|
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 May 04 2017 04:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 03:30 hunts wrote:On May 04 2017 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2017 03:05 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 02:59 Mohdoo wrote:On May 04 2017 02:53 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 02:48 Mohdoo wrote:On May 04 2017 02:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2017 02:42 Mohdoo wrote:On May 04 2017 02:35 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] Source And here we go. The quest to remake the Clinton brand as some kind of revolutionary cause begins. It's up to her former supporters to have an intervention, but I imagine they won't admit she's desperately hoping for a 2020 run until a couple weeks after she announces. Only people I know who legit want Clinton for Clinton are my batshit crazy mega-feminist friends who wear shirts like "The future is female" and all that crap. Its not going to take much for a huge majority of people to prefer someone fresh over Clinton. I also remain confident that Ellison will be disruptive enough to make a huge stink if the party starts drifting towards another pre-determined Clinton run. I wonder how capable Ellison would be at dismantling super delegates. My intuition tells me even if the party planned to get rid of supers, they would only announce the change some time in 2019 for the better optics. My attorney is pretty cool and she doesn’t wear shirts like that. She doesn’t have the same relationship with Clinton that you do. Clinton was a role model to her in becoming an attorney and rising beyond just being a wife to her president husband. She isn’t irrational and doesn’t think Clinton is perfect, but she isn't some crazy militant feminist. Yeah, I totally get that she's been empowering to women etc etc, I was just commenting on people I know. From my perspective, she simply brings very little to the table at this point. I really don't care what she's done for women. I am happy about and respect what she has done for women. But that really doesn't matter with regards to who I want running. I want someone who will have the highest chance of winning. And no, GH, you don't need to post Bernie's favorables. They are high, we get it  It is tough. I see the claims of sexism and some of those are legit. I also think over the years they became an excuse for Clinton to ignore the real image problems she had. The overwhelming effort by the Republicans in congress just added fuel to the already growing fire. The siege mentality seemed to take over the entire party, believing they just needed to weather the storm until people saw how wrong the Republicans were. You're including yourself in this right? On May 04 2017 03:08 hunts wrote:
I find it funny to see so many people shitting on Hillary while simultaneously praising Bernie. He's literally just a populist, nothing else. He's just as bad as trump, but on the left side. And yet these people praise him like he's their saviour while bashing Hillary for things she didn't do. If for some insane reason the next candidates were Hillary or Sanders or the guy he likes so much that lost the DNC chair, I would still pick Hillary in a heart beat. The last thing we need is foe the Democratic party to get taken over by populism. lol. Bernie is nothing like Trump (Besides being more popular than Hillary/Democrats) and the lazy comparison is evidence of the shallow analysis. He's literally a populist with no actual policy and no clue how to implement any of what he wanted ,or if it was even possible to implement. I'm sorry but bernie is literally the left version of trump. And citation needed to show that either bernie or trump is more popular than Hillary. lol. You know Bernie's been a legislator for decades right? His knowledge about how the legislative process works isn't comparable to Trumps rank ignorance, come on now. As for the popularity, are you in a cave? She was polling worse than him before the election , and she's polling worse than him now
Do I really need to show you that Bernie is more popular than Trump too?
Lol just the first link shows that she lead in registered voters, but nice try. Also I never argued bernie being more popular than trump, right now I think a sack of potatoes would be more popular than trump. However, the fact that bernie lost to Hillary by several million, does kind of go against your notion of him being more popular than her, doesn't it?
|
On May 04 2017 03:08 hunts wrote:
I find it funny to see so many people shitting on Hillary while simultaneously praising Bernie. He's literally just a populist, nothing else. He's just as bad as trump, but on the left side. And yet these people praise him like he's their saviour while bashing Hillary for things she didn't do. If for some insane reason the next candidates were Hillary or Sanders or the guy he likes so much that lost the DNC chair, I would still pick Hillary in a heart beat. The last thing we need is for the Democratic party to get taken over by populism.
while the demagogic populism is indeed bad, he's not nearly as bad about it as Trump.
he at least has a decent sense of what's feasible/realistic, and has a much stronger grasp on reality. which is why he was saying he wouldn't just need to win the presidency, he'd need ot win both houses of congress to really get any of it done.
|
On May 04 2017 04:17 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 04:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2017 03:30 hunts wrote:On May 04 2017 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2017 03:05 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 02:59 Mohdoo wrote:On May 04 2017 02:53 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 02:48 Mohdoo wrote:On May 04 2017 02:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2017 02:42 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
And here we go. The quest to remake the Clinton brand as some kind of revolutionary cause begins. It's up to her former supporters to have an intervention, but I imagine they won't admit she's desperately hoping for a 2020 run until a couple weeks after she announces. Only people I know who legit want Clinton for Clinton are my batshit crazy mega-feminist friends who wear shirts like "The future is female" and all that crap. Its not going to take much for a huge majority of people to prefer someone fresh over Clinton. I also remain confident that Ellison will be disruptive enough to make a huge stink if the party starts drifting towards another pre-determined Clinton run. I wonder how capable Ellison would be at dismantling super delegates. My intuition tells me even if the party planned to get rid of supers, they would only announce the change some time in 2019 for the better optics. My attorney is pretty cool and she doesn’t wear shirts like that. She doesn’t have the same relationship with Clinton that you do. Clinton was a role model to her in becoming an attorney and rising beyond just being a wife to her president husband. She isn’t irrational and doesn’t think Clinton is perfect, but she isn't some crazy militant feminist. Yeah, I totally get that she's been empowering to women etc etc, I was just commenting on people I know. From my perspective, she simply brings very little to the table at this point. I really don't care what she's done for women. I am happy about and respect what she has done for women. But that really doesn't matter with regards to who I want running. I want someone who will have the highest chance of winning. And no, GH, you don't need to post Bernie's favorables. They are high, we get it It is tough. I see the claims of sexism and some of those are legit. I also think over the years they became an excuse for Clinton to ignore the real image problems she had. The overwhelming effort by the Republicans in congress just added fuel to the already growing fire. The siege mentality seemed to take over the entire party, believing they just needed to weather the storm until people saw how wrong the Republicans were. You're including yourself in this right? On May 04 2017 03:08 hunts wrote:
I find it funny to see so many people shitting on Hillary while simultaneously praising Bernie. He's literally just a populist, nothing else. He's just as bad as trump, but on the left side. And yet these people praise him like he's their saviour while bashing Hillary for things she didn't do. If for some insane reason the next candidates were Hillary or Sanders or the guy he likes so much that lost the DNC chair, I would still pick Hillary in a heart beat. The last thing we need is foe the Democratic party to get taken over by populism. lol. Bernie is nothing like Trump (Besides being more popular than Hillary/Democrats) and the lazy comparison is evidence of the shallow analysis. He's literally a populist with no actual policy and no clue how to implement any of what he wanted ,or if it was even possible to implement. I'm sorry but bernie is literally the left version of trump. And citation needed to show that either bernie or trump is more popular than Hillary. lol. You know Bernie's been a legislator for decades right? His knowledge about how the legislative process works isn't comparable to Trumps rank ignorance, come on now. As for the popularity, are you in a cave? She was polling worse than him before the election , and she's polling worse than him now
Do I really need to show you that Bernie is more popular than Trump too? Lol just the first link shows that she lead in registered voters, but nice try. Also I never argued bernie being more popular than trump, right now I think a sack of potatoes would be more popular than trump. However, the fact that bernie lost to Hillary by several million, does kind of go against your notion of him being more popular than her, doesn't it?
lol uhh. I don't even know what to say to this. You probably missed this?
BERNIE: 57/33
|
On May 04 2017 03:27 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 02:48 Plansix wrote:I like how we still don’t know the goal of her new PAC. If it was to do something awesome, like combating dangerous clowns like Alex Jones, I would be all about it.(for those who don’t know, families for Sandy Hook are still receiving death threats for “making up their children’s murder) But I doubt it is anything that noble. On May 04 2017 02:47 a_flayer wrote:On May 04 2017 02:39 Doodsmack wrote:On May 04 2017 01:20 a_flayer wrote:On May 04 2017 01:11 Doodsmack wrote:
Let's be friends.
What's that I hear? Is it a bunch of cocks hitting desks at the NSA as they all get erections at the thought of legislation being passed to make this [stopping Russia!] happen? What you need to do to stop the Russians from hacking (which was their only real influence, I hope you will agree) is enforcing that people/corporations/organizations who find bugs - anyone - report those bugs to the software maintainers so they can be fixed. But somehow, I don't think that's the kind of legislation that will be passed. I would wager that social media and fake news had influence as well. Give me a few examples of this fake news originating from Russia that was relatively widespread in social media amongst the US population, if you would be so kind. The point of propaganda is to make it hard to find out who produced it and where its information came from. It makes it harder to disprove if there is no source. You are asking for things the FBI and all its resources have been tasked to prove. Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 02:51 Doodsmack wrote:On May 04 2017 02:47 a_flayer wrote:On May 04 2017 02:39 Doodsmack wrote:On May 04 2017 01:20 a_flayer wrote:What's that I hear? Is it a bunch of cocks hitting desks at the NSA as they all get erections at the thought of legislation being passed to make this [stopping Russia!] happen? What you need to do to stop the Russians from hacking (which was their only real influence, I hope you will agree) is enforcing that people/corporations/organizations who find bugs - anyone - report those bugs to the software maintainers so they can be fixed. But somehow, I don't think that's the kind of legislation that will be passed. I would wager that social media and fake news had influence as well. Give me a few examples of this fake news originating from Russia that was relatively widespread in social media amongst the US population, if you would be so kind. I'm not sure what examples you're looking for but it's been widely reported that there was a full scale disinformation campaign. Oh please, the sources for fake news are clearly places like Breitbart (partially funded by the Americans Steve Bannon and Robert Mercer), SuperPACs that come up with exaggerated nonsense (funded by Americans), widespread biased news sources that distort reality to match their biases (aka Faux News, which is more Americans, although obviously anyone in media will do this), absurd headlines that have nothing to do with the articles so they can be used as clickbait (hey, you might be right on this one, the Russian ex-KGB agent current day oligarch at the Independent.co.uk [which is characterized as 'liberal'] is notorious for these kind of headlines). I don't think Russia is the problem here. You say that the FBI is still investigating this notion of fake news being funded/spread by Russia, but have you even looked at the ODNI report, where they already concluded that Russia was responsible for spreading propaganda through RT America by doing the following things in the field of news (amongst a few others): Show nested quote +In an effort to highlight the alleged "lack of democracy" in the United States, RT broadcast, hosted, and advertised third-party candidate debates and ran reporting supportive of the political agenda of these candidates. The RT hosts asserted that the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a "sham." Would you really make the argument that the two-party system DOES represent the views of the full population? Or is there a sufficient amount of truth to this to not classify it as "fake news"? Show nested quote +RT aired a documentary about the Occupy Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and 4 November. RT framed the movement as a fight against "the ruling class" and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations. RT advertising for the documentary featured Occupy movement calls to "take back" the government. The documentary claimed that the US system cannot be changed democratically, but only through "revolution." Would you also call Bernie a Russian fake news propagandist for using the same mindset (anti-Wallstreet) and phrase (revolution) to describe his campaign? Or were the Americans on RT just displaying the same attitude as all those people who voted for Bernie? Show nested quote +RT's reports often characterize the United States as a "surveillance state" and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties, police brutality, and drone use. There was an article on Reuters just the other day that once again confirmed this to be simply true. And didn't some black teenager get shot by the cops for driving away from a party? Nothing fake about this. This is the kind of thing that the FBI considers propaganda undermining US democracy in the field of news. Its nothing short of bullshit. And again, Russian social media bots? I don't think a bunch of Russian bots retweeting each other in a massive circlejerk will be accomplishing much. It's possible that the Russians employed the same techniques as Cambridge Analytica (oh, that's Robert Mercer popping up again!) to specifically target individuals on Twitter and Facebook with politically minded ads, but to call them a significant source of the fake election news would be absurd. They most probably hacked. They probably also shared the data with Wikileaks. That's a problem and matches their intent. But from that point on, it was all up to the Americans with their own political agendas. But Russians didn't make shit up about Benghazi, Russians didn't make shit up about Obama being a Kenyan Muslim, Russians didn't come up with trickle down economics. The main responsibility for fake news is in the hands of the country with the overwhelmingly largest economy, the biggest media empires and cultural influence in the world.
I think it's been reported that they did use the Cambridge Analytica type method among others and it's fake news on a different level than MSM sensationalism. It's all Clinton corruption stuff, and it all built up this image of Clinton being the most corrupt politician ever (a line toted verbatim by Trump himself, in tune almost exactly with the Russian campaign). That's the narrative that scared people off of Clinton. And trust me, those people on social media believed what they read.
|
On May 04 2017 04:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 04:17 hunts wrote:On May 04 2017 04:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2017 03:30 hunts wrote:On May 04 2017 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2017 03:05 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 02:59 Mohdoo wrote:On May 04 2017 02:53 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 02:48 Mohdoo wrote:On May 04 2017 02:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
It's up to her former supporters to have an intervention, but I imagine they won't admit she's desperately hoping for a 2020 run until a couple weeks after she announces. Only people I know who legit want Clinton for Clinton are my batshit crazy mega-feminist friends who wear shirts like "The future is female" and all that crap. Its not going to take much for a huge majority of people to prefer someone fresh over Clinton. I also remain confident that Ellison will be disruptive enough to make a huge stink if the party starts drifting towards another pre-determined Clinton run. I wonder how capable Ellison would be at dismantling super delegates. My intuition tells me even if the party planned to get rid of supers, they would only announce the change some time in 2019 for the better optics. My attorney is pretty cool and she doesn’t wear shirts like that. She doesn’t have the same relationship with Clinton that you do. Clinton was a role model to her in becoming an attorney and rising beyond just being a wife to her president husband. She isn’t irrational and doesn’t think Clinton is perfect, but she isn't some crazy militant feminist. Yeah, I totally get that she's been empowering to women etc etc, I was just commenting on people I know. From my perspective, she simply brings very little to the table at this point. I really don't care what she's done for women. I am happy about and respect what she has done for women. But that really doesn't matter with regards to who I want running. I want someone who will have the highest chance of winning. And no, GH, you don't need to post Bernie's favorables. They are high, we get it It is tough. I see the claims of sexism and some of those are legit. I also think over the years they became an excuse for Clinton to ignore the real image problems she had. The overwhelming effort by the Republicans in congress just added fuel to the already growing fire. The siege mentality seemed to take over the entire party, believing they just needed to weather the storm until people saw how wrong the Republicans were. You're including yourself in this right? On May 04 2017 03:08 hunts wrote:
I find it funny to see so many people shitting on Hillary while simultaneously praising Bernie. He's literally just a populist, nothing else. He's just as bad as trump, but on the left side. And yet these people praise him like he's their saviour while bashing Hillary for things she didn't do. If for some insane reason the next candidates were Hillary or Sanders or the guy he likes so much that lost the DNC chair, I would still pick Hillary in a heart beat. The last thing we need is foe the Democratic party to get taken over by populism. lol. Bernie is nothing like Trump (Besides being more popular than Hillary/Democrats) and the lazy comparison is evidence of the shallow analysis. He's literally a populist with no actual policy and no clue how to implement any of what he wanted ,or if it was even possible to implement. I'm sorry but bernie is literally the left version of trump. And citation needed to show that either bernie or trump is more popular than Hillary. lol. You know Bernie's been a legislator for decades right? His knowledge about how the legislative process works isn't comparable to Trumps rank ignorance, come on now. As for the popularity, are you in a cave? She was polling worse than him before the election , and she's polling worse than him now
Do I really need to show you that Bernie is more popular than Trump too? Lol just the first link shows that she lead in registered voters, but nice try. Also I never argued bernie being more popular than trump, right now I think a sack of potatoes would be more popular than trump. However, the fact that bernie lost to Hillary by several million, does kind of go against your notion of him being more popular than her, doesn't it? lol uhh. I don't even know what to say to this. You probably missed this? https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/839306502900969472BERNIE: 57/33
I've been particularly amused by all of the polls coming out in recent weeks showing that Trump would beat Hillary soundly if the election was held today. And I'm surprised that you lefties (GH and Stealth excluded, of course) haven't been talking more about how unpopular the Democrat Party is right now.
|
On May 04 2017 04:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 04:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2017 04:17 hunts wrote:On May 04 2017 04:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2017 03:30 hunts wrote:On May 04 2017 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2017 03:05 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 02:59 Mohdoo wrote:On May 04 2017 02:53 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 02:48 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Only people I know who legit want Clinton for Clinton are my batshit crazy mega-feminist friends who wear shirts like "The future is female" and all that crap. Its not going to take much for a huge majority of people to prefer someone fresh over Clinton.
I also remain confident that Ellison will be disruptive enough to make a huge stink if the party starts drifting towards another pre-determined Clinton run. I wonder how capable Ellison would be at dismantling super delegates. My intuition tells me even if the party planned to get rid of supers, they would only announce the change some time in 2019 for the better optics. My attorney is pretty cool and she doesn’t wear shirts like that. She doesn’t have the same relationship with Clinton that you do. Clinton was a role model to her in becoming an attorney and rising beyond just being a wife to her president husband. She isn’t irrational and doesn’t think Clinton is perfect, but she isn't some crazy militant feminist. Yeah, I totally get that she's been empowering to women etc etc, I was just commenting on people I know. From my perspective, she simply brings very little to the table at this point. I really don't care what she's done for women. I am happy about and respect what she has done for women. But that really doesn't matter with regards to who I want running. I want someone who will have the highest chance of winning. And no, GH, you don't need to post Bernie's favorables. They are high, we get it It is tough. I see the claims of sexism and some of those are legit. I also think over the years they became an excuse for Clinton to ignore the real image problems she had. The overwhelming effort by the Republicans in congress just added fuel to the already growing fire. The siege mentality seemed to take over the entire party, believing they just needed to weather the storm until people saw how wrong the Republicans were. You're including yourself in this right? On May 04 2017 03:08 hunts wrote:
I find it funny to see so many people shitting on Hillary while simultaneously praising Bernie. He's literally just a populist, nothing else. He's just as bad as trump, but on the left side. And yet these people praise him like he's their saviour while bashing Hillary for things she didn't do. If for some insane reason the next candidates were Hillary or Sanders or the guy he likes so much that lost the DNC chair, I would still pick Hillary in a heart beat. The last thing we need is foe the Democratic party to get taken over by populism. lol. Bernie is nothing like Trump (Besides being more popular than Hillary/Democrats) and the lazy comparison is evidence of the shallow analysis. He's literally a populist with no actual policy and no clue how to implement any of what he wanted ,or if it was even possible to implement. I'm sorry but bernie is literally the left version of trump. And citation needed to show that either bernie or trump is more popular than Hillary. lol. You know Bernie's been a legislator for decades right? His knowledge about how the legislative process works isn't comparable to Trumps rank ignorance, come on now. As for the popularity, are you in a cave? She was polling worse than him before the election , and she's polling worse than him now
Do I really need to show you that Bernie is more popular than Trump too? Lol just the first link shows that she lead in registered voters, but nice try. Also I never argued bernie being more popular than trump, right now I think a sack of potatoes would be more popular than trump. However, the fact that bernie lost to Hillary by several million, does kind of go against your notion of him being more popular than her, doesn't it? lol uhh. I don't even know what to say to this. You probably missed this? https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/839306502900969472BERNIE: 57/33 I've been particularly amused by all of the polls coming out in recent weeks showing that Trump would beat Hillary soundly if the election was held today. And I'm surprised that you lefties (GH and Stealth excluded, of course) haven't been talking more about how unpopular the Democrat Party is right now.
why would a normal finding be surprising? other than trolling people who do'nt know that.
|
The Republican controlled congress still has garbage approval ratings. The Democrats have garbage approval ratings. Republicans have garbage approval ratings. Everyone hates the political parties and their inability to govern. And then they govern well by not shutting down the government and they take to cable news to bitch about how much they gave away. Everyone is in election mode all the time.
|
On May 04 2017 04:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 04:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2017 04:17 hunts wrote:On May 04 2017 04:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2017 03:30 hunts wrote:On May 04 2017 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2017 03:05 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 02:59 Mohdoo wrote:On May 04 2017 02:53 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 02:48 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Only people I know who legit want Clinton for Clinton are my batshit crazy mega-feminist friends who wear shirts like "The future is female" and all that crap. Its not going to take much for a huge majority of people to prefer someone fresh over Clinton.
I also remain confident that Ellison will be disruptive enough to make a huge stink if the party starts drifting towards another pre-determined Clinton run. I wonder how capable Ellison would be at dismantling super delegates. My intuition tells me even if the party planned to get rid of supers, they would only announce the change some time in 2019 for the better optics. My attorney is pretty cool and she doesn’t wear shirts like that. She doesn’t have the same relationship with Clinton that you do. Clinton was a role model to her in becoming an attorney and rising beyond just being a wife to her president husband. She isn’t irrational and doesn’t think Clinton is perfect, but she isn't some crazy militant feminist. Yeah, I totally get that she's been empowering to women etc etc, I was just commenting on people I know. From my perspective, she simply brings very little to the table at this point. I really don't care what she's done for women. I am happy about and respect what she has done for women. But that really doesn't matter with regards to who I want running. I want someone who will have the highest chance of winning. And no, GH, you don't need to post Bernie's favorables. They are high, we get it It is tough. I see the claims of sexism and some of those are legit. I also think over the years they became an excuse for Clinton to ignore the real image problems she had. The overwhelming effort by the Republicans in congress just added fuel to the already growing fire. The siege mentality seemed to take over the entire party, believing they just needed to weather the storm until people saw how wrong the Republicans were. You're including yourself in this right? On May 04 2017 03:08 hunts wrote:
I find it funny to see so many people shitting on Hillary while simultaneously praising Bernie. He's literally just a populist, nothing else. He's just as bad as trump, but on the left side. And yet these people praise him like he's their saviour while bashing Hillary for things she didn't do. If for some insane reason the next candidates were Hillary or Sanders or the guy he likes so much that lost the DNC chair, I would still pick Hillary in a heart beat. The last thing we need is foe the Democratic party to get taken over by populism. lol. Bernie is nothing like Trump (Besides being more popular than Hillary/Democrats) and the lazy comparison is evidence of the shallow analysis. He's literally a populist with no actual policy and no clue how to implement any of what he wanted ,or if it was even possible to implement. I'm sorry but bernie is literally the left version of trump. And citation needed to show that either bernie or trump is more popular than Hillary. lol. You know Bernie's been a legislator for decades right? His knowledge about how the legislative process works isn't comparable to Trumps rank ignorance, come on now. As for the popularity, are you in a cave? She was polling worse than him before the election , and she's polling worse than him now
Do I really need to show you that Bernie is more popular than Trump too? Lol just the first link shows that she lead in registered voters, but nice try. Also I never argued bernie being more popular than trump, right now I think a sack of potatoes would be more popular than trump. However, the fact that bernie lost to Hillary by several million, does kind of go against your notion of him being more popular than her, doesn't it? lol uhh. I don't even know what to say to this. You probably missed this? https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/839306502900969472BERNIE: 57/33 I've been particularly amused by all of the polls coming out in recent weeks showing that Trump would beat Hillary soundly if the election was held today. And I'm surprised that you lefties (GH and Stealth excluded, of course) haven't been talking more about how unpopular the Democrat Party is right now.
We've been talking about it by talking about how it is true for ourselves. I think very, very few posters around here would say they are satisfied with the democratic party. I'd still vote against the GOP in a heartbeat until they get out of the stone age, but the democratic party is very poorly run at the moment.
|
People who vote in polls dont go vote in elections though so ratings are pretty much meaningless.
|
On May 04 2017 04:39 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 03:27 a_flayer wrote:On May 04 2017 02:48 Plansix wrote:I like how we still don’t know the goal of her new PAC. If it was to do something awesome, like combating dangerous clowns like Alex Jones, I would be all about it.(for those who don’t know, families for Sandy Hook are still receiving death threats for “making up their children’s murder) But I doubt it is anything that noble. On May 04 2017 02:47 a_flayer wrote:On May 04 2017 02:39 Doodsmack wrote:On May 04 2017 01:20 a_flayer wrote:What's that I hear? Is it a bunch of cocks hitting desks at the NSA as they all get erections at the thought of legislation being passed to make this [stopping Russia!] happen? What you need to do to stop the Russians from hacking (which was their only real influence, I hope you will agree) is enforcing that people/corporations/organizations who find bugs - anyone - report those bugs to the software maintainers so they can be fixed. But somehow, I don't think that's the kind of legislation that will be passed. I would wager that social media and fake news had influence as well. Give me a few examples of this fake news originating from Russia that was relatively widespread in social media amongst the US population, if you would be so kind. The point of propaganda is to make it hard to find out who produced it and where its information came from. It makes it harder to disprove if there is no source. You are asking for things the FBI and all its resources have been tasked to prove. On May 04 2017 02:51 Doodsmack wrote:On May 04 2017 02:47 a_flayer wrote:On May 04 2017 02:39 Doodsmack wrote:On May 04 2017 01:20 a_flayer wrote:What's that I hear? Is it a bunch of cocks hitting desks at the NSA as they all get erections at the thought of legislation being passed to make this [stopping Russia!] happen? What you need to do to stop the Russians from hacking (which was their only real influence, I hope you will agree) is enforcing that people/corporations/organizations who find bugs - anyone - report those bugs to the software maintainers so they can be fixed. But somehow, I don't think that's the kind of legislation that will be passed. I would wager that social media and fake news had influence as well. Give me a few examples of this fake news originating from Russia that was relatively widespread in social media amongst the US population, if you would be so kind. I'm not sure what examples you're looking for but it's been widely reported that there was a full scale disinformation campaign. Oh please, the sources for fake news are clearly places like Breitbart (partially funded by the Americans Steve Bannon and Robert Mercer), SuperPACs that come up with exaggerated nonsense (funded by Americans), widespread biased news sources that distort reality to match their biases (aka Faux News, which is more Americans, although obviously anyone in media will do this), absurd headlines that have nothing to do with the articles so they can be used as clickbait (hey, you might be right on this one, the Russian ex-KGB agent current day oligarch at the Independent.co.uk [which is characterized as 'liberal'] is notorious for these kind of headlines). I don't think Russia is the problem here. You say that the FBI is still investigating this notion of fake news being funded/spread by Russia, but have you even looked at the ODNI report, where they already concluded that Russia was responsible for spreading propaganda through RT America by doing the following things in the field of news (amongst a few others): In an effort to highlight the alleged "lack of democracy" in the United States, RT broadcast, hosted, and advertised third-party candidate debates and ran reporting supportive of the political agenda of these candidates. The RT hosts asserted that the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a "sham." Would you really make the argument that the two-party system DOES represent the views of the full population? Or is there a sufficient amount of truth to this to not classify it as "fake news"? RT aired a documentary about the Occupy Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and 4 November. RT framed the movement as a fight against "the ruling class" and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations. RT advertising for the documentary featured Occupy movement calls to "take back" the government. The documentary claimed that the US system cannot be changed democratically, but only through "revolution." Would you also call Bernie a Russian fake news propagandist for using the same mindset (anti-Wallstreet) and phrase (revolution) to describe his campaign? Or were the Americans on RT just displaying the same attitude as all those people who voted for Bernie? RT's reports often characterize the United States as a "surveillance state" and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties, police brutality, and drone use. There was an article on Reuters just the other day that once again confirmed this to be simply true. And didn't some black teenager get shot by the cops for driving away from a party? Nothing fake about this. This is the kind of thing that the FBI considers propaganda undermining US democracy in the field of news. Its nothing short of bullshit. And again, Russian social media bots? I don't think a bunch of Russian bots retweeting each other in a massive circlejerk will be accomplishing much. It's possible that the Russians employed the same techniques as Cambridge Analytica (oh, that's Robert Mercer popping up again!) to specifically target individuals on Twitter and Facebook with politically minded ads, but to call them a significant source of the fake election news would be absurd. They most probably hacked. They probably also shared the data with Wikileaks. That's a problem and matches their intent. But from that point on, it was all up to the Americans with their own political agendas. But Russians didn't make shit up about Benghazi, Russians didn't make shit up about Obama being a Kenyan Muslim, Russians didn't come up with trickle down economics. The main responsibility for fake news is in the hands of the country with the overwhelmingly largest economy, the biggest media empires and cultural influence in the world. I think it's been reported that they did use the Cambridge Analytica type method among others and it's fake news on a different level than MSM sensationalism. It's all Clinton corruption stuff, and it all built up this image of Clinton being the most corrupt politician ever (a line toted verbatim by Trump himself, in tune almost exactly with the Russian campaign). That's the narrative that scared people off of Clinton. And trust me, those people on social media believed what they read.
But how do you differentiate between the something the Russians did and something that was done by Republicans? I'm telling you, its not Russians, its just Republicans. They happened to be working on the same thing, that is all. The Russians influence in comparison to that of the Republicans is negligible.
|
On May 04 2017 00:25 LegalLord wrote:
The consistent nature of need for healthcare makes "insurance" a pretty shitty model for covering healthcare cost. Contrast to, perhaps, something like your house burning down.
Pretty much my thoughts. I think it's ridiculous that healthcare isn't a basic human right in a 1st world country like the USA. Insurance shouldn't be part of this equation but here we are.
|
On May 04 2017 05:19 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 04:39 Doodsmack wrote:On May 04 2017 03:27 a_flayer wrote:On May 04 2017 02:48 Plansix wrote:I like how we still don’t know the goal of her new PAC. If it was to do something awesome, like combating dangerous clowns like Alex Jones, I would be all about it.(for those who don’t know, families for Sandy Hook are still receiving death threats for “making up their children’s murder) But I doubt it is anything that noble. On May 04 2017 02:47 a_flayer wrote:On May 04 2017 02:39 Doodsmack wrote:On May 04 2017 01:20 a_flayer wrote:What's that I hear? Is it a bunch of cocks hitting desks at the NSA as they all get erections at the thought of legislation being passed to make this [stopping Russia!] happen? What you need to do to stop the Russians from hacking (which was their only real influence, I hope you will agree) is enforcing that people/corporations/organizations who find bugs - anyone - report those bugs to the software maintainers so they can be fixed. But somehow, I don't think that's the kind of legislation that will be passed. I would wager that social media and fake news had influence as well. Give me a few examples of this fake news originating from Russia that was relatively widespread in social media amongst the US population, if you would be so kind. The point of propaganda is to make it hard to find out who produced it and where its information came from. It makes it harder to disprove if there is no source. You are asking for things the FBI and all its resources have been tasked to prove. On May 04 2017 02:51 Doodsmack wrote:On May 04 2017 02:47 a_flayer wrote:On May 04 2017 02:39 Doodsmack wrote:On May 04 2017 01:20 a_flayer wrote:What's that I hear? Is it a bunch of cocks hitting desks at the NSA as they all get erections at the thought of legislation being passed to make this [stopping Russia!] happen? What you need to do to stop the Russians from hacking (which was their only real influence, I hope you will agree) is enforcing that people/corporations/organizations who find bugs - anyone - report those bugs to the software maintainers so they can be fixed. But somehow, I don't think that's the kind of legislation that will be passed. I would wager that social media and fake news had influence as well. Give me a few examples of this fake news originating from Russia that was relatively widespread in social media amongst the US population, if you would be so kind. I'm not sure what examples you're looking for but it's been widely reported that there was a full scale disinformation campaign. Oh please, the sources for fake news are clearly places like Breitbart (partially funded by the Americans Steve Bannon and Robert Mercer), SuperPACs that come up with exaggerated nonsense (funded by Americans), widespread biased news sources that distort reality to match their biases (aka Faux News, which is more Americans, although obviously anyone in media will do this), absurd headlines that have nothing to do with the articles so they can be used as clickbait (hey, you might be right on this one, the Russian ex-KGB agent current day oligarch at the Independent.co.uk [which is characterized as 'liberal'] is notorious for these kind of headlines). I don't think Russia is the problem here. You say that the FBI is still investigating this notion of fake news being funded/spread by Russia, but have you even looked at the ODNI report, where they already concluded that Russia was responsible for spreading propaganda through RT America by doing the following things in the field of news (amongst a few others): In an effort to highlight the alleged "lack of democracy" in the United States, RT broadcast, hosted, and advertised third-party candidate debates and ran reporting supportive of the political agenda of these candidates. The RT hosts asserted that the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a "sham." Would you really make the argument that the two-party system DOES represent the views of the full population? Or is there a sufficient amount of truth to this to not classify it as "fake news"? RT aired a documentary about the Occupy Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and 4 November. RT framed the movement as a fight against "the ruling class" and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations. RT advertising for the documentary featured Occupy movement calls to "take back" the government. The documentary claimed that the US system cannot be changed democratically, but only through "revolution." Would you also call Bernie a Russian fake news propagandist for using the same mindset (anti-Wallstreet) and phrase (revolution) to describe his campaign? Or were the Americans on RT just displaying the same attitude as all those people who voted for Bernie? RT's reports often characterize the United States as a "surveillance state" and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties, police brutality, and drone use. There was an article on Reuters just the other day that once again confirmed this to be simply true. And didn't some black teenager get shot by the cops for driving away from a party? Nothing fake about this. This is the kind of thing that the FBI considers propaganda undermining US democracy in the field of news. Its nothing short of bullshit. And again, Russian social media bots? I don't think a bunch of Russian bots retweeting each other in a massive circlejerk will be accomplishing much. It's possible that the Russians employed the same techniques as Cambridge Analytica (oh, that's Robert Mercer popping up again!) to specifically target individuals on Twitter and Facebook with politically minded ads, but to call them a significant source of the fake election news would be absurd. They most probably hacked. They probably also shared the data with Wikileaks. That's a problem and matches their intent. But from that point on, it was all up to the Americans with their own political agendas. But Russians didn't make shit up about Benghazi, Russians didn't make shit up about Obama being a Kenyan Muslim, Russians didn't come up with trickle down economics. The main responsibility for fake news is in the hands of the country with the overwhelmingly largest economy, the biggest media empires and cultural influence in the world. I think it's been reported that they did use the Cambridge Analytica type method among others and it's fake news on a different level than MSM sensationalism. It's all Clinton corruption stuff, and it all built up this image of Clinton being the most corrupt politician ever (a line toted verbatim by Trump himself, in tune almost exactly with the Russian campaign). That's the narrative that scared people off of Clinton. And trust me, those people on social media believed what they read. But how do you differentiate between the something the Russians did and something that was done by Republicans? I'm telling you, its not Russians, its just Republicans. They happened to be working on the same thing, that is all. The Russians influence in comparison to that of the Republicans is negligible.
You can’t. That is why it was so successful. The line was so blurred that it was impossible to tell when the private server emails stopped and the DNC emails began. It was information overload.
|
Yes, and yet, somehow, the line that the Russians did it is the prevailing one. When there is a ton of evidence (all the money) that points in another direction.
|
On May 04 2017 05:28 a_flayer wrote:
Yes, and yet, somehow, the line that the Russians did it is the prevailing one. When there is a ton of evidence (all the money) that points in another direction.
In the US corporations are people and are allowed to spend money on politicians in the same way that people are allowed to.
The difference is that Russia is not a US citizen.
If Russia wanted to spend money on influencing the US elections they could have created a corporation in the US and legally spend billions on buying an election.
|
On May 04 2017 05:28 a_flayer wrote:
Yes, and yet, somehow, the line that the Russians did it is the prevailing one. When there is a ton of evidence (all the money) that points in another direction.
One of those is illegal and could have involved US citizens, which is also illegal and could be seen as treason. The other is politics under Citizens United.
|
Yeah, but people are accusing Russian hacking and Russian fake news of swinging the election. That's simply not the case. It would be far more accurate to say Russian hacking and American fake news. Or Republican fake news. Or Breitbart fake news. This immense focus on the Russians is absurd and frustrating to watch, when, as you say, it is the fact that corporations can legally buy elections through media campaigns as a result of Citizens United that swung the election (and needs to be dealt with). Not "the Russians". Comey says the Russians are the biggest threat to liberal democracy. I say he's a blind fool or a useful idiot for those corporations that want to buy the elections. It's the American government serving corporate interests through buying out elections that's the biggest threat to a liberal democracy.
|
On May 04 2017 05:40 a_flayer wrote:
Yeah, but people are accusing Russian hacking and Russian fake news of swinging the election. That's simply not the case. It would be far more accurate to say Russian hacking and American fake news. Or Republican fake news. Or Breitbart fake news. This immense focus on the Russians is absurd and frustrating to watch, when, as you say, it is the fact that corporations can legally buy elections that needs to be dealt with. Not "the Russians". Comey says the Russians are the biggest threat. I say he's a blind fool or a useful idiot. It's the American government serving corporate interests through buying out elections that's the biggest threat.
No we are not. That isn’t what people are saying. It influenced the election. No one here is claiming that it turned the tide, that is your argument. We are all just saying it is a factor and a troubling one. Our democracy cannot function with a constant flow of state sponsored misinformation coming from Russia. That is not sustainable.
|
There you go again. A constant flow of misinformation coming from Russia. There is no constant flow of misinformation from Russia that is influencing the election somehow. It's coming from Breitbart (Bannon, Mercer, other rich guys in America). Fox News, infotainment, partisan news, biased news (Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, whoever is in charge of that shit).
|
On May 04 2017 05:40 a_flayer wrote:
Yeah, but people are accusing Russian hacking and Russian fake news of swinging the election. That's simply not the case. It would be far more accurate to say Russian hacking and American fake news. Or Republican fake news. Or Breitbart fake news. This immense focus on the Russians is absurd and frustrating to watch, when, as you say, it is the fact that corporations can legally buy elections through media campaigns as a result of Citizens United that swung the election (and needs to be dealt with). Not "the Russians". Comey says the Russians are the biggest threat. I say he's a blind fool or a useful idiot. It's the American government serving corporate interests through buying out elections that's the biggest threat.
russian election interference is a problem to be dealt with. american influencing the american election is normal and to be expected, though it does have some toruble some aspects, which should be worked on. but they're far less significant than foreign action.
and people are trying to work on citizen's united and getting it reversed; just beacuse you hear about something alot in the media doesn't mean other things aren't being worked on; so people can be complaining about the russia stuff, while quietly working on other things. mostly cuz talk about Russia sells, while talk about citizen's united tends to be more boring.
also, you appear to be improperly conflating various things. then attack the strawman built on those, rather than on the actual underlying issues. (of course there's a lot of people on all sides who do that, so there's always some idiots doing that that you can complain about that happen to be on the side you dislike)
|
On May 04 2017 05:44 a_flayer wrote:
There you go again. A constant flow of misinformation coming from Russia. There is no constant flow of misinformation from Russia that is influencing the election somehow. It's coming from Breitbart (Bannon, Mercer, other rich guys in America). Fox News, infotainment, partisan news, biased news (Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, whoever is in charge of that shit).
I am sorry my views of the situation does not line up with yours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
