|
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. |
How is it possible for Hispanics to swing to Trump 10% in one day in the LA Times poll?
Anything big happen the past couple of days or just another case of BS polls?
http://cesrusc.org/election/
I see Trump is rising and Clinton falling in the majority of charts there since the FBI re-opened their investigation but 10% in one day? yeesh.
|
What is it about politics that brings out the worst in people?
|
|
|
On November 06 2016 12:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:How is it possible for Hispanics to swing to Trump 10% in one day in the LA Times poll? Anything big happen the past couple of days or just another case of BS polls? http://cesrusc.org/election/I see Trump is rising and Clinton falling in the majority of charts there since the FBI re-opened their investigation but 10% in one day? yeesh.
Well, the LA Times has been universally maligned for how it tracks support and how individuals who are part of the poll can have undue influence and skew the results. Something similar could be happening here, but it's unclear. Frankly, I'm not sure how useful the polls are beyond showing the general direction of the race. I can easily see that, come election day, there could be deviations of five points or so from the current averages.
|
I still don't get why there aren't more polls coming out of Florida given how important it is.
I'm thinking a solid 80-20 for Clinton being the next president, it's all going to come down to if the Donald's energy convinced people to vote for him on election day
|
On November 06 2016 12:41 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 12:37 xDaunt wrote: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.
It happens nearly every time (but not with every person that I argue with) because 1) half of the posters in this thread repeatedly fail to properly read and represent my arguments, either willfully or through lack of ability, and 2) I have very limited patience for tolerating that kind of shit, and it's my biggest beef with participating in this thread. What kwizach has done over the past couple of pages is simply inexcusable.
|
On November 06 2016 12:56 plasmidghost wrote:
I still don't get why there aren't more polls coming out of Florida given how important it is.
I'm thinking a solid 80-20 for Clinton being the next president, it's all going to come down to if the Donald's energy convinced people to vote for him on election day
Man we're mostly Republican and it will be a surprise (albeit pleasant) if Clinton wins here.
I don't know why the polls aren't more prominent but it's usually a red state. You gotta be Trump to lose here.
(Unless you're facing Obama obviously who is lightning in a bottle)
|
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.
Putting aside the rest of the argument, is acting with the appearance of impropriety a disqualifying factor, even if no impropriety exists?
edit: More to the point, should it be?
|
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.
Here is the post in which you quoted the NY Times editorial.
Here is the specific paragraph within the quote that you highlighted by putting it in bold and by underlining it:
The increasing scrutiny of the foundation has raised several points that need to be addressed by Mrs. Clinton and the former president. These relate most importantly to the flow of multimillions in donations from foreigners and others to the foundation, how Mrs. Clinton dealt with potential conflicts as secretary of state and how she intends to guard against such conflicts should she win the White House.
You then wrote under the quote:
I seem to recall a certain somebody whose username began with x and ended in Daunt making the same point a couple days ago. Again, and legality aside, is this the type of stuff that we want to tolerate from our politicians?
So, what point was the NY Times editorial board making in that paragraph? Exactly as I said, and as you recognized, the NY Times editorial board was saying that Clinton should address the issues they mentioned regarding the Clinton Foundation. You asserted that you were making "the same point". The point was therefore not simply that there was an "appearance of impropriety", but that Clinton should address the "questions about the interplay of politics and wealthy foreign donors who support the Clinton Foundation" that the editorial raised.
Well, Clinton has since then addressed those questions. From what you said yourself, you believe that she has not addressed them adequately, and I was pointing out that the NY Times' editorial does not inform us as to how the journal's editorial board feels with regards to whether or not she adequately addressed them.
If your point was only that there were "questions raised about the interplay of politics and wealthy foreign donors who support the Clinton Foundation" at the time, then it was ludicrous to quote that editorial and triumphantly write that "a certain somebody whose username began with x and ended in Daunt [was] making the same point a couple days ago", because nobody was claiming the opposite. Everyone knows that there were calls everywhere for Clinton to clarify the situation with regards to the CF, in particular what her relationship to it would look like if she was elected president, before she addressed those questions -- that's the very reason she addressed them. The debate that is being had now (at least in some corners) is over whether or not she adequately addressed those questions, and whether she was truthful about what went on or if something improper/illegal happened. Again, the NY Times editorial does not position itself one way or the other on the issue -- it only mentions "questions" and potential "accusations" that Clinton would need to address.
|
On November 06 2016 13:15 Aquanim 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. Putting aside the rest of the argument, is acting with the appearance of impropriety a disqualifying factor, even if no impropriety exists?
When you're talking about a Clinton-level appearance of impropriety in terms of frequency and severity, absolutely yes. You don't get investigated by the FBI unless you're doing some really shady stuff, regardless of whether what you're doing is criminal.
|
On November 06 2016 13:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 13:15 Aquanim 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. Putting aside the rest of the argument, is acting with the appearance of impropriety a disqualifying factor, even if no impropriety exists? When you're talking about a Clinton-level appearance of impropriety in terms of frequency and severity, absolutely yes. You don't get investigated by the FBI unless you're doing some really shady stuff, regardless of whether what you're doing is criminal.
No, you missed the last bit.
"even if no impropriety exists"
EDIT: Also, the FBI is investigating Trump's links with Russia. Should I assume that Trump is doing some "really shady stuff" with Russia simply because the FBI is investigating it?
|
On November 06 2016 13:20 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 13:18 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 13:15 Aquanim 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. Putting aside the rest of the argument, is acting with the appearance of impropriety a disqualifying factor, even if no impropriety exists? When you're talking about a Clinton-level appearance of impropriety in terms of frequency and severity, absolutely yes. You don't get investigated by the FBI unless you're doing some really shady stuff, regardless of whether what you're doing is criminal. No, you missed the last bit. " even if no impropriety exists"
No, I didn't miss it. I think I made my point very clearly.
EDIT: Also, the FBI is investigating Trump's links with Russia. Should I assume that Trump is doing some "really shady stuff" with Russia simply because the FBI is investigating it?
No, not necessarily, because there's an order of magnitude in difference between the frequency and severity of the appearance of impropriety between the Clinton Foundation stuff and the Trump/Russia stuff.
|
Trump dominating amongst Cuban-Americans in Florida
http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/shift-among-cuban-american-voters-could-deliver-florida-to-donald-trump/
“Cubans return to Trump,” read a sub-headline of The New York Times Upshot/Siena University poll released Oct. 27, which gave Trump a four-point lead in Florida. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton was leading in the same poll only a month earlier.
The poll’s explanatory text by The New York Times’ Nate Cohn said that Trump’s surprising comeback in Florida — the most important swing state — might be thanks to Cuban American voters. Trump’s support among Cuban-American voters in Florida was at 52 percent, up from 33 percent in September, the story said.
|
On November 06 2016 13:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 13:20 Aquanim wrote:On November 06 2016 13:18 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 13:15 Aquanim 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. Putting aside the rest of the argument, is acting with the appearance of impropriety a disqualifying factor, even if no impropriety exists? When you're talking about a Clinton-level appearance of impropriety in terms of frequency and severity, absolutely yes. You don't get investigated by the FBI unless you're doing some really shady stuff, regardless of whether what you're doing is criminal. No, you missed the last bit. " even if no impropriety exists" No, I didn't miss it. I think I made my point very clearly.
Okay, let me put this in different words.
What if, despite the appearance that the Clinton Foundation may have been involved in "really shady stuff" (putting aside the question of legality as you have done), it turns out that the Foundation was in fact not involved in "really shady stuff"?
Is that still a disqualifying factor for you?
Show nested quote +EDIT: Also, the FBI is investigating Trump's links with Russia. Should I assume that Trump is doing some "really shady stuff" with Russia simply because the FBI is investigating it? No, not necessarily, because there's an order of magnitude in difference between the frequency and severity of the appearance of impropriety between the Clinton Foundation stuff and the Trump/Russia stuff.
That is not consistent with the facts which I have observed. Would you care to elaborate?
Also, that's not really consistent with what you said before, unless you twist your own words a lot:
You don't get investigated by the FBI unless you're doing some really shady stuff
If that single fact isn't sufficient to demonstrate shadiness of Trump's interactions with Russia, then it is equally insufficient to demonstrate the shadiness of the Clinton Foundation.
|
On November 06 2016 13:24 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 13:22 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 13:20 Aquanim wrote:On November 06 2016 13:18 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 13:15 Aquanim 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. Putting aside the rest of the argument, is acting with the appearance of impropriety a disqualifying factor, even if no impropriety exists? When you're talking about a Clinton-level appearance of impropriety in terms of frequency and severity, absolutely yes. You don't get investigated by the FBI unless you're doing some really shady stuff, regardless of whether what you're doing is criminal. No, you missed the last bit. " even if no impropriety exists" No, I didn't miss it. I think I made my point very clearly. Okay, let me put this in different words. What if, despite the appearance that the Clinton Foundation may have been involved in "really shady stuff" (putting aside the question of legality as you have done), it turns out that the Foundation was in fact not involved in "really shady stuff"? Is that still a disqualifying factor for you?
Well, what do you mean by "really shady stuff?" The dichotomy that I've been using is "the appearance of impropriety" and "the illegal." Keeping the terms consistent, and if I understand you correctly, what you're asking me is whether "the appearance of impropriety" is disqualifying when it's shown that there, in fact, is no "appearance of impropriety." This question obviously doesn't work. If you're asking me whether the "appearance of impropriety" can still be disqualifying even if the conduct in question is ultimately shown to be legal, then my answer is yes (and has been).
That is not consistent with the facts which I have observed. Would you care to elaborate?
Also, that's not really consistent with what you said before, unless you twist your own words a lot:
You don't get investigated by the FBI unless you're doing some really shady stuff
If that single fact isn't sufficient to demonstrate shadiness of Trump's interactions with Russia, then it is equally insufficient to demonstrate the shadiness of the Clinton Foundation.
Perhaps my language was inartful. I don't know exactly what's going on with the Trump/Russia investigation, but my impression is that it's a very minor affair. In contrast, and by all reports, the investigation into the Clinton Foundation is a massive affair involving multiple FBI teams. The two aren't even comparable.
|
On November 06 2016 13:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 13:24 Aquanim wrote:On November 06 2016 13:22 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 13:20 Aquanim wrote:On November 06 2016 13:18 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 13:15 Aquanim 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. Putting aside the rest of the argument, is acting with the appearance of impropriety a disqualifying factor, even if no impropriety exists? When you're talking about a Clinton-level appearance of impropriety in terms of frequency and severity, absolutely yes. You don't get investigated by the FBI unless you're doing some really shady stuff, regardless of whether what you're doing is criminal. No, you missed the last bit. " even if no impropriety exists" No, I didn't miss it. I think I made my point very clearly. Okay, let me put this in different words. What if, despite the appearance that the Clinton Foundation may have been involved in "really shady stuff" (putting aside the question of legality as you have done), it turns out that the Foundation was in fact not involved in "really shady stuff"? Is that still a disqualifying factor for you? Well, what do you mean by "really shady stuff?" The dichotomy that I've been using is "the appearance of impropriety" and "the illegal." Keeping the terms consistent, and if I understand you correctly, what you're asking me is whether "the appearance of impropriety" is disqualifying when it's shown that there, in fact, is no "appearance of impropriety." This question obviously doesn't work. If you're asking me whether the "appearance of impropriety" can still be disqualifying even if the conduct in question is ultimately shown to be legal, then my answer is yes (and has been).
Well, you originally used the term "really shady stuff" as a disqualification for Clinton in #118770, so I mean it in exactly whatever sense you meant it as a disqualification for Clinton.
I originally went with "impropriety" but you played silly word games with my use of that term in #118772 so I instead used exactly the same language that you did.
|
On November 06 2016 13:31 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 13:28 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 13:24 Aquanim wrote:On November 06 2016 13:22 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 13:20 Aquanim wrote:On November 06 2016 13:18 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 13:15 Aquanim 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:
[quote]
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. Putting aside the rest of the argument, is acting with the appearance of impropriety a disqualifying factor, even if no impropriety exists? When you're talking about a Clinton-level appearance of impropriety in terms of frequency and severity, absolutely yes. You don't get investigated by the FBI unless you're doing some really shady stuff, regardless of whether what you're doing is criminal. No, you missed the last bit. " even if no impropriety exists" No, I didn't miss it. I think I made my point very clearly. Okay, let me put this in different words. What if, despite the appearance that the Clinton Foundation may have been involved in "really shady stuff" (putting aside the question of legality as you have done), it turns out that the Foundation was in fact not involved in "really shady stuff"? Is that still a disqualifying factor for you? Well, what do you mean by "really shady stuff?" The dichotomy that I've been using is "the appearance of impropriety" and "the illegal." Keeping the terms consistent, and if I understand you correctly, what you're asking me is whether "the appearance of impropriety" is disqualifying when it's shown that there, in fact, is no "appearance of impropriety." This question obviously doesn't work. If you're asking me whether the "appearance of impropriety" can still be disqualifying even if the conduct in question is ultimately shown to be legal, then my answer is yes (and has been). Well, you originally used the term "really shady stuff" as a disqualification for Clinton in #118770, so I mean it in exactly whatever sense you meant it as a disqualification for Clinton. I originally went with "impropriety" but you played silly word games with my use of that term in #118772 so I instead used exactly the same language that you did.
Ok, so we're on the same. "Appearance of impropriety" = "really shady stuff" for all intents and purposes. So like I pointed out, your question doesn't really make any sense.
EDIT: And no, I'm not dancing around anything. I've made myself perfectly clear.
|
On November 06 2016 13:17 kwizach 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. Here is the post in which you quoted the NY Times editorial. Here is the specific paragraph within the quote that you highlighted by putting it in bold and by underlining it: Show nested quote +The increasing scrutiny of the foundation has raised several points that need to be addressed by Mrs. Clinton and the former president. These relate most importantly to the flow of multimillions in donations from foreigners and others to the foundation, how Mrs. Clinton dealt with potential conflicts as secretary of state and how she intends to guard against such conflicts should she win the White House. You then wrote under the quote: Show nested quote +I seem to recall a certain somebody whose username began with x and ended in Daunt making the same point a couple days ago. Again, and legality aside, is this the type of stuff that we want to tolerate from our politicians? So, what point was the NY Times editorial board making in that paragraph? Exactly as I said, and as you recognized, the NY Times editorial board was saying that Clinton should address the issues they mentioned regarding the Clinton Foundation. You asserted that you were making "the same point". The point was therefore not simply that there was an "appearance of impropriety", but that Clinton should address the "questions about the interplay of politics and wealthy foreign donors who support the Clinton Foundation" that the editorial raised. Well, Clinton has since then addressed those questions. From what you said yourself, you believe that she has not addressed them adequately, and I was pointing out that the NY Times' editorial does not inform us as to how the journal's editorial board feels with regards to whether or not she adequately addressed them. If your point was only that there were "questions raised about the interplay of politics and wealthy foreign donors who support the Clinton Foundation" at the time, then it was ludicrous to quote that editorial and triumphantly write that "a certain somebody whose username began with x and ended in Daunt [was] making the same point a couple days ago", because nobody was claiming the opposite. Everyone knows that there were calls everywhere for Clinton to clarify the situation with regards to the CF, in particular what her relationship to it would look like if she was elected president, before she addressed those questions -- that's the very reason she addressed them. The debate that is being had now (at least in some corners) is over whether or not she adequately addressed those questions, and whether she was truthful about what went on or if something improper/illegal happened. Again, the NY Times editorial does not position itself one way or the other on the issue -- it only mentions "questions" and potential "accusations" that Clinton would need to address.
And we have a new record, folks! Kwizach has made a fourth post telling me what my argument is despite my previous three posts making it abundantly clear what the argument is. And in typical kwizach fashion, he does by taking previous posts out of context. Brilliant stuff.
User was warned for this post
|
On November 06 2016 13:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 13:31 Aquanim wrote:On November 06 2016 13:28 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 13:24 Aquanim wrote:On November 06 2016 13:22 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 13:20 Aquanim wrote:On November 06 2016 13:18 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 13:15 Aquanim 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.
[quote]
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. Putting aside the rest of the argument, is acting with the appearance of impropriety a disqualifying factor, even if no impropriety exists? When you're talking about a Clinton-level appearance of impropriety in terms of frequency and severity, absolutely yes. You don't get investigated by the FBI unless you're doing some really shady stuff, regardless of whether what you're doing is criminal. No, you missed the last bit. " even if no impropriety exists" No, I didn't miss it. I think I made my point very clearly. Okay, let me put this in different words. What if, despite the appearance that the Clinton Foundation may have been involved in "really shady stuff" (putting aside the question of legality as you have done), it turns out that the Foundation was in fact not involved in "really shady stuff"? Is that still a disqualifying factor for you? Well, what do you mean by "really shady stuff?" The dichotomy that I've been using is "the appearance of impropriety" and "the illegal." Keeping the terms consistent, and if I understand you correctly, what you're asking me is whether "the appearance of impropriety" is disqualifying when it's shown that there, in fact, is no "appearance of impropriety." This question obviously doesn't work. If you're asking me whether the "appearance of impropriety" can still be disqualifying even if the conduct in question is ultimately shown to be legal, then my answer is yes (and has been). Well, you originally used the term "really shady stuff" as a disqualification for Clinton in #118770, so I mean it in exactly whatever sense you meant it as a disqualification for Clinton. I originally went with "impropriety" but you played silly word games with my use of that term in #118772 so I instead used exactly the same language that you did. Ok, so we're on the same. "Appearance of impropriety" = "really shady stuff" for all intents and purposes. So like I pointed out, your question doesn't really make any sense.
I was drawing a distinction between all three of "appearance of impropriety", "actual impropriety" and "actual illegality". IANAL.
I am not keen on a political system where if enough noise is made making somebody look like they are performing some immoral act/impropriety/what have you, that is a disqualifying factor in their candidacy, even if the truth of the matter is quite different.
(To draw an analogy, I can believe that there is *some* fire beneath the smoke of the Clinton Foundation stuff, but I think it is very unlikely that the quantity of smoke is proportional to the size of the fire, and I'm willing to accept the potential existence of a small fire that efforts are being made to contain and put out. It's not an ideal situation, but that is how life is.)
|
On November 06 2016 13:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 13:17 kwizach 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. Here is the post in which you quoted the NY Times editorial. Here is the specific paragraph within the quote that you highlighted by putting it in bold and by underlining it: The increasing scrutiny of the foundation has raised several points that need to be addressed by Mrs. Clinton and the former president. These relate most importantly to the flow of multimillions in donations from foreigners and others to the foundation, how Mrs. Clinton dealt with potential conflicts as secretary of state and how she intends to guard against such conflicts should she win the White House. You then wrote under the quote: I seem to recall a certain somebody whose username began with x and ended in Daunt making the same point a couple days ago. Again, and legality aside, is this the type of stuff that we want to tolerate from our politicians? So, what point was the NY Times editorial board making in that paragraph? Exactly as I said, and as you recognized, the NY Times editorial board was saying that Clinton should address the issues they mentioned regarding the Clinton Foundation. You asserted that you were making "the same point". The point was therefore not simply that there was an "appearance of impropriety", but that Clinton should address the "questions about the interplay of politics and wealthy foreign donors who support the Clinton Foundation" that the editorial raised. Well, Clinton has since then addressed those questions. From what you said yourself, you believe that she has not addressed them adequately, and I was pointing out that the NY Times' editorial does not inform us as to how the journal's editorial board feels with regards to whether or not she adequately addressed them. If your point was only that there were "questions raised about the interplay of politics and wealthy foreign donors who support the Clinton Foundation" at the time, then it was ludicrous to quote that editorial and triumphantly write that "a certain somebody whose username began with x and ended in Daunt [was] making the same point a couple days ago", because nobody was claiming the opposite. Everyone knows that there were calls everywhere for Clinton to clarify the situation with regards to the CF, in particular what her relationship to it would look like if she was elected president, before she addressed those questions -- that's the very reason she addressed them. The debate that is being had now (at least in some corners) is over whether or not she adequately addressed those questions, and whether she was truthful about what went on or if something improper/illegal happened. Again, the NY Times editorial does not position itself one way or the other on the issue -- it only mentions "questions" and potential "accusations" that Clinton would need to address. And we have a new record, folks! Kwizach has made a fourth post telling me what my argument is despite my previous three posts making it abundantly clear what the argument is. And in typical kwizach fashion, he does by taking previous posts out of context. Brilliant stuff.
I literally did the opposite of taking them out of context, and I provided the links and quotes to put everything in context and allow for verification.
In the first half of the post, I show how your own words support my interpretation and response to you, and in the second half I explain why the limited reasoning you ended up putting forward to explain your quoting of the NY Times editorial is ludicrous with regards to the discussion at hand.
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
