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 July 11 2017 08:19 Plansix wrote: And remember that GHs pet issue is campaign finance. Roberts was the 5th judge that swung citizens united. Appointed by Bush. Also the tide turner on gutting the voters rights act.
The Democratic Party sucks, but people saying throwing vote to third parties will teach them a lesson suck just as hard.
Yeah, if you still believe the myth that Bush was elected because of third party voters that almost is a smart quip.
On July 11 2017 08:20 NewSunshine wrote:
On July 11 2017 08:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On July 11 2017 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
On July 11 2017 07:31 Gorsameth wrote: GH's positions might make more sense if you remember that after Bernie lost he was considering voting Trump. He isn't in this for the liberal policies. Hes in it to 'beat the system'.
lol if I said anything along those lines I'm sure it was in jest or saying it rhetorically to make a point about someone's argument. I knew better than to actually believe Trump would do anything but what would benefit him personally. Let there be no doubt, regardless of how his presidency turns out politically, it will be the most profitable presidency in history.
You were also pushing quite hard for Jill Stein.
Um, yeah, if you'd rather I vote third party, in a strong 2-party environment, I can safely ignore what you have to say. I don't like a 2-party system because it doesn't encourage a party to make themselves look good, and so they don't, but this is the system we have. If you want me to throw my vote away in the name of some virtuous code, you're free to do that yourself, but I plan on having a vote that at least counts toward something.
Well I mean vote how you think is right, but no, voting for Democrats to not have to get better doesn't make them better, anyone who tells you that is the one you should be dismissing.
This learned helplessness of being trapped in a two party system so you can't help but vote to perpetuate it is getting pathetic though. You aren't helpless, you don't have to keep voting for crap candidates for fear of even worse ones winning, and the people telling you that's how it has to be are not doing so in your best interests and it would behoove all of us for those not being paid to, to stop repeating it.
Voting for a particular person, or no person at all, has a number of meanings. Some people voted for Trump because they agreed with his campaign pledges, and some voted for him to stick it to Hillary and "the liberals". Same goes for Hillary. If someone votes third party, in this environment, it usually means you don't care whether your vote ends up affecting anything. Whether you agree with that person's policies, or whether you voted for them just to "stick it" to the 2-party system, is up to you. I don't see it as a worthwhile exercise in an environment where they still don't have a snowball's chance in hell. Voting for the "least bad" of 2 candidates doesn't sound appealing, but you know what? It'll keep us from having another term of Trump's incompetence, corruption, and flat out idiocy, or something just as bad.
So for someone like myself in Washington state, you think I should have voted for Hillary instead of voting for (anyone else) and that my vote for Hillary would have been perceived the same way someone who voted Dem in 2008 and 2012 then voting for not Dem in 2016?
Well if that's how Democrats respond to such votes, that's exactly why they can't be voted for.
To be clear, if Democrats had any semblance of wanting to change I wouldn't say third party is a better option, but at this point Democrats are sooner to lose every single seat than they are admit they are going about the complete wrong way to reverse the 1000+ seats they lost.
On July 11 2017 08:19 Plansix wrote: And remember that GHs pet issue is campaign finance. Roberts was the 5th judge that swung citizens united. Appointed by Bush. Also the tide turner on gutting the voters rights act.
The Democratic Party sucks, but people saying throwing vote to third parties will teach them a lesson suck just as hard.
Yeah, if you still believe the myth that Bush was elected because of third party voters that almost is a smart quip.
On July 11 2017 08:20 NewSunshine wrote:
On July 11 2017 08:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On July 11 2017 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
On July 11 2017 07:31 Gorsameth wrote: GH's positions might make more sense if you remember that after Bernie lost he was considering voting Trump. He isn't in this for the liberal policies. Hes in it to 'beat the system'.
lol if I said anything along those lines I'm sure it was in jest or saying it rhetorically to make a point about someone's argument. I knew better than to actually believe Trump would do anything but what would benefit him personally. Let there be no doubt, regardless of how his presidency turns out politically, it will be the most profitable presidency in history.
You were also pushing quite hard for Jill Stein.
Um, yeah, if you'd rather I vote third party, in a strong 2-party environment, I can safely ignore what you have to say. I don't like a 2-party system because it doesn't encourage a party to make themselves look good, and so they don't, but this is the system we have. If you want me to throw my vote away in the name of some virtuous code, you're free to do that yourself, but I plan on having a vote that at least counts toward something.
Well I mean vote how you think is right, but no, voting for Democrats to not have to get better doesn't make them better, anyone who tells you that is the one you should be dismissing.
This learned helplessness of being trapped in a two party system so you can't help but vote to perpetuate it is getting pathetic though. You aren't helpless, you don't have to keep voting for crap candidates for fear of even worse ones winning, and the people telling you that's how it has to be are not doing so in your best interests and it would behoove all of us for those not being paid to, to stop repeating it.
Voting for a particular person, or no person at all, has a number of meanings. Some people voted for Trump because they agreed with his campaign pledges, and some voted for him to stick it to Hillary and "the liberals". Same goes for Hillary. If someone votes third party, in this environment, it usually means you don't care whether your vote ends up affecting anything. Whether you agree with that person's policies, or whether you voted for them just to "stick it" to the 2-party system, is up to you. I don't see it as a worthwhile exercise in an environment where they still don't have a snowball's chance in hell. Voting for the "least bad" of 2 candidates doesn't sound appealing, but you know what? It'll keep us from having another term of Trump's incompetence, corruption, and flat out idiocy, or something just as bad.
So for someone like myself in Washington state, you think I should have voted for Hillary instead of voting for (anyone else) and that my vote for Hillary would have been perceived the same way someone who voted Dem in 2008 and 2012 then voting for not Dem in 2016?
Well if that's how Democrats respond to such votes, that's exactly why they can't be voted for.
To be clear, if Democrats had any semblance of wanting to change I wouldn't say third party is a better option, but at this point Democrats are sooner to lose every single seat than they are admit they are going about the complete wrong way to reverse the 1000+ seats they lost.
I'm not even talking about this, your responses to me have been so unprompted, and go way beyond the scope of what I'm getting at. I'm looking at this from a very pragmatic perspective, while you're looking at this from an idealistic perspective, and while that's not bad, it's also not useful. You're not going to get wide-sweeping changes of both parties just by wishing for it while you vote third-party, it doesn't work that way. Seats change when the votes tell them to change. You might not like having to choose between Democrat, Republican, or whatever the hell Trump is, but the fact is that's the system we have, and if you want something to change substantially, you have to do it over time, and you have to start somewhere. We're not in a great position right now in this country, and so we're not starting from a good place, but if you don't take any meaningful action then nothing is going to change. You might consider third-party voting symbolic, but right now it's not meaningful.
On July 11 2017 08:19 Plansix wrote: And remember that GHs pet issue is campaign finance. Roberts was the 5th judge that swung citizens united. Appointed by Bush. Also the tide turner on gutting the voters rights act.
The Democratic Party sucks, but people saying throwing vote to third parties will teach them a lesson suck just as hard.
Yeah, if you still believe the myth that Bush was elected because of third party voters that almost is a smart quip.
On July 11 2017 08:20 NewSunshine wrote:
On July 11 2017 08:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On July 11 2017 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
On July 11 2017 07:31 Gorsameth wrote: GH's positions might make more sense if you remember that after Bernie lost he was considering voting Trump. He isn't in this for the liberal policies. Hes in it to 'beat the system'.
lol if I said anything along those lines I'm sure it was in jest or saying it rhetorically to make a point about someone's argument. I knew better than to actually believe Trump would do anything but what would benefit him personally. Let there be no doubt, regardless of how his presidency turns out politically, it will be the most profitable presidency in history.
You were also pushing quite hard for Jill Stein.
Um, yeah, if you'd rather I vote third party, in a strong 2-party environment, I can safely ignore what you have to say. I don't like a 2-party system because it doesn't encourage a party to make themselves look good, and so they don't, but this is the system we have. If you want me to throw my vote away in the name of some virtuous code, you're free to do that yourself, but I plan on having a vote that at least counts toward something.
Well I mean vote how you think is right, but no, voting for Democrats to not have to get better doesn't make them better, anyone who tells you that is the one you should be dismissing.
This learned helplessness of being trapped in a two party system so you can't help but vote to perpetuate it is getting pathetic though. You aren't helpless, you don't have to keep voting for crap candidates for fear of even worse ones winning, and the people telling you that's how it has to be are not doing so in your best interests and it would behoove all of us for those not being paid to, to stop repeating it.
Voting for a particular person, or no person at all, has a number of meanings. Some people voted for Trump because they agreed with his campaign pledges, and some voted for him to stick it to Hillary and "the liberals". Same goes for Hillary. If someone votes third party, in this environment, it usually means you don't care whether your vote ends up affecting anything. Whether you agree with that person's policies, or whether you voted for them just to "stick it" to the 2-party system, is up to you. I don't see it as a worthwhile exercise in an environment where they still don't have a snowball's chance in hell. Voting for the "least bad" of 2 candidates doesn't sound appealing, but you know what? It'll keep us from having another term of Trump's incompetence, corruption, and flat out idiocy, or something just as bad.
So for someone like myself in Washington state, you think I should have voted for Hillary instead of voting for (anyone else) and that my vote for Hillary would have been perceived the same way someone who voted Dem in 2008 and 2012 then voting for not Dem in 2016?
Well if that's how Democrats respond to such votes, that's exactly why they can't be voted for.
To be clear, if Democrats had any semblance of wanting to change I wouldn't say third party is a better option, but at this point Democrats are sooner to lose every single seat than they are admit they are going about the complete wrong way to reverse the 1000+ seats they lost.
I'm not even talking about this, your responses to me have been so unprompted, and go way beyond the scope of what I'm getting at. I'm looking at this from a very pragmatic perspective, while you're looking at this from an idealistic perspective, and while that's not bad, it's also not useful. You're not going to get wide-sweeping changes of both parties just by wishing for it while you vote third-party, it doesn't work that way. Seats change when the votes tell them to change. You might not like having to choose between Democrat, Republican, or whatever the hell Trump is, but the fact is that's the system we have, and if you want something to change substantially, you have to do it over time, and you have to start somewhere. We're not in a great position right now in this country, and so we're not starting from a good place, but if you don't take any meaningful action then nothing is going to change. You might consider third-party voting symbolic, but right now it's not meaningful.
Is it not clear that by only voting Republican or Democrat you're left with no vote that tells both parties they don't represent you? So they don't, but you vote for them anyway? You think that sounds like the more sensible plan?
Wide sweeping changes across the party can happen, but not if they get your support without it.
EDIT: Though it seems many people seem to still be misunderstanding of what our politicians at the national level actually do.
On a presidential level 3rd party and (especially) independent runs have come very close to winning on multiple occasions. Not even that long ago Ross Perot almost won. That said, Jill Stein and Gary Johnson were somehow the worst candidates of the 4 running.
But unless they won a landslide victory the whole nation would be instantly gripped in a massive succession crisis because you wouldn't be able to get enough electoral votes to support a third party candidate. There would be chaos for months and nothing but hate and mistrust would bloom from the sides that didn't win because of backroom wrangling in congress would have decided who won instead of the voters.
I feel like this thread sounds like this video at times.
That was creepy. "More than Obama in his entire presidency" and he said it with such conviction and did not have a single thing to say other than a supreme court nominee. That is weird.
Also, seeing Trump go after Comey and his memos again is extremely encouraging.
Clinton mishandling classified information helped cost her the presidency, Comey doing the same may cost him his credibility (or what remains).
Intent matters. Clinton’s intent was to set up a private server to avoid using government servers and the record keeping associated with them. Comey’s intent was to create contemporaneous memorandum as evidence to what he clearly felt was obstruction of justice. As he would be a primary witness in that case, classified information would naturally make its way into the memos. The claims he broke the same rules are just speculation.
FBI rules matter for the treatment of classified info. It's very easy to read from The Hill story that four of the memos themselves contained classified markings as far as "secret" and "confidential" (although sometimes classification levels mean share with anyone regardless of clearance provided you don't have bad intent, from this thread.) Congressional investigators are already on the case, so this will all come out in time.
You really need to get your head out of your ass and all the conspiracy shit.
Leaking classified info is a crime. If the memo he leaked doesn't contain classified info (which Comey as FBI director should know), then the leak isn't criminal. The memo's were stored in a secure location (FBI network), so it's nowhere close to Hilary's email server. At worst Comey would be guilty of an administrative failure to properly label the memo's as classified, which could be cause for dismissal, but then again he's already been fired so that's done.
And once again, no Danglars response to this point at all.
This is forming a pattern.
Danglars/xDaunt bring up the newest right wing Hannity conspiracy talking point. People spend 2-3 pages figuring out what they are talking about, at which point the whole thing vaporates into thin air. The person who brought it up never responds to anyone mentioning it, 2-3 pages later everyone stops talking about it, and then a week or two later, it gets added onto the big pile of "evidence" that gets displayed to attack the opposition, without ever acknowledging that the whole thing never had any substance whatsoever.
If i understand correctly, this argument is basically: Beer is a beverage. He drove after drinking a beverage. Thus, he was driving under influence. Which isn't even close to how it was initially presented.
Remember kids: As long as you don't reply directly to a post, it never existed, and you can use the argument that it debunked again and again!
To be fair, we could use more conservatives than just two around here .
On July 11 2017 09:40 Nevuk wrote: On a presidential level 3rd party and (especially) independent runs have come very close to winning on multiple occasions. Not even that long ago Ross Perot almost won. That said, Jill Stein and Gary Johnson were somehow the worst candidates of the 4 running.
ross perot almost won? you might want to recheck that...
I feel like this thread sounds like this video at times.
That was creepy. "More than Obama in his entire presidency" and he said it with such conviction and did not have a single thing to say other than a supreme court nominee. That is weird.
Also, seeing Trump go after Comey and his memos again is extremely encouraging.
Clinton mishandling classified information helped cost her the presidency, Comey doing the same may cost him his credibility (or what remains).
Intent matters. Clinton’s intent was to set up a private server to avoid using government servers and the record keeping associated with them. Comey’s intent was to create contemporaneous memorandum as evidence to what he clearly felt was obstruction of justice. As he would be a primary witness in that case, classified information would naturally make its way into the memos. The claims he broke the same rules are just speculation.
FBI rules matter for the treatment of classified info. It's very easy to read from The Hill story that four of the memos themselves contained classified markings as far as "secret" and "confidential" (although sometimes classification levels mean share with anyone regardless of clearance provided you don't have bad intent, from this thread.) Congressional investigators are already on the case, so this will all come out in time.
You really need to get your head out of your ass and all the conspiracy shit.
Leaking classified info is a crime. If the memo he leaked doesn't contain classified info (which Comey as FBI director should know), then the leak isn't criminal. The memo's were stored in a secure location (FBI network), so it's nowhere close to Hilary's email server. At worst Comey would be guilty of an administrative failure to properly label the memo's as classified, which could be cause for dismissal, but then again he's already been fired so that's done.
And once again, no Danglars response to this point at all.
This is forming a pattern.
Danglars/xDaunt bring up the newest right wing Hannity conspiracy talking point. People spend 2-3 pages figuring out what they are talking about, at which point the whole thing vaporates into thin air. The person who brought it up never responds to anyone mentioning it, 2-3 pages later everyone stops talking about it, and then a week or two later, it gets added onto the big pile of "evidence" that gets displayed to attack the opposition, without ever acknowledging that the whole thing never had any substance whatsoever.
If i understand correctly, this argument is basically: Beer is a beverage. He drove after drinking a beverage. Thus, he was driving under influence. Which isn't even close to how it was initially presented.
Remember kids: As long as you don't reply directly to a post, it never existed, and you can use the argument that it debunked again and again!
To be fair, we could use more conservatives than just two around here .
If certain conservatives stopped getting into useless pissing contests maybe we'd have more than two. I welcome a conservative who isn't just here to start shit and disappear when someone actually presents valid counterpoints.
Lol so Don Jr's only shred of an argument he may have left is if this was a sting by Bush or Hillary's oppo researcher. Which I thought someone had claimed is the case? Thing is it was apparently arranged through an acquaintance Don had from Russia.
On July 11 2017 09:40 Nevuk wrote: On a presidential level 3rd party and (especially) independent runs have come very close to winning on multiple occasions. Not even that long ago Ross Perot almost won. That said, Jill Stein and Gary Johnson were somehow the worst candidates of the 4 running.
ross perot almost won? you might want to recheck that...
He was ahead in the polls until he suspended his campaign then unsuspended it for some bizarre reason, for a couple of months. It could he quibbled with as to whether that is "close", but people make it out like it is totally impossible for a 3rd party candidate to do well in the US system. An independent one can as they don't threaten the power of the established parties in a long term way.
Getting seats in the house is more where single issue third party candidates tended to appear, but they've dried up since we capped the number at 435. If it were proportional to the late 1800s and we had like 900-1000 representatives I'm sure there would be some more ... Eccentric members.
I feel like this thread sounds like this video at times.
That was creepy. "More than Obama in his entire presidency" and he said it with such conviction and did not have a single thing to say other than a supreme court nominee. That is weird.
Also, seeing Trump go after Comey and his memos again is extremely encouraging.
Clinton mishandling classified information helped cost her the presidency, Comey doing the same may cost him his credibility (or what remains).
Intent matters. Clinton’s intent was to set up a private server to avoid using government servers and the record keeping associated with them. Comey’s intent was to create contemporaneous memorandum as evidence to what he clearly felt was obstruction of justice. As he would be a primary witness in that case, classified information would naturally make its way into the memos. The claims he broke the same rules are just speculation.
FBI rules matter for the treatment of classified info. It's very easy to read from The Hill story that four of the memos themselves contained classified markings as far as "secret" and "confidential" (although sometimes classification levels mean share with anyone regardless of clearance provided you don't have bad intent, from this thread.) Congressional investigators are already on the case, so this will all come out in time.
You really need to get your head out of your ass and all the conspiracy shit.
Leaking classified info is a crime. If the memo he leaked doesn't contain classified info (which Comey as FBI director should know), then the leak isn't criminal. The memo's were stored in a secure location (FBI network), so it's nowhere close to Hilary's email server. At worst Comey would be guilty of an administrative failure to properly label the memo's as classified, which could be cause for dismissal, but then again he's already been fired so that's done.
And once again, no Danglars response to this point at all.
This is forming a pattern.
Danglars/xDaunt bring up the newest right wing Hannity conspiracy talking point. People spend 2-3 pages figuring out what they are talking about, at which point the whole thing vaporates into thin air. The person who brought it up never responds to anyone mentioning it, 2-3 pages later everyone stops talking about it, and then a week or two later, it gets added onto the big pile of "evidence" that gets displayed to attack the opposition, without ever acknowledging that the whole thing never had any substance whatsoever.
If i understand correctly, this argument is basically: Beer is a beverage. He drove after drinking a beverage. Thus, he was driving under influence. Which isn't even close to how it was initially presented.
Remember kids: As long as you don't reply directly to a post, it never existed, and you can use the argument that it debunked again and again!
Revisit The Hill article for background. Comey made an assertion that he considered the memos he wrote regarding his conversations with Trump to be his own personal documents. Half have been found to contain classified information, violating security protocols. If you have to pretend this is Hannity and not legit sources, maybe you should get your facts straight before coming back with this tripe.
On July 11 2017 09:40 Nevuk wrote: On a presidential level 3rd party and (especially) independent runs have come very close to winning on multiple occasions. Not even that long ago Ross Perot almost won. That said, Jill Stein and Gary Johnson were somehow the worst candidates of the 4 running.
Just to get this straight, you consider Stein and Johnson to be worse than Trump?
The European court of human rights has rejected an appeal by the parents of a critically ill baby that he should be allowed to undergo experimental treatment in the US.
The decision by the Strasbourg court closes off the last legal avenue of appeal for the family of Charlie Gard and follows a similar ruling by the UK’s supreme court.
The judgment also lifts a court order under which doctors at Great Ormond Street hospital in London had been required to maintain life support treatment for the 10-month-old child who has brain damage and a rare genetic condition.
The hospital said it would not “rush .... to change Charlie’s care” and that any alteration to his current treatment would “involve careful planning and discussion”.
In a statement, the ECHR said it had, by a majority of the seven judges who considered the written arguments, declared the application inadmissible. It “endorsed in substance the approach” taken by the British courts and declared “the decision is final”.
Some of the more outlandish aspects of this case, which limits its scope of applicability to generalized critique of socialized medicine: The parents of this sick baby privately raised money for a treatment program in the US. The state has said that he must die with dignity, not that they won't pay for the treatment. Courts blocked Gard's trip to America. Which leads to some very sickening dialogue on the hospital allowing the family more time before they switch off his life-support, after denying the parents the right to bring the child home or seek care on their own dime elsewhere. The Court ruled that experimental treatment was not in the child's best interests, of course ending by thanking the parents for their brave campaign to raise money for the treatment they denied. Quite a disturbing case of the state in loco parentis, when courts decide in the child's best interest in a case when they aren't being pressed to foot the bill.
Update: Today, a judge has given the parents of Charlie Gard two more days for their son to live while they submit requested "new and powerful evidence" that he should continue to be kept alive to receive the experimental treatment.
EPT
.
