elected and Tim Kaine takes over. Charged with what exactly? I don't think Bio really cares. Something. Anything. Just charge her because he feels she did something criminal and it should happen. On counts of displaying gross negligence, or intent to transmit classified information, take your pick. How does one break the law and receive absolutely no penalty? Not even a fine or restriction on dealing with classified information or restriction from running for any position that handles classified information. We don't need to do this dance again though, it is clear it won't change anyone's mind.
Ok, I pick nothing because it wasn't a crime. And the the previously Republican, now independent director of the FBI who is no fan of Clinton agrees with me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
28206
959
378
EPT
