US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5944

On November 07 2016 00:38 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I wonder whether politicians will feel comfortable brazenly lying as much in 2020 as they did in this election (pretty much everyone made some easily disprovable statements, though Trump takes the cake in any metric I've seen).

It's something when you can outright lie about both how another person treated a protester and then lie about how a protester at your own event was actually an assassin and no one cares, and have 0 repercussions because fuck holding humans to standards.

On November 06 2016 15:33 xDaunt wrote:

I really don't get why so many of the leftist/liberal posters go so far out of their way to fellate the Clintons. The Clintons are patently vile by any measure and should be readily acknowledged as such. I certainly understand the argument that the Clintons are comparatively better than Trump and can respect it, but the degree to which some posters stick their heads in the sand regarding who they're supporting simply boggles the mind.

On November 07 2016 00:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:


That's fantastic news to hear! And what direct evidence showed you this or are you just making speculative claims? I'd love to see it so I can show my peers and convince them of your obviously fact filled and evidence laden view.

On November 06 2016 22:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:
In this exerpt, Grim is clearly talking about the whole election (51 states). You quote one sentence while we (you in the first place) are talking about the Florida result, forgetting to mention the context, which is the whole election,

Further in the article he said the result of Florida mattered very little to prove anything here:

On November 07 2016 00:53 xDaunt wrote:

There have been plenty of posts made by me and by others illustrating exactly what the problem is with the Clinton Foundation, ranging from internal memos to third party reporting. And that's before even getting into the seedier side of the Clintons' political history.

On November 07 2016 00:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:


So far you've posted old articles of accusations that the foundation has apologized and made changes for. The accusation primarily being why Qatar gave 1/12th as much as England to the foundation.

On November 07 2016 01:06 oneofthem wrote:
people react like quid pro quo favors are the only reason any middle east sheik would have for donating to the clinton foundation, citing qatar or morocco.

they donate for the good name of association, a way of gaining respectability in elite society. it is also a way of signaling good behavior/attitude for some.

the clinton foundation and the carter center foundation are pretty similar in revenue terms. it's just a way for people to buy goodwill and good social standing.

it's no different from donations to universities and big name non-profits.

On November 07 2016 01:06 oneofthem wrote:
people react like quid pro quo favors are the only reason any middle east sheik would have for donating to the clinton foundation, citing qatar or morocco.

they donate for the good name of association, a way of gaining respectability in elite society. it is also a way of signaling good behavior/attitude for some.

the clinton foundation and the carter center foundation are pretty similar in revenue terms. it's just a way for people to buy goodwill and good social standing.

it's no different from donations to universities and big name non-profits.

On November 07 2016 00:55 Nebuchad wrote:


538 also has Clinton winning the national, the difference between the two models will be on the results of Florida and a few other states. What do you think "we'll see" means in terms of national results, when both entities agree on the most likely national result? Obviously it refers to the gap between the two candidates, and that gap is Florida and Cie.

Besides, do you think there is some sort of special difference between a national poll and a state poll, that makes it so that someone who thinks the national result is indicative of who was right about national polls doesn't also have to think that the state result is indicative of who was right about state polls? I'd like to hear what you think that difference is.

Btw it's cool that you jump to claiming dishonesty after two posts, makes me really want to debate you.

On November 07 2016 01:14 xDaunt wrote:

Carter's wife wasn't Secretary of State while he was raising the comparatively minimal funds that he raised. The two foundations aren't even comparable in scope.

On November 07 2016 01:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:


The whole election prediction is 51 different predictions put together, and it's this aggregate of predictions that makes our friend from the HP argue that the election will prove which model is better.

You then argue that the guy is stupid because Florida alone won't be able to prove the merit of their models, and when i point it out you answer with an out of context sentence that refers to the whole thing.

I get you don't like me, but I have nothing against you. I just tell you that you are mixing up two things and that you refuse to admit it, hence me questioning your good faith, especially after the extremely aggressive msg you wrote me the other day.

So if you put your grudge on the side:

You are right about Florida alone not being a good way to prove the merit of a model.

The whole election is in fact 51 predictions. That's a good test. Silver became famous overnight for getting it right in 2008

The guy said "we'll see who is right" talking about the whole thing. You said he said it about Florida.

I point it out and say that you either misread or are not quoting in good faith.

And that's it.

On November 07 2016 01:15 IgnE wrote:
I think the most important thing that the Clintons taught us was that if you become President at a young enough age it will propel you into the billionaire club.

On November 07 2016 01:39 oneofthem wrote:
bill has like dementia and people think he's some ingenious criminal mastermind. just lol.

On November 07 2016 01:50 IgnE wrote:


When did Bill get dementia? 2012? 2014?

I think that that plays against you anyway. You can have dementia and as long as you are a former President peddling moral influence you can be within an order of magnitude of the billionaire club.