|
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. |
Check it out, Trump is going to "Drain the Swamp" by appointing a Goldman Alum for Treasury secretary. Comrade Trump again proves to be an anti-elitist man of the people.
Donald Trump is signaling that he wants to appoint his campaign finance chairman, Steven Mnuchin, as Treasury secretary, according to a person close to the campaign.
Trump's preference for the Goldman Sachs alumnus is the latest evidence that the GOP presidential nominee would be inclined to hire officials with experience in the business world should he win next week's election, despite the anti-establishment tone that has dominated the campaign.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/steven-mnuchin-treasury-donald-trump-230716
|
http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/donald-trump-opposes-nationwide-marriage-equality
Trump on the Issues
Marriage Equality: Opposed
Protecting LGBTQ Americans from Discrimination: Opposed
President Obama’s Executive Orders: Opposed
Ban Harmful “Conversion Therapy”: Unclear
LGBTQ Adoption: Unclear
Anti-Bullying: Unclear
lol the human rights campaign is also hrc... there's so many awful quotes in there i'm not even going to bother.
http://qz.com/823885/do-indians-want-donald-trump-or-hillary-clinton-to-win/
With an eye on garnering votes from the Indian-American community, Donald Trump has made many comments about India and its people during the last leg of his election campaign. Trump has described Modi as a “great man,” at the same time stating that he is a “great fan of the Hindus.” Trump wants to attract the attention of the Indian-American community with Hindu nationalist rhetoric. By strongly condemning the Uri terrorist attack, he has sent a message that under his administration, the US would talk tough with Pakistan on the issue of cross-border terrorism. As a businessman, Trump also has significant economic interests in India, with a luxury business tower being built in premium location in Mumbai. But what continues to haunt Indians are Trump’s views on immigration. According to official US data: Show nested quote +
Indian citizens are the top recipients of temporary high-skilled worker H-1B visas, accounting for 70% of the 316,000 H-1B petitions (for fiscal year 2014).
Trump has already announced that his administration would initiate a tough immigration policy and hike the minimum wage paid to H1B visa holders if elected president. This could reduce the prospect of job opportunities for Indian professionals and others. According to the US migration census, 103,000 Indian-born students enrolled in US educational institutions in 2013-14. This makes India the second largest source of international students to the United States after China. Another statement of concern is Trump’s call for Muslims to be banned from entering the US; India has the second-largest Muslim population in the world. And finally, Donald Trump’s soft approach toward Russia may propel him to revisit US policy toward China. If that happens, it would have serious security ramifications for India.
Speaking as a minority, his anti-Muslim rhetoric is one step from anti-Indian/anti-minority/anti-non-whites... but I can't find any more solid anti-Indian stuff from him other than him equating all Indians as Hindu...
|
On November 04 2016 07:29 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 07:23 biology]major wrote:
I'm not going to support their anti-gay stance, but there's more important things to worry about.
This is why conversing with you gets frustrating. You make a claim, get proven wrong, then deflect/rationalize it away by effectively saying "oh but it doesn't really matter". For as much as Hillary supporters get criticized (rightfully) for doing this in their defense of her wrongdoing, you are guilty of doing it incredibly often yourself.
I mean we only have two choices here, and I don't see how you expect someone to like everything about their candidates. My support for Trump is weak, but my opposition to Hillary is high. My rationalization is similar to most Hillary supporters.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
wtf u cant say if evidence enough they should go rogue.
|
On November 04 2016 07:29 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Check it out, Trump is going to "Drain the Swamp" by appointing a Goldman Alum for Treasury secretary. Comrade Trump again proves to be an anti-elitist man of the people. Show nested quote +Donald Trump is signaling that he wants to appoint his campaign finance chairman, Steven Mnuchin, as Treasury secretary, according to a person close to the campaign.
Trump's preference for the Goldman Sachs alumnus is the latest evidence that the GOP presidential nominee would be inclined to hire officials with experience in the business world should he win next week's election, despite the anti-establishment tone that has dominated the campaign. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/steven-mnuchin-treasury-donald-trump-230716
As you try to lower the perception of differences between HRC and Trump you can end up weakening the case for HRC by making them out to be so similar.
|
On November 04 2016 07:42 oneofthem wrote:
wtf u cant say if evidence enough they should go rogue.
On that part I agree with xDaunt.
But they should be showing that damning evidence. Not expect us to take their word for it.
|
On November 04 2016 07:45 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 07:29 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Check it out, Trump is going to "Drain the Swamp" by appointing a Goldman Alum for Treasury secretary. Comrade Trump again proves to be an anti-elitist man of the people. Donald Trump is signaling that he wants to appoint his campaign finance chairman, Steven Mnuchin, as Treasury secretary, according to a person close to the campaign.
Trump's preference for the Goldman Sachs alumnus is the latest evidence that the GOP presidential nominee would be inclined to hire officials with experience in the business world should he win next week's election, despite the anti-establishment tone that has dominated the campaign. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/steven-mnuchin-treasury-donald-trump-230716 As you try to lower the perception of differences between HRC and Trump you can end up weakening the case for HRC by making them out to be so similar.
No, you can't.
|
On November 04 2016 07:33 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 07:29 TheYango wrote:On November 04 2016 07:23 biology]major wrote:
I'm not going to support their anti-gay stance, but there's more important things to worry about.
This is why conversing with you gets frustrating. You make a claim, get proven wrong, then deflect/rationalize it away by effectively saying "oh but it doesn't really matter". For as much as Hillary supporters get criticized (rightfully) for doing this in their defense of her wrongdoing, you are guilty of doing it incredibly often yourself. I mean we only have two choices here, and I don't see how you expect someone to like everything about their candidates. My support for Trump is weak, but my opposition to Hillary is high. My rationalization is similar to most Hillary supporters.
How is your opposition to Trump not high lmfao
besides left-right stances how far does corrupt weigh down this list, obviously biased on my part and more words isn't > one word
pro-Hillary - does charitable shit like fight aids, experience, supports higher moral grounds
anti-Hillary - "corrupt", lies under pressure, shitty FP results
pro-Trump - anti-establishment, brings the forgotten right into relevance
anti-Trump - every single thing he does is a shitshow, morally bankrupt, financially incapable to acquire domestic loans, trigger happy, nuke friendly, compulsive liar, says he's grabbed women by the pussy, wants to ban muslims immigrants, wants to build a wall, incites violence, doesn't care about the results of an unfavorable election, promotes anti-democratic poll watching, all 176 of this shit http://www.gq.com/story/176-reasons-donald-trump-shouldnt-be-president-olbermann
false equivalency and what not but jesus christ the lack of anti-Trump you anti-Clinton supporters can have boggles my mind.
|
On November 04 2016 07:24 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 07:11 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 07:08 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2016 07:02 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 06:54 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 06:20 xDaunt wrote:
You're the one making the asinine point that the chain of command should always be followed. It's not exactly hard to conjure up a scenario showing how dumb that is. I'm sure that the war criminals at Nuremberg would have loved having you as their judge. lol where did i say coc should always be followed? though in this case the stake is more than chain of command it is a host of issues from political meddling to due process The logical implication is right here: On November 04 2016 05:30 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 05:23 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 05:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 05:07 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 04:52 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
No, see point Number 2. that is the point. field office team made their presentation, got turned down. they have to defer to rank in this kind of policy decision. Don't be so obtuse. You know what my point is. The FBI agents aren't deferring to their superiors because they are convinced that their superiors are deliberately obstructing the investigation for corrupt reasons. 1.you are guessing as to nature and quality of evidence and case 2. it is still going rogue 3. it is an extremely bad judgment of timing on going rogue 1) Correct. 2) Correct. 3) Not necessarily. If the evidence truly is damning, then it's not bad judgment. wtf? there is a big tradition of military and intelligence independence from civilian political meddling and this is not only a threat to the integrity of the fbi but to democracy itself We both agree 1) that it is unclear what the nature of the evidence that the FBI has is and 2) that the FBI agents are going rogue. Where we differ is that you are making categorical statements that the FBI agents should not be going rogue, regardless of how good the evidence actually is, whereas I am saying that if the evidence is good enough, they should go rogue. My point isn't even controversial (which is why I find most of the responses to it from other posters to be utter jokes), so I'm not sure why you're having a hard time swallowing it. The only possibilities are 1) you believe in complete adherence to the chain of command, or 2) you're just utterly in the tank for Hillary and won't even consider anything that possibly reflects poorly on her. I went with the former. Should I have gone with the latter? whereas I am saying that if the evidence is good enough, they should go rogue Then let them show us. Do not expect people to believe the word of a basic agent and assume that the heads of the FBI, DoJ, and internal corruption agents are compromised. Extraordinaire claims require extraordinaire evidence. I'd love to see the FBI agents leak the evidence for my own personal gratification, but I understand that they don't want to compromise their investigation. Like I said, they're in a tough spot. That said, I can see a lot of people being fired if the FBI agents are barking up the wrong tree. Yeah, the difference is that you are willing to believe that basic agents are influencing the elections for a just cause because the heads of the FBI, DoJ and Internal Corruption are bought. The rest of the world doesn't believe random people making extraordinary claims on their word.
I haven't concluded anything of the sort. I'm waiting to see the evidence. However, from what I've seen so far, I do think that it is more likely than not that the FBI agents have a point.
|
On November 04 2016 07:47 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 07:45 oBlade wrote:On November 04 2016 07:29 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Check it out, Trump is going to "Drain the Swamp" by appointing a Goldman Alum for Treasury secretary. Comrade Trump again proves to be an anti-elitist man of the people. Donald Trump is signaling that he wants to appoint his campaign finance chairman, Steven Mnuchin, as Treasury secretary, according to a person close to the campaign.
Trump's preference for the Goldman Sachs alumnus is the latest evidence that the GOP presidential nominee would be inclined to hire officials with experience in the business world should he win next week's election, despite the anti-establishment tone that has dominated the campaign. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/steven-mnuchin-treasury-donald-trump-230716 As you try to lower the perception of differences between HRC and Trump you can end up weakening the case for HRC by making them out to be so similar. No, you can't.
I stand humbly corrected.
|
On November 04 2016 07:47 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 07:47 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2016 07:45 oBlade wrote:On November 04 2016 07:29 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Check it out, Trump is going to "Drain the Swamp" by appointing a Goldman Alum for Treasury secretary. Comrade Trump again proves to be an anti-elitist man of the people. Donald Trump is signaling that he wants to appoint his campaign finance chairman, Steven Mnuchin, as Treasury secretary, according to a person close to the campaign.
Trump's preference for the Goldman Sachs alumnus is the latest evidence that the GOP presidential nominee would be inclined to hire officials with experience in the business world should he win next week's election, despite the anti-establishment tone that has dominated the campaign. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/steven-mnuchin-treasury-donald-trump-230716 As you try to lower the perception of differences between HRC and Trump you can end up weakening the case for HRC by making them out to be so similar. No, you can't. I stand humbly corrected.
On this specific front Hillary is perceived as worse than Trump. Elements like this show that this perception is misguided. The notion that it weakens Hillary because it makes her like Trump is illogical, it would make sense if Trump was perceived as worse than her in this area. But he isn't.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 04 2016 07:45 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 07:42 oneofthem wrote:
wtf u cant say if evidence enough they should go rogue. On that part I agree with xDaunt. But they should be showing that damning evidence. Not expect us to take their word for it.
problem is complex. what standard, what procedure for decision on good, is there positive acts of wrongdoing such as evidence suppression. is disagreement one of fact or policy etc
similar problem. we can say if the law is wrong, i dont follow it. this simple statement can justify stuff like sovereign citizens.
this stuff has a whole procedure to make things right. this rogue behavior is clearly not it.
edit:i meant to say 'evidence good enough' didnt type it right
|
On November 04 2016 08:10 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 07:45 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2016 07:42 oneofthem wrote:
wtf u cant say if evidence enough they should go rogue. On that part I agree with xDaunt. But they should be showing that damning evidence. Not expect us to take their word for it. problem is complex. what standard, what procedure for decision on good, is there positive acts of wrongdoing such as evidence suppression. is disagreement one of fact or policy etc similar problem. we can say if the law is wrong, i dont follow it. this simple statement can justify stuff like sovereign citizens. this stuff has a whole procedure to make things right. this rogue behavior is clearly not it.
If the evidence is that strong, why not release it in full? If their goal is to prevent her from winning the election, give the voters all the information.
This is my main problem with the argument that the agents were "forced into it". This seems like a classic abuse of power, hedging their bets and put their finger on the scale just enough without getting caught and reap the rewards after the election.
|
On November 04 2016 07:45 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 07:42 oneofthem wrote:
wtf u cant say if evidence enough they should go rogue. On that part I agree with xDaunt. But they should be showing that damning evidence. Not expect us to take their word for it.
If they want to go rogue, they should go full whistleblower. Release their evidence, show how the higher ups are legitimately impeding the case and manipulating it. Make the FBI implode if it's broken.
The wink wink, nudge nudge "we have really good evidence but the DOJ isn't playing nice" is like Wikileaks level. Promise of something meaningful, with no delivery.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
problem is more than that. it is the use of fbi name to spread innuendo close to an election.
and the dynamic of feuding leaks would just rekt the integrity and public confidence of fbi for a long long time.
it basically substitute the individual opinions of agents for the weight of the fbi. fbi as the final voice of integrity in their domain would be threatened.
|
On November 04 2016 08:36 oneofthem wrote:
problem is more than that. it is the use of fbi name to spread innuendo close to an election. and the dynamic of feuding leaks would just rekt the integrity and public confidence of fbi for a long long time.
There are more possibilities that director probably overlooked the Clinton case and then from Authony's case, through Email cross reference, he finally found something concrete.
The fact that he is disclosing this makes him a wonderful American. Americans have the right to know.
Plus if he really is a republican in disguise, he wouldn't have waited this long, he could have blown this out of proportion way earlier and would have caused much MORE trouble for Hillary Clinton.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
he was just announcing that there is new potentially relevant material. decision to update testimony not reaching merits of the criminal case
|
And from Wikileaks, which they have not been proven wrong, Clinton certainly broke laws that would make her lose her job if we assume that the system is a just one.
|
I know talks about shitty sources this morning, but this article is fucking amazing and makes me want to burn all social media to the ground.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo?utm_term=.wbw0JZaa2#.jognK2MMa
“This is the news of the millennium!” said the story on WorldPoliticus.com. Citing unnamed FBI sources, it claimed Hillary Clinton will be indicted in 2017 for crimes related to her email scandal.
“Your Prayers Have Been Answered,” declared the headline.
For Trump supporters, that certainly seemed to be the case. They helped the baseless story generate over 140,000 shares, reactions, and comments on Facebook.
Meanwhile, roughly 6,000 miles away in a small Macedonian town, a young man watched as money began trickling into his Google AdSense account.
Over the past year, the central Macedonian town of Veles (population 45,000) has experienced a digital gold rush as locals launched at least 140 US politics websites. These sites have American-sounding domain names such as WorldPoliticUS.com, TrumpVision365.com, USConservativeToday.com, DonaldTrumpNews.co, and USADailyPolitics.com. They almost all publish aggressively pro-Trump content aimed at conservatives and Trump supporters in the US.
The young Macedonians who run these sites don’t care about Donald Trump. They are responding to straightforward economic incentives: as Facebook regularly reveals in earnings reports, a US Facebook user is worth about four times a user outside the US. The fraction-of-a-penny-per-click of U.S. display advertising — a declining market for American publishers — goes a long way in Veles. Several teens and young men who run these sites told BuzzFeed News that they learned the best way to generate traffic is to get their politics stories to spread on Facebook — and the best way to generate shares on Facebook is to publish sensationalist and often false content that caters to Trump supporters.
As a result, this strange hub of pro-Trump sites in Macedonia is now playing a significant role in propagating the kind of false and misleading content that was identified in a recent BuzzFeed News analysis of hyperpartisan Facebook pages. These sites open a window into the economic incentives behind producing misinformation specifically for the wealthiest advertising markets and specifically for Facebook, the world’s largest social network, as well as within online advertising networks such as Google AdSense.
“Yes, the info in the blogs is bad, false and misleading but the rationale is that ‘if it gets the people to click on it and engage, then use it,’” said a university student in Veles who started a US politics site, and who agreed to speak on the condition that BuzzFeed News not use his name.
|
we are not really ready for the internet as a species
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
