|
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 31 2016 04:44 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2016 04:17 ChristianS wrote:On October 31 2016 03:57 LegalLord wrote:On October 31 2016 03:32 ChristianS wrote:On October 31 2016 03:17 LegalLord wrote:On October 31 2016 02:59 ChristianS wrote:On October 31 2016 02:35 LegalLord wrote:On October 31 2016 02:27 ChristianS wrote:On October 31 2016 02:12 LegalLord wrote:
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. I mean, I have no desire to force you into a discussion against your will. But surely if the examples are so numerous and self-evident, it shouldn't be hard for someone to provide a few. I've tried to research the email server, Clinton Foundation, and a bit on Benghazi, and in every case it seems as though 1) the average person making accusations about them is fairly uninformed, and 2) if you research it more, most of the more extreme allegations drop away pretty quickly, but 3) what's left is maybe some inept mishandling, and a fair amount of dodging and changing the subject when the issue is brought up. Maybe people see that dodging and subject-changing and they think "that looks suspicious, she must be guilty"? The idea that everybody already knows everything there is to know about these scandals so there's no point discussing seems false, i think plenty of people (myself included) don't know all the details and could benefit from the discussion. Or perhaps you're saying they don't know all the facts, but they won't change their opinion even when new facts present themselves? In which case yeah, sure, but then why discuss politics at all? Sure, as I mentioned there is a lot less to some of those issues than people say there is. The CF we need to just wait to see what the FBI comes up with, the emails she acted stupidly and lied about it to win the nomination, and Libya/Benghazi was just garden variety bad policy. She has a pretty extensive history of flip-flopping and cronyism and the like; most of it has been discussed to death and then some. But if you look into all of those issues in depth and your conclusion is that Hillary is either just a victim of an unfair smear campaign who did nothing wrong, or "just doing what has to be done" then there's some willful whitewashing going on there. I spent a lot of time trying to tell Hillary supporters that they really need to be more honest about that. Oh, I should be clear, I don't think she comes out as some innocent victim of circumstance. But she also doesn't come out as a crook. On the e-mails, for instance, it seems like there was a really bad culture of information security and record keeping at the State Department, and Hillary was so incompetent with computers she had precisely zero percent chance of recognizing their IT problems and doing something about them. She seems to have understood what an email server was about as well as my parents would understand what port forwarding is if I tried to explain it to them. Now she got put in charge of a broken organization, did not recognize it was broken, and did nothing to fix it. That's not a good thing in the slightest. But it's also not treason, or anything like it. Certainly there was a smear campaign against her, but it wouldn't have stuck if there weren't so much to criticize her for that it would be really stupid to think that she's a good candidate for president. I think this is the only quibble I have (aside from noting that as far as i know, it's only the funding sources of the CF that are the duspect; unless I'm mistaken, the work they do is mostly considered fairly good compared to other charities). There's a lot of this logic out there of if a smear stuck, that means there must be something to it (and the closely related argument that Hillary must be bad, or else how is she only barely beating Donald Trump?) They're nothing but appeals to the masses. That an idea is popular is no proof that it is right. A Republican might say she is unpopular because she is bad, a Democrat might say she is unpopular because of widespread subconscious sexism. On the surface it isn't clear why one explanation is clearly better than the othet, or why the answer might include contributions from both. I see where you're coming from, in that you're making the "big lie" argument, that if a ludicrous argument is repeated enough people will believe it. I see it as a somewhat different effect: that you can tell someone is a liar if they lie all the time, even if you can't pinpoint exactly which thing they lied about. People do have an innate sense for whether or not someone is a liar and Hillary... well as GH puts it, you would be an idiot to trust someone who lies as much as she does. I think we're conflating different issues again. What does it mean to "trust" a politician? The scenario in which the politician says they saw a wolf and we have to decide whether to believe them is pretty rare. The scenario in which a politician makes a campaign promise, and then we expect them to follow through on it, is fairly common – but in that situation I'm not "trusting" them based on their sense of honor and duty; I'm trusting them based on the understanding that they know it will help their popularity, reelection, etc. if they try to get those things done. She's got the incentive to, say, defend Obamacare from repeal and try to fix it without dismantling it. If you want to call that "trusting" her to do it, then I guess I trust her, and I don't think that makes me an idiot. Some of the most consequential decisions a president makes are related to trust. Can you trust the president that Iraq really has WMDs and it's important to invade? Can you trust the president not to sign trade deals that are not popular with the public but are popular with influential parties, when said president used to support it strongly but meekly backed away and stopped talking about it when it proved to be supremely unpopular? Can you trust the president to push social issues they promised to support if it starts to be particularly politically challenging to do so, in light of that person's tendency to flip-flop as it becomes politically convenient to do so? No, I do think a politician's trustworthiness is a factor that can't just be ignored and dismissed as "that's just what they do." This year just set the bar so low that some people are willing to take it and convince themselves that that is ok.
Depends. If I understand the TPP issue correctly, Congress would have to approve it, and then the President would or wouldn't sign it. I fully expect that a Hillary Clinton administration probably wouldn't spend political capital trying to get TPP approved, but if Congress approved it and put it on her desk, she'd sign it. Trump would probably veto.
I don't know what social issues you have in mind, but I'd usually expect Clinton to be supportive of the issues that have broader support (gay marriage, for instance), continue whatever Obama set forward on the somewhat controversial ones (e.g. letting transgender students in schools use whichever bathroom they identify with), and pretty silent about the more out-there ones (e.g. trigger warnings, pronouns, etc.). If she's made promises to do anything more than that, I never heard about it.
|
On October 31 2016 04:44 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2016 04:17 ChristianS wrote:On October 31 2016 03:57 LegalLord wrote:On October 31 2016 03:32 ChristianS wrote:On October 31 2016 03:17 LegalLord wrote:On October 31 2016 02:59 ChristianS wrote:On October 31 2016 02:35 LegalLord wrote:On October 31 2016 02:27 ChristianS wrote:On October 31 2016 02:12 LegalLord wrote:
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. I mean, I have no desire to force you into a discussion against your will. But surely if the examples are so numerous and self-evident, it shouldn't be hard for someone to provide a few. I've tried to research the email server, Clinton Foundation, and a bit on Benghazi, and in every case it seems as though 1) the average person making accusations about them is fairly uninformed, and 2) if you research it more, most of the more extreme allegations drop away pretty quickly, but 3) what's left is maybe some inept mishandling, and a fair amount of dodging and changing the subject when the issue is brought up. Maybe people see that dodging and subject-changing and they think "that looks suspicious, she must be guilty"? The idea that everybody already knows everything there is to know about these scandals so there's no point discussing seems false, i think plenty of people (myself included) don't know all the details and could benefit from the discussion. Or perhaps you're saying they don't know all the facts, but they won't change their opinion even when new facts present themselves? In which case yeah, sure, but then why discuss politics at all? Sure, as I mentioned there is a lot less to some of those issues than people say there is. The CF we need to just wait to see what the FBI comes up with, the emails she acted stupidly and lied about it to win the nomination, and Libya/Benghazi was just garden variety bad policy. She has a pretty extensive history of flip-flopping and cronyism and the like; most of it has been discussed to death and then some. But if you look into all of those issues in depth and your conclusion is that Hillary is either just a victim of an unfair smear campaign who did nothing wrong, or "just doing what has to be done" then there's some willful whitewashing going on there. I spent a lot of time trying to tell Hillary supporters that they really need to be more honest about that. Oh, I should be clear, I don't think she comes out as some innocent victim of circumstance. But she also doesn't come out as a crook. On the e-mails, for instance, it seems like there was a really bad culture of information security and record keeping at the State Department, and Hillary was so incompetent with computers she had precisely zero percent chance of recognizing their IT problems and doing something about them. She seems to have understood what an email server was about as well as my parents would understand what port forwarding is if I tried to explain it to them. Now she got put in charge of a broken organization, did not recognize it was broken, and did nothing to fix it. That's not a good thing in the slightest. But it's also not treason, or anything like it. Certainly there was a smear campaign against her, but it wouldn't have stuck if there weren't so much to criticize her for that it would be really stupid to think that she's a good candidate for president. I think this is the only quibble I have (aside from noting that as far as i know, it's only the funding sources of the CF that are the duspect; unless I'm mistaken, the work they do is mostly considered fairly good compared to other charities). There's a lot of this logic out there of if a smear stuck, that means there must be something to it (and the closely related argument that Hillary must be bad, or else how is she only barely beating Donald Trump?) They're nothing but appeals to the masses. That an idea is popular is no proof that it is right. A Republican might say she is unpopular because she is bad, a Democrat might say she is unpopular because of widespread subconscious sexism. On the surface it isn't clear why one explanation is clearly better than the othet, or why the answer might include contributions from both. I see where you're coming from, in that you're making the "big lie" argument, that if a ludicrous argument is repeated enough people will believe it. I see it as a somewhat different effect: that you can tell someone is a liar if they lie all the time, even if you can't pinpoint exactly which thing they lied about. People do have an innate sense for whether or not someone is a liar and Hillary... well as GH puts it, you would be an idiot to trust someone who lies as much as she does. I think we're conflating different issues again. What does it mean to "trust" a politician? The scenario in which the politician says they saw a wolf and we have to decide whether to believe them is pretty rare. The scenario in which a politician makes a campaign promise, and then we expect them to follow through on it, is fairly common – but in that situation I'm not "trusting" them based on their sense of honor and duty; I'm trusting them based on the understanding that they know it will help their popularity, reelection, etc. if they try to get those things done. She's got the incentive to, say, defend Obamacare from repeal and try to fix it without dismantling it. If you want to call that "trusting" her to do it, then I guess I trust her, and I don't think that makes me an idiot. Some of the most consequential decisions a president makes are related to trust. Can you trust the president that Iraq really has WMDs and it's important to invade? Can you trust the president not to sign trade deals that are not popular with the public but are popular with influential parties, when said president used to support it strongly but meekly backed away and stopped talking about it when it proved to be supremely unpopular? Can you trust the president to push social issues they promised to support if it starts to be particularly politically challenging to do so, in light of that person's tendency to flip-flop as it becomes politically convenient to do so? No, I do think a politician's trustworthiness is a factor that can't just be ignored and dismissed as "that's just what they do." This year just set the bar so low that some people are willing to take it and convince themselves that that is ok.
Republicans and Democrats are going to point at this election and say "Well it wasn't as bad as X" for many elections to come.
Republican Presidential candidate under investigation by the FBI, "No problem, Democrats had one of those"
Republican candidate collects millions from Wall st, O&G, and private prisons, "No problem, that wont influence their decisions, like they didn't influence Hillary".
Democratic candidate has 0 political experience, and lies consistently "Well they have more political experience than Trump, they were class president"
People can come up with their own examples, but so much of what has been standard political fare won't work anymore. It's going to be awfully hard to convince people Republicans are the abusers of campaign finance, when Hillary will have raised, spent, and distributed more through shady superPACs and elsewhere than any republican ever.
|
Before and after the latest FBI news about the new e-mails
![[image loading]](https://i.sli.mg/LvHG6W.jpg)
|
On October 31 2016 05:36 ImFromPortugal wrote:Before and after the latest FBI news about the new e-mails
You do know what the words "editorial" and "opinion" mean, right?
|
It's like they are two separate things.
|
that's an invalid comparison, can you not see that just by looking at it, portugal?
It looks to me like you're implying some sort of hypocrisy or partisan response from that.
I really wish people would stop posting shitty things like that which are proven flawed.
|
On October 31 2016 05:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2016 05:36 ImFromPortugal wrote:Before and after the latest FBI news about the new e-mails You do know what the words "editorial" and "opinion" mean, right?
It's not just them though, someone showed Krugman's meltdown earlier, I posted a video with one of her congressional surrogates suggesting the Russians might have given the new emails over to the FBI, and there's plenty more examples of Hillary supporters doing a 180 on Comey.
|
On October 31 2016 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2016 05:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 31 2016 05:36 ImFromPortugal wrote:Before and after the latest FBI news about the new e-mails You do know what the words "editorial" and "opinion" mean, right? It's not just them though, someone showed Krugman's meltdown earlier, I posted a video with one of her congressional surrogates suggesting the Russians might have given the new emails over to the FBI, and there's plenty more examples of Hillary supporters doing a 180 on Comey.
Feels relevant to ask who is Krugman and wtf is a "congressional surrogate"?
|
On October 31 2016 05:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2016 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2016 05:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 31 2016 05:36 ImFromPortugal wrote:Before and after the latest FBI news about the new e-mails You do know what the words "editorial" and "opinion" mean, right? It's not just them though, someone showed Krugman's meltdown earlier, I posted a video with one of her congressional surrogates suggesting the Russians might have given the new emails over to the FBI, and there's plenty more examples of Hillary supporters doing a 180 on Comey. Feels relevant to ask who is Krugman and wtf is a "congressional surrogate"?
(and Hillary supporter)
"Congressional surrogate" is exactly what it sounds like, a surrogate who is in congress.
|
On October 31 2016 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2016 05:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 31 2016 05:36 ImFromPortugal wrote:Before and after the latest FBI news about the new e-mails You do know what the words "editorial" and "opinion" mean, right? It's not just them though, someone showed Krugman's meltdown earlier, I posted a video with one of her congressional surrogates suggesting the Russians might have given the new emails over to the FBI, and there's plenty more examples of Hillary supporters doing a 180 on Comey.
You seem to figure these people have been caught in a contradiction. But it seems perfectly consistent to believe that Comey's judgment in his previous statements was pretty good, but that putting this letter out (specifically against the DoJ's policy) reflects bad judgment that gets the FBI involved in influencing the election in an irresponsible way.
I might like Obama well enough now, but if tomorrow he declares martial law I'll "do a 180" on Obama and be quite critical of him.
|
On October 31 2016 05:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2016 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2016 05:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 31 2016 05:36 ImFromPortugal wrote:Before and after the latest FBI news about the new e-mails You do know what the words "editorial" and "opinion" mean, right? It's not just them though, someone showed Krugman's meltdown earlier, I posted a video with one of her congressional surrogates suggesting the Russians might have given the new emails over to the FBI, and there's plenty more examples of Hillary supporters doing a 180 on Comey. Feels relevant to ask who is Krugman and wtf is a "congressional surrogate"?
Krugman is actually nobel prize in economics and one of the most influent opinion makers out there.
A very strong voice of the left.
|
How much authority does Lynch have over Comey? Can she remove him from his duties for disregarding her opinion? Or is this a unique circumstance because of her meeting with Bill. I feel like Comey can do whatever he wants at this point because Lynch distanced herself from this investigation, these congressmen who are putting a halloween "deadline" on Comey to release more information are about to be disappointed.
WSJ reporting 650,000 emails on Weiner's laptop. How in the hell does any one person have that many emails.
|
It would be a contradiction if they were now saying that Comey's testimony in July was a partisan hackjob for Republicans. And there are places that are saying that depending on where you look. I don't think Krugman or WaPo are saying that currently, though.
On October 31 2016 05:59 biology]major wrote:
How much authority does Lynch have over Comey? Can she remove him from his duties for disregarding her opinion? Or is this a unique circumstance because of her meeting with Bill. I feel like Comey can do whatever he wants at this point because Lynch distanced herself from this investigation, these congressmen who are putting a halloween "deadline" on Comey to release more information are about to be disappointed.
WSJ reporting 650,000 emails on Weiner's laptop. How in the hell does any one person have that many emails.
I'm a grad student who no one needs to email and I have 21K unread and probably another 10K read emails in my gmail over the past 7 years-ignoring any I've deleted and all spam, which I'm pretty sure he got a ton of since his email is probably available online. I imagine Congresspeople get 20x my emails easily. Especially when they probably got tons of emails after 2 sexting scandals.
|
On October 31 2016 05:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2016 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2016 05:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 31 2016 05:36 ImFromPortugal wrote:Before and after the latest FBI news about the new e-mails You do know what the words "editorial" and "opinion" mean, right? It's not just them though, someone showed Krugman's meltdown earlier, I posted a video with one of her congressional surrogates suggesting the Russians might have given the new emails over to the FBI, and there's plenty more examples of Hillary supporters doing a 180 on Comey. Feels relevant to ask who is Krugman and wtf is a "congressional surrogate"?
Besides all the things GH mentioned, a fan favorite for people who want a smart-sounding pro-Hillary opinion to parrot as if it were their own.
|
On October 31 2016 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2016 05:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 31 2016 05:36 ImFromPortugal wrote:Before and after the latest FBI news about the new e-mails You do know what the words "editorial" and "opinion" mean, right? It's not just them though, someone showed Krugman's meltdown earlier, I posted a video with one of her congressional surrogates suggesting the Russians might have given the new emails over to the FBI, and there's plenty more examples of Hillary supporters doing a 180 on Comey.
I don't understand the whole 180 thing.
So once you have said someone did something right or defended him over something, you are supposed to not say that something else he does another day is completely crazy or stupid?
Let's be real there. If Comey has something big on Clinton, he should release it. But breaking protocol and say NINE DAYS BEFORE AN ELECTION : "Oh we have new stuff, but we won't tell you what at all, so we open the investigation again but we will keep you in the dark so you'll only know if we have a video of her murdering a puppy saying Allah Akbar with islamic communist terrorist or if it's not much, but it doesn't matter, does it?" is a bit weird.
Clinton has answered basically asking him to release what he has because his method is frankly toxic for the democratic process and really irresponsible in such times of hysteria, demonization and conspiracy theories.
|
On October 31 2016 05:57 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2016 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2016 05:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 31 2016 05:36 ImFromPortugal wrote:Before and after the latest FBI news about the new e-mails You do know what the words "editorial" and "opinion" mean, right? It's not just them though, someone showed Krugman's meltdown earlier, I posted a video with one of her congressional surrogates suggesting the Russians might have given the new emails over to the FBI, and there's plenty more examples of Hillary supporters doing a 180 on Comey. You seem to figure these people have been caught in a contradiction. But it seems perfectly consistent to believe that Comey's judgment in his previous statements was pretty good, but that putting this letter out (specifically against the DoJ's policy) reflects bad judgment that gets the FBI involved in influencing the election in an irresponsible way. I might like Obama well enough now, but if tomorrow he declares martial law I'll "do a 180" on Obama and be quite critical of him.
I'm not familiar with the DOJ's policy you're referring to, do you have a link?
Some did. They shut down any accusation Comey could even be possibly doing a bad job (or made a mistake), then as soon as he does something that may hurt their candidate it's fair game to say he's "damaging our democracy". Yet people who say his use of "extreme carelessness" damaged our democracy are shut down without a second thought.
|
On October 31 2016 05:59 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2016 05:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 31 2016 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2016 05:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 31 2016 05:36 ImFromPortugal wrote:Before and after the latest FBI news about the new e-mails You do know what the words "editorial" and "opinion" mean, right? It's not just them though, someone showed Krugman's meltdown earlier, I posted a video with one of her congressional surrogates suggesting the Russians might have given the new emails over to the FBI, and there's plenty more examples of Hillary supporters doing a 180 on Comey. Feels relevant to ask who is Krugman and wtf is a "congressional surrogate"? Besides all the things GH mentioned, a fan favorite for people who want a smart-sounding pro-Hillary opinion to parrot as if it were their own.
That's gratuitous as hell. You could say the same to dismiss every influent thinker and opinion makers and people who find them interesting.
|
An email chain that is 20 emails long creates around 40 seperate email files. Any office professional has many, many emails because of that.
|
On October 31 2016 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2016 05:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 31 2016 05:36 ImFromPortugal wrote:Before and after the latest FBI news about the new e-mails You do know what the words "editorial" and "opinion" mean, right? It's not just them though, someone showed Krugman's meltdown earlier, I posted a video with one of her congressional surrogates suggesting the Russians might have given the new emails over to the FBI, and there's plenty more examples of Hillary supporters doing a 180 on Comey.
Both sides are doing 180s, it's actually kind of hilarious.
Anyways, Krugman seems to have encapsulated liberal thought on the matter pretty well here :
|
On October 31 2016 05:36 ImFromPortugal wrote:Before and after the latest FBI news about the new e-mails
uhhhhh do you know what the opinion section is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
