EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5835
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On November 01 2016 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote: Yeah, no one is doubting they were in contact, but CNN didn't have a problem with those messages, because they were typical communications, the one's between Donna and Hillary's campaign are the ones that made them "completely uncomfortable". ? Those emails are from the Podesta leaks, not the DNC ones. afaik CNN doesn't have the messages between Brazile and the Sanders' camp. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On November 01 2016 06:15 farvacola wrote: Warren must stay in the Senate; she's literally one of the only legislators on Capitol Hill who has the financial acumen needed to pass effective reform. Her work on opposing BAPCPA is really quite good, and many of her predictions in the area of bankruptcy have come true. That said, she does seem a bit blustery, though as one of the only senators who actually speaks out on financial reform in a substantive way, that seems difficult to avoid. this is why we need russ feingold back in the senate. warren understands how things work and what's wrong, but she doesn't get how to make them work better in the real world. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28559 Posts
On November 01 2016 04:05 TheTenthDoc wrote: Don't forget he's an atheist Muslim but is secretly planning to enact the radical agenda of his pastor. Or the FEMA camps. Guy is a literal demon from Hell. Donald Trump has said the guy behind that quote has 'an amazing reputation'. I agree with Clutz that the Clintons can be demonized in ways that the Obamas can't be. 'Crooked Obama' would not have stuck in the same way it does with Hillary. But like, 41% of republicans (as late as August 11th) still think he is not born in the US. That is a super crazy figure and really shows how many people have bought into a pretty wild conspiracy. 54% think he's a muslim. If the Obamas were running against Trump now, I'd expect these numbers to be even higher, although admittingly these allegations might not ever have gained as much traction as 'Hillary is slightly or fully corrupt' does. Anyway, while not every way of being scandalous can be attributed equally well to everyone, nobody is immune to a smear campaign, especially in a political climate this polarized. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22725 Posts
On November 01 2016 06:21 WolfintheSheep wrote: ? Those emails are from the Podesta leaks, not the DNC ones. afaik CNN doesn't have the messages between Brazile and the Sanders' camp. Not sure what you're suggesting then? That there are also (astonishingly elusive) emails sent between Donna and Bernie's campaign that would make CNN "completely uncomfortable", that they shouldn't have been uncomfortable with Donna giving Hillary debate questions (and repeatedly lying about it), or something else? | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On November 01 2016 06:11 TheTenthDoc wrote: I don't think sexism played much of a role, if any role, in the Democratic primary, but Warren would not have helped anything. When Warren endorsed Clinton, the progressives in the party instantly turned on her in a heartbeat. Even picking Sanders wouldn't have done much to soothe the Anti-Clinton wing of the progressives in the party. I don't think Mormons will spend a millisecond listening to a call from a white nationalist. I have no idea why he started the call that way. Yeah, if anything I actually think it will help McMullin. Pretty bizarre choice, but no one ever claimed that white nationalists were good at politics in 2016. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On November 01 2016 06:01 Lazare1969 wrote: Bernie did strongly in the primaries because many Democrats wanted a progressive presidential nominee, not because of some patriarchal conspiracy that you seem to be suggesting. Hillary would not be having as much difficulty with parts of the Democratic base if she chose Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders as her running mate. Instead she chose the centrist Tim Kaine. Which is basically a big middle finger to all of those who campaigned for Bernie's progressive platform. I don't think Bernie's popularity was a patriarchal response to Hillary. But I do feel that the (mainly online) hate towards Hillary has been primarily as skewed as it has been because of her sex. When was the last time you've heard a presidential candidate be told they can't be trusted because of what other people did as opposed to what she did? The closest in recent memory was Obama (because his mother had sex with a black man) and possibly George Bush for being the son of George Bush (although that wasn't really that loud until they proposed invading Iraq). But speaking as a Hillary supporter--Kaine has been the dumbest strategic move she's made in an otherwise flawless campaign (strategically, there's definitely been bumps along the way, but strategically she's been very precise). I don't even mind Kaine as a politician, he's someone that gets his hands dirty and isn't afraid to make stands that doesn't make him friends; I even think he would have made a very good VP for someone like Sanders, but having the centrist be put side by side with another centrist just feels amateurish and is a blunder I would have expect Bernie to do, not Hillary. If Bernie won the primaries I have no doubt he would have picked another far left candidate as his VP reenforcing the "he's a communist" narrative the GOP would push (that he won't even fight very much against due to his voter base) and we will be 3/4's into the election with with Bernie spending most of his energy telling the right that he's not actually going to be "that extreme" and telling the GOP supporters what they want instead of actually listening to them. Hillary should have either picked a far left candidate or a far right. A good example of a far left candidate would have bee Warren, and she would have been if the BernieBros did not eat her alive just for saying she supported Hillary. If she went the other way then a more right leaning candidate akin to John Edwards, Al Gore, or Barack Obama (were he white) would have been the more fitting way to show that she cared about more fiscal focused issues. My guess is that she picked Kaine to try to create the "illusion" that she's the liberal one of the two of them--but they're a little too similar for that to really be the perception. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
No my friend, Hillary earned the criticism she gets on her own merits. A true woman empowerment story, to be criticized on the demerits of her own inadequacies. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On November 01 2016 06:50 LegalLord wrote: Oh dang, someone is unironically trying to say that people aren't fans of Hillary because they are sexist? No my friend, Hillary earned the criticism she gets on her own merits. A true woman empowerment story, to be criticized on the demerits of her own inadequacies. And what inadequacies are those? Emails from other people? Being payed to do speeches? Being in line with other democrats? Wasn't it having a husband? Maybe it was the decreased attacks on embassies during her tenure? Was it being supportive of popular reforms 20+ years ago? Was it being willing to listen to arguments from others and shift her opinions later? What inadequacies are you suggesting? | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On November 01 2016 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote: Not sure what you're suggesting then? That there are also (astonishingly elusive) emails sent between Donna and Bernie's campaign that would make CNN "completely uncomfortable", that they shouldn't have been uncomfortable with Donna giving Hillary debate questions, or something else? Nothing astonishingly elusive about it? Brazile's emails aren't from a DNC account (I don't think? That looks like a personal domain), so they wouldn't be in the DNC leak. Podesta is not a Bernie campaign manager, so there won't be any Bernie camp emails in that leak. When Sanders' press secretary is basically saying "yeah, she talked to us too" after hearing this, to me it means that the Democratic primary rules are really lax when it comes to this stuff, or Brazile just has loose lips with everyone. Which is fine for CNN to be concerned about, but doesn't say much about the primaries. Context of those emails is confusing as well. Death penalty one, the response is basically "forward [Brazile] Hillary's standard answer", which doesn't make sense if it's a heads-up for debate questions. Were these even debate questions? Some of them sound more like prep for press conferences. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 01 2016 06:53 Thieving Magpie wrote: And what inadequacies are those? Emails from other people? Being payed to do speeches? Being in line with other democrats? Wasn't it having a husband? Maybe it was the decreased attacks on embassies during her tenure? Was it being supportive of popular reforms 20+ years ago? Was it being willing to listen to arguments from others and shift her opinions later? What inadequacies are you suggesting? You know damn well what the major criticisms of Hillary are and that all the ones that matter have jack shit to do with what her gender is. You can agree or not with the actual criticisms but don't play this stupid identity politics game. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States41992 Posts
On November 01 2016 07:04 biology]major wrote: At page 5835 in the US Politics Megathread, a brave poster asked what deficiencies HRC has in an unironic manner. The vast majority of people can't explain what it was exactly that she was meant to have done wrong, when asked. You probably could, especially when put on the spot with access to the internet, but the man on the street? I doubt it. | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On November 01 2016 07:00 LegalLord wrote: You know damn well what the major criticisms of Hillary are and that all the ones that matter have jack shit to do with what her gender is. You can agree or not with the actual criticisms but don't play this stupid identity politics game. The Trump camp's big criticism at the second debate was the HRC stood by her man even though Bill was a rapist**. Do you remember the 4 Bill accusers being sat at the debate? That was an out and out attack on her as a woman. ** Ken Starr found the accusations inconclusive http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-clinton-broaddrick_us_57fae930e4b0e655eab54dee | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22725 Posts
On November 01 2016 06:57 WolfintheSheep wrote: Nothing astonishingly elusive about it? Brazile's emails aren't from a DNC account (I don't think? That looks like a personal domain), so they wouldn't be in the DNC leak. Podesta is not a Bernie campaign manager, so there won't be any Bernie camp emails in that leak. When Sanders' press secretary is basically saying "yeah, she talked to us too" after hearing this, to me it means that the Democratic primary rules are really lax when it comes to this stuff, or Brazile just has loose lips with everyone. Which is fine for CNN to be concerned about, but doesn't say much about the primaries. Context of those emails is confusing as well. Death penalty one, the response is basically "forward [Brazile] Hillary's standard answer", which doesn't make sense if it's a heads-up for debate questions. Were these even debate questions? Some of them sound more like prep for press conferences. The email obtained by POLITICO was written by town hall co-moderator Roland Martin on the day of the town hall to CNN producers. But it shows him using word for word the language of a question that Brazile appeared to have sent to the Clinton campaign a day earlier. That email, from Brazile to the campaign, was included in yesterday's release of hacked emails by Wikileaks of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta. Here's what the record shows: On March 12, Brazile, then vice chair of the DNC and a CNN and ABC contributor, allegedly wrote an email with the subject line "From time to time I get the questions in advance." It continues: Here's one that worries me about HRC. DEATH PENALTY 19 states and the District of Columbia have banned the death penalty. 31 states, including Ohio, still have the death penalty. According to the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, since 1973, 156 people have been on death row and later set free. Since 1976, 1,414 people have been executed in the U.S. That’s 11% of Americans who were sentenced to die, but later exonerated and freed. Should Ohio and the 30 other states join the current list and abolish the death penalty? Jennifer Palmieri, director of communications for the Clinton campaign, wrote back within three hours, seemingly not as worried: Hi. Yes, it is one she gets asked about. Not everyone likes her answer but can share it. She then instructs a copied employee to share the campaign's standard answer to the question to Brazile. The next day, Roland Martin, a host on the TV One cable network who was co-hosting the town hall with CNN's Jake Tapper, sent an email to CNN producers with three questions, the third of which dealt with the death penalty. POLITICO obtained that email, and here's the text of the third question: DEATH PENALTY 19 states and the District of Columbia have banned the death penalty. 31 states, including Ohio, still have the death penalty. According to the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, since 1973, 156 people have been on death row and later set free. Since 1976, 1,414 people have been executed in the U.S. That’s 11% of Americans who were sentenced to die, but later exonerated and freed. Should Ohio and the 30 other states join the current list and abolish the death penalty? The wording, spacing, capitalization are identical. At the town hall later on the same day Martin sent the question to CNN producers, Martin introduced an audience member who asked Clinton about the death penalty with similar language. "Secretary Clinton, since 1976, we have executed 1,414 people in this country. Since 1973, 156 who were convicted have been exonerated from the death row. This gentleman here is one of them. This is Ricky Jackson, wrongfully convicted of murder in 1975, he spent 39 years in prison. He is undecided. Ricky, what is your question?" Martin said before introducing questioner Ricky Jackson. Source | ||
|
KwarK
United States41992 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On November 01 2016 07:00 LegalLord wrote: You know damn well what the major criticisms of Hillary are and that all the ones that matter have jack shit to do with what her gender is. You can agree or not with the actual criticisms but don't play this stupid identity politics game. Her criticism boils down to being called a warhawk for voting for Iraq and apologizing for it, being called corrupt for having employees who email each other with nothing corrupt in the emails, and for being payed to make speeches like lots of other famous people do all around the world. Is she perfect? Of course she isn't. But it amazes me how much vitriol she gets on this thread from people who literally are unable to present evidence for their accusations. Is she possibly corrupt? Sure, I'm certain all politicians are corrupt if they're good at what they do. But do we have evidence of it? What about her supposed control of the election rigging? Do we have evidence of it? What about her being a warhawk--what's the evidence of it that we have? A vote she made that she regrets doing ~15 years ago? Being the SoS during Obama's term? Do we blame Powell for Iraq? Is no president at fault for any war or conflict? Only the SoS? The arguments used on her are, for the most part, inconsistent and are not evidence based. Purely speculatory--which is something only crazy people and conspiracy theorists do. The rest of criticism of her are criticisms of the Democratic party as a policy maker for the past 30 years. Her not being pro-gay marriage back when the DNC was not pro-gay marriage, her passing crime reform laws when a large segment of the african america community asked for crime reform, etc... All things that were simply truisms of being a democrat at the time. But she has to bear the burden for it for no other reason than she is Hillary Clinton. All things Hillary apologized for and has shifted stances on. (Shifting stances based on new evidence is another thing she's criticized of, which explains why a lot of her attackers shift to the anti-science GreenParty) Why do they attack these instead of attacking her policies and platforms? Is it because people agree that increasing minimum wage is good? Is it because people agree that making education easier for the poor is good? Is it because people agree that tax reform is important? Is it because people agree that Citizen's United needs to be overturned? Maybe its because people agree that women's rights are important? No one attacks her policies. They attack things she said 15-20 years ago because the plans she has now is unimportant to them, because the words she has now is unimportant to them, because they agree with the policies she is trying to enforce, because they agree with the policies she is trying to get off the ground. Not all of them, not 100% of her policies--but most of them. The policies people are uncertain about? People disagree whether or not we should help victims of genocide. Some people are okay with genocide so long as its dark people--just look at Africa. People disagree whether or not its possible the public voted for a woman instead of a Jew. And despite having zero evidence and her opponent only really winning low turnout states, they still find it unfathomable. I do not mind having criticism against her. But actually criticize the policies she is trying to push. I don't like Trump. Not because he's conservative, not because he speaks in a stupid manner, and not because he is orange--but because of what he promises, and because of what he has said he wants to do. No one is attacking Clinton's policies because, for the most part, they're almost exactly the same as Bernie's policies, they're almost exactly the same as the Democratic status quo. Most of the people who are criticizing her are being super dishonest about the reasons they are attacking her. And its frustrating as all hell. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
| ||
