|
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 December 15 2017 05:01 Nyxisto wrote:
Russian trolls, pedophiles, conspiracy theorists and administrators repealing pro-consumer legislation. Seriously please explain to me again why people vote for the Republican party. It's stuff straight out of a comic book at this point, I don't get it
normal republicans do a better job of covering their crazy rather than embracing it. but the base has been goin crazy for awhile, so some have started following that and turning into it.
also, not sure if you're actually being serious about wanting an explanation, or were simply using it for emphasis.
|
But her emails. By the way, the trump team is using private email servers.
|
On December 15 2017 05:28 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2017 05:22 Sermokala wrote:On December 15 2017 05:15 NewSunshine wrote:On December 15 2017 05:11 LegalLord wrote:On December 15 2017 05:01 Nyxisto wrote:
Russian trolls, pedophiles, conspiracy theorists and administrators repealing pro-consumer legislation. Seriously please explain to me again why people vote for the Republican party. It's stuff straight out of a comic book at this point, I don't get it Because the other party’s candidate mishandled classified documents via email. Clearly that outweighs everything we're seeing this administration doing, which by the way, also includes mishandling of e-mails. Or did you miss that? Its not a zero sum argument. When one group loses credability it doens't raise the credability of another. expecialy when group a is terrible at solving those credability issues and two isn't even trying to argue the issue while the first is. No, it doesn't make the other group more credible, but when you learn that the first group is a metric shitload less credible, but continue talking about the other group, like it's still the foremost thing we need to be concerned with, it fucking stinks. "But Hillary's emails" has long been put to bed, except when LegalLord feels he has to balance the conversation with beaten-dead right-wing propaganda. It's not a legitimate deflection.
dragging your opponent down is a time honored (and effective) strategy. seems to have worked well for the republicans, so little reason for them to stop - until and if they get clobbered in the midterms.
|
On December 15 2017 05:28 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2017 05:22 Sermokala wrote:On December 15 2017 05:15 NewSunshine wrote:On December 15 2017 05:11 LegalLord wrote:On December 15 2017 05:01 Nyxisto wrote:
Russian trolls, pedophiles, conspiracy theorists and administrators repealing pro-consumer legislation. Seriously please explain to me again why people vote for the Republican party. It's stuff straight out of a comic book at this point, I don't get it Because the other party’s candidate mishandled classified documents via email. Clearly that outweighs everything we're seeing this administration doing, which by the way, also includes mishandling of e-mails. Or did you miss that? Its not a zero sum argument. When one group loses credability it doens't raise the credability of another. expecialy when group a is terrible at solving those credability issues and two isn't even trying to argue the issue while the first is. No, it doesn't make the other group more credible, but when you learn that the first group is a metric shitload less credible, but continue talking about the other group, like it's still the foremost thing we need to be concerned with, it fucking stinks. "But Hillary's emails" has long been put to bed, except when LegalLord feels he has to balance the conversation with beaten-dead right-wing propaganda. It's not a legitimate deflection.
but her emails is a meme in the thread you seem to take seriously, that and your "beaten-dead right wing propaganda" is endemic of why people don't feel the need to take you seriously.
|
On December 15 2017 05:40 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2017 05:28 NewSunshine wrote:On December 15 2017 05:22 Sermokala wrote:On December 15 2017 05:15 NewSunshine wrote:On December 15 2017 05:11 LegalLord wrote:On December 15 2017 05:01 Nyxisto wrote:
Russian trolls, pedophiles, conspiracy theorists and administrators repealing pro-consumer legislation. Seriously please explain to me again why people vote for the Republican party. It's stuff straight out of a comic book at this point, I don't get it Because the other party’s candidate mishandled classified documents via email. Clearly that outweighs everything we're seeing this administration doing, which by the way, also includes mishandling of e-mails. Or did you miss that? Its not a zero sum argument. When one group loses credability it doens't raise the credability of another. expecialy when group a is terrible at solving those credability issues and two isn't even trying to argue the issue while the first is. No, it doesn't make the other group more credible, but when you learn that the first group is a metric shitload less credible, but continue talking about the other group, like it's still the foremost thing we need to be concerned with, it fucking stinks. "But Hillary's emails" has long been put to bed, except when LegalLord feels he has to balance the conversation with beaten-dead right-wing propaganda. It's not a legitimate deflection. but her emails is a meme in the thread you seem to take seriously, that and your "beaten-dead right wing propaganda" is endemic of why people don't feel the need to take you seriously.
I take him at least somewhat seriously.
also: are you sure you meant to use "endemic" there? it doesn't seem quite right.
|
On December 15 2017 05:40 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2017 05:28 NewSunshine wrote:On December 15 2017 05:22 Sermokala wrote:On December 15 2017 05:15 NewSunshine wrote:On December 15 2017 05:11 LegalLord wrote:On December 15 2017 05:01 Nyxisto wrote:
Russian trolls, pedophiles, conspiracy theorists and administrators repealing pro-consumer legislation. Seriously please explain to me again why people vote for the Republican party. It's stuff straight out of a comic book at this point, I don't get it Because the other party’s candidate mishandled classified documents via email. Clearly that outweighs everything we're seeing this administration doing, which by the way, also includes mishandling of e-mails. Or did you miss that? Its not a zero sum argument. When one group loses credability it doens't raise the credability of another. expecialy when group a is terrible at solving those credability issues and two isn't even trying to argue the issue while the first is. No, it doesn't make the other group more credible, but when you learn that the first group is a metric shitload less credible, but continue talking about the other group, like it's still the foremost thing we need to be concerned with, it fucking stinks. "But Hillary's emails" has long been put to bed, except when LegalLord feels he has to balance the conversation with beaten-dead right-wing propaganda. It's not a legitimate deflection. but her emails is a meme in the thread you seem to take seriously, that and your "beaten-dead right wing propaganda" is endemic of why people don't feel the need to take you seriously.
The reason “but her emails” is a meme is because that investigation was a naked attempt to discredit Clinton using the powers of the House of Representatives. The investigation into Benghazi and the emails lasted longer and costs more that the 9/11 commission and the Watergate investigation combined.
Now lets just assume the investigations did their job. They brought to light the crimes of Clinton and her dodging public records requirements. Great, good for them. So what did congress do to change the rules for the next Secretary of state? How did they change the rules for government documents and emails to prevent this from happening again? What recommendations were put forth by the members of the investigation? Because from the investigation it became very clear that Clinton was not the only one playing it fast and loose with email.
Nothing. They did nothing. They left the same rules in place. They used five house committees to investigate her for millions of tax payer dollars and didn’t do a god damn thing. They didn’t increase funding for embassy security either. Funding that the GOP had cut. They did nothing.
That is why people don’t take the email shit seriously. Because it was a naked attempt to destroy a political opponent on the tax payer dime. And we didn’t even get updated rules for email security.
|
|
|
|
|
On December 15 2017 05:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2017 05:40 Sermokala wrote:On December 15 2017 05:28 NewSunshine wrote:On December 15 2017 05:22 Sermokala wrote:On December 15 2017 05:15 NewSunshine wrote:On December 15 2017 05:11 LegalLord wrote:On December 15 2017 05:01 Nyxisto wrote:
Russian trolls, pedophiles, conspiracy theorists and administrators repealing pro-consumer legislation. Seriously please explain to me again why people vote for the Republican party. It's stuff straight out of a comic book at this point, I don't get it Because the other party’s candidate mishandled classified documents via email. Clearly that outweighs everything we're seeing this administration doing, which by the way, also includes mishandling of e-mails. Or did you miss that? Its not a zero sum argument. When one group loses credability it doens't raise the credability of another. expecialy when group a is terrible at solving those credability issues and two isn't even trying to argue the issue while the first is. No, it doesn't make the other group more credible, but when you learn that the first group is a metric shitload less credible, but continue talking about the other group, like it's still the foremost thing we need to be concerned with, it fucking stinks. "But Hillary's emails" has long been put to bed, except when LegalLord feels he has to balance the conversation with beaten-dead right-wing propaganda. It's not a legitimate deflection. but her emails is a meme in the thread you seem to take seriously, that and your "beaten-dead right wing propaganda" is endemic of why people don't feel the need to take you seriously. The reason “but her emails” is a meme is because that investigation was a naked attempt to discredit Clinton using the powers of the House of Representatives. The investigation into Benghazi and the emails lasted longer and costs more that the 9/11 commission and the Watergate investigation combined. Now lets just assume the investigations did their job. They brought to light the crimes of Clinton and her dodging public records requirements. Great, good for them. So what did congress do to change the rules for the next Secretary of state? How did they change the rules for government documents and emails to prevent this from happening again? What recommendations were put forth by the members of the investigation? Because from the investigation it became very clear that Clinton was not the only one playing it fast and loose with email. Nothing. They did nothing. They left the same rules in place. They used five house committees to investigate her for millions of tax payer dollars and didn’t do a god damn thing. They didn’t increase funding for embassy security either. Funding that the GOP had cut. They did nothing. That is why people don’t take the email shit seriously. Because it was a naked attempt to destroy a political opponent on the tax payer dime. And we didn’t even get updated rules for email security.
Yes it was. Again no one is arguing with you on that. Again you're getting yourself worked up for nothing. Making it public that a public official used a private server and not doing anything about it makes the next person that uses a private server mean relatively nothing. Its not a zero sum game where one side dipping down raises the other side.
And to zelfin Endemic is a noun and an adjective that can be used in its adjective sense to describe a condition found among particular people. I used it to express the condition (him taking memes seriously) that is found among people that aren't taken seriously (him and others who would take memes seriously).
|
On December 15 2017 06:16 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2017 05:58 Plansix wrote:On December 15 2017 05:40 Sermokala wrote:On December 15 2017 05:28 NewSunshine wrote:On December 15 2017 05:22 Sermokala wrote:On December 15 2017 05:15 NewSunshine wrote:On December 15 2017 05:11 LegalLord wrote:On December 15 2017 05:01 Nyxisto wrote:
Russian trolls, pedophiles, conspiracy theorists and administrators repealing pro-consumer legislation. Seriously please explain to me again why people vote for the Republican party. It's stuff straight out of a comic book at this point, I don't get it Because the other party’s candidate mishandled classified documents via email. Clearly that outweighs everything we're seeing this administration doing, which by the way, also includes mishandling of e-mails. Or did you miss that? Its not a zero sum argument. When one group loses credability it doens't raise the credability of another. expecialy when group a is terrible at solving those credability issues and two isn't even trying to argue the issue while the first is. No, it doesn't make the other group more credible, but when you learn that the first group is a metric shitload less credible, but continue talking about the other group, like it's still the foremost thing we need to be concerned with, it fucking stinks. "But Hillary's emails" has long been put to bed, except when LegalLord feels he has to balance the conversation with beaten-dead right-wing propaganda. It's not a legitimate deflection. but her emails is a meme in the thread you seem to take seriously, that and your "beaten-dead right wing propaganda" is endemic of why people don't feel the need to take you seriously. The reason “but her emails” is a meme is because that investigation was a naked attempt to discredit Clinton using the powers of the House of Representatives. The investigation into Benghazi and the emails lasted longer and costs more that the 9/11 commission and the Watergate investigation combined. Now lets just assume the investigations did their job. They brought to light the crimes of Clinton and her dodging public records requirements. Great, good for them. So what did congress do to change the rules for the next Secretary of state? How did they change the rules for government documents and emails to prevent this from happening again? What recommendations were put forth by the members of the investigation? Because from the investigation it became very clear that Clinton was not the only one playing it fast and loose with email. Nothing. They did nothing. They left the same rules in place. They used five house committees to investigate her for millions of tax payer dollars and didn’t do a god damn thing. They didn’t increase funding for embassy security either. Funding that the GOP had cut. They did nothing. That is why people don’t take the email shit seriously. Because it was a naked attempt to destroy a political opponent on the tax payer dime. And we didn’t even get updated rules for email security. Yes it was. Again no one is arguing with you on that. Again you're getting yourself worked up for nothing. Making it public that a public official used a private server and not doing anything about it makes the next person that uses a private server mean relatively nothing. Its not a zero sum game where one side dipping down raises the other side. And to zelfin Endemic is a noun and an adjective that can be used in its adjective sense to describe a condition found among particular people. I used it to express the condition (him taking memes seriously) that is found among people that aren't taken seriously (him and others who would take memes seriously).
Sorry about that. I’m a bit punchy since some folks(not yourself) seem to back to full efforts to discredit the current investigation as being politically motivated. Which an odd criticism since the last massive investigation which was politically motivated and apparently has not died yet.
|
saying "it's endemic of why" makes it not match the parsing you've described, that definition doesn't match the sentence structure you have;
him taking memes seriously isn't a condition among those who don't take him seriously, so that doesn't parse right either.
it's a condition OF him that those who don't take him seriously are responding to.
doesn' treally matter much, but you definitely are using it a bit wrong.
|
|
|
On December 15 2017 06:37 zlefin wrote:
saying "it's endemic of why" makes it not match the parsing you've described, that definition doesn't match the sentence structure you have;
him taking memes seriously isn't a condition among those who don't take him seriously, so that doesn't parse right either.
it's a condition OF him that those who don't take him seriously are responding to.
doesn' treally matter much, but you definitely are using it a bit wrong.
I see where the problem is. The word "endemic" parses out "the condition that people are reacting to you to result in their treatment of you" in a conversation. without the word what it would be is "him taking memes seriously is a condition that is attributed with people they don't take seriously. My original usage of the word provided a second condition to these attributable of him being in a group that people don't take seriously.
These conditions are endemic of why is how I was or at least attempting to use the word.
|
I would think that such meetings have happened at the (near) highest level. Just no one told Trump about it.
|
one would imagine the president of the united states would want to stay apprised of an investigation into possible interference with ones democracy. to deny it’s very existence reeks.
On December 15 2017 06:48 Gorsameth wrote:I would think that such meetings have happened at the (near) highest level. Just no one told Trump about it.
even assuming this is the case, which i find to be a generous assumption, this is not enough.
|
On December 15 2017 04:44 Nevuk wrote:
If trump tried to switch parties he'd get rejected. Either in a primary or earlier.
Apologies if i wasn't clear. I dont believe he would get a second term, I was just musing that if the 2018 midterms shifts majority to dems (highly unlikely imo) Trump might adopt democratic ideals just to be on the winning team. As doodsmack mentioned though that would require him surviving impeachment and investigations.
|
Net neutrality just got gutted?
|
On December 15 2017 07:08 Kickboxer wrote:
Net neutrality just got gutted?
Yes, though I believe it is still in effect until the 22nd
|
On December 15 2017 07:08 Kickboxer wrote:
Net neutrality just got gutted?
yep. tho a bunch of lawsuits will follow trying to stop them.
|
Does that have an effect on people outside the US, or are you just fucking your own internet up?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
