Printable View
The president has way less direct control over the bureaucracy (including the military) than you're pretending. Authority is not the same as power. I've said it before, Trump can't accomplish much more than being absolutely obnoxious unless the rest of the government wants him to and helps him do so. And that's not as likely as you seem to think it is. The apt comparison is to Berlusconi, not Mugabe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Berlusconi seems a perfect comparison. Hopefully less bunga bunga.
Jackson had to deal with a tiny bureaucracy, a handful of problems, and a world that didn't give a damn about the US. And with that, he still managed to commit genocide and undermine economic progress by a generation.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics...ican-democracy We can now add an elevated chance of a race war if Trump gets elected to the list. Apparently, pissing off Hispanics and Muslims wasn't enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI
This amused me.
"From 1999 to at least 2007, she continuously opposed same-sex marriage while consistently supporting civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. She also spoke on the Senate floor against a proposed federal ban on gay marriage in 2004 and said she supports states making the decision for themselves in 2006.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Clinton reversed course and announced her support for gay marriage in 2013, as the viral video accurately notes. However, the video samples a 2014 interview Clinton did with NPR’s Terry Gross in which she seems to deny her changed position."
What changed? This is a serious question. Either you are for states making the decision or not. Here is how it really went down. Clinton was in favor of same sex marriage internally. She probably has been for decades (it is a liberal position). However she knew it wasn't popular for the mainstream electorate so she didn't support it openly, only along the edges. Do you really doubt that was the case?
""I’m a progressive," Clinton says in the video before it cuts out to the next topic.
Here’s her next sentence: "But I'm a progressive who likes to get things done. And I know how to find common ground, and I know how to stand my ground, and I have proved that in every position that I've had, even dealing with Republicans who never had a good word to say about me, honestly.""
More Clinton bull shit. Is she far left, left, or left of center or center. Its a simple question. Her answer will be depending on if she running during the general election or if it is a primary. Now to be fair, plenty of politicians do this but the sound bites are telling. Pick your position and go for it but STOP LYING.
"Clinton says she has turned over about half. Out of over 60,000 emails on her private server, Clinton and her staff deleted 31,000 emails she says were personal and released the remaining 30,940."
Yes 30k 'personal' e-mails. Really? /boggle
Also in the age of text messages I have a hard time thinking she really e-mails her husband frequently on personal matters.
"A clip of Clinton from the 2015 Las Vegas debate saying she told Wall Street to "cut it out" in 2007 is followed by chopped up comments Clinton actually made in 2007, in which she seems to hold homebuyers, not Wall Street, responsible for the housing crisis. This gives a misleading impression."
I actually don't even have a problem with her original statement. Just wish people would hold her feet to the fire. "So given your concerns about home buyers, mortgage companies, insurance companies can you give us a % of where the blame lay?" She loves having it both ways. Frankly she's worse than John Kerry when it comes 'nuance.'
Universal health care segment basically agrees she's a hypocrite.
They agree she's basically a liar on the sniper fire bull shit.
NAFTA they agree and TPP is a full flop.
So... yeah mostly full of lies with a few bits of misleading editing (Bill Clinton's comments years before the e-mail scandal).
I don't actually know because Americans are so fucked up when it comes to gay marriage. I am more inclined to believe that she has always wanted gay marriage to be legal. I am uncertain about how she felt about leaving it up to the states. I am certain that, if she had come out in support for legalizing gay marriage at the federal level, she wouldn't have been able to get as much done because, as I said, Americans are kinda fucked up when it comes to gay marriage (aka. "marriage").Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
It actually isn't a simple question. For example, you generally behave as if the world is a binary one where people are either librulz or Michael Bay movies but now suddenly you want to distinguish between different degrees of leftyness. Clinton's answer is as straightforward as you can get. She's progressive (whatever that means) but she believes it's crucial for a progressive person to be able to get things done, which in the US means making deals with deranged and degenerate asshats aka. Republicans and focusing on some issues more than others. So she's saying to potential voters that she'll make deals if that's what it takes to get important things done, but that she isn't going to compromise on just everything. This is important information to voters across the spectrum. It's also educational to an unfortunately pretty large portion of the potential Democratic voter-base.Quote:
More Clinton bull shit. Is she far left, left, or left of center or center. Its a simple question.
Giant shrug. I don't know how many of those e-mails will be found to be personal after review, but 30k personal e-mails isn't exactly so unlikely as to be impossible. You may not do it but many people do communicate extensively via e-mail, with mails ranging from a few words to several paragraphs and filling the same function as both IMs, conferences and letters rather than text-messages. Your mistake lies in assuming that "personal e-mails" = purely social e-mail exchanges with her husband or grandma which is not the case. You also assume that 30 is a mind-boggling number. 30k is like 16 emails per day over five years, eight e-mails with one reply each. It's nothing for someone who uses e-mail a lot. It's nothing if one uses e-mail in a way similar to how other people might use IMs. It's nothing if one's e-mailing is the equivalent of other people's habit of posting on online forums. You could double or triple that amount and it would still be unremarkable. The only way to determine whether or not they really were personal is to review them.Quote:
Yes 30k 'personal' e-mails. Really? /boggle
Also in the age of text messages I have a hard time thinking she really e-mails her husband frequently on personal matters.
Unlike you, she actually has to work with these people, so there are some limits to how far she can go to pander to outraged voters.Quote:
I actually don't even have a problem with her original statement. Just wish people would hold her feet to the fire. "So given your concerns about home buyers, mortgage companies, insurance companies can you give us a % of where the blame lay?" She loves having it both ways. Frankly she's worse than John Kerry when it comes 'nuance.'
Nevertheless:
Quote:
But the video leaves out the part when she also names irresponsible mortgage lenders and brokers, the government and regulators, credit rating agencies, speculators and Wall Street "which not only enabled but often encouraged reckless mortgage lending."
As PolitiFact has previously reported, Clinton called for more oversight and transparency in the financial sector in several speeches and dating back to March 2007. From then to 2008, she repeatedly suggested and introduced a bill to establish national standards and regulations for loan brokers and lenders.
The video also points out Wall Street has been contributing to Clinton’s campaign. This is accurate. PolitiFact looked into a viral image highlighting Clinton’s top 10 donors and found that five were financial firms, two were law firms that do a lot of corporate work, and two were media conglomerates.
Yeah but no. Again, her focus is on getting things done. Now you have taken a step on the road to providing universal healthcare so she can build on that. There was a time when even that step would have been inconceivable and thus not worth spending too much time on for a pragmatist who has to get other important things done as well.Quote:
Universal health care segment basically agrees she's a hypocrite.
Accurate.Quote:
They agree she's basically a liar on the sniper fire bull shit.
Except that even this isn't straightforward. Politics aside, there are years between her initial positive views and her later skeptical views. In that time a lot can happen to change a person's view as they see how eg. a trade deal ends up in its final form compared to how it was conceived, as well as how things play out in reality over the course of a couple of decades. A person should be able to change her views if new information warrants it and a person who won't change her views when it's warranted is a dangerous ideologue. Now if you really want to punish someone for flipflopping in a similar way you should probably go by RB's house to egg or TP it. But you'd be wrong to do so because RB says changed his views about the EU and Britain's membership as he learned and thought more about it, not simply for the sake of getting votes. He can be criticized for being wrong about the facts or for any number of other things, but I don't think he can be fairly criticized, in principle, for changing his mind about something. The same goes for Clinton.Quote:
NAFTA they agree and TPP is a full flop.
But maybe you guys want boneheaded fanatics running your country? Or should I ask that question in the thread about the Republican candidate instead?
I won't reply to everything but your arguments basically boil down to 'she has her reasons, she couldn't get elected, she has to work with these people etc.' IE she lies and panders to people to get elected which is the primary thrust of the video.
TPP and EU are completely different. The ONLY reason she changed her mind was because Bernie was proving a serious challenger. That's it. This is the family that while Bill was in the white house had their polling team do focus groups on WHAT KIND OF DOG SHOULD BE THEIR FAMILY PET. /Boggle. She is a massive liar and has no principals. She will say anything to be elected. Other politicians do similar things , I'm not ignorant of that fact but not to this insane degree.
what
Also I think it's safe to say Trump lies (and changed position) even more.
Not true. Both Dread and I wanted it to come from more of the states and not SCOTUS, as plenty of posts testified, but both of us were in favor of gay marriage. You're trying to conflate the end-goal and the process. I'm not opposed to gay marriage now that it's here just because it came from a 5/4 SCOTUS decision, it just did not come in a way that I felt would have given it additional stability, nor does it mean I don't celebrate the decision. I most certainly do, I'm quite glad for it and its effects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Honest question Fuzzy. Do you think the prevailing political views of gay marriage among the electorate led to Clinton changing her position?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
No argument here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
No, I don't think her position changed. She wanted gay marriage and wanted it to come from the states themselves. Not all that terribly different from your position in the past, IIRC. You just insist on putting the cart before the horse with it actually being achieved, whereas she (and I) do not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-sex-marriage/Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
"Clinton opposed same-sex marriage as a candidate for the Senate, while in office as a senator, and while running for president in 2008. She expressed her support for civil unions starting in 2000 and for the rights’ of states to set their own laws in favor of same-sex marriage in 2006.
As polls showed that a majority of Americans supported same-sex marriage, Clinton’s views changed, too. She announced her support for same-sex marriage in March 2013.
It’s up to voters to decide how they feel about her changed stance, but on same-sex marriage we give Clinton a Full Flop."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3peAGxL5P0
Another fun video. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GvCeEpnXxA
Truth is stranger than fiction... /boggle
You're right, it's pretty frickin' strange to make a big deal about it.
Seriously? This is the father of a terrorist. A terrorist who murdered dozens of people. Lets think about the absurdity for a moment. The guy supports Clinton, why would he give an interview? In what way would that help Clinton? Is he just looking for his 15 minutes of fame? Because that's pretty disgusting to do it off the backs of murdered Americans. Perhaps he doesn't have it all there, maybe there is no malicious intent and/or desire for fame. It is still really, really bonkers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Dude, just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
America: where you get judged on the basis of your family's actions. Trump would be proud.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Tell me do you think this hurts or helps Hillary? Frankly the guy should be embarrassed to be in public.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Okay, how many votes do you believe this will cost Hillary?
Why should he be embarrassed to be in public? Do we judge people on the actions of their family members?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Looking at the interview, he wasn't particularly keen on the reporter hassling him and asking him leading questions, but perhaps he decided that expressing support for Clinton and opposition to Trump were worthwhile goals and better than not saying anything and leaving the reporter and her colleagues to paint him in an even worse light.
I think the Trump endorsement from Putin is a bigger deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
And Kim Jong-Un's. And the American Nazi Party's. And David Duke's.
Probably, but this is the Clinton bashing thread. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Actually yeah. When my kid acts up in public it is an embarrassment because it is a reflection on me. I make sure that happens rarely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
*Obviously* This isn't the exact same thing however I tend to believe the apple didn't fall to far from the tree. Guys more than a little kooky.
http://time.com/4366145/orlando-shoo...mateen-father/
"Seddique Mateen is something of an online personality, posting numerous videos on YouTube and his Facebook page about Afghan politics, including some where he appears to pass himself off as the President of Afghanistan. As recently as June 3, Mateen made statements on Facebook calling himself the “president of transitional republic of Afghanistan.”"
Of course there is a difference between 'I'm kinda crazy and post stupid things on-line' and 'I'm kinda crazy and violent.' Let's be honest here, Fox News, Politco, NPR are all reporting about the issue.
They're both bad candidates. I don't like either one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I'd vote for the libertarian or green party candidate before I'd vote for the (D) or (R) nominee. The point is I'll vote....even though the majority parties either think I won't vote at all, or their pollsters presume to know how I'll vote.Quote:
How much worse do you believe that candidate would be than his/her opponent?
How bad do you believe that candidate would be in more absolute terms?
I've talked about strategic voting, and concluded that it's bullshit. Even when a third party candidate was called a "spoiler" (Nader or Perot, for example) it turns out they didn't change election results after all. What really changes elections is voter eligibility, gerrymandering districts, and how that affects voter turn out.
In absolute terms....I think our two party political system sucks.
Lewk, do I have to mention all the kooky radio personalities who regularly support Republican candidates?
Clinton taking on the 'alt-right.' I'm sure it was focused grouped like crazy but I fail to see what she hopes to accomplish with it. Trump has said so many ridiculous things if I were her I would just repeat them during her speeches, every time. Ah well let the meme wars begin...
But... none of that answers any of my questions explicitlyQuote:
Originally Posted by GGT
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...owdy-says.html
"illary Clinton’s team used more than just a “cloth” to scrub her private server – employing a special program known as BleachBit to delete her private emails and try to prevent their recovery, a senior Republican on the House oversight committee who has read the FBI’s investigative file told Fox News.
“They didn't just push the delete button. They had them deleted where even God can't read them,” Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said Thursday.
The account is striking considering that Clinton, at a rare press conference last year in Las Vegas, seemed to claim ignorance when asked by Fox News whether she wiped her server.
“What, like with a cloth or something?” Clinton quipped, adding: “I don’t know how it works digitally at all.”
Yet Gowdy said her team was using BleachBit, which is like an electronic shredder that permanently scrambles data.
In reference to the kinds of emails Clinton has claimed were private and not worth turning over, Gowdy said, “You don't use BleachBit for yoga emails, or for bridesmaids emails. When you're using BleachBit, it is something you really do not want the world to see.”"
No, let's try to be accurate. What Gowdy means is, "I don't use BleachBit for yoga emails, or for bridesmaids emails." It's an useful, effective and free tool that has been featured on many tech websites and it being used by some techie to clean a server isn't particularly spooky or sinister. It is probably not even the most sophisticated tool for that kind of job.
You can make a rational argument that Clinton is better than Trump. But all of these excuses for her needlessly secretive behavior is a pretty damned big sign that there isn't just smoke, there's a fire. She's dirty just like her husband.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Sure, present some persuasive evidence that isn't circumstantial. Having your computer cleaned by a techie using a basic free program designed for that purpose isn't persuasive or even suspicious. If you want your computer wiped you use appropriate tools for the job.
Back when I used Norton Antivrius, I used a whole Norton Suite and it had Norton's own version of that program on it. I used it every six months, and my computer use at the time was completely innocuous, not even any decent porn. It's a basic security, even maintenance measure, and as Aimless says, any decent techie will use it or an equivalent. Many home-users won't but the average home-user doesn't know squat about their computer except that it uses the move-ems to make things on the monitor woog.
You poor thing :(Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
... but you are safe now... :(
Considering information needs to be retained for FOIA requests... it is concerning. Have you been asleep the last year? No one is making the claim that *simply because she used this program there are problems* this is just the latest addition to a long list of reasons to be suspicious. From her lying or I'm sorry 'mis-remembering' weather or not there were classified documents on the server to the question on why it was necessary in the first place in the 'most transparent administration in history' you've got a lot to chew through.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless