|
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 30 2016 23:43 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2016 23:40 farvacola wrote:
It was not "definitely willful," that'd be the central issue at trial alongside a proof of harm. There is definitely a difference in terms of law regarding the words willful and intent, as the second part doesn't use the word intent but the first does. Unless you think she set up her private email server while sleepwalking or under hypnosis, I don't see how it isn't willful. Did she intend to cause harm through her actions? who knows, Comey thought no.
You should stop using definitely when you don't know what you're talking about. That you think a SoS sets up her own email server speaks volumes with regards to your understanding of the intent element inherent to both listed offenses.
|
It blows my fucking mind that anybody manages to be enthusiastic about either candidate this election... The more I talk about it (make it end) the more I am convinced that the US democracy just screwed up in a big way. Clinton was chosen largely because of name recognition and various bullshit, Trump was chosen largely because of his anti-establishment appeal and because of the manufactured climate of fear in the US. It seems to me like people who support Trump on all of his weird vague policy ideas are just as ignorant as he is, and people who support broadly support Hillary and are willing to disregard her rich history of deceit, opportunism and general fuckery are just as intellectually dishonest as she is.
Do we actually just accept this obscene fiction that either candidate is worthy of being POTUS? Why get excited any half-decent human being would see either candidate as a huge collection of massive compromises... If I could vote in the US general I'd pick one candidate, and I'd feel disgusted with myself.
It's annoying to me that the reaction to Trump being very clearly the worse candidate (at least in many people's opinions) has been to just pretend like Clinton is better than she really is. She's fucking trash and it's important to vote for her because both the DNC and the RNC messed up. Why are so many people incapable of just admitting to themselves that it's a huge compromise. Is it some form of rhetoric, we're so worried that Trump could get in that we have to pretend like Hillary is better than she is? Very frustrating. The only reason why Clinton is not discredited as she would be in any other democracy is because Trump is somehow even worse.
Once again I find myself in this weird situation with the left where I kind of agree with them on the surface but their reasoning is shit.
|
This thread is full of Hillary voters who have repeatedly admitted that she is a flawed candidate. Naturally, there are people like you describe, but presenting this whole thing as some kind of "obscene fiction" mistakes the very real effects that each candidate will have on US politics. Attempting to fight a collective lack of nuance in political thought through overly general indictments of the process isn't particularly effective methinks.
|
On October 31 2016 00:30 Djzapz wrote:
Once again I find myself in this weird situation with the left where I kind of agree with them on the surface but their reasoning is shit.
Yeah. It's a fun club.
|
On October 31 2016 00:40 farvacola wrote:
This thread is full of Hillary voters who have repeatedly admitted that she is a flawed candidate. Naturally, there are people like you describe, but presenting this whole thing as some kind of "obscene fiction" mistakes the very real effects that each candidate will have on US politics. Attempting to fight a collective lack of nuance in political thought through overly general indictments of the process isn't particularly effective methinks.
This thread may be full of them, I'm not talking about them. You say "there are people like you describe" and the reason why I'm posting this has nothing to do with this thread. I'd argue that TL (weirdly enough) probably has more informed people than the general population and the level of discourse here is generally reasonably high. But I know a whole lot of people, American friends of mine included, who live in what I qualified as an "obscene fiction". It's not generalized, but it's a phenomenon that I find disconcerting.
And forgive my English, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "Attempting to fight a collective lack of nuance in political thought through overly general indictments of the process isn't particularly effective methinks"
If I understand correctly and I may be completely off the mark here but you're saying like, in simplified term so that my French brain can understand: "the argument that the lack of nuance is proof of a broken democracy is weak". Is that what you're saying? I'm reading it again and I don't get it. What process are we talking about, the electoral process?
|
On October 31 2016 00:30 Djzapz wrote:
It's annoying to me that the reaction to Trump being very clearly the worse candidate (at least in many people's opinions) has been to just pretend like Clinton is better than she really is. She's fucking trash and it's important to vote for her because both the DNC and the RNC messed up. Why are so many people incapable of just admitting to themselves that it's a huge compromise.
Leftists understand that very well. There just isn't a ton of leftists on this forum.
|
On October 31 2016 00:48 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2016 00:30 Djzapz wrote:
It's annoying to me that the reaction to Trump being very clearly the worse candidate (at least in many people's opinions) has been to just pretend like Clinton is better than she really is. She's fucking trash and it's important to vote for her because both the DNC and the RNC messed up. Why are so many people incapable of just admitting to themselves that it's a huge compromise. Leftists understand that very well. There just isn't a ton of leftists on this forum.
Going off purely my anecdotal evidence there are a lot of people on the left who frown at the mention of Clinton's shortcomings as a politician and a person as if the publication of information and facts was an affront to their political leaning and as if it condoned whatever Trump says. There's even this one guy whom I consider to be extremely smart who's gone completely stupid about this.
I understand that most people on the left understand the compromise and they know what they're doing, but people pretending that Clinton is the second coming of Christ are not a fringe group as far as I can tell.
|
Zapz, my point is that there are lot of American voters, maybe even a majority, who are making their voting decisions based on factors that the popular, media driven narrative fails to capture. In other words, while there is certainly truth underlying your frustration, I don't think it's productive to lump everyone together beneath banners like "the left" without acknowledging that the banner is likely an innacurate means of understanding the intentions of voters. This seems particularly true this cycle.
|
On October 31 2016 00:58 farvacola wrote:
Zapz, my point is that there are lot of American voters, maybe even a majority, who are making their voting decisions based on factors that the popular, media driven narrative fails to capture. In other words, while there is certainly truth underlying your frustration, I don't think it's productive to lump everyone together beneath banners like "the left" without acknowledging that the banner is likely an innacurate means of understanding the intentions of voters. This seems particularly true this cycle.
I never intend to lump everyone together, perhaps the language I use lacks nuance and I'm not doing a good job of expressing my thoughts. I'm talking about this specific group of people who irritate the fuck out of me. It exists, there is this clique that likes to swipe stuff under the rug, cross their fingers and they think "look we need to do this because otherwise Trump might win".
By no means am I saying that this is generalized but it's a phenomenon, and it doesn't just apply to some zealous Clinton supporters either. We see this shit in local elections and provincial elections. We demonize the other candidate while putting blinders on regarding the shortcomings of our own. The reason why I'm posting this is I've rarely seen shortcomings like those of Clinton's being disregarded. A little sex scandal would be fine... Everybody fucks. Some bending of the truth to get reelected, that's just normal in any political campaign. Decades of BS?
The picture of Obama smoking hurt him there wasn't much bad stuff about him. The people, however few there may be, who are happy to act as if Clinton's past is squeaky clean, do bother me.
And the things I said about the US democracy faultering, it's not just because of these intentionally ignorant people. They're not that consequential. The US is about to elect one of two people with extremely low approval ratings because something shitty happened.
|
There are plenty of people who are Hillary supporters who take one of two stances (I can't decide which, might be both):
1. I'm supporting Hillary and I think she must win so I have to shill for her, push her talking points, and obtusely deny her valid weaknesses because we must stop Trump at all costs.
2. It's not fashionable to like Hillary as a candidate so I'm going to use the "I don't like Hillary but..." disclaimer to fit in while pushing her talking points.
There is a very small cadre of open and not quite so pretend-reluctant supporters, but the above is far more common.
|
On October 31 2016 01:20 LegalLord wrote:
There are plenty of people who are Hillary supporters who take one of two stances (I can't decide which, might be both):
1. I'm supporting Hillary and I think she must win so I have to shill for her, push her talking points, and obtusely deny her valid weaknesses because we must stop Trump at all costs.
2. It's not fashionable to like Hillary as a candidate so I'm going to use the "I don't like Hillary but..." disclaimer to fit in while pushing her talking points.
There is a very small cadre of open and not quite so pretend-reluctant supporters, but the above is far more common.
It's not fashionable? Come on man, you sell us a little short.
|
On October 31 2016 01:20 LegalLord wrote:
There are plenty of people who are Hillary supporters who take one of two stances (I can't decide which, might be both):
1. I'm supporting Hillary and I think she must win so I have to shill for her, push her talking points, and obtusely deny her valid weaknesses because we must stop Trump at all costs.
2. It's not fashionable to like Hillary as a candidate so I'm going to use the "I don't like Hillary but..." disclaimer to fit in while pushing her talking points.
There is a very small cadre of open and not quite so pretend-reluctant supporters, but the above is far more common.
I feel like point 2 is supposed to apply to me and I think it's interesting that the language you use is "it's not fashionable to like Hillary". I've seen a lot of that, it seems to be "popular" to say both candidates suck. It's what I do because it's what I believe but it's not a thing I say to be cool like "hey fellow kids, look how cool I am for being disillusioned with politics". I see a lot of this namely from youtubers who take the hardline "don't offend anyone" position and other people who are trying to win a popularity contest.
However in my case it's really about how I dislike Hillary and I think that perhaps being honest about her shortcomings seems like the right thing to do. Shilling for her to make her win at all costs, I don't know if it's really the right position to take to prevent Trump from getting to the white house. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe politically you'll get more converts by being a lying sack of shit, but ffs that sucks...
|
Tbh I feel like I always hear people speak in broad terms about how corrupt, dishonest, etc. Hillary is and I never hear any specifics. When people bring up specific stuff, it seems like a long list of scandals in which what is proven isn't all that bad and what is really bad is far from proven.
It seems like after decades of mudslinging and allegations against the Clintons, some of which were actually bad and some of which were purely manufactured, nobody has the patience to actually research all the million different scandals, and just assumes if there are that many allegations out there they must have been corrupt in at least some of them.
|
On October 31 2016 01:31 ChristianS wrote:
Tbh I feel like I always hear people speak in broad terms about how corrupt, dishonest, etc. Hillary is and I never hear any specifics. When people bring up specific stuff, it seems like a long list of scandals in which what is proven isn't all that bad and what is really bad is far from proven.
It seems like after decades of mudslinging and allegations against the Clintons, some of which were actually bad and some of which were purely manufactured, nobody has the patience to actually research all the million different scandals, and just assumes if there are that many allegations out there they must have been corrupt in at least some of them.
She's less bad than her opposition claims she is but she is far from some innocent victim of some unfounded smear campaign. That she is a serial liar is pretty much ubiquitous; to bring up specific examples is about as productive as trying to convince someone that the miracles in the Bible aren't scientifically or historically feasible (someone could write a book explaining the reality in detail, but pointing to specific examples in short replies is pointless because if you don't see it then it's because you don't want to see it). That she has some terrible dealings that could be described as corruption is also plain to see. And as a bonus, her political record isn't really all that great: a nominal social progressive (when it's popular), a warhawk without much long-term thinking, and in general a living embodiment of what people think of as a "career politician" with all the negative connotations that come with it.
But of course, at this point, you pretty much either see it or don't. If you don't, not only is it probably too late to be convinced otherwise (a lot of us have already voted) but also it's not a productive discussion to have.
|
United States43868 Posts
I will still absolutely bet on this election with you, my money on Clinton.
|
United States43868 Posts
On October 30 2016 18:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2016 18:05 TheYango wrote:On October 30 2016 18:03 gsgfdf wrote:
This discussion is from a few pages earlier but I have a question. Mohdoo says he works for 20$/hour but at the same time makes just 2200$ per month. Do you work for less than 40 hours per week or is there something I'm missing?
Hope my question is not too personal. Tax withholding. It's why Kwark (IIRC) made a comment about him probably over-withholding for his income level. Nope, that was me (maybe Kwark too though). Not sure to take getting misremembered as Kwark as a compliment or an insult. I'm saucy, had a blast at a Halloween party, and made it home safe, so I'm chalking it up as a compliment. I'm surrounded by people who do the same thing. Despite H&R Block, Jackson Hewitt, and all the rest, there's still ~$1,000,000,000.00 in unclaimed tax money (I think that includes deductions?) every year. Maybe I can get Kwark to start a business where instead of giving the feds your money interest free, we hold it for the year and give you back +.25%-1% (basically a auto-withdrawal savings account but give it a fancy tax-related name) I could pool $500k (probably more) by next April.
Nope, it was me. :p
People don't want to think about taxes and anyway, interest rates are low. Nobody is going to enroll in that I think GH. Especially given that we'd probably not offer systematic tax fraud the way that most of the low income tax filing places do.
|
On October 31 2016 01:48 LegalLord wrote:
That she has some terrible dealings that could be described as corruption is also plain to see.
This is what I mean. I'm not even sure what the allegation here is. Some people describe taking money from lobbyists as "corruption," but that's pretty much ubiquitous in politics. There seems to be done evidence that she gave meetings to people sometimes if they donated to the Clinton Foundation, but absolutely no evidence she ever changed public policy in response to these donations. I doubt that meets any legal definition of corruption, and considering how many people I've heard insist the CF is just a slush fund that spends only ~3% of its money on charity, i doubt most of these people have a very nuanced understanding of the "corruption" charges they're slinging.
But of course, at this point, you pretty much either see it or don't. If you don't, not only is it probably too late to be convinced otherwise (a lot of us have already voted) but also it's not a productive discussion to have.
This is maybe the most disturbing thing about this election to me. People will say something is obvious, and someone else will say "no it isn't, I don't see it," and they'll just kind of accept that what is supposedly an obvious fact is apparently just different in the other person's reality.
Like, we're in a thread about US politics, and there's a broad consensus that one candidate is corrupt, but a discussion of exactly how corrupt she is and in what ways isn't a worthwhile discussion?
|
On October 31 2016 01:48 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2016 01:31 ChristianS wrote:
Tbh I feel like I always hear people speak in broad terms about how corrupt, dishonest, etc. Hillary is and I never hear any specifics. When people bring up specific stuff, it seems like a long list of scandals in which what is proven isn't all that bad and what is really bad is far from proven.
It seems like after decades of mudslinging and allegations against the Clintons, some of which were actually bad and some of which were purely manufactured, nobody has the patience to actually research all the million different scandals, and just assumes if there are that many allegations out there they must have been corrupt in at least some of them. She's less bad than her opposition claims she is but she is far from some innocent victim of some unfounded smear campaign. That she is a serial liar is pretty much ubiquitous; to bring up specific examples is about as productive as trying to convince someone that the miracles in the Bible aren't scientifically or historically feasible (someone could write a book explaining the reality in detail, but pointing to specific examples in short replies is pointless because if you don't see it then it's because you don't want to see it). That she has some terrible dealings that could be described as corruption is also plain to see. And as a bonus, her political record isn't really all that great: a nominal social progressive (when it's popular), a warhawk without much long-term thinking, and in general a living embodiment of what people think of as a "career politician" with all the negative connotations that come with it. But of course, at this point, you pretty much either see it or don't. If you don't, not only is it probably too late to be convinced otherwise (a lot of us have already voted) but also it's not a productive discussion to have.
She has spent well over half a billion dollars in this election and is barely able to put away Trump. She is a horrible candidate, ANY other democrat would have buried him. There is no need to hide behind soft language.
Edit: I take that back, Weiner would do worse.
|
It's not productive for the same reason the "is X person racist/being racist" discussion isn't productive. It goes nowhere and frankly I'm sick of talking about the topic. We've had the discussion plenty of times, and either you weren't a part of it for long enough, or you weren't convinced by what other people were convinced by. Either way, it's about as productive as discussing the scientific merits of the Bible; the views people have are solidly entrenched and not to be changed by anything less than a dissertation-style post or a book making the argument in detail, and frankly none of us really want to bother when in a week we can finally just forget about this disgusting farce of an election.
|
United States43868 Posts
On October 31 2016 02:09 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2016 01:48 LegalLord wrote:On October 31 2016 01:31 ChristianS wrote:
Tbh I feel like I always hear people speak in broad terms about how corrupt, dishonest, etc. Hillary is and I never hear any specifics. When people bring up specific stuff, it seems like a long list of scandals in which what is proven isn't all that bad and what is really bad is far from proven.
It seems like after decades of mudslinging and allegations against the Clintons, some of which were actually bad and some of which were purely manufactured, nobody has the patience to actually research all the million different scandals, and just assumes if there are that many allegations out there they must have been corrupt in at least some of them. She's less bad than her opposition claims she is but she is far from some innocent victim of some unfounded smear campaign. That she is a serial liar is pretty much ubiquitous; to bring up specific examples is about as productive as trying to convince someone that the miracles in the Bible aren't scientifically or historically feasible (someone could write a book explaining the reality in detail, but pointing to specific examples in short replies is pointless because if you don't see it then it's because you don't want to see it). That she has some terrible dealings that could be described as corruption is also plain to see. And as a bonus, her political record isn't really all that great: a nominal social progressive (when it's popular), a warhawk without much long-term thinking, and in general a living embodiment of what people think of as a "career politician" with all the negative connotations that come with it. But of course, at this point, you pretty much either see it or don't. If you don't, not only is it probably too late to be convinced otherwise (a lot of us have already voted) but also it's not a productive discussion to have. She has spent well over half a billion dollars in this election and is barely able to put away Trump. She is a horrible candidate, ANY other democrat would have buried him. There is no need to hide behind soft language.
Name the other Democrat? Biden didn't want the job and he couldn't be made to run. Bernie? O'Malley?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
