US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9137

On November 03 2017 10:45 WolfintheSheep wrote:

?

Of course she paid for it. That was never in contention at all.

On November 02 2017 12:55 Danglars wrote:

They should ban him for hate speech. God knows they’ve done it for less to others. Let’s see some real sparks fly.

On November 03 2017 11:15 Danglars wrote:

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.

On November 03 2017 11:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:

We knew Fusion GPS was paid through DNC/Hillary campaign funds.

The question was who knew where that funding was going.

On November 03 2017 05:38 Danglars wrote:

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.

On November 03 2017 11:34 Danglars wrote:

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.”

On November 03 2017 11:34 Danglars wrote:

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.

On November 03 2017 11:35 Doodsmack wrote:


Nowhere in this post did you address whether indifference to actual racism, the explicit subject of the second tweet, is justified.

On November 03 2017 11:39 WolfintheSheep wrote:

Except she did not say that at all?


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.

On November 03 2017 11:58 Danglars wrote:

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.

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.

On November 03 2017 12:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:

Still waiting on something that says anything close to what you claimed:

Because Wulfey linked the full interview.

Of course she paid for it. That was never in contention at all.

We knew Fusion GPS was paid through DNC/Hillary campaign funds.

The question was who knew where that funding was going.

On November 03 2017 12:11 Danglars wrote:

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.

On November 03 2017 11:56 Danglars wrote:

Nowhere in your response do you admit public perception is influenced by bullshit framing. Respond substantively and say your piece.