|
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 November 02 2016 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 03:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 00:37 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:35 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:30 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:28 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:23 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:19 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Would you vote for Trump in my scenario if it turned out she was extensively - and directly - involved in perpetuating the Rwandan Genocide?
(purely hypothetical, there's no follow up "bombshell" I'm intending to link for this question) No, but I would support her indictment and trial for war crimes following Kaine taking office. Alright, then let's up the stakes a little bit. Say that tomorrow, Congress passes a law - and Obama signs - which holds that anyone elected president is immune from prosecution for all crimes committed before taking office, starting from when said candidate becomes president-elect until their last day in office. Would you vote for Trump then? No. And furthermore if she said she was going to use her four years exclusively to roam the country and hunt people for sport while using that new sovereign immunity from prosecution I'd still vote for her over Trump. Well, if you'd vote for genocidal sovereign immunity Clinton over as-is Trump, then I guess your support for her is about as rock-solid as it gets. There's only so much damage she can do in the next four years. I'd go back to Europe though. This is just such a different tone coming out of Hillary supporters than it was in the primary. "So what if maybe she murdered a couple thousand people, ran a pedo ring, and took bribes, we HAVE to stop Trump!" I also love how it went from "We don't need those stupid BernieBros anyway" to "well if she loses it's because sexism and stupid BernieBros". If Hillary loses she and her supporters have no one to blame but themselves. Her supporters made a big stink about Trump saying he could shoot someone on 5th ave, meanwhile Hillary supporters would vote for her even if she dropped a bomb on 5th ave. let me help you out since you seem to have a little trouble following the series of posts you quoted: you do realize this was after a long drawn out hypothetical about if hitlery/ killary was a real thing, right? Yes I know. I wasn't implying they were facts, just that if they were, most of her supporters would still be voting for her. briefly humoring the hypothetical, one of the cool features of american democracy is a thing called checks and balances.
Sometimes it's just nice to see it there in black and white (or faded baby blue as it were). I knew it way back when Trump made his statement, but I didn't want to believe it.
|
On November 02 2016 04:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 03:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 00:37 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:35 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:30 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:28 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:23 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
No, but I would support her indictment and trial for war crimes following Kaine taking office. Alright, then let's up the stakes a little bit. Say that tomorrow, Congress passes a law - and Obama signs - which holds that anyone elected president is immune from prosecution for all crimes committed before taking office, starting from when said candidate becomes president-elect until their last day in office. Would you vote for Drumpf then? No. And furthermore if she said she was going to use her four years exclusively to roam the country and hunt people for sport while using that new sovereign immunity from prosecution I'd still vote for her over Drumpf. Well, if you'd vote for genocidal sovereign immunity Clinton over as-is Drumpf, then I guess your support for her is about as rock-solid as it gets. There's only so much damage she can do in the next four years. I'd go back to Europe though. This is just such a different tone coming out of Hillary supporters than it was in the primary. "So what if maybe she murdered a couple thousand people, ran a pedo ring, and took bribes, we HAVE to stop Drumpf!" I also love how it went from "We don't need those stupid BernieBros anyway" to "well if she loses it's because sexism and stupid BernieBros". If Hillary loses she and her supporters have no one to blame but themselves. Her supporters made a big stink about Drumpf saying he could shoot someone on 5th ave, meanwhile Hillary supporters would vote for her even if she dropped a bomb on 5th ave. let me help you out since you seem to have a little trouble following the series of posts you quoted: you do realize this was after a long drawn out hypothetical about if hitlery/ killary was a real thing, right? Yes I know. I wasn't implying they were facts, just that if they were, most of her supporters would still be voting for her. briefly humoring the hypothetical, one of the cool features of american democracy is a thing called checks and balances. Sometimes it's just nice to see it there in black and white (or faded baby blue as it were). I knew it way back when Drumpf made his statement, but I didn't want to believe it.
Actually yeah I would still probably vote for her. But heres the beauty of hypotheticals. They are hypothetical and dont actually change anything in reality, and reality is what you are struggling with
And yeah if Hillary gets indicted or whatever I would still vote for her so she gets impeached and Kaine gets in easy;
|
On November 02 2016 04:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 03:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 00:37 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:35 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:30 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:28 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:23 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
No, but I would support her indictment and trial for war crimes following Kaine taking office. Alright, then let's up the stakes a little bit. Say that tomorrow, Congress passes a law - and Obama signs - which holds that anyone elected president is immune from prosecution for all crimes committed before taking office, starting from when said candidate becomes president-elect until their last day in office. Would you vote for Trump then? No. And furthermore if she said she was going to use her four years exclusively to roam the country and hunt people for sport while using that new sovereign immunity from prosecution I'd still vote for her over Trump. Well, if you'd vote for genocidal sovereign immunity Clinton over as-is Trump, then I guess your support for her is about as rock-solid as it gets. There's only so much damage she can do in the next four years. I'd go back to Europe though. This is just such a different tone coming out of Hillary supporters than it was in the primary. "So what if maybe she murdered a couple thousand people, ran a pedo ring, and took bribes, we HAVE to stop Trump!" I also love how it went from "We don't need those stupid BernieBros anyway" to "well if she loses it's because sexism and stupid BernieBros". If Hillary loses she and her supporters have no one to blame but themselves. Her supporters made a big stink about Trump saying he could shoot someone on 5th ave, meanwhile Hillary supporters would vote for her even if she dropped a bomb on 5th ave. let me help you out since you seem to have a little trouble following the series of posts you quoted: you do realize this was after a long drawn out hypothetical about if hitlery/ killary was a real thing, right? Yes I know. I wasn't implying they were facts, just that if they were, most of her supporters would still be voting for her. briefly humoring the hypothetical, one of the cool features of american democracy is a thing called checks and balances. Sometimes it's just nice to see it there in black and white (or faded baby blue as it were). I knew it way back when Trump made his statement, but I didn't want to believe it.
are you being deliberately obtuse or is this one of those only GH gets it things?
On November 02 2016 04:10 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 04:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 03:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 00:37 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:35 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:30 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:28 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Alright, then let's up the stakes a little bit. Say that tomorrow, Congress passes a law - and Obama signs - which holds that anyone elected president is immune from prosecution for all crimes committed before taking office, starting from when said candidate becomes president-elect until their last day in office. Would you vote for Drumpf then? No. And furthermore if she said she was going to use her four years exclusively to roam the country and hunt people for sport while using that new sovereign immunity from prosecution I'd still vote for her over Drumpf. Well, if you'd vote for genocidal sovereign immunity Clinton over as-is Drumpf, then I guess your support for her is about as rock-solid as it gets. There's only so much damage she can do in the next four years. I'd go back to Europe though. This is just such a different tone coming out of Hillary supporters than it was in the primary. "So what if maybe she murdered a couple thousand people, ran a pedo ring, and took bribes, we HAVE to stop Drumpf!" I also love how it went from "We don't need those stupid BernieBros anyway" to "well if she loses it's because sexism and stupid BernieBros". If Hillary loses she and her supporters have no one to blame but themselves. Her supporters made a big stink about Drumpf saying he could shoot someone on 5th ave, meanwhile Hillary supporters would vote for her even if she dropped a bomb on 5th ave. let me help you out since you seem to have a little trouble following the series of posts you quoted: you do realize this was after a long drawn out hypothetical about if hitlery/ killary was a real thing, right? Yes I know. I wasn't implying they were facts, just that if they were, most of her supporters would still be voting for her. briefly humoring the hypothetical, one of the cool features of american democracy is a thing called checks and balances. Sometimes it's just nice to see it there in black and white (or faded baby blue as it were). I knew it way back when Drumpf made his statement, but I didn't want to believe it. Actually yeah I would still probably vote for her. But heres the beauty of hypotheticals. They are hypothetical and dont actually change anything in reality, and reality is what you are struggling with And yeah if Hillary gets indicted or whatever I would still vote for her so she gets impeached and Kaine gets in easy;
pretty much this. hillary would have to show she'd do worse than trump at both setting us back on various progressive issues and damaging our democracy. otherwise i'll get drunk, hold my nose and vote her and take a shower afterwards. having trump wreck our relationships with economic and military allies abroad while pence dials us back to the 60's on social issues and ryan pushes through his bullshit reforms with another couple decades of supreme court justices is a pretty heavy weight.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 02 2016 03:34 ticklishmusic wrote:wheres krugbro?
i think he's not allowed to do political endorsements by nytimes
|
On November 02 2016 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
So what we're likely going to have is some severe whiplash, and I'd rather it be the disenfranchised progressives be the ones up in arms rather than the Trumpkins inspired by ongoing investigations, potential criminal charges (if she could be charged as president), and more exposing, combined with the optics of working with countries that previously donated millions or corporations that have paid her and her husband millions.
Any type of theorizing like this that entertains the possibility of a trump presidency is some serious misjudgment. I don't care what anyone in Hillary's camp has said to you prior to right now, you're entertaining the possibility of a trump presidency.
|
United States42009 Posts
On November 02 2016 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 00:37 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:35 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:30 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:28 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:23 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:19 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:13 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:11 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:08 zlefin wrote:
Why no escape clauses? that seems dumb, since in reality there are in fact escape clauses. Because the entire purpose is to see what it would take for said Hillary supporters to be so turned off from her that they would vote for Trump. Like, how bad does it have to be for them to actually tick off Trump in the ballot booth because Hillary was bad enough. For me the question reads "what would it take for you to support the rise of fascism?" so you can see how it's a tricky one to really answer. As I said, certainly not murder or anything like that. Would you vote for Trump in my scenario if it turned out she was extensively - and directly - involved in perpetuating the Rwandan Genocide? (purely hypothetical, there's no follow up "bombshell" I'm intending to link for this question) No, but I would support her indictment and trial for war crimes following Kaine taking office. Alright, then let's up the stakes a little bit. Say that tomorrow, Congress passes a law - and Obama signs - which holds that anyone elected president is immune from prosecution for all crimes committed before taking office, starting from when said candidate becomes president-elect until their last day in office. Would you vote for Trump then? No. And furthermore if she said she was going to use her four years exclusively to roam the country and hunt people for sport while using that new sovereign immunity from prosecution I'd still vote for her over Trump. Well, if you'd vote for genocidal sovereign immunity Clinton over as-is Trump, then I guess your support for her is about as rock-solid as it gets. There's only so much damage she can do in the next four years. I'd go back to Europe though. This is just such a different tone coming out of Hillary supporters than it was in the primary. "So what if maybe she murdered a couple thousand people, ran a pedo ring, and took bribes, we HAVE to stop Trump!" I also love how it went from "We don't need those stupid BernieBros anyway" to "well if she loses it's because sexism and stupid BernieBros". If Hillary loses she and her supporters have no one to blame but themselves. Her supporters made a big stink about Trump saying he could shoot someone on 5th ave, meanwhile Hillary supporters would vote for her even if she dropped a bomb on 5th ave.
People are asking what Hillary would have to do to make her as bad as Trump already is. Fortunately we're not in a position where we have to choose between the murdering pedophile and the fascist, racist, sexist, incompetent braggart because Hillary hasn't done the things that would make this a tough call.
This shouldn't be close but it is. What matters at this point is whether you do your civic duty and vote against fascism (in one of the states that matters, you do you GH).
|
On November 02 2016 04:10 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 04:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 03:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 00:37 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:35 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:30 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:28 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Alright, then let's up the stakes a little bit. Say that tomorrow, Congress passes a law - and Obama signs - which holds that anyone elected president is immune from prosecution for all crimes committed before taking office, starting from when said candidate becomes president-elect until their last day in office. Would you vote for Drumpf then? No. And furthermore if she said she was going to use her four years exclusively to roam the country and hunt people for sport while using that new sovereign immunity from prosecution I'd still vote for her over Drumpf. Well, if you'd vote for genocidal sovereign immunity Clinton over as-is Drumpf, then I guess your support for her is about as rock-solid as it gets. There's only so much damage she can do in the next four years. I'd go back to Europe though. This is just such a different tone coming out of Hillary supporters than it was in the primary. "So what if maybe she murdered a couple thousand people, ran a pedo ring, and took bribes, we HAVE to stop Drumpf!" I also love how it went from "We don't need those stupid BernieBros anyway" to "well if she loses it's because sexism and stupid BernieBros". If Hillary loses she and her supporters have no one to blame but themselves. Her supporters made a big stink about Drumpf saying he could shoot someone on 5th ave, meanwhile Hillary supporters would vote for her even if she dropped a bomb on 5th ave. let me help you out since you seem to have a little trouble following the series of posts you quoted: you do realize this was after a long drawn out hypothetical about if hitlery/ killary was a real thing, right? Yes I know. I wasn't implying they were facts, just that if they were, most of her supporters would still be voting for her. briefly humoring the hypothetical, one of the cool features of american democracy is a thing called checks and balances. Sometimes it's just nice to see it there in black and white (or faded baby blue as it were). I knew it way back when Drumpf made his statement, but I didn't want to believe it. Actually yeah I would still probably vote for her. But heres the beauty of hypotheticals. They are hypothetical and dont actually change anything in reality, and reality is what you are struggling with And yeah if Hillary gets indicted or whatever I would still vote for her so she gets impeached and Kaine gets in easy;
I think it exposes the argument for what it is. "We support Hillary, basically no matter what", that's fine, just don't pretend that the reasons others don't is only because they are childish, ignorant, etc... (not saying you personally, but it's frequent here). Some people just draw their line before we get to international child slave rings, and bombing 5th ave and there's nothing wrong with that. Also, it makes the case for Trump supporters, in their view, Trump can do almost anything and still be closer to their values than Clinton.
If bombing 5th ave wouldn't sway a Hillary supporter they have no ground to say that Trump supporters who don't disown him after his "grab her by the pussy" comment are any worse than they would be provided the circumstances were different.
@Ticklish, Rebs got it, think it's just you having a hard time keeping up.
|
On November 02 2016 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 04:10 Rebs wrote:On November 02 2016 04:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 03:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 00:37 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:35 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:30 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
No. And furthermore if she said she was going to use her four years exclusively to roam the country and hunt people for sport while using that new sovereign immunity from prosecution I'd still vote for her over Drumpf. Well, if you'd vote for genocidal sovereign immunity Clinton over as-is Drumpf, then I guess your support for her is about as rock-solid as it gets. There's only so much damage she can do in the next four years. I'd go back to Europe though. This is just such a different tone coming out of Hillary supporters than it was in the primary. "So what if maybe she murdered a couple thousand people, ran a pedo ring, and took bribes, we HAVE to stop Drumpf!" I also love how it went from "We don't need those stupid BernieBros anyway" to "well if she loses it's because sexism and stupid BernieBros". If Hillary loses she and her supporters have no one to blame but themselves. Her supporters made a big stink about Drumpf saying he could shoot someone on 5th ave, meanwhile Hillary supporters would vote for her even if she dropped a bomb on 5th ave. let me help you out since you seem to have a little trouble following the series of posts you quoted: you do realize this was after a long drawn out hypothetical about if hitlery/ killary was a real thing, right? Yes I know. I wasn't implying they were facts, just that if they were, most of her supporters would still be voting for her. briefly humoring the hypothetical, one of the cool features of american democracy is a thing called checks and balances. Sometimes it's just nice to see it there in black and white (or faded baby blue as it were). I knew it way back when Drumpf made his statement, but I didn't want to believe it. Actually yeah I would still probably vote for her. But heres the beauty of hypotheticals. They are hypothetical and dont actually change anything in reality, and reality is what you are struggling with And yeah if Hillary gets indicted or whatever I would still vote for her so she gets impeached and Kaine gets in easy; I think it exposes the argument for what it is. "We support Hillary, basically no matter what", that's fine, just don't pretend that the reasons others don't is only because they are childish, ignorant, etc... (not saying you personally, but it's frequent here). Some people just draw their line before we get to international child slave rings, and bombing 5th ave and there's nothing wrong with that. Also, it makes the case for Trump supporters, in their view, Trump can do almost anything and still be closer to their values than Clinton. If bombing 5th ave wouldn't sway a Hillary supporter they have no ground to say that Trump supporters who don't disown him after his "grab her by the pussy" comment are any worse than they would be provided the circumstances were different. @Ticklish, Rebs got it, think it's just you having a hard time keeping up.
i knew i shouldn't have entertained bullshit hypotheticals for even a moment. i suppose i'm still too charitable even one week before the election and after a year plus of this inanity.
|
On November 02 2016 03:02 oneofthem wrote:
the thing about the hillary emails is basically how serious and committed she is about the work of government. reading through all of them should dispel all the conspiratorial notions but people just look for various signs of scandal.
it's kind of like a witch trial.
I've found the opposite, no surprise there. Her and her aides are shrewd political operatives concerned with their own success and sometimes incompetent with technology. The best ones are the tweets-by-committee email chains going through many replies to get the phrasing for a single tweet. Podesta shows team loyalty trumps all when he curses a major donor interested in green energy issues. They're intimately tied to grooming and rewarding favorable reporters. It's a corrupt clan and America will deserve the kind of government she's likely to run, having seen all of it beforehand and still voted in the electors.
|
On November 02 2016 04:20 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 04:10 Rebs wrote:On November 02 2016 04:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 03:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 00:37 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:35 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Well, if you'd vote for genocidal sovereign immunity Clinton over as-is Drumpf, then I guess your support for her is about as rock-solid as it gets. There's only so much damage she can do in the next four years. I'd go back to Europe though. This is just such a different tone coming out of Hillary supporters than it was in the primary. "So what if maybe she murdered a couple thousand people, ran a pedo ring, and took bribes, we HAVE to stop Drumpf!" I also love how it went from "We don't need those stupid BernieBros anyway" to "well if she loses it's because sexism and stupid BernieBros". If Hillary loses she and her supporters have no one to blame but themselves. Her supporters made a big stink about Drumpf saying he could shoot someone on 5th ave, meanwhile Hillary supporters would vote for her even if she dropped a bomb on 5th ave. let me help you out since you seem to have a little trouble following the series of posts you quoted: you do realize this was after a long drawn out hypothetical about if hitlery/ killary was a real thing, right? Yes I know. I wasn't implying they were facts, just that if they were, most of her supporters would still be voting for her. briefly humoring the hypothetical, one of the cool features of american democracy is a thing called checks and balances. Sometimes it's just nice to see it there in black and white (or faded baby blue as it were). I knew it way back when Drumpf made his statement, but I didn't want to believe it. Actually yeah I would still probably vote for her. But heres the beauty of hypotheticals. They are hypothetical and dont actually change anything in reality, and reality is what you are struggling with And yeah if Hillary gets indicted or whatever I would still vote for her so she gets impeached and Kaine gets in easy; I think it exposes the argument for what it is. "We support Hillary, basically no matter what", that's fine, just don't pretend that the reasons others don't is only because they are childish, ignorant, etc... (not saying you personally, but it's frequent here). Some people just draw their line before we get to international child slave rings, and bombing 5th ave and there's nothing wrong with that. Also, it makes the case for Trump supporters, in their view, Trump can do almost anything and still be closer to their values than Clinton. If bombing 5th ave wouldn't sway a Hillary supporter they have no ground to say that Trump supporters who don't disown him after his "grab her by the pussy" comment are any worse than they would be provided the circumstances were different. @Ticklish, Rebs got it, think it's just you having a hard time keeping up. i knew i shouldn't have entertained bullshit hypotheticals for even a moment. i suppose i'm still too charitable even one week before the election and after a year plus of this inanity.
People tend to avoid them when they expose a weakness, lesson learned.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 02 2016 04:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 03:02 oneofthem wrote:
the thing about the hillary emails is basically how serious and committed she is about the work of government. reading through all of them should dispel all the conspiratorial notions but people just look for various signs of scandal.
it's kind of like a witch trial. I've found the opposite, no surprise there. Her and her aides are shrewd political operatives concerned with their own success and sometimes incompetent with technology. The best ones are the tweets-by-committee email chains going through many replies to get the phrasing for a single tweet. Podesta shows team loyalty trumps all when he curses a major donor interested in green energy issues. They're intimately tied to grooming and rewarding favorable reporters. It's a corrupt clan and America will deserve the kind of government she's likely to run, having seen all of it beforehand and still voted in the electors.
i'm not talking about podesta emails. it's a campaign manager what did you expect?
i'm talking about state department emails.
|
On November 02 2016 04:02 zlefin wrote:
clutz -> ok, I haven't seen that video. at any rate, my points stand about him being trash, and his stuff not worth looking at; and the critiques I made previously and tenth said well.
the planned parenthood video, was also trash, and reprehensible, too bad the makers of it weren't convicted of something, cuz what they did was bad.
Like tenth said, people only care cuz it's the result they want, if you did a sting and found nothing, nobody would watch it, and the idiots who want to believe would just ignore it.
Yes, no one cares much if you do "find nothing", in theory. But, you actually would get a huge circilejerk from Huffpo, Vox, Slate, etc if you did an expose and found nothing and it would actually give the "rebuttals" credibility. Its actually a large opportunity to do real journalism.
Regardless, while IMO those are good projects because they have built-in bases, I just think they are examples rather than the overarching theme of what drives people away from the NYT or CNN. Something like Harry Reid's injuries is something of national interest, but our major media outlets just credulously believed his explanation (just like the Hillary illness thing, until she publicly collapsed, then they took her next explanation at face value).
These things are just a general lack of curiosity, like there was a massive lack of curiosity about Russian interference on the election until the general, when people were pointing this out at least as early as last October (2015). http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/05/john-schindler-talks-putin-intel-and-hillary-on-federalist-radio/
|
On November 02 2016 04:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 04:20 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 04:10 Rebs wrote:On November 02 2016 04:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 03:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 00:37 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
There's only so much damage she can do in the next four years. I'd go back to Europe though. This is just such a different tone coming out of Hillary supporters than it was in the primary. "So what if maybe she murdered a couple thousand people, ran a pedo ring, and took bribes, we HAVE to stop Drumpf!" I also love how it went from "We don't need those stupid BernieBros anyway" to "well if she loses it's because sexism and stupid BernieBros". If Hillary loses she and her supporters have no one to blame but themselves. Her supporters made a big stink about Drumpf saying he could shoot someone on 5th ave, meanwhile Hillary supporters would vote for her even if she dropped a bomb on 5th ave. let me help you out since you seem to have a little trouble following the series of posts you quoted: you do realize this was after a long drawn out hypothetical about if hitlery/ killary was a real thing, right? Yes I know. I wasn't implying they were facts, just that if they were, most of her supporters would still be voting for her. briefly humoring the hypothetical, one of the cool features of american democracy is a thing called checks and balances. Sometimes it's just nice to see it there in black and white (or faded baby blue as it were). I knew it way back when Drumpf made his statement, but I didn't want to believe it. Actually yeah I would still probably vote for her. But heres the beauty of hypotheticals. They are hypothetical and dont actually change anything in reality, and reality is what you are struggling with And yeah if Hillary gets indicted or whatever I would still vote for her so she gets impeached and Kaine gets in easy; I think it exposes the argument for what it is. "We support Hillary, basically no matter what", that's fine, just don't pretend that the reasons others don't is only because they are childish, ignorant, etc... (not saying you personally, but it's frequent here). Some people just draw their line before we get to international child slave rings, and bombing 5th ave and there's nothing wrong with that. Also, it makes the case for Drumpf supporters, in their view, Drumpf can do almost anything and still be closer to their values than Clinton. If bombing 5th ave wouldn't sway a Hillary supporter they have no ground to say that Drumpf supporters who don't disown him after his "grab her by the pussy" comment are any worse than they would be provided the circumstances were different. @Ticklish, Rebs got it, think it's just you having a hard time keeping up. i knew i shouldn't have entertained bullshit hypotheticals for even a moment. i suppose i'm still too charitable even one week before the election and after a year plus of this inanity. People tend to avoid them when they expose a weakness, lesson learned.
the whole point of the hypothetical was to expose the weakness. In reality the weakness is significantly weaker and most of them arent real, which is why we ground ourselves in reality and dont like to entertain bullshit hypotheticals.
(see waah I did there)
The scenario is literally one in which one is asked "how bad does Hillary have to be that one chooses Drumpf over her) So really its more of a reflection on how bad people think Drumpf is. Mind you Hillary could be literally anyone else and it still wouldnt matter in this sort of hypothetical.
But sure take it anyway you like to compliment your heavy dose of delusion.
On November 02 2016 04:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 04:10 Rebs wrote:On November 02 2016 04:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 03:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 00:37 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:35 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Well, if you'd vote for genocidal sovereign immunity Clinton over as-is Drumpf, then I guess your support for her is about as rock-solid as it gets. There's only so much damage she can do in the next four years. I'd go back to Europe though. This is just such a different tone coming out of Hillary supporters than it was in the primary. "So what if maybe she murdered a couple thousand people, ran a pedo ring, and took bribes, we HAVE to stop Drumpf!" I also love how it went from "We don't need those stupid BernieBros anyway" to "well if she loses it's because sexism and stupid BernieBros". If Hillary loses she and her supporters have no one to blame but themselves. Her supporters made a big stink about Drumpf saying he could shoot someone on 5th ave, meanwhile Hillary supporters would vote for her even if she dropped a bomb on 5th ave. let me help you out since you seem to have a little trouble following the series of posts you quoted: you do realize this was after a long drawn out hypothetical about if hitlery/ killary was a real thing, right? Yes I know. I wasn't implying they were facts, just that if they were, most of her supporters would still be voting for her. briefly humoring the hypothetical, one of the cool features of american democracy is a thing called checks and balances. Sometimes it's just nice to see it there in black and white (or faded baby blue as it were). I knew it way back when Drumpf made his statement, but I didn't want to believe it. Actually yeah I would still probably vote for her. But heres the beauty of hypotheticals. They are hypothetical and dont actually change anything in reality, and reality is what you are struggling with And yeah if Hillary gets indicted or whatever I would still vote for her so she gets impeached and Kaine gets in easy; I think it exposes the argument for what it is. "We support Hillary, basically no matter what", that's fine, just don't pretend that the reasons others don't is only because they are childish, ignorant, etc... (not saying you personally, but it's frequent here). Some people just draw their line before we get to international child slave rings, and bombing 5th ave and there's nothing wrong with that. Also, it makes the case for Drumpf supporters, in their view, Drumpf can do almost anything and still be closer to their values than Clinton. If bombing 5th ave wouldn't sway a Hillary supporter they have no ground to say that Drumpf supporters who don't disown him after his "grab her by the pussy" comment are any worse than they would be provided the circumstances were different. @Ticklish, Rebs got it, think it's just you having a hard time keeping up. It was an interesting comparison of what things an individual would find disqualifying. It turns out people knowingly tolerate quite a bit when it comes to Hillary, and to no great surprise.
See these are the kinds of leaps why bullshit hypotheticals are bad.
|
On November 02 2016 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 04:10 Rebs wrote:On November 02 2016 04:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 03:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 00:37 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:35 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:30 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
No. And furthermore if she said she was going to use her four years exclusively to roam the country and hunt people for sport while using that new sovereign immunity from prosecution I'd still vote for her over Drumpf. Well, if you'd vote for genocidal sovereign immunity Clinton over as-is Drumpf, then I guess your support for her is about as rock-solid as it gets. There's only so much damage she can do in the next four years. I'd go back to Europe though. This is just such a different tone coming out of Hillary supporters than it was in the primary. "So what if maybe she murdered a couple thousand people, ran a pedo ring, and took bribes, we HAVE to stop Drumpf!" I also love how it went from "We don't need those stupid BernieBros anyway" to "well if she loses it's because sexism and stupid BernieBros". If Hillary loses she and her supporters have no one to blame but themselves. Her supporters made a big stink about Drumpf saying he could shoot someone on 5th ave, meanwhile Hillary supporters would vote for her even if she dropped a bomb on 5th ave. let me help you out since you seem to have a little trouble following the series of posts you quoted: you do realize this was after a long drawn out hypothetical about if hitlery/ killary was a real thing, right? Yes I know. I wasn't implying they were facts, just that if they were, most of her supporters would still be voting for her. briefly humoring the hypothetical, one of the cool features of american democracy is a thing called checks and balances. Sometimes it's just nice to see it there in black and white (or faded baby blue as it were). I knew it way back when Drumpf made his statement, but I didn't want to believe it. Actually yeah I would still probably vote for her. But heres the beauty of hypotheticals. They are hypothetical and dont actually change anything in reality, and reality is what you are struggling with And yeah if Hillary gets indicted or whatever I would still vote for her so she gets impeached and Kaine gets in easy; I think it exposes the argument for what it is. "We support Hillary, basically no matter what", that's fine, just don't pretend that the reasons others don't is only because they are childish, ignorant, etc... (not saying you personally, but it's frequent here). Some people just draw their line before we get to international child slave rings, and bombing 5th ave and there's nothing wrong with that. Also, it makes the case for Trump supporters, in their view, Trump can do almost anything and still be closer to their values than Clinton. If bombing 5th ave wouldn't sway a Hillary supporter they have no ground to say that Trump supporters who don't disown him after his "grab her by the pussy" comment are any worse than they would be provided the circumstances were different. @Ticklish, Rebs got it, think it's just you having a hard time keeping up.
It was an interesting comparison of what things an individual would find disqualifying. It turns out people knowingly tolerate quite a bit when it comes to Hillary, and to no great surprise.
|
On November 02 2016 04:27 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 04:02 zlefin wrote:
clutz -> ok, I haven't seen that video. at any rate, my points stand about him being trash, and his stuff not worth looking at; and the critiques I made previously and tenth said well.
the planned parenthood video, was also trash, and reprehensible, too bad the makers of it weren't convicted of something, cuz what they did was bad.
Like tenth said, people only care cuz it's the result they want, if you did a sting and found nothing, nobody would watch it, and the idiots who want to believe would just ignore it. Yes, no one cares much if you do "find nothing", in theory. But, you actually would get a huge circilejerk from Huffpo, Vox, Slate, etc if you did an expose and found nothing and it would actually give the "rebuttals" credibility. Its actually a large opportunity to do real journalism. Regardless, while IMO those are good projects because they have built-in bases, I just think they are examples rather than the overarching theme of what drives people away from the NYT or CNN. Something like Harry Reid's injuries is something of national interest, but our major media outlets just credulously believed his explanation (just like the Hillary illness thing, until she publicly collapsed, then they took her next explanation at face value). These things are just a general lack of curiosity, like there was a massive lack of curiosity about Russian interference on the election until the general, when people were pointing this out at least as early as last October (2015). http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/05/john-schindler-talks-putin-intel-and-hillary-on-federalist-radio/
no, it's really not. the rebuttals already have ALL the credibility they need. They only lack credibilit from those who wish ot deny reality, and there's no helping those who will not listen. And you've used the word circlejerk, which marks you as someone spouting nonsense not worth talking to, so I shall speak to you no longer.
|
On November 02 2016 04:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 04:10 Rebs wrote:On November 02 2016 04:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 03:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 00:37 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:35 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Well, if you'd vote for genocidal sovereign immunity Clinton over as-is Drumpf, then I guess your support for her is about as rock-solid as it gets. There's only so much damage she can do in the next four years. I'd go back to Europe though. This is just such a different tone coming out of Hillary supporters than it was in the primary. "So what if maybe she murdered a couple thousand people, ran a pedo ring, and took bribes, we HAVE to stop Drumpf!" I also love how it went from "We don't need those stupid BernieBros anyway" to "well if she loses it's because sexism and stupid BernieBros". If Hillary loses she and her supporters have no one to blame but themselves. Her supporters made a big stink about Drumpf saying he could shoot someone on 5th ave, meanwhile Hillary supporters would vote for her even if she dropped a bomb on 5th ave. let me help you out since you seem to have a little trouble following the series of posts you quoted: you do realize this was after a long drawn out hypothetical about if hitlery/ killary was a real thing, right? Yes I know. I wasn't implying they were facts, just that if they were, most of her supporters would still be voting for her. briefly humoring the hypothetical, one of the cool features of american democracy is a thing called checks and balances. Sometimes it's just nice to see it there in black and white (or faded baby blue as it were). I knew it way back when Drumpf made his statement, but I didn't want to believe it. Actually yeah I would still probably vote for her. But heres the beauty of hypotheticals. They are hypothetical and dont actually change anything in reality, and reality is what you are struggling with And yeah if Hillary gets indicted or whatever I would still vote for her so she gets impeached and Kaine gets in easy; I think it exposes the argument for what it is. "We support Hillary, basically no matter what", that's fine, just don't pretend that the reasons others don't is only because they are childish, ignorant, etc... (not saying you personally, but it's frequent here). Some people just draw their line before we get to international child slave rings, and bombing 5th ave and there's nothing wrong with that. Also, it makes the case for Trump supporters, in their view, Trump can do almost anything and still be closer to their values than Clinton. If bombing 5th ave wouldn't sway a Hillary supporter they have no ground to say that Trump supporters who don't disown him after his "grab her by the pussy" comment are any worse than they would be provided the circumstances were different. @Ticklish, Rebs got it, think it's just you having a hard time keeping up. It was an interesting comparison of what things an individual would find disqualifying. It turns out people knowingly tolerate quite a bit when it comes to Hillary, and to no great surprise.
it's more accurate to say that Trump is so truly terrible that it takes an awful lot to overcome that. You'd have to compare to a more reasonable republican candidate, of which there are plenty, to make it about hillary.
|
On November 02 2016 04:30 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 04:28 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2016 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 04:10 Rebs wrote:On November 02 2016 04:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 03:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 00:37 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
There's only so much damage she can do in the next four years. I'd go back to Europe though. This is just such a different tone coming out of Hillary supporters than it was in the primary. "So what if maybe she murdered a couple thousand people, ran a pedo ring, and took bribes, we HAVE to stop Drumpf!" I also love how it went from "We don't need those stupid BernieBros anyway" to "well if she loses it's because sexism and stupid BernieBros". If Hillary loses she and her supporters have no one to blame but themselves. Her supporters made a big stink about Drumpf saying he could shoot someone on 5th ave, meanwhile Hillary supporters would vote for her even if she dropped a bomb on 5th ave. let me help you out since you seem to have a little trouble following the series of posts you quoted: you do realize this was after a long drawn out hypothetical about if hitlery/ killary was a real thing, right? Yes I know. I wasn't implying they were facts, just that if they were, most of her supporters would still be voting for her. briefly humoring the hypothetical, one of the cool features of american democracy is a thing called checks and balances. Sometimes it's just nice to see it there in black and white (or faded baby blue as it were). I knew it way back when Drumpf made his statement, but I didn't want to believe it. Actually yeah I would still probably vote for her. But heres the beauty of hypotheticals. They are hypothetical and dont actually change anything in reality, and reality is what you are struggling with And yeah if Hillary gets indicted or whatever I would still vote for her so she gets impeached and Kaine gets in easy; I think it exposes the argument for what it is. "We support Hillary, basically no matter what", that's fine, just don't pretend that the reasons others don't is only because they are childish, ignorant, etc... (not saying you personally, but it's frequent here). Some people just draw their line before we get to international child slave rings, and bombing 5th ave and there's nothing wrong with that. Also, it makes the case for Trump supporters, in their view, Trump can do almost anything and still be closer to their values than Clinton. If bombing 5th ave wouldn't sway a Hillary supporter they have no ground to say that Trump supporters who don't disown him after his "grab her by the pussy" comment are any worse than they would be provided the circumstances were different. @Ticklish, Rebs got it, think it's just you having a hard time keeping up. It was an interesting comparison of what things an individual would find disqualifying. It turns out people knowingly tolerate quite a bit when it comes to Hillary, and to no great surprise. it's more accurate to say that Trump is so truly terrible that it takes an awful lot to overcome that. You'd have to compare to a more reasonable republican candidate, of which there are plenty, to make it about hillary.
Exactly. Why is this lost on so many people?
|
A former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence provided the FBI with information he says shows the Russian government has spent years trying to influence Donald Trump.
In June, the officer, who now works for a U.S. firm gathering information on Russia for corporate clients, was told to research the Republican presidential nominee's dealings in Russia, Mother Jones reported Monday night.
"It started off as a fairly general inquiry," the ex-spy said.
As he searched, he says he found “an established exchange of information between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin of mutual benefit."
Citing it as an “extraordinary situation,” the ex-intelligence officer sent a copy of his report to the FBI.
In it, he charged that Russian intelligence had "compromised" Trump and could "blackmail him” and that it had a file on Hillary Clinton compiled from "bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls."
He said FBI officials greeted his July memo with “shock and horror” but did not request additional information.
The FBI then asked him for more memos in August, he added, prompting him to submit dossiers on members of Trump’s inner circle with ties to Russia.
Source
|
United States42009 Posts
On November 02 2016 04:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 04:20 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 04:10 Rebs wrote:On November 02 2016 04:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 03:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 00:37 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
There's only so much damage she can do in the next four years. I'd go back to Europe though. This is just such a different tone coming out of Hillary supporters than it was in the primary. "So what if maybe she murdered a couple thousand people, ran a pedo ring, and took bribes, we HAVE to stop Drumpf!" I also love how it went from "We don't need those stupid BernieBros anyway" to "well if she loses it's because sexism and stupid BernieBros". If Hillary loses she and her supporters have no one to blame but themselves. Her supporters made a big stink about Drumpf saying he could shoot someone on 5th ave, meanwhile Hillary supporters would vote for her even if she dropped a bomb on 5th ave. let me help you out since you seem to have a little trouble following the series of posts you quoted: you do realize this was after a long drawn out hypothetical about if hitlery/ killary was a real thing, right? Yes I know. I wasn't implying they were facts, just that if they were, most of her supporters would still be voting for her. briefly humoring the hypothetical, one of the cool features of american democracy is a thing called checks and balances. Sometimes it's just nice to see it there in black and white (or faded baby blue as it were). I knew it way back when Drumpf made his statement, but I didn't want to believe it. Actually yeah I would still probably vote for her. But heres the beauty of hypotheticals. They are hypothetical and dont actually change anything in reality, and reality is what you are struggling with And yeah if Hillary gets indicted or whatever I would still vote for her so she gets impeached and Kaine gets in easy; I think it exposes the argument for what it is. "We support Hillary, basically no matter what", that's fine, just don't pretend that the reasons others don't is only because they are childish, ignorant, etc... (not saying you personally, but it's frequent here). Some people just draw their line before we get to international child slave rings, and bombing 5th ave and there's nothing wrong with that. Also, it makes the case for Trump supporters, in their view, Trump can do almost anything and still be closer to their values than Clinton. If bombing 5th ave wouldn't sway a Hillary supporter they have no ground to say that Trump supporters who don't disown him after his "grab her by the pussy" comment are any worse than they would be provided the circumstances were different. @Ticklish, Rebs got it, think it's just you having a hard time keeping up. i knew i shouldn't have entertained bullshit hypotheticals for even a moment. i suppose i'm still too charitable even one week before the election and after a year plus of this inanity. People tend to avoid them when they expose a weakness, lesson learned.
I was happy to be full throated in my support of predator suit Hillary hunting the US population if it keeps Trump out of office. I didn't see the point of qualifying my opposition to Trump's fascism, even though I'm a member of his master race. I'd take a bad president over Trump in a heartbeat, although I don't necessarily believe Hillary would be a bad president. But if she did modify her platform to include the hunting of the American population for sport and Trump kept his at
1) Control the press. Silence any dissenting press with government tools
2) Make the Supreme Court more accountable to the Presidency.
3) Appoint Supreme Court justices that agree with him.
4) Strip away the rights of non white males.
5) Decide what the outcome of elections should be ahead of time and attack the process if the people get it wrong.
6) Create bands of Trump election observers to monitor proper voting.
7) Massively expand the security state including constant warrantless monitoring of all US citizens.
8) Refusal to accept the outcome of any democratic process, or any other opposition to him personally.
I'd still go with Hillary.
All of the above have been stated directly by Trump in his speeches, policies and answers. The man is dangerous. It doesn't really matter where you want to get to, the starting point has to be "stop Trump, work forwards from there".
|
On November 02 2016 04:24 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 04:21 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2016 03:02 oneofthem wrote:
the thing about the hillary emails is basically how serious and committed she is about the work of government. reading through all of them should dispel all the conspiratorial notions but people just look for various signs of scandal.
it's kind of like a witch trial. I've found the opposite, no surprise there. Her and her aides are shrewd political operatives concerned with their own success and sometimes incompetent with technology. The best ones are the tweets-by-committee email chains going through many replies to get the phrasing for a single tweet. Podesta shows team loyalty trumps all when he curses a major donor interested in green energy issues. They're intimately tied to grooming and rewarding favorable reporters. It's a corrupt clan and America will deserve the kind of government she's likely to run, having seen all of it beforehand and still voted in the electors. i'm not talking about podesta emails. it's a campaign manager what did you expect? i'm talking about state department emails.
Were you expecting conspiratorial emails from her state department times if there was a conspiracy present? Worst I've seen is repeatedly wanting Sidney Blumenthal's input against Obamas wishes, which is maybe mild insubordination. She's a dunce in many areas, but I'd expect her to mainly send work emails at work, (and delete or slow track the release of anything potentially damaging). The rest is word of mouth, come onto the airplane to talk, interview at my foundation, send disposable surrogates or media surrogates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
