|
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 13:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Trump dominating amongst Cuban-Americans in Florida http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/shift-among-cuban-american-voters-could-deliver-florida-to-donald-trump/Show nested quote +
“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.
I wonder what draws the Cuban-American community there to him
|
On November 06 2016 13:42 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 13:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: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.
I wonder what draws the Cuban-American community there to him
lots of baby boomer cubans
|
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. EDIT: And no, I'm not dancing around anything. I've made myself perfectly clear.
His question makes perfect sense. "x has the appearance of impropriety" is not the same as "x is improper". x could have "the appearance of impropriety" while not being improper on closer look. He's asking you if something initially having the "appearance of impropriety" should be disqualifying even if nothing improper actually happened.
|
On November 06 2016 13:13 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +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)
I'm from Florida (St. Pete, so Gus Bilirakis area), and you're partially right. Florida is like most states though in that it is heavily segregated politically. Panhandle/Northern Florida is heavily red, Central FL has been fading the past 20 years because of how many transplants from the NE have arrived, and Southern FL well, that's another state entirely :p It's the same in places like California, Washington, etc. You have enclaves of D's and R's segregated from each other. I do wonder how much less conflict in general we'd have if we decentralized a huge amount of responsibility/powers from the Feds to the States and then added another 25-30 states to better represent constituencies and population preferences. Northern Cali/Southern Oregon should be its own state. Eastern Washington is entirely disconnected politically from Western WA. Texas could be broken up with Austin and it's outlaying areas its own state. Same is true in places like Maryland (where I lived in MD is heavy republican country, but baltimore county rules the state). You can do the same with bluer/more progressive areas in the South too. If we're going to live in such a disparate country, we can't have large populations continuously fighting to wrest power to lord over each other every couple years. It's why we're in such a shitty position today, and I don't see any let up.
|
On November 06 2016 13:42 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 13:36 xDaunt wrote: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, since I precisely 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.
No, you're projecting your own interpretation of what I am arguing onto the one post of mine that cites the NYT editorial without looking at its position within the larger argument that I made in the prior posts that I was clearly referencing in that very post. So get lost.
|
On November 06 2016 13:42 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 13:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: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.
I wonder what draws the Cuban-American community there to him
Cuban-Americans are extremely anti-illegal immigration because many came over legally, they're pretty anti-communist, and well, they still remember what Clinton did with Elian Gonzalez. For all the people talking about amnesia, it ain't only one-sided :p
|
they came over legally because cuban exiles dont have to go through normal immigration channels -_-
|
On November 06 2016 13:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 13:42 kwizach wrote:On November 06 2016 13:36 xDaunt wrote: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, since I precisely 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. No, you're projecting your own interpretation of what I am arguing onto the one post of mine that cites the NYT editorial without looking at its position within the larger argument that I made in the prior posts that I was clearly referencing in that very post. So get lost.
I'm not projecting anything. You wrote yourself that you were making the same point as the NY Times editorial, and you subsequently agreed with my summary of the point made in NY Times editorial. I can't help it if you can't keep track of your own words. In any case, I also addressed in the second part of my post the position you've now said was yours all along (which may very well be the case, and you simply misspoke earlier -- which is on you, not on me).
|
On November 06 2016 13:38 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 13:33 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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.)
Alright, so back to the original question of whether the appearance of impropriety is disqualifying if there is no impropriety, where "impropriety" means something less than illegal, my answer is still that the question doesn't make any sense. You can't have an appearance of impropriety where it is known that there is no impropriety. Once it is known that the impropriety isn't there, then the appearance of it disappears by definition. In other words, and if you put a gun to my head, I'd have to say no, the appearance of impropriety is not disqualifying where there is no impropriety.
|
On November 06 2016 13:49 PassiveAce wrote:
they came over legally because cuban exiles dont have to go through normal immigration channels -_-
Which is irrelevant to my answer and the question it pertains to. What's your non-sequitur point here?
|
On November 06 2016 13:51 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 13:49 PassiveAce wrote:
they came over legally because cuban exiles dont have to go through normal immigration channels -_- Which is irrelevant to my answer and the question it pertains to. What's your non-sequitur point here?
It's not a non sequitur. You're just really bad at connecting the dots apparently.
Cubans get super special treatment. If you were fleeing political violence from any other South American country you'd have to go through the extremely tedious process of us immigration or be illegal.
|
On November 06 2016 14:02 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 13:51 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2016 13:49 PassiveAce wrote:
they came over legally because cuban exiles dont have to go through normal immigration channels -_- Which is irrelevant to my answer and the question it pertains to. What's your non-sequitur point here? It's not a non sequitur. You're just really bad at connecting the dots apparently. Cubans get super special treatment. If you were fleeing political violence from any other South American country you'd have to go through the extremely tedious process of us immigration or be illegal.
Um, yes it is, and again your point is irrelevant. The question asked why are Cuban-Americans going for Trump. It's a fact that cuban-americans are pretty loudly anti-illegal immigration (and of course a myriad of other reasons *cough* Clintons and Elian Gonzalez). The reason for it is irrelevant. Is there something that you fail to comprehend here?
|
On November 06 2016 13:45 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 13:13 Probe1 wrote: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) I'm from Florida (St. Pete, so Gus Bilirakis area), and you're partially right. Florida is like most states though in that it is heavily segregated politically. Panhandle/Northern Florida is heavily red, Central FL has been fading the past 20 years because of how many transplants from the NE have arrived, and Southern FL well, that's another state entirely :p It's the same in places like California, Washington, etc. You have enclaves of D's and R's segregated from each other. I do wonder how much less conflict in general we'd have if we decentralized a huge amount of responsibility/powers from the Feds to the States and then added another 25-30 states to better represent constituencies and population preferences. Northern Cali/Southern Oregon should be its own state. Eastern Washington is entirely disconnected politically from Western WA. Texas could be broken up with Austin and it's outlaying areas its own state. Same is true in places like Maryland (where I lived in MD is heavy republican country, but baltimore county rules the state). You can do the same with bluer/more progressive areas in the South too. If we're going to live in such a disparate country, we can't have large populations continuously fighting to wrest power to lord over each other every couple years. It's why we're in such a shitty position today, and I don't see any let up.
One thing I have learned over my lifetime of living in this great state is it's a lot more unified than we make it out to be. It's very easy to draw simple lines and say oh south floridas all hispanic and central floridas full of tourists.
You drive five miles out of where I was born in South Florida and it's more redneck than anywhere near me now in North Florida. We're pretty damn mixed together. But we do traditionally vote for Republicans and I have been disappointed by that many times.
As far as what makes sense and your idea maybe, if you could start from scratch. But we can't. We've got to work and change the system we have. Wishing we could do over with all the knowledge we have isn't gonna make it come true. And if we did, well you've seen what do overs look like in Syria.
What I'm saying here is though we may disagree, even on on some big issues, we are still pretty damn close to each other.
|
|
|
On November 06 2016 13:38 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 13:33 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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.)
The final part really just shows you choose to charitably view Clinton's smoke as overblown compared to the fire. Your view is entirely without proper basis: both candidates are under intense scrutiny, and like xDaunt's been pushing to primarily closed eyes and ears, the frequency and severity of Clinton's apparent misconduct should cause any unattached observer to judge her behavior harshly as a result.
|
On November 06 2016 14:06 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 14:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 06 2016 13:51 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2016 13:49 PassiveAce wrote:
they came over legally because cuban exiles dont have to go through normal immigration channels -_- Which is irrelevant to my answer and the question it pertains to. What's your non-sequitur point here? It's not a non sequitur. You're just really bad at connecting the dots apparently. Cubans get super special treatment. If you were fleeing political violence from any other South American country you'd have to go through the extremely tedious process of us immigration or be illegal. Um, yes it is, and again your point is irrelevant. The question asked why are Cuban-Americans going for Trump. It's a fact that cuban-americans are pretty loudly anti-illegal immigration (and of course a myriad of other reasons *cough* Clintons and Elian Gonzalez). The reason for it is irrelevant. Is there something that you fail to comprehend here?
You don't seem to get his point. It's ridiculous to take an anti-illegal immigration stance if you were granted a free pass to immigrate in the first place.
|
On November 06 2016 14:27 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 14:06 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2016 14:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 06 2016 13:51 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2016 13:49 PassiveAce wrote:
they came over legally because cuban exiles dont have to go through normal immigration channels -_- Which is irrelevant to my answer and the question it pertains to. What's your non-sequitur point here? It's not a non sequitur. You're just really bad at connecting the dots apparently. Cubans get super special treatment. If you were fleeing political violence from any other South American country you'd have to go through the extremely tedious process of us immigration or be illegal. Um, yes it is, and again your point is irrelevant. The question asked why are Cuban-Americans going for Trump. It's a fact that cuban-americans are pretty loudly anti-illegal immigration (and of course a myriad of other reasons *cough* Clintons and Elian Gonzalez). The reason for it is irrelevant. Is there something that you fail to comprehend here? You don't seem to get his point. It's ridiculous to take an anti-illegal immigration stance if you were granted a free pass to immigrate in the first place.
No, I understand perfectly. You don't hear what I'm saying - your points are irrelevant to why they're supporting Trump. What does their reason(s) for their immigration stance matter? The fact is they're supporting Trump because one of his major selling points to his constituents is his immigration policies, which are attractive to Cuban-Americans. The reason for why they hold that PoV is irrelevant. Do you understand?
|
On November 06 2016 14:26 Danglars wrote:\
...the frequency and severity of Clinton's apparent misconduct should cause any unattached observer to judge her behavior harshly as a result.
I disagree with this statement both in its assumptions and its conclusions, as do a large number of other "unattached observers" outside the US.
I am at this time not especially interested in justifying that disagreement to you. I am pretty sure that we would not have an interesting discussion on that topic.
|
On November 06 2016 14:27 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 14:06 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2016 14:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 06 2016 13:51 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2016 13:49 PassiveAce wrote:
they came over legally because cuban exiles dont have to go through normal immigration channels -_- Which is irrelevant to my answer and the question it pertains to. What's your non-sequitur point here? It's not a non sequitur. You're just really bad at connecting the dots apparently. Cubans get super special treatment. If you were fleeing political violence from any other South American country you'd have to go through the extremely tedious process of us immigration or be illegal. Um, yes it is, and again your point is irrelevant. The question asked why are Cuban-Americans going for Trump. It's a fact that cuban-americans are pretty loudly anti-illegal immigration (and of course a myriad of other reasons *cough* Clintons and Elian Gonzalez). The reason for it is irrelevant. Is there something that you fail to comprehend here? You don't seem to get his point. It's ridiculous to take an anti-illegal immigration stance if you were granted a free pass to immigrate in the first place.
Wegandi seems to be expounding a common Cuban-American position, not necessarily his own. That it might be a ridiculous position is a perfectly valid position too. Yelling at the messenger won't change much though.
Also, guys from a few pages back, if it's obvious that someone doesn't know the difference between debt and deficit, educate on that difference. Obama has continued to add to the debt, but he has reduced the deficit during his time in office. He would have to turn the deficit into a surplus before he could actually reduce the debt. So I'd say he's done reasonably well with what he was handed, but I'd still like to see a surplus budget while the economy is expanding and deficit spending only when the economy is suffering. Unfortunately, everyone thinks the economy is always suffering, so actually getting to a surplus is a nearly impossible task.
|
On November 06 2016 14:34 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 14:27 Nyxisto wrote:On November 06 2016 14:06 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2016 14:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 06 2016 13:51 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2016 13:49 PassiveAce wrote:
they came over legally because cuban exiles dont have to go through normal immigration channels -_- Which is irrelevant to my answer and the question it pertains to. What's your non-sequitur point here? It's not a non sequitur. You're just really bad at connecting the dots apparently. Cubans get super special treatment. If you were fleeing political violence from any other South American country you'd have to go through the extremely tedious process of us immigration or be illegal. Um, yes it is, and again your point is irrelevant. The question asked why are Cuban-Americans going for Trump. It's a fact that cuban-americans are pretty loudly anti-illegal immigration (and of course a myriad of other reasons *cough* Clintons and Elian Gonzalez). The reason for it is irrelevant. Is there something that you fail to comprehend here? You don't seem to get his point. It's ridiculous to take an anti-illegal immigration stance if you were granted a free pass to immigrate in the first place. No, I understand perfectly. You don't hear what I'm saying - your points are irrelevant to why they're supporting Trump. What does their reason(s) for their immigration stance matter? The fact is they're supporting Trump because one of his major selling points to his constituents is his immigration policies, which are attractive to Cuban-Americans. The reason for why they hold that PoV is irrelevant. Do you understand?
It just seems a little unbelievable that someone who has made the exact same experiences that illegal immigrants have made takes such a strong and facetious position against people that are right now in the same situation. I'd have guessed that normalisation with the Cuban government is what drives older Ex Cubans to Trump but immigration just seems weird.
|
|
|
|
|
|
41610
1202
612
190
EPT
