|
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 06 2016 10:57 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 05:01 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:55 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 04:44 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 04:26 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:18 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 04:17 ChristianS wrote:The date seems relevant, given that the article you linked argues the Clintons need to offer a clear plan for how they'll avoid conflicts of interest with CF donors. They've since done exactly that. No, they very clearly haven't done it given the Qatar story. Perhaps you misunderstand. I'm not saying they addressed every accusation from when she was SoS. Your article argued that the donations, etc. the CF received while she was SoS weren't illegal, but indicated possible conflict of interest problems would occur when she's become president. The CF has addressed that concern ( link). Yeah, and they also promised to comply with certain ethical standards when Hillary became SoS. Color me unconvinced. In related news, take a look at this memo from 2008: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FOUNDATION AND THE PRESIDENT
There are members of the staff who are paid by the President/his office and the Foundation, which may cause apparent or real conflicts of interest.
o
For example, a senior staff member being paid by the President, the government, and the Foundation allowed the Foundation to host what may have been (or may have been viewed as) a political event, apparently, without official pre-approval from the Foundation’s legal department and without regard, before the fact, to the impact of that decision on the Foundation’s tax exempt status.
o
It has been reported to me that a senior staff member has attempted to have (and perhaps succeeded in having) her travel paid for by the Foundation when traveling with the President on mixed trips, even though her presence may not have been needed for the Foundation.
o
It is not apparent how staff members paid through various sources (which means, presumably, having more than one full-time job) are able to fulfill their responsibilities and duties to the Foundation given the amount of work associated with those responsibilities and duties.
Many staff members believe that staff members with closer ties to the former President receive better benefits or more favorable treatment from the Foundation as a result of those ties.
o
Many staff members believe that certain people are “untouchable” because of their relationship to the President.
o
A few commented on Laura’s extended absence and her late arrival time, believing that both violate Foundation policy and/or standards.
Many staff members are confused as to the decision-making process at the Foundation, not knowing where the ultimate authority lies for most major decisions.
Virtually everyone I interviewed expressed some level of concern about the Foundation’s sustainability and/or viability when the former President is no longer involved, and their interest in it becoming a sustainable organization that survives the former President.
It is not clear that the Board is sufficiently independent from the President and/or is structured appropriately given the current size of the organization and the breadth of its work.
Virtually all Harlem staff interviewed expressed relief that the campaign is over, advising me that many staff members turned their focus on that during the campaign and others advised that they were concerned about the President’s commitment to the Foundation during the primary and after the election if the Senator had prevailed. Source. (Courtesy of Wikileaks and John Podesta) And for those who don't understand what this memo is, it's a memo from an independent attorney to the Clinton Foundation regarding various compliance issues. So this is a rather damning snapshot of operations back in 2008. And for those who are confused about what's so damning, it's the inextricable relationship between the Foundation and President Clinton's political power that's keeping the Foundation afloat. To what extend do y'all think that those practices have changed? Except this time they're not saying they're gonna disclose shit and keep certain standards, they're taking Bill and Hillary off the board and no longer taking foreign donations. I don't know what else they could do to put this to rest. Is the concern that they'll be controlled by donations from domestic interests? Because in that case why wouldn't those interests just donate to a Clinton SuperPAC instead? Past bad behavior means nothing to you? The point is that the there's a clear and present degree of ethical impropriety (corruption) that comes with the Clintons that has been made clear over the past thirty years, and that this degree of ethical impropriety, regardless of its strict legality, shouldn't be ignored. But you're changing the subject. You posted an article that contended that the Clintons need to address the potential problem of conflicts of interest wrt the CF, and when someone pointed out that the article was very old, you argued that doesn't matter because it still applies. It doesn't, because since that article was posted, they have addressed the potential problem of conflicts of interest. If you instead switch the discussion from potential conflicts of interest under an HRC presidency to whether the CF stuff reflects poorly on Hillary's character, I'd just say we have plenty more and better indications of these candidates' character than some donations back in 2012. I haven't changed the subject at all. My running argument for the past few days is that we should not tolerate politicians who do the sorts of things that the Clintons do and have done. Y'all are the ones who keep trying to reframe it or outright dispute it. The point is that you referenced the NY Times editorial as if it supported your position, while it does not. The piece asked Clinton to address issues related to the Clinton Foundation, which she has. Your argument is that what she has said, done and promised to do is not satisfactory (because of what you believe about her), but the NY Times editorial does not take that position -- indeed, it was written in April 2015, before she addressed those issues, and therefore it could not possibly take a position on her response. You would need to find a NY Times editorial criticizing as insufficient her most recent declarations and her pledge with regards to her future links to the Clinton Foundation post-election in order to be able to claim that the NY Times editorial board agrees with you.
Of course the NYT editorial supports my position. It's utterly absurd of you to pretend otherwise. This is all about the Clinton's lengthy history of the appearance of impropriety as it pertains to their foundation and overall conduct of their post-presidency business, which is very clearly noted by that editorial. Like I said earlier today, I'm not interested in needlessly limiting the timeline of the inquiry. So, for once, drop the ridiculous strawman arguments.
|
Patience, is key. There's no need to rush to judgment, information will be clearer in the morning. And it's better to learn the situation right;
otherwise you get the common problem wherein people follow it as it happens, but don't look at the situation later when the info is clearer, then in the more distant future people discuss the half-remembered speculations and theories of early on, and unclear info spreads.
Please don't go crazy overnight!
|
Every day I wonder if he could be shittier. Then he dumps a new scree of racism and advocates voter suppression.
|
Or this one
The Jews and their damn persecution complexes, who do they think they are?
|
On November 06 2016 11:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 10:57 kwizach wrote:On November 06 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 05:01 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:55 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 04:44 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 04:26 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:18 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 04:17 ChristianS wrote:[quote] The date seems relevant, given that the article you linked argues the Clintons need to offer a clear plan for how they'll avoid conflicts of interest with CF donors. They've since done exactly that. No, they very clearly haven't done it given the Qatar story. Perhaps you misunderstand. I'm not saying they addressed every accusation from when she was SoS. Your article argued that the donations, etc. the CF received while she was SoS weren't illegal, but indicated possible conflict of interest problems would occur when she's become president. The CF has addressed that concern ( link). Yeah, and they also promised to comply with certain ethical standards when Hillary became SoS. Color me unconvinced. In related news, take a look at this memo from 2008: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FOUNDATION AND THE PRESIDENT
There are members of the staff who are paid by the President/his office and the Foundation, which may cause apparent or real conflicts of interest.
o
For example, a senior staff member being paid by the President, the government, and the Foundation allowed the Foundation to host what may have been (or may have been viewed as) a political event, apparently, without official pre-approval from the Foundation’s legal department and without regard, before the fact, to the impact of that decision on the Foundation’s tax exempt status.
o
It has been reported to me that a senior staff member has attempted to have (and perhaps succeeded in having) her travel paid for by the Foundation when traveling with the President on mixed trips, even though her presence may not have been needed for the Foundation.
o
It is not apparent how staff members paid through various sources (which means, presumably, having more than one full-time job) are able to fulfill their responsibilities and duties to the Foundation given the amount of work associated with those responsibilities and duties.
Many staff members believe that staff members with closer ties to the former President receive better benefits or more favorable treatment from the Foundation as a result of those ties.
o
Many staff members believe that certain people are “untouchable” because of their relationship to the President.
o
A few commented on Laura’s extended absence and her late arrival time, believing that both violate Foundation policy and/or standards.
Many staff members are confused as to the decision-making process at the Foundation, not knowing where the ultimate authority lies for most major decisions.
Virtually everyone I interviewed expressed some level of concern about the Foundation’s sustainability and/or viability when the former President is no longer involved, and their interest in it becoming a sustainable organization that survives the former President.
It is not clear that the Board is sufficiently independent from the President and/or is structured appropriately given the current size of the organization and the breadth of its work.
Virtually all Harlem staff interviewed expressed relief that the campaign is over, advising me that many staff members turned their focus on that during the campaign and others advised that they were concerned about the President’s commitment to the Foundation during the primary and after the election if the Senator had prevailed. Source. (Courtesy of Wikileaks and John Podesta) And for those who don't understand what this memo is, it's a memo from an independent attorney to the Clinton Foundation regarding various compliance issues. So this is a rather damning snapshot of operations back in 2008. And for those who are confused about what's so damning, it's the inextricable relationship between the Foundation and President Clinton's political power that's keeping the Foundation afloat. To what extend do y'all think that those practices have changed? Except this time they're not saying they're gonna disclose shit and keep certain standards, they're taking Bill and Hillary off the board and no longer taking foreign donations. I don't know what else they could do to put this to rest. Is the concern that they'll be controlled by donations from domestic interests? Because in that case why wouldn't those interests just donate to a Clinton SuperPAC instead? Past bad behavior means nothing to you? The point is that the there's a clear and present degree of ethical impropriety (corruption) that comes with the Clintons that has been made clear over the past thirty years, and that this degree of ethical impropriety, regardless of its strict legality, shouldn't be ignored. But you're changing the subject. You posted an article that contended that the Clintons need to address the potential problem of conflicts of interest wrt the CF, and when someone pointed out that the article was very old, you argued that doesn't matter because it still applies. It doesn't, because since that article was posted, they have addressed the potential problem of conflicts of interest. If you instead switch the discussion from potential conflicts of interest under an HRC presidency to whether the CF stuff reflects poorly on Hillary's character, I'd just say we have plenty more and better indications of these candidates' character than some donations back in 2012. I haven't changed the subject at all. My running argument for the past few days is that we should not tolerate politicians who do the sorts of things that the Clintons do and have done. Y'all are the ones who keep trying to reframe it or outright dispute it. The point is that you referenced the NY Times editorial as if it supported your position, while it does not. The piece asked Clinton to address issues related to the Clinton Foundation, which she has. Your argument is that what she has said, done and promised to do is not satisfactory (because of what you believe about her), but the NY Times editorial does not take that position -- indeed, it was written in April 2015, before she addressed those issues, and therefore it could not possibly take a position on her response. You would need to find a NY Times editorial criticizing as insufficient her most recent declarations and her pledge with regards to her future links to the Clinton Foundation post-election in order to be able to claim that the NY Times editorial board agrees with you. Of course the NYT editorial supports my position. It's utterly absurd of you to pretend otherwise. This is all about the Clinton's lengthy history of the appearance of impropriety as it pertains to their foundation and overall conduct of their post-presidency business, which is very clearly noted by that editorial. Like I said earlier today, I'm not interested in needlessly limiting the timeline of the inquiry. So, for once, drop the ridiculous strawman arguments.
I just explained why the NY Times editorial does not support your position. Let me spell it out for you again:
- The NY Times' position in the editorial was that Clinton should address the issues they mentioned regarding the Clinton Foundation.
- Clinton has since then addressed those issues.
- Your position is that how Clinton has addressed those issues (and promised to address them once elected president) is unsatisfactory.
- The NY Times editorial did not take a position on how Clinton addressed and promised to address those issues, because it was written in April of 2015, before she did so.
|
I honestly think Giuliani may be suffering a mental condition... There's crazy but he is just off the charts bizarre even saying one thing then the exact opposite in the next breath.
|
The owner of Cards Against Humanity had the best response I have seen:
RIP - He deleted it apparently.
|
On November 06 2016 11:19 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 10:34 DemigodcelpH wrote:On November 05 2016 20:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Building a wall to stop illegal immigration and removing illegal immigrants from the USA are not racist policies.
The key word here is illegal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politicsYou start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968, you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
— Lee Atwater, Republican Party strategist in an anonymous interview in 1981 When Trump talks about "illegal immigrants" everyone knows he only means the brown ones. Same thing with random internet right-wingers. Adding to this it's been revealed that Trump's wife was working here illegally which makes his son an anchor baby. Is he going to deport both of them? That said I'm not sure why Trump supporters tend to only focus on his dogwhistles that contain plausible deniability when people call him racist. He has at many times throughout his life discarded the dogwhistle entirely. Anchor baby means there's a baby born in the US that anchors the parents in the US because of unconditional birthright citizenship, meaning because births on US soil are necessarily citizens, it privileges the parents even if they're both illegal immigrants.
I know what anchor baby means.
On November 06 2016 11:19 oBlade wrote:Barron Trump is not an anchor baby for the following reasons:
-Donald Trump is a US citizen (his son would be a US citizen even disregarding jus soli)
-Melania Trump was already a legal permanent resident of the US when their son was born (she became a naturalized citizen in 2006, which is the year their son was born, so I'm not sure if that was before or after) and didn't need to have a child to get any advantages. But this was a good try.
If you do not know whether he was born before or after she was a naturalized citizen then he could be an anchor baby. And at the minimum we both know that Melania Trump worked here extensively when it was illegal to do so, and received pay. Quite the double standard going on here. Good try though.
|
On November 06 2016 11:46 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 11:39 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 10:57 kwizach wrote:On November 06 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 05:01 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:55 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 04:44 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 04:26 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:18 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
No, they very clearly haven't done it given the Qatar story. Perhaps you misunderstand. I'm not saying they addressed every accusation from when she was SoS. Your article argued that the donations, etc. the CF received while she was SoS weren't illegal, but indicated possible conflict of interest problems would occur when she's become president. The CF has addressed that concern ( link). Yeah, and they also promised to comply with certain ethical standards when Hillary became SoS. Color me unconvinced. In related news, take a look at this memo from 2008: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FOUNDATION AND THE PRESIDENT
There are members of the staff who are paid by the President/his office and the Foundation, which may cause apparent or real conflicts of interest.
o
For example, a senior staff member being paid by the President, the government, and the Foundation allowed the Foundation to host what may have been (or may have been viewed as) a political event, apparently, without official pre-approval from the Foundation’s legal department and without regard, before the fact, to the impact of that decision on the Foundation’s tax exempt status.
o
It has been reported to me that a senior staff member has attempted to have (and perhaps succeeded in having) her travel paid for by the Foundation when traveling with the President on mixed trips, even though her presence may not have been needed for the Foundation.
o
It is not apparent how staff members paid through various sources (which means, presumably, having more than one full-time job) are able to fulfill their responsibilities and duties to the Foundation given the amount of work associated with those responsibilities and duties.
Many staff members believe that staff members with closer ties to the former President receive better benefits or more favorable treatment from the Foundation as a result of those ties.
o
Many staff members believe that certain people are “untouchable” because of their relationship to the President.
o
A few commented on Laura’s extended absence and her late arrival time, believing that both violate Foundation policy and/or standards.
Many staff members are confused as to the decision-making process at the Foundation, not knowing where the ultimate authority lies for most major decisions.
Virtually everyone I interviewed expressed some level of concern about the Foundation’s sustainability and/or viability when the former President is no longer involved, and their interest in it becoming a sustainable organization that survives the former President.
It is not clear that the Board is sufficiently independent from the President and/or is structured appropriately given the current size of the organization and the breadth of its work.
Virtually all Harlem staff interviewed expressed relief that the campaign is over, advising me that many staff members turned their focus on that during the campaign and others advised that they were concerned about the President’s commitment to the Foundation during the primary and after the election if the Senator had prevailed. Source. (Courtesy of Wikileaks and John Podesta) And for those who don't understand what this memo is, it's a memo from an independent attorney to the Clinton Foundation regarding various compliance issues. So this is a rather damning snapshot of operations back in 2008. And for those who are confused about what's so damning, it's the inextricable relationship between the Foundation and President Clinton's political power that's keeping the Foundation afloat. To what extend do y'all think that those practices have changed? Except this time they're not saying they're gonna disclose shit and keep certain standards, they're taking Bill and Hillary off the board and no longer taking foreign donations. I don't know what else they could do to put this to rest. Is the concern that they'll be controlled by donations from domestic interests? Because in that case why wouldn't those interests just donate to a Clinton SuperPAC instead? Past bad behavior means nothing to you? The point is that the there's a clear and present degree of ethical impropriety (corruption) that comes with the Clintons that has been made clear over the past thirty years, and that this degree of ethical impropriety, regardless of its strict legality, shouldn't be ignored. But you're changing the subject. You posted an article that contended that the Clintons need to address the potential problem of conflicts of interest wrt the CF, and when someone pointed out that the article was very old, you argued that doesn't matter because it still applies. It doesn't, because since that article was posted, they have addressed the potential problem of conflicts of interest. If you instead switch the discussion from potential conflicts of interest under an HRC presidency to whether the CF stuff reflects poorly on Hillary's character, I'd just say we have plenty more and better indications of these candidates' character than some donations back in 2012. I haven't changed the subject at all. My running argument for the past few days is that we should not tolerate politicians who do the sorts of things that the Clintons do and have done. Y'all are the ones who keep trying to reframe it or outright dispute it. The point is that you referenced the NY Times editorial as if it supported your position, while it does not. The piece asked Clinton to address issues related to the Clinton Foundation, which she has. Your argument is that what she has said, done and promised to do is not satisfactory (because of what you believe about her), but the NY Times editorial does not take that position -- indeed, it was written in April 2015, before she addressed those issues, and therefore it could not possibly take a position on her response. You would need to find a NY Times editorial criticizing as insufficient her most recent declarations and her pledge with regards to her future links to the Clinton Foundation post-election in order to be able to claim that the NY Times editorial board agrees with you. Of course the NYT editorial supports my position. It's utterly absurd of you to pretend otherwise. This is all about the Clinton's lengthy history of the appearance of impropriety as it pertains to their foundation and overall conduct of their post-presidency business, which is very clearly noted by that editorial. Like I said earlier today, I'm not interested in needlessly limiting the timeline of the inquiry. So, for once, drop the ridiculous strawman arguments. I just explained why the NY Times editorial does not support your position. Let me spell it out for you again: - The NY Times' position in the editorial was that Clinton should address the issues they mention regarding the Clinton Foundation. - Clinton has since then addressed those issues. - Your position is that how Clinton has addressed (and promised to address those issues once elected president) is unsatisfactory. - The NY Times editorial did not take a position on how Clinton addressed and promised to address those issues, because it was written in April of 2015, before she did so.
Ok, because you apparently have straw coming out of all of your orifices and are thus incapable of accurately representing my arguments, let me help you.
- The NY Times' position in the editorial was that Clinton should address the issues they mention regarding the Clinton Foundation.
Correct.
- Clinton has since then addressed those issues.
Highly debatable.
- Your position is that how Clinton has addressed (and promised to address those issues once elected president) is unsatisfactory.
Wrong. See all of my previous posts explaining very clearly what my position is. Whether the Clintons "satisfactorily addressed" the issues raised by the NYT editorial board is certainly relevant to my position, but it's very far from being outcome-determinative. In fact, given that the FBI is currently investigating the Clinton Foundation, I think it's fair to say that the Clintons did not adequately address the concerns of the NYT editorial board. There's no greater evidence of the appearance of impropriety than when the feds are on your ass.
- The NY Times editorial did not take a position on how Clinton addressed and promised to address those issues, because it was written in April of 2015, before she did so.
And this is irrelevant, too, for the reasons discussed above.
|
|
|
|
|
The differences between how this man was handled vs. the dissenter at the Obama rally that's going viral right now are striking.
|
On November 06 2016 11:48 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 11:19 oBlade wrote:On November 06 2016 10:34 DemigodcelpH wrote:On November 05 2016 20:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Building a wall to stop illegal immigration and removing illegal immigrants from the USA are not racist policies.
The key word here is illegal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politicsYou start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968, you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
— Lee Atwater, Republican Party strategist in an anonymous interview in 1981 When Trump talks about "illegal immigrants" everyone knows he only means the brown ones. Same thing with random internet right-wingers. Adding to this it's been revealed that Trump's wife was working here illegally which makes his son an anchor baby. Is he going to deport both of them? That said I'm not sure why Trump supporters tend to only focus on his dogwhistles that contain plausible deniability when people call him racist. He has at many times throughout his life discarded the dogwhistle entirely. Anchor baby means there's a baby born in the US that anchors the parents in the US because of unconditional birthright citizenship, meaning because births on US soil are necessarily citizens, it privileges the parents even if they're both illegal immigrants. I know what anchor baby means. Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 11:19 oBlade wrote:Barron Trump is not an anchor baby for the following reasons:
-Donald Trump is a US citizen (his son would be a US citizen even disregarding jus soli)
-Melania Trump was already a legal permanent resident of the US when their son was born (she became a naturalized citizen in 2006, which is the year their son was born, so I'm not sure if that was before or after) and didn't need to have a child to get any advantages. But this was a good try. If you do not know whether he was born before or after she was a naturalized citizen then he could be an anchor baby. And at the minimum we both know that Melania Trump worked here extensively when it was illegal to do so, and received pay. Quite the double standard going on here. Good try though.
No, having a baby doesn't affect naturalization. Melania became a citizen basically as soon as she was eligible, after 5 years of being a permanent resident.
|
On November 06 2016 12:06 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 11:48 DemigodcelpH wrote:On November 06 2016 11:19 oBlade wrote:On November 06 2016 10:34 DemigodcelpH wrote:On November 05 2016 20:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Building a wall to stop illegal immigration and removing illegal immigrants from the USA are not racist policies.
The key word here is illegal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politicsYou start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968, you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
— Lee Atwater, Republican Party strategist in an anonymous interview in 1981 When Trump talks about "illegal immigrants" everyone knows he only means the brown ones. Same thing with random internet right-wingers. Adding to this it's been revealed that Trump's wife was working here illegally which makes his son an anchor baby. Is he going to deport both of them? That said I'm not sure why Trump supporters tend to only focus on his dogwhistles that contain plausible deniability when people call him racist. He has at many times throughout his life discarded the dogwhistle entirely. Anchor baby means there's a baby born in the US that anchors the parents in the US because of unconditional birthright citizenship, meaning because births on US soil are necessarily citizens, it privileges the parents even if they're both illegal immigrants. I know what anchor baby means. On November 06 2016 11:19 oBlade wrote:Barron Trump is not an anchor baby for the following reasons:
-Donald Trump is a US citizen (his son would be a US citizen even disregarding jus soli)
-Melania Trump was already a legal permanent resident of the US when their son was born (she became a naturalized citizen in 2006, which is the year their son was born, so I'm not sure if that was before or after) and didn't need to have a child to get any advantages. But this was a good try. If you do not know whether he was born before or after she was a naturalized citizen then he could be an anchor baby. And at the minimum we both know that Melania Trump worked here extensively when it was illegal to do so, and received pay. Quite the double standard going on here. Good try though. No, having a baby doesn't affect naturalization. Melania became a citizen basically as soon as she was eligible, after 5 years of being a permanent resident.
She clearly lied on the forms though, claiming that she had never worked illegally in the US(it's a standard question). Lying on that form is a problem.
|
|
|
On November 06 2016 11:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 11:46 kwizach wrote:On November 06 2016 11:39 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 10:57 kwizach wrote:On November 06 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 05:01 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:55 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 04:44 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 04:26 ChristianS wrote:[quote] Perhaps you misunderstand. I'm not saying they addressed every accusation from when she was SoS. Your article argued that the donations, etc. the CF received while she was SoS weren't illegal, but indicated possible conflict of interest problems would occur when she's become president. The CF has addressed that concern ( link). Yeah, and they also promised to comply with certain ethical standards when Hillary became SoS. Color me unconvinced. In related news, take a look at this memo from 2008: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FOUNDATION AND THE PRESIDENT
There are members of the staff who are paid by the President/his office and the Foundation, which may cause apparent or real conflicts of interest.
o
For example, a senior staff member being paid by the President, the government, and the Foundation allowed the Foundation to host what may have been (or may have been viewed as) a political event, apparently, without official pre-approval from the Foundation’s legal department and without regard, before the fact, to the impact of that decision on the Foundation’s tax exempt status.
o
It has been reported to me that a senior staff member has attempted to have (and perhaps succeeded in having) her travel paid for by the Foundation when traveling with the President on mixed trips, even though her presence may not have been needed for the Foundation.
o
It is not apparent how staff members paid through various sources (which means, presumably, having more than one full-time job) are able to fulfill their responsibilities and duties to the Foundation given the amount of work associated with those responsibilities and duties.
Many staff members believe that staff members with closer ties to the former President receive better benefits or more favorable treatment from the Foundation as a result of those ties.
o
Many staff members believe that certain people are “untouchable” because of their relationship to the President.
o
A few commented on Laura’s extended absence and her late arrival time, believing that both violate Foundation policy and/or standards.
Many staff members are confused as to the decision-making process at the Foundation, not knowing where the ultimate authority lies for most major decisions.
Virtually everyone I interviewed expressed some level of concern about the Foundation’s sustainability and/or viability when the former President is no longer involved, and their interest in it becoming a sustainable organization that survives the former President.
It is not clear that the Board is sufficiently independent from the President and/or is structured appropriately given the current size of the organization and the breadth of its work.
Virtually all Harlem staff interviewed expressed relief that the campaign is over, advising me that many staff members turned their focus on that during the campaign and others advised that they were concerned about the President’s commitment to the Foundation during the primary and after the election if the Senator had prevailed. Source. (Courtesy of Wikileaks and John Podesta) And for those who don't understand what this memo is, it's a memo from an independent attorney to the Clinton Foundation regarding various compliance issues. So this is a rather damning snapshot of operations back in 2008. And for those who are confused about what's so damning, it's the inextricable relationship between the Foundation and President Clinton's political power that's keeping the Foundation afloat. To what extend do y'all think that those practices have changed? Except this time they're not saying they're gonna disclose shit and keep certain standards, they're taking Bill and Hillary off the board and no longer taking foreign donations. I don't know what else they could do to put this to rest. Is the concern that they'll be controlled by donations from domestic interests? Because in that case why wouldn't those interests just donate to a Clinton SuperPAC instead? Past bad behavior means nothing to you? The point is that the there's a clear and present degree of ethical impropriety (corruption) that comes with the Clintons that has been made clear over the past thirty years, and that this degree of ethical impropriety, regardless of its strict legality, shouldn't be ignored. But you're changing the subject. You posted an article that contended that the Clintons need to address the potential problem of conflicts of interest wrt the CF, and when someone pointed out that the article was very old, you argued that doesn't matter because it still applies. It doesn't, because since that article was posted, they have addressed the potential problem of conflicts of interest. If you instead switch the discussion from potential conflicts of interest under an HRC presidency to whether the CF stuff reflects poorly on Hillary's character, I'd just say we have plenty more and better indications of these candidates' character than some donations back in 2012. I haven't changed the subject at all. My running argument for the past few days is that we should not tolerate politicians who do the sorts of things that the Clintons do and have done. Y'all are the ones who keep trying to reframe it or outright dispute it. The point is that you referenced the NY Times editorial as if it supported your position, while it does not. The piece asked Clinton to address issues related to the Clinton Foundation, which she has. Your argument is that what she has said, done and promised to do is not satisfactory (because of what you believe about her), but the NY Times editorial does not take that position -- indeed, it was written in April 2015, before she addressed those issues, and therefore it could not possibly take a position on her response. You would need to find a NY Times editorial criticizing as insufficient her most recent declarations and her pledge with regards to her future links to the Clinton Foundation post-election in order to be able to claim that the NY Times editorial board agrees with you. Of course the NYT editorial supports my position. It's utterly absurd of you to pretend otherwise. This is all about the Clinton's lengthy history of the appearance of impropriety as it pertains to their foundation and overall conduct of their post-presidency business, which is very clearly noted by that editorial. Like I said earlier today, I'm not interested in needlessly limiting the timeline of the inquiry. So, for once, drop the ridiculous strawman arguments. I just explained why the NY Times editorial does not support your position. Let me spell it out for you again: - The NY Times' position in the editorial was that Clinton should address the issues they mention regarding the Clinton Foundation. - Clinton has since then addressed those issues. - Your position is that how Clinton has addressed (and promised to address those issues once elected president) is unsatisfactory. - The NY Times editorial did not take a position on how Clinton addressed and promised to address those issues, because it was written in April of 2015, before she did so. Ok, because you apparently have straw coming out of all of your orifices and are thus incapable of accurately representing my arguments, let me help you. Show nested quote +- The NY Times' position in the editorial was that Clinton should address the issues they mention regarding the Clinton Foundation. Correct. Highly debatable. Show nested quote +- Your position is that how Clinton has addressed those issues (and promised to address them once elected president) is unsatisfactory. Wrong. See all of my previous posts explaining very clearly what my position is. Whether the Clintons "satisfactorily addressed" the issues raised by the NYT editorial board is certainly relevant to my position, but it's very far from being outcome-determinative. In fact, given that FBI is currently investigating the Clinton Foundation, I think it's fair to say that the Clintons did not adequately address the concerns of the NYT editorial board. There's no greater evidence of the appearance of impropriety when the feds are on your ass.
It's not wrong -- you literally just said exactly that in this very paragraph: "I think it's fair to say that the Clintons did not adequately address the concerns of the NYT editorial board". The rest of your arguments against the CF are irrelevant because the point of the NY Times editorial, as you recognized yourself, was that Clinton should address the issues they mentioned regarding the Clinton Foundation. She has since then addressed those "questions about the interplay of politics and wealthy foreign donors who support the Clinton Foundation". You think she did not address them adequately and that's perfectly fine. However, the NY Times editorial board did not, in its April 2015 editorial, voice a position on whether or not Clinton's subsequent addressing of those issues was satisfactory -- because it hadn't happened yet.
On November 06 2016 11:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +- The NY Times editorial did not take a position on how Clinton addressed and promised to address those issues, because it was written in April of 2015, before she did so. And this is irrelevant, too, for the reasons discussed above.
No, it's not, for the reasons discussed above.
|
On November 06 2016 12:20 kwizach wrote:It's not wrong -- you literally just said exactly that in this very paragraph: "I think it's fair to say that the Clintons did not adequately address the concerns of the NYT editorial board". The rest of your arguments against the CF are irrelevant because the point of the NY Times editorial, as you recognized yourself, was that Clinton should address the issues they mentioned regarding the Clinton Foundation. She has since then addressed those "questions about the interplay of politics and wealthy foreign donors who support the Clinton Foundation". You think she did not address them adequately and that's perfectly fine. However, the NY Times editorial board did not, in its April 2015 editorial, voice a position on whether or not Clinton's subsequent addressing of those issues was satisfactory -- because it hadn't happened yet. Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 11:59 xDaunt wrote:- The NY Times editorial did not take a position on how Clinton addressed and promised to address those issues, because it was written in April of 2015, before she did so. And this is irrelevant, too, for the reasons discussed above. No, it's not, for the reasons discussed above.
So let me get this straight. I've now told you twice, in very explicit terms, that you've gotten my argument wrong and that you are misrepresenting it. And your response on the third go around is to triple down on your nonsense? My god, this is pathology in action.
Let me put this issue to bed with the following: the NYT editorial is relevant to my point that the Clintons have a long history of acting with the appearance of impropriety (again, regardless of legality) because the editorial constitutes yet another instance where a third party has looked at the affairs of the Clinton Foundation and questioned whether its operations were completely above board. The relevancy of the editorial is thus undeniable.
So please, quit shitting up the thread with your willful misrepresentations of my argument.
|
On November 06 2016 12:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 12:20 kwizach wrote:It's not wrong -- you literally just said exactly that in this very paragraph: "I think it's fair to say that the Clintons did not adequately address the concerns of the NYT editorial board". The rest of your arguments against the CF are irrelevant because the point of the NY Times editorial, as you recognized yourself, was that Clinton should address the issues they mentioned regarding the Clinton Foundation. She has since then addressed those "questions about the interplay of politics and wealthy foreign donors who support the Clinton Foundation". You think she did not address them adequately and that's perfectly fine. However, the NY Times editorial board did not, in its April 2015 editorial, voice a position on whether or not Clinton's subsequent addressing of those issues was satisfactory -- because it hadn't happened yet. On November 06 2016 11:59 xDaunt wrote:- The NY Times editorial did not take a position on how Clinton addressed and promised to address those issues, because it was written in April of 2015, before she did so. And this is irrelevant, too, for the reasons discussed above. No, it's not, for the reasons discussed above. So let me get this straight. I've now told you twice, in very explicit terms, that you've gotten my argument wrong and that you are misrepresenting it. And your response on the third go around is to triple down on your nonsense? My god, this is pathology in action. Let me put this issue to bed with the following: the NYT editorial is relevant to my point that the Clintons have a long history of acting with the appearance of impropriety (again, regardless of legality) because the editorial constitutes yet another instance where a third party has looked at the affairs of the Clinton Foundation and questioned whether its operations were completely above board. The relevancy of the editorial is thus undeniable. So please, quit shitting up the thread with your willful misrepresentations of my argument.
Ummm it looks like he got your argument right.
|
On November 06 2016 12:35 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 12:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 12:20 kwizach wrote:It's not wrong -- you literally just said exactly that in this very paragraph: "I think it's fair to say that the Clintons did not adequately address the concerns of the NYT editorial board". The rest of your arguments against the CF are irrelevant because the point of the NY Times editorial, as you recognized yourself, was that Clinton should address the issues they mentioned regarding the Clinton Foundation. She has since then addressed those "questions about the interplay of politics and wealthy foreign donors who support the Clinton Foundation". You think she did not address them adequately and that's perfectly fine. However, the NY Times editorial board did not, in its April 2015 editorial, voice a position on whether or not Clinton's subsequent addressing of those issues was satisfactory -- because it hadn't happened yet. On November 06 2016 11:59 xDaunt wrote:- The NY Times editorial did not take a position on how Clinton addressed and promised to address those issues, because it was written in April of 2015, before she did so. And this is irrelevant, too, for the reasons discussed above. No, it's not, for the reasons discussed above. So let me get this straight. I've now told you twice, in very explicit terms, that you've gotten my argument wrong and that you are misrepresenting it. And your response on the third go around is to triple down on your nonsense? My god, this is pathology in action. Let me put this issue to bed with the following: the NYT editorial is relevant to my point that the Clintons have a long history of acting with the appearance of impropriety (again, regardless of legality) because the editorial constitutes yet another instance where a third party has looked at the affairs of the Clinton Foundation and questioned whether its operations were completely above board. The relevancy of the editorial is thus undeniable. So please, quit shitting up the thread with your willful misrepresentations of my argument. Ummm it looks like he got your argument right.
No, he very clearly didn't because he is mistaking willfully misrepresenting a sub-argument to be the larger argument itself.
|
On November 06 2016 12:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 12:35 hunts wrote:On November 06 2016 12:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 12:20 kwizach wrote:It's not wrong -- you literally just said exactly that in this very paragraph: "I think it's fair to say that the Clintons did not adequately address the concerns of the NYT editorial board". The rest of your arguments against the CF are irrelevant because the point of the NY Times editorial, as you recognized yourself, was that Clinton should address the issues they mentioned regarding the Clinton Foundation. She has since then addressed those "questions about the interplay of politics and wealthy foreign donors who support the Clinton Foundation". You think she did not address them adequately and that's perfectly fine. However, the NY Times editorial board did not, in its April 2015 editorial, voice a position on whether or not Clinton's subsequent addressing of those issues was satisfactory -- because it hadn't happened yet. On November 06 2016 11:59 xDaunt wrote:- The NY Times editorial did not take a position on how Clinton addressed and promised to address those issues, because it was written in April of 2015, before she did so. And this is irrelevant, too, for the reasons discussed above. No, it's not, for the reasons discussed above. So let me get this straight. I've now told you twice, in very explicit terms, that you've gotten my argument wrong and that you are misrepresenting it. And your response on the third go around is to triple down on your nonsense? My god, this is pathology in action. Let me put this issue to bed with the following: the NYT editorial is relevant to my point that the Clintons have a long history of acting with the appearance of impropriety (again, regardless of legality) because the editorial constitutes yet another instance where a third party has looked at the affairs of the Clinton Foundation and questioned whether its operations were completely above board. The relevancy of the editorial is thus undeniable. So please, quit shitting up the thread with your willful misrepresentations of my argument. Ummm it looks like he got your argument right. No, he very clearly didn't because he is mistaking willfully misrepresenting a sub-argument for the larger argument itself.
Why is it every time you make some argument and have multiple people proving you wrong and you always come back with the "no you're all wrong and misunderstanding my argument, you see it is you who are all dumb!" Every time, this dance happens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
