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.
Hillary goes on the record saying she knew about the dossier. It honestly should’ve been her story from the start, but I suspect she didn’t want to be involved at all in Russia’s influencing of the election—even if there’s nothing illegal about oppo.
I had the link to the full interview where she owns it, but I’m on my phone and I’ve lost it.
?
Of course she paid for it. That was never in contention at all.
By which you mean CNN published articles saying she didn’t and this forum had several conjecture by how she was unlikely to know. Right.
Hillary goes on the record saying she knew about the dossier. It honestly should’ve been her story from the start, but I suspect she didn’t want to be involved at all in Russia’s influencing of the election—even if there’s nothing illegal about oppo.
I had the link to the full interview where she owns it, but I’m on my phone and I’ve lost it.
?
Of course she paid for it. That was never in contention at all.
By which you mean CNN published articles saying she didn’t and this forum had several conjecture by how she was unlikely to know. Right.
We knew Fusion GPS was paid through DNC/Hillary campaign funds.
The question was who knew where that funding was going.
Hillary goes on the record saying she knew about the dossier. It honestly should’ve been her story from the start, but I suspect she didn’t want to be involved at all in Russia’s influencing of the election—even if there’s nothing illegal about oppo.
I had the link to the full interview where she owns it, but I’m on my phone and I’ve lost it.
?
Of course she paid for it. That was never in contention at all.
By which you mean CNN published articles saying she didn’t and this forum had several conjecture by how she was unlikely to know. Right.
We knew Fusion GPS was paid through DNC/Hillary campaign funds.
The question was who knew where that funding was going.
What’s your problem then? People doubted if Hillary knew, I was one of the few saying she had to know, CNN had a source saying she didn’t know, now Hillary owns up that she did.
We should know this week or next if this Clinton campaign document was used in the FISA warrant to wiretap a private citizen. The FBI, after not complying with a House request, then a House subpoena, finally says it will turn over documents because Paul Ryan accused them of stonewalling the investigation.
I'm hoping for the next generation to call BS on current dialogue and build a new one up.
The second tweet just makes an excuse for the indifference out of thin air. Whether the media frames the issue correctly doesn’t affect whether actual racism should be met with indifference. Those who meet it with indifference are making their own choice.
The media framing of the issue plays into public perception that it's overblown and mostly made it. The linked story is exactly case in point. First step is to recover credibility, second is to use it to convince the public of real problems.
First step for you might be reading the article and responding substantively if it's bullshit framing or not. A related problem is the left's indifference to their left wing and radical fringe of the left wing misrepresenting arguments for profit.
Nowhere in this post did you address whether indifference to actual racism, the explicit subject of the second tweet, is justified.
Hillary goes on the record saying she knew about the dossier. It honestly should’ve been her story from the start, but I suspect she didn’t want to be involved at all in Russia’s influencing of the election—even if there’s nothing illegal about oppo.
I had the link to the full interview where she owns it, but I’m on my phone and I’ve lost it.
?
Of course she paid for it. That was never in contention at all.
By which you mean CNN published articles saying she didn’t and this forum had several conjecture by how she was unlikely to know. Right.
We knew Fusion GPS was paid through DNC/Hillary campaign funds.
The question was who knew where that funding was going.
What’s your problem then? People doubted if Hillary knew, I was one of the few saying she had to know, CNN had a source saying she didn’t know, now Hillary owns up that she did.
We should know this week or next if this Clinton campaign document was used in the FISA warrant to wiretap a private citizen. The FBI, after not complying with a House request, then a House subpoena, finally says it will turn over documents because Paul Ryan accused them of stonewalling the investigation.
Except she did not say that at all?
Former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Wednesday defended paying for a controversial dossier that alleged ties between President Donald Trump and Russia during the 2016 election.
In a late-night interview on “The Daily Show with Trevor Noah,” Clinton said there was a difference between her campaign paying for legal opposition research and Trump's team possibly working with Russia to influence the election.
“I think most serious people understand that,” Clinton said. “This was research started by a Republican donor during the Republican primary, and when Trump got the nomination for the Republican Party, the people doing it came to my campaign lawyer.”
“He said 'yes,'” Clinton added, referring to her campaign lawyer, Marc Elias. “He’s an experienced lawyer, he knows what the law is, he knows what opposition research is.”
She's literally reiterating the same things that have already come out.
Btw thanks for linking a shitty Twitter meme image instead of the actual article.
Edit: Oh, I see, you got your news from twitter and thought it was an actual quote. This is why you shouldn't use Twitter for news.
Hillary goes on the record saying she knew about the dossier. It honestly should’ve been her story from the start, but I suspect she didn’t want to be involved at all in Russia’s influencing of the election—even if there’s nothing illegal about oppo.
I had the link to the full interview where she owns it, but I’m on my phone and I’ve lost it.
?
Of course she paid for it. That was never in contention at all.
By which you mean CNN published articles saying she didn’t and this forum had several conjecture by how she was unlikely to know. Right.
We knew Fusion GPS was paid through DNC/Hillary campaign funds.
The question was who knew where that funding was going.
What’s your problem then? People doubted if Hillary knew, I was one of the few saying she had to know, CNN had a source saying she didn’t know, now Hillary owns up that she did.
We should know this week or next if this Clinton campaign document was used in the FISA warrant to wiretap a private citizen. The FBI, after not complying with a House request, then a House subpoena, finally says it will turn over documents because Paul Ryan accused them of stonewalling the investigation.
You need to be citing her actual words, not layers of hate spin on top of other clickbait spin. Just because a conservative twitter guy tweets a take you like, that does not absolve you of needed to click through the links and see what is actually in the linked pieces. And you need to remember that the headline writers for these pieces are often not the same people that write the underlying content. The hate tweet you cited is shitspinning on top of headlines, not substance.
I'm hoping for the next generation to call BS on current dialogue and build a new one up.
The second tweet just makes an excuse for the indifference out of thin air. Whether the media frames the issue correctly doesn’t affect whether actual racism should be met with indifference. Those who meet it with indifference are making their own choice.
The media framing of the issue plays into public perception that it's overblown and mostly made it. The linked story is exactly case in point. First step is to recover credibility, second is to use it to convince the public of real problems.
First step for you might be reading the article and responding substantively if it's bullshit framing or not. A related problem is the left's indifference to their left wing and radical fringe of the left wing misrepresenting arguments for profit.
Nowhere in this post did you address whether indifference to actual racism, the explicit subject of the second tweet, is justified.
Nowhere in your response do you admit public perception is influenced by bullshit framing. Respond substantively and say your piece.
Hillary goes on the record saying she knew about the dossier. It honestly should’ve been her story from the start, but I suspect she didn’t want to be involved at all in Russia’s influencing of the election—even if there’s nothing illegal about oppo.
I had the link to the full interview where she owns it, but I’m on my phone and I’ve lost it.
?
Of course she paid for it. That was never in contention at all.
By which you mean CNN published articles saying she didn’t and this forum had several conjecture by how she was unlikely to know. Right.
We knew Fusion GPS was paid through DNC/Hillary campaign funds.
The question was who knew where that funding was going.
What’s your problem then? People doubted if Hillary knew, I was one of the few saying she had to know, CNN had a source saying she didn’t know, now Hillary owns up that she did.
We should know this week or next if this Clinton campaign document was used in the FISA warrant to wiretap a private citizen. The FBI, after not complying with a House request, then a House subpoena, finally says it will turn over documents because Paul Ryan accused them of stonewalling the investigation.
Former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Wednesday defended paying for a controversial dossier that alleged ties between President Donald Trump and Russia during the 2016 election.
In a late-night interview on “The Daily Show with Trevor Noah,” Clinton said there was a difference between her campaign paying for legal opposition research and Trump's team possibly working with Russia to influence the election.
“I think most serious people understand that,” Clinton said. “This was research started by a Republican donor during the Republican primary, and when Trump got the nomination for the Republican Party, the people doing it came to my campaign lawyer.”
“He said 'yes,'” Clinton added, referring to her campaign lawyer, Marc Elias. “He’s an experienced lawyer, he knows what the law is, he knows what opposition research is.”
She's literally reiterating the same things that have already come out.
Btw thanks for linking a shitty Twitter meme image instead of the actual article.
Edit: Oh, I see, you got your news from twitter and thought it was an actual quote. This is why you shouldn't use Twitter for news.
When I said CNN had a source saying she didn’t know, I meant CNN had a source saying she didn’t know.
Do I need to link you where in this thread people conjectured that she wasn’t likely to know about this campaign operation, or do you read the thread?
Hillary goes on the record saying she knew about the dossier. It honestly should’ve been her story from the start, but I suspect she didn’t want to be involved at all in Russia’s influencing of the election—even if there’s nothing illegal about oppo.
I had the link to the full interview where she owns it, but I’m on my phone and I’ve lost it.
?
Of course she paid for it. That was never in contention at all.
By which you mean CNN published articles saying she didn’t and this forum had several conjecture by how she was unlikely to know. Right.
We knew Fusion GPS was paid through DNC/Hillary campaign funds.
The question was who knew where that funding was going.
What’s your problem then? People doubted if Hillary knew, I was one of the few saying she had to know, CNN had a source saying she didn’t know, now Hillary owns up that she did.
We should know this week or next if this Clinton campaign document was used in the FISA warrant to wiretap a private citizen. The FBI, after not complying with a House request, then a House subpoena, finally says it will turn over documents because Paul Ryan accused them of stonewalling the investigation.
Except she did not say that at all?
Former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Wednesday defended paying for a controversial dossier that alleged ties between President Donald Trump and Russia during the 2016 election.
In a late-night interview on “The Daily Show with Trevor Noah,” Clinton said there was a difference between her campaign paying for legal opposition research and Trump's team possibly working with Russia to influence the election.
“I think most serious people understand that,” Clinton said. “This was research started by a Republican donor during the Republican primary, and when Trump got the nomination for the Republican Party, the people doing it came to my campaign lawyer.”
“He said 'yes,'” Clinton added, referring to her campaign lawyer, Marc Elias. “He’s an experienced lawyer, he knows what the law is, he knows what opposition research is.”
She's literally reiterating the same things that have already come out.
Btw thanks for linking a shitty Twitter meme image instead of the actual article.
Edit: Oh, I see, you got your news from twitter and thought it was an actual quote. This is why you shouldn't use Twitter for news.
When I said CNN had a source saying she didn’t know, I meant CNN had a source saying she didn’t know.
Do I need to link you where in this thread people conjectured that she wasn’t likely to know about this campaign operation, or do you read the thread?
Still waiting on something that says anything close to what you claimed:
Hillary goes on the record saying she knew about the dossier.
On November 03 2017 08:26 Liquid`Drone wrote: I feel we're actually not that much in disagreement, as you indicate that you could be more positively inclined towards government solutions if you were used to it being competent. I'm also happy to concede that I'd probably be less positively inclined towards government solutions if I were used to them being incompetent. The only points I'm really trying to make is that I don't accept the universality of the 'increased competition is always better' adage, and that incompetent government is likely to continue being government if it's expected to be incompetent. Also with the addendum that it's my impression that government incompetence is, like most things in the US, highly dependent on the region you are talking about, almost to the point where I expect a strong correlation between quality of government services and degree of leaning liberal - without ever having seen any such statistic.
Compared to past disagreements, this one is pretty minor.
And it’s not about “always better,” it’s acknowledging that there’s less incentive for efficiency. Your second point seems to need some editing. Its likely to continue being government? Naturally.
Hillary goes on the record saying she knew about the dossier. It honestly should’ve been her story from the start, but I suspect she didn’t want to be involved at all in Russia’s influencing of the election—even if there’s nothing illegal about oppo.
I had the link to the full interview where she owns it, but I’m on my phone and I’ve lost it.
?
Of course she paid for it. That was never in contention at all.
By which you mean CNN published articles saying she didn’t and this forum had several conjecture by how she was unlikely to know. Right.
We knew Fusion GPS was paid through DNC/Hillary campaign funds.
The question was who knew where that funding was going.
What’s your problem then? People doubted if Hillary knew, I was one of the few saying she had to know, CNN had a source saying she didn’t know, now Hillary owns up that she did.
We should know this week or next if this Clinton campaign document was used in the FISA warrant to wiretap a private citizen. The FBI, after not complying with a House request, then a House subpoena, finally says it will turn over documents because Paul Ryan accused them of stonewalling the investigation.
Except she did not say that at all?
Former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Wednesday defended paying for a controversial dossier that alleged ties between President Donald Trump and Russia during the 2016 election.
In a late-night interview on “The Daily Show with Trevor Noah,” Clinton said there was a difference between her campaign paying for legal opposition research and Trump's team possibly working with Russia to influence the election.
“I think most serious people understand that,” Clinton said. “This was research started by a Republican donor during the Republican primary, and when Trump got the nomination for the Republican Party, the people doing it came to my campaign lawyer.”
“He said 'yes,'” Clinton added, referring to her campaign lawyer, Marc Elias. “He’s an experienced lawyer, he knows what the law is, he knows what opposition research is.”
She's literally reiterating the same things that have already come out.
Btw thanks for linking a shitty Twitter meme image instead of the actual article.
Edit: Oh, I see, you got your news from twitter and thought it was an actual quote. This is why you shouldn't use Twitter for news.
When I said CNN had a source saying she didn’t know, I meant CNN had a source saying she didn’t know.
Do I need to link you where in this thread people conjectured that she wasn’t likely to know about this campaign operation, or do you read the thread?
Still waiting on something that says anything close to what you claimed:
Hillary goes on the record saying she knew about the dossier.
Because Wulfey linked the full interview.
Sorry, you’ve changed the subject like three times. Care to answer a few of the previous questions before moving onto whether Hillary’s actually admitting knowledge here? You can start by admitting it was in contention here and in news stories.
Also, after saying her foreknowledge was never doubted, you’re dancing over to he never admitting she knew now? Bold.
On November 03 2017 08:26 Liquid`Drone wrote: I feel we're actually not that much in disagreement, as you indicate that you could be more positively inclined towards government solutions if you were used to it being competent. I'm also happy to concede that I'd probably be less positively inclined towards government solutions if I were used to them being incompetent. The only points I'm really trying to make is that I don't accept the universality of the 'increased competition is always better' adage, and that incompetent government is likely to continue being government if it's expected to be incompetent. Also with the addendum that it's my impression that government incompetence is, like most things in the US, highly dependent on the region you are talking about, almost to the point where I expect a strong correlation between quality of government services and degree of leaning liberal - without ever having seen any such statistic.
Compared to past disagreements, this one is pretty minor.
And it’s not about “always better,” it’s acknowledging that there’s less incentive for efficiency. Your second point seems to need some editing. Its likely to continue being government? Naturally.
yeah I meant that it's likely to continue being incompetent if that's what is expected of it.
I'm hoping for the next generation to call BS on current dialogue and build a new one up.
The second tweet just makes an excuse for the indifference out of thin air. Whether the media frames the issue correctly doesn’t affect whether actual racism should be met with indifference. Those who meet it with indifference are making their own choice.
The media framing of the issue plays into public perception that it's overblown and mostly made it. The linked story is exactly case in point. First step is to recover credibility, second is to use it to convince the public of real problems.
First step for you might be reading the article and responding substantively if it's bullshit framing or not. A related problem is the left's indifference to their left wing and radical fringe of the left wing misrepresenting arguments for profit.
Nowhere in this post did you address whether indifference to actual racism, the explicit subject of the second tweet, is justified.
Nowhere in your response do you admit public perception is influenced by bullshit framing. Respond substantively and say your piece.
Yes, the public is forced by the media to respond to actual racism with indifference. Is that because the public is too stupid to discern actual racism or something?
EPT
