Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Have you ever had heatstroke in your life? Because I have and I acted the same way and I was only 20
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also it is possible she had anything from heat cramps to syncope once again she is almost 70 and is wearing black in the direct sun and is working hard on a campaign
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/11 18:41:48
The Confederate battle flag, while having been used by fringe groups in the 20th Century, is not a racist symbol in and within itself. That was a case of the Clinton appealing to the blue collar types in a Southern State.
The battle flag is racist as feth. And this was a case of a private group making their own private buttons, with no endorsement or support form Clinton.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/11 19:07:39
whembly wrote: Breibart is the opposite end of MediaMatters/TPM of the world. They both give me heebeejeebees.
Clearly it doesn't bother you enough since you've admitted to following one of their key douchebags on Twitter.
So... just because I follow him on twitter, I support everything?
Dayum... so, because I follow the POTUS, the Clinton campaign and Trump on Twitter... they're all kosher?
This is all so confusing.
No, it just strains your (already low) credibility because you openly profess to following and enjoying one of the biggest names associated with Breitbart, but nice deflection regardless. It's obvious you gain all of your news from firmly right wing sources but you refuse to admit it when people call you out on it and instead lash out with the childish counterattack of, "Yeah, read some more Vox (or TPP or whatever liberal rag you can think of)," instead of just admitting what we all know already.
You've done that to me alone numerous times despite the fact that I have explained to you that the only two news sources I have bookmarked are Fox News and Slate, which balance each other out. At work, it's typically Yahoo (which links to the various other news sites) because it's the homepage on all of our computers, but it's like 75% celebrity garbage. I'll read a Vox article every once and a while when one of my more liberal friends shares one on Facebook and I think it looks interesting, but I read a lot more allenbwest.com stories (unfortunately) because I know far more conservative people.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
whembly wrote: Breibart is the opposite end of MediaMatters/TPM of the world. They both give me heebeejeebees.
Clearly it doesn't bother you enough since you've admitted to following one of their key douchebags on Twitter.
So... just because I follow him on twitter, I support everything?
Dayum... so, because I follow the POTUS, the Clinton campaign and Trump on Twitter... they're all kosher?
This is all so confusing.
No, it just strains your (already low) credibility because you openly profess to following and enjoying one of the biggest names associated with Breitbart, but nice deflection regardless. It's obvious you gain all of your news from firmly right wing sources but you refuse to admit it when people call you out on it and instead lash out with the childish counterattack of, "Yeah, read some more Vox (or TPP or whatever liberal rag you can think of)," instead of just admitting what we all know already.
Well... I can't disabuse otherwise, so have fun.
You've done that to me alone numerous times despite the fact that I have explained to you that the only two news sources I have bookmarked are Fox News and Slate, which balance each other out. At work, it's typically Yahoo (which links to the various other news sites) because it's the homepage on all of our computers, but it's like 75% celebrity garbage. I'll read a Vox article every once and a while when one of my more liberal friends shares one on Facebook and I think it looks interesting, but I read a lot more allenbwest.com stories (unfortunately) because I know far more conservative people.
I'm going to call BS on that one.
I distinctly remember you believing that Ted Cruz will encourage right wingers "patroling" towns to ensure folks are abiding by some christian edicts.
The Confederate battle flag, while having been used by fringe groups in the 20th Century, is not a racist symbol in and within itself. That was a case of the Clinton appealing to the blue collar types in a Southern State.
The battle flag is racist as feth. And this was a case of a private group making their own private buttons, with no endorsement or support form Clinton.
As for the buttons, thanks for the clarification.
As for the flag, that's your opinion. And one I disagree with.
The Confederate battle flag, while having been used by fringe groups in the 20th Century, is not a racist symbol in and within itself. That was a case of the Clinton appealing to the blue collar types in a Southern State.
The battle flag is racist as feth. And this was a case of a private group making their own private buttons, with no endorsement or support form Clinton.
As for the buttons, thanks for the clarification.
As for the flag, that's your opinion. And one I disagree with.
Saying a symbol has no meaning in and of it self is rather stating the obvious is it not? No one judges a symbol based on how it looks (other than to judge its pure aesthetics anyway...). They judge it based on its contextual use.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/11 21:35:25
BEFORE we get the red text or a thread lock because we went down the rabbit hole of whether or not the Confederate flag is racist, let's move on, shall we?
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Meanwhile, the Right-Wingers will keep spreading more rumors about how worse her health got. I won't be surprised to see soon something like "HRC will soon die of pneumonia, vote Trump instead".
Sarouan wrote: Meanwhile, the Right-Wingers will keep spreading more rumors about how worse her health got. I won't be surprised to see soon something like "HRC will soon die of pneumonia, vote Trump instead".
It's so predictable, really.
Well... all the "right wingers" here are wishing her the best of health, while you're trying to make political points... so...
Sarouan wrote: Meanwhile, the Right-Wingers will keep spreading more rumors about how worse her health got. I won't be surprised to see soon something like "HRC will soon die of pneumonia, vote Trump instead".
It's so predictable, really.
Well... all the "right wingers" here are wishing her the best of health, while you're trying to make political points... so...
That the first step. I bet all you want that soon, in the days to come, all of this will be forgotten and we will have even more "news" about how worse her health got and how unfit she is to rule.
whembly wrote: I'm not arguing that there's no difference between Trump and Clinton.
They're both bad for COMPLETELY different reasons, in my opinion.
And I'm making the plain and simple statement that the scale of the issues of the two candidates is so large that any effort to make the two equal takes an act of willful personal delusion. Did you see the list I posted earlier;
Trump; While planning his Atlantic City casinos, Trump was asked by state and city officials about the financial stability of his plans. He said he had great deals with the banks, and wouldn't use junk bonds that are for idiots. Trump then funded the casinos with junk bonds at 14%, they went bust and while Trump was lucky to walk away few others were. The failed casinos have left an economic impact on Atlantic City to this day. Trump’s has a long record of refusing to pay contractors, and happily forces them in to the courts knowing most can't afford it and will just let Trump get away with it. Trump University was set up as a hard sell scam, attracting people with little financial knowledge, then pressuring them in to buying incredibly expensive seminars on false promises. When this was exposed and it collapsed Trump tried to set it up again as Trump Institute. When the Trump U and Trump Inst scams were investigated by state authorities, Trump made donations to the attorneys general involved, and shockingly enough they then decided not to investigate further. Then there's the Trump Network, which used a pyramid scheme to try and sell people on a secret (bs) lab, that you would send a urine sample to be analysed so a course of multivitamins could be proscribed. Then there's Trump Model Management, which asked foreign models to lie to get in to the country where they would work illegally. The models were paid almost nothing and lived in squalor. Trump makes heavy use of foreign guest workers at his resorts. Getting visas for these workers involves claiming that he can’t find Americans to do the work. Trump has violated anti-trust laws, resulting in fines in excess of $750,000. He has now employed Roger Ailes as a senior advisor. Ailes was free to take the job behaviour he'd just been fired from FOX News after being exposed as a serial abuser of women over decades (he was sufficiently notorious in 1968 that Nixon's administration refused to give him a job... Nixon knew this guy was ethically dodgy). Trump sees no problem with this and his happy to give a job to a man who could have molested more than 25 women.
Clinton Failed to properly secure her emails in her role as Secretary of State.
And that list on Trump could be much, much longer. It doesn't include any of the campaign statements he's made. So if you want we can go and add all the racist claims, the disastrous policies etc. Are you starting to see that you may not like Clinton, but even by the worst interpretation she's still a million times better than Trump?
Until conservatives start their own political party this is a distinction without meaning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: I think the back and forth illustrates the more specific point, which is that liberal policies tend to disproportionately help lower status individuals, while conservative principles disproportionately help higher status ones.
Abortion appears at first to be a counter example, because what's lower in status than a fetus?
I know the abortion discussion has been shut down by the mods, and fair enough, but I'm not trying to discuss abortion itself, just make a comment on the political history of abortion, as a comment on politics in general.
I think abortion is actually a pretty good example of why the view that political factions have large underlying principles from which everything is drawn starts to come apart.
Abortion wasn't a thing in conservative US politics until the late 70s, early 80s. Before then it was a Catholic thing, and you can go and find plenty of writings in conservative Christian texts that criticized the Catholics for their unbiblical view on abortion and the foetus having a soul. But that changed very quickly, and changed so hard that the old history was forgotten and completely denied.
And it isn't believed because it punishes women, supports male led households or anything like that. It's because the leaders of conservative Christian politics chose it as a political decision. They were building the power and base of their newly awakened political force, and they thought they could win the Catholics over by taking their position on abortion. A political choice that flowed down through all elements of their coalition, and quickly became an absolute foundational belief of their religion.
Political parties have broad kinds of principles, but they're generally pretty vague and pretty weak. Really, political parties are driven by history, they are the product of years of political decisions that carry on for years to come. How did the Democratic party and their outright racist Dixiecrats end up with about 95% of the black vote? Because New England liberals forced a choice on the Democrats in the 60s, and the party chose one way over another. How did the party of Lincoln end up with about 5% of the black vote? Because Republicans saw a lot of potential votes in the South, and didn't mind what it would cost them in minority votes.
Abortion is a big deal to Republicans because Republicans have the 'moral majority' as a major voting bloc in their party, and in the late 70s the leaders of that movement made a political decision. That's the only reason why.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: Agreed. Pretty much every position taken by a political party isn't altruistic but is intended to promote or pander to a given demographic or agenda.
I agree that positions are taken for lots of reasons, but I don't think it's quite as cynical or planned as you suggest. Politics is way too chaotic to think of people making rational decisions to win over this group or another.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DutchWinsAll wrote: You, sebster, Prestor Jon, and Ouze for levity makes this place miles above your average message board.
Thanks mate. Your contributions are always interesting and well argued as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: What is Aleppo? Is it really a key global flashpoint? It's a city in Syria where the people are hungry and suffering deprivations because they are caught in the midst of a violent civil war. We're not sending troops into Syria anytime soon so how is it a global flashpoint for anything?
It is the key city in an increasingly severe humanitarian crisis. Global flashpoints don't begin and end with US troop presence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Back on topic, here is a very interesting article from The Economist, which I will put into a spoiler bracket to save screen space.
The TL/DR is that politicians have always fibbed but Trump is a leading exponent of a new, different quality of lying which completely disregards the truth in order to reinforce prejudices. And this is bad.
That acticle was great, thanks for posting it. It said perfectly what I've been trying to say on dakka for a long time now, that there is a difference between telling a lie and being totally indifferent to the truth.
Clinton shouldn't have said 'half'. Adding the quantity was the mistake. Afterall, Clinton had made similar comments about Trump's supporters before, and it never blew up. But this time it got big headlines and an eventual apology from Clinton. It seems that for some reason saying 'half of Trump supporters are deplorables' is a very different thing to 'Trump has lots of deplorable supporters'.
But, to make lemonades out of lemons, this can be turned around to an advantage. Namely, that HRC would rather talk about anything than her emails scandals...
The email faux scandal is likely coming to final, sad end. We've just been through two weeks of breathless reporting in which exciting headlines and lots of weasel words like 'raises questions' and 'on-going concerns' were used to cover up the boring reality that nothing of any real concern was found in the emails. This last gasp of air now appears to more of a dead cat bounce then anything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: I don't think demeaning generalizations are very helpful or apt. Trump has a commanding lead in South Carolina and it's unlikely Hillary wins that state. Nikki Haley, a woman, has been governor of South Carolina since 2011 so clearly voters in South Carolina are very comfortable electing a woman to be in charge so the fact that Hillary won't win the state can't be attributed to misogyny.
Misogyny isn't a simple thing in which you would never, ever vote for a woman. Its where you get uncomfortable about seeing a woman in a position that you had always mentally envisioned a man in. There has been a steady string of female governors since the 1960s, and especially since the 1980s. Having a woman run for or win the governorship doesn't really change anyone's understanding of anything these days. But there's never been a serious female candidate for the presidency before Clinton, and of course no female president. A lot of people might not even actively think 'she can't do the job because she is a woman', but it might make them a bit ill-at-ease, and therefore more skeptical of her than they might otherwise be.
But of course Trump's collection of deplorables aren't all misogynists. Many of them are deplorable in ways that have nothing to do with Clinton. They just like Trump's racism, xenophobia, islamaphobia and all his other hate filled utterances.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: The fate of Aleppo isn't going to have an impact on the election at all. It literally doesn't have the ability to alter the election in any meaningful way. If the entire population of Aleppo died overnight or got airlifted and resettled in Detroit tomorrow it wouldn't stop the war or depose Assad. Your ascribing a leve of importance to the city that is hyperbolic. It's a trending hashtag of the moment. In a few weeks/months people will forget about it but Syria will still be one giant humanitarian crisis we'll just be too distracted by the latest shiny object in the 24 hour news cycle spotlight to care anymore.
Holy fething gak man 300,000 people are at risk. feth.
This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2016/09/12 04:58:47
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
The more I see the media coverage of this election campaign, the more I see similarities with what happened between Al Gore and Bush.
It's simply astounding to see how much Clinton is under scrutiny while Trump is strangely getting away with his constant lies.
Why? Why people don't report this more often? How is it that a man who lie so often and so blatantly, and keep repeating his lies when confronted with the truth, can go away with this while Clinton is litteraly bashed over things like the "email scandal"?
There is definitely something wrong in this. That such a blatant liar is allowed to lie so much, so often in front of millions of people, and that no one seems to really care or would still believe than both candidates "are equally bad".
Did people forget the lies of Bush? Did people forget how much Al Gore was blatantly covered by a negative media campaign? Is America really bringing the new Mussolini in front of the doors of the White House?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Just been reading in the newspapers that the guy who shot Reagan got out of jail yesterday after 35 years
Is that a wise move?
Anybody who shot one president wouldn't have any qualms about shooting another president.
What, how can you just throw out a claim like that? Do you have any clue about his mental state when he shot Reagan, and his mental state now?
I mean, maybe we can just, you know, leave this up to the medical professionals who have examined him over the last 35 years?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
oldravenman3025 wrote: It isn't just about the market. It's across the board. In the United States, people have a healthy distrust of the Federal Government, and with good reason (both within our own history and in examples from world history).
I see in the US both trust and distrust of government. Exactly what is government is trusted and distrusted on changes a little from country to country, but the overall extent of the trust or distrust is not that different. It is certainly nothing like this image Americans like to have of them being uniquely anti-government.
And in and of itself, neither trust nor distrust is healthy or unhealthy. When the trust or distrust is properly informed it is healthy. When it is uninformed or misinformed, it is unhealthy.
That's the real problem, in the US and everywhere else - how much ignorance people have in their own governments.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Snowden is a traitor and is treated as such.
However, his revelation on things like PRISM, yes we were roundly outraged about it.
There's that incredible line of thinking again... that people are outraged by this man committing treason by bringing to light an invasive and dangerous government program. How dare he!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
oldravenman3025 wrote: But I will agree that both Bill and Hillary have a long history, especially during their time in the Arkansas governor's mansion, of uttering racist remarks and ethnic slurs. Bill was notorious for dropping N-bombs in private and Hillary was known to have slurred off on the Jews on several occasions. When she was First Lady and Secretary of State, she was notorious at heaping profanity-laced, verbal abuse on White House staff and Secret Service agents.
There's been claims of the Clintons saying naughty words floating around from various bs artists since Clinton first ran for the presidency. Maybe the Clintons are secretly super-racist, but it's probably more sensible to put it alongside the secret Clinton trail of bodies, the black helicopters and using marines a waiters in the pile of stories I'd like to call "complete horse gak that people make up about the Clintons because oh my God people just keep buying this nonsense let's make some more".
In my mind, the only difference between her and Trump, is that Trump is open about his talking, while Hillary does it behind closed doors and denies it.
Yes, there is no real difference at all between the guy who makes racist statements regularly and builds his policy platform around racism... and a woman who has been accused of using racial eptithats by some random nobodies. No difference at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sarouan wrote: Meanwhile, the Right-Wingers will keep spreading more rumors about how worse her health got. I won't be surprised to see soon something like "HRC will soon die of pneumonia, vote Trump instead".
It's so predictable, really.
Maybe, but all the right wingers in this thread have been good on the issue of Clinton's health. Leave 'em alone on this one
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/09/12 08:21:45
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: I'm not arguing that there's no difference between Trump and Clinton.
They're both bad for COMPLETELY different reasons, in my opinion.
And I'm making the plain and simple statement that the scale of the issues of the two candidates is so large that any effort to make the two equal takes an act of willful personal delusion. Did you see the list I posted earlier;
Trump;
While planning his Atlantic City casinos, Trump was asked by state and city officials about the financial stability of his plans. He said he had great deals with the banks, and wouldn't use junk bonds that are for idiots. Trump then funded the casinos with junk bonds at 14%, they went bust and while Trump was lucky to walk away few others were. The failed casinos have left an economic impact on Atlantic City to this day.
Trump’s has a long record of refusing to pay contractors, and happily forces them in to the courts knowing most can't afford it and will just let Trump get away with it.
Trump University was set up as a hard sell scam, attracting people with little financial knowledge, then pressuring them in to buying incredibly expensive seminars on false promises. When this was exposed and it collapsed Trump tried to set it up again as Trump Institute.
When the Trump U and Trump Inst scams were investigated by state authorities, Trump made donations to the attorneys general involved, and shockingly enough they then decided not to investigate further.
Then there's the Trump Network, which used a pyramid scheme to try and sell people on a secret (bs) lab, that you would send a urine sample to be analysed so a course of multivitamins could be proscribed.
Then there's Trump Model Management, which asked foreign models to lie to get in to the country where they would work illegally. The models were paid almost nothing and lived in squalor.
Trump makes heavy use of foreign guest workers at his resorts. Getting visas for these workers involves claiming that he can’t find Americans to do the work.
Trump has violated anti-trust laws, resulting in fines in excess of $750,000.
He has now employed Roger Ailes as a senior advisor. Ailes was free to take the job behaviour he'd just been fired from FOX News after being exposed as a serial abuser of women over decades (he was sufficiently notorious in 1968 that Nixon's administration refused to give him a job... Nixon knew this guy was ethically dodgy). Trump sees no problem with this and his happy to give a job to a man who could have molested more than 25 women.
Clinton:
Failed to properly secure her emails in her role as Secretary of State.
Voted for the invasion of Iraq
Was instrumental in the invasion of Libya
Voted for the PATRIOT Act
Voted for the 2006 reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act
Voted for the 2001 Bankruptcy Legislation which would have made it harder for struggling Americans to declare bankruptcy, after expressing her opposition to the bill when she was First Lady
Believed that marriage was defined as between a man and woman and reversed her position only in 2013 when it became politically convenient
Has received close to $100,000 in donations from the defense industry, more than any other candidate
Wants a "Manhattan Project" to break encryption and force tech companies to plant backdoors in their products
Supports the TPP
Received millions in shady donations for her foundation while she was Secretary of State... the same foundation whose donors got weapons deals when she was Secretary of State
Takes millions in speaking fees from Wall Street while pretending to speak for the little people
Took donations from federally registered lobbyists or PACs for private prison companies until October 2015
FTFY
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/12 10:21:36
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
To be fair to Whem' he also disagrees on her policy, which could make her "just as bad in a different way" in his eyes. Whereas a good amount of Trump's stuff appears to be nicked from mainstream republicans.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Trump's own policies don't really exist, which is why they don't get much discussion. They are just a bunch of vague slogans or statements like Build A Wall, Make America Great, "I've got plans", and so on, with no detail.
ulgurstasta, your changes are terrible and show you have absolutely no idea how politics works. You don't get your dreamboat candidate. No-one ever does. Let's go through your list and see how your confusion has played out...
Voted for the invasion of Iraq
Along with 77 out 100 senators, including 29 out of 50 Democrats. And of course, Trump also gave his support, so if we include it in this then we have to add to his list above. It is very strange that only Clinton is criticised for this.
Was instrumental in the invasion of Libya
Describing Libya as an invasion is beyond silly. There was an air campaign, and the meltdown that's happened since is due in large part out of a reluctance to put ground troops in the region. Clinton played her part in that, no doubt, but fething who where the people calling for US troops in Libya? So again Clinton is the one given responsibility for taking the
Voted for the PATRIOT Act
98 senators voted for the patriot act, with 1 nay, and one abstaining. But let's focus in on Clinton, because nothing even has to pretend to make sense anymore.
Voted for the 2006 reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act
The vote was carried 89 to 11 in the senate. Truly Clinton stands alone in her support of the Patriot Act.
Voted for the 2001 Bankruptcy Legislation which would have made it harder for struggling Americans to declare bankruptcy, after expressing her opposition to the bill when she was First Lady
That's a nonsense description of the bill. It made Sect 7 harder (which allows for a one and done part payment) and instead requires a Sect 13 (where payment plans are more likely. It isn't too hard to see the merits in making sure it isn't too easy to
There is legitimate criticism of Clinton on this, and that's that she flips back and forth on the issue - she didn't like the measures, then she was okay with them as long as other reforms were in there, and then in 2005 she was opposed the measures once again. But in the scheme of things, holy gak going back and forth on minor reforms to which kind of bankruptcy people can apply for? This is a thing people think is important?! How in the name of any form of reason on this planet or any other does it compare to the issues Trump backflips over on a daily basis?
We are actually at the point where Trump has gone from calling Mexican illegal immigrants rapists, to saying many have made big contributions and its a difficult issue, back to saying he'll deport 11 million of them, over the course of a couple of months.. And it's being compared to going back and forth on a minor bankruptcy over the course of five years, with her last change of position more than a decade ago.
Believed that marriage was defined as between a man and woman and reversed her position only in 2013 when it became politically convenient
So did Obama. But it is Clinton that must be blamed for this, because.
Has received close to $100,000 in donations from the defense industry, more than any other candidate
Actually Clinton's total is a tick over $400,000. Of course,Bernie Sanders has got $397,000 and the criticism of him over this is... yeah.
And meanwhile donations to Republicans total $14m, compared to Democrats overall at $8m.
And here you are singling Clinton out, because.
Wants a "Manhattan Project" to break encryption and force tech companies to plant backdoors in their products
Actually, Clinton's 'Manhattan Project" was a fairly meaningless thought bubble, she just wanted govt agencies and tech companies to form working groups to improve co-operation. When she was asked if she wanted to 'backdoor' to bypass encryption she said she didn't.
Supports the TPP
Except now she doesn't. There is reasonable grounds to criticise her for TPP is shamefully badly understood by the activist left, who seem to use it basically a a proxy for international trade in its entirety, and remain utterly ignorant of the actual terms of the deal.
Seriously, don't just use boogie words, actually read the deal. You know what you'll find in it? It's a deal that includes all of China's neighbours, and not China. The deal is there to hem China in, stop its more dubious practices, and eventually force it to return to the table to join TPP in terms more favourable for other countries.
Received millions in shady donations for her foundation while she was Secretary of State... the same foundation whose donors got weapons deals when she was Secretary of State
This is total, shameful crap. You've fallen for a whisper campaign, in which exciting headlines cover over the complete non-story that actually happened. There's been dozens of these stupid articles written now, and every single one is along the lines of "Clinton caught in another Foundation scandal"... and then if you go and read the story you'll find it says that a foundation donor made a request, and that request was totally normally and approved along standard protocols, or it was not okay and was not granted.
Seriously, don't just read headlines.
Takes millions in speaking fees from Wall Street while pretending to speak for the little people
There isn't a single major politician or business leader in the US who doesn't make money from talking fees. And yes, the fee per talk can be staggeringly high to most of us, but that's the rate you can command, then that's the money you take. Clinton is far from alone in talking to Wall St and other groups, in fact it'd be just fething weird if the Senator from NY didn't engage with Wall St.
And yet it is Clinton alone who is single out for complaint.
Took donations from federally registered lobbyists or PACs for private prison companies until October 2015
This is actually a new one for me, and I had to look it up. So credit there. It turns out its a warmed up bit of nonsense from the primary. Sanders made one of his big claims, and the kids lapped it up. Clinton said me too. It's all nonsense. Obama has taken the good and actually achievable step of the fed no longer using private contractors. Anything more than that would involve writing federal law that told the states how they were to run their own prisons. Getting that through congress is a pipedream, getting it approved by the Supreme Court would probably need the use of magical powers.
But yes, in 2015 Clinton took $133k from private prisons. So far in 2016 she's raised $436 million, so there's no way she'll ever buck against such an important contributor.
FTFY
Don't do that. It isn't clever.
Anyhow, the list above is basically stuff that is just common place. but somehow only gets mentioned as a Clinton thing, because a lot of people have gone more than bit loopy just recently. There's also a couple of dishonest smears, and a couple of okay points that Clinton has flipflopped on over the course of a decade or so. To try and equate that with Trump is to be ridiculous.
To be fair to Whem' he also disagrees on her policy, which could make her "just as bad in a different way" in his eyes. Whereas a good amount of Trump's stuff appears to be nicked from mainstream republicans.
Sure, Trump has taken a bunch of his policy stuff from the standard list of GOP boilerplate stuff. But he's shown a lot of times that he has no interest in just following GOP practice - anyone who thinks they'll end up with a generic Republican in the whitehouse is kidding themselves.
Whembly and I have talked a lot about this stuff. He knows my opinion of the modern GOP, and I know he's a conservative who still shows a lot of loyalty to the GOP. I think we're both cool with that.
But Trump is something else entirely. We are actually talking about the guy who said this;
"“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”"
And as of today, 13-09-2016 that man has a real chance to win the Whitehouse. That should make people very fething angry, and very determined that it doesn't happen. But too many have convinced themselves Clinton is just as bad (which is obviously false), or that Trump cannot win (which is unfortunately not true either, 528 puts him at about 30%, and trailing in key states by 3 to 5%).
This is fething serious, people.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/12 16:02:59
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: I'm not arguing that there's no difference between Trump and Clinton.
They're both bad for COMPLETELY different reasons, in my opinion.
And I'm making the plain and simple statement that the scale of the issues of the two candidates is so large that any effort to make the two equal takes an act of willful personal delusion. Did you see the list I posted earlier;
Trump;
While planning his Atlantic City casinos, Trump was asked by state and city officials about the financial stability of his plans. He said he had great deals with the banks, and wouldn't use junk bonds that are for idiots. Trump then funded the casinos with junk bonds at 14%, they went bust and while Trump was lucky to walk away few others were. The failed casinos have left an economic impact on Atlantic City to this day.
Trump’s has a long record of refusing to pay contractors, and happily forces them in to the courts knowing most can't afford it and will just let Trump get away with it.
Trump University was set up as a hard sell scam, attracting people with little financial knowledge, then pressuring them in to buying incredibly expensive seminars on false promises. When this was exposed and it collapsed Trump tried to set it up again as Trump Institute.
When the Trump U and Trump Inst scams were investigated by state authorities, Trump made donations to the attorneys general involved, and shockingly enough they then decided not to investigate further.
Then there's the Trump Network, which used a pyramid scheme to try and sell people on a secret (bs) lab, that you would send a urine sample to be analysed so a course of multivitamins could be proscribed.
Then there's Trump Model Management, which asked foreign models to lie to get in to the country where they would work illegally. The models were paid almost nothing and lived in squalor.
Trump makes heavy use of foreign guest workers at his resorts. Getting visas for these workers involves claiming that he can’t find Americans to do the work.
Trump has violated anti-trust laws, resulting in fines in excess of $750,000.
He has now employed Roger Ailes as a senior advisor. Ailes was free to take the job behaviour he'd just been fired from FOX News after being exposed as a serial abuser of women over decades (he was sufficiently notorious in 1968 that Nixon's administration refused to give him a job... Nixon knew this guy was ethically dodgy). Trump sees no problem with this and his happy to give a job to a man who could have molested more than 25 women.
Clinton
Failed to properly secure her emails in her role as Secretary of State. .
By the holy Emprah, that's one of the worst whitewash attempt on Clinton malfeasance.
And that list on Trump could be much, much longer. It doesn't include any of the campaign statements he's made. So if you want we can go and add all the racist claims, the disastrous policies etc. Are you starting to see that you may not like Clinton, but even by the worst interpretation she's still a million times better than Trump?
feth no.
Hillary Clinton was put in positions of power and she either fethed up royally or abused it to her own benefit. We've been over this.
Yes, Trump is bad... but, please don't insult my intelligence that Clinton isn't remotely as bad as Trump.
Until conservatives start their own political party this is a distinction without meaning.
It's not meaningless. It's incredibly lazy to believe that the conservative movements = the Republican party vs. socialist/leftist movements = the Democrat party.
Clinton shouldn't have said 'half'. Adding the quantity was the mistake. Afterall, Clinton had made similar comments about Trump's supporters before, and it never blew up. But this time it got big headlines and an eventual apology from Clinton. It seems that for some reason saying 'half of Trump supporters are deplorables' is a very different thing to 'Trump has lots of deplorable supporters'.
Indeed... she opened up a barn-door attack... and this recently released Ad is the result:
But, to make lemonades out of lemons, this can be turned around to an advantage. Namely, that HRC would rather talk about anything than her emails scandals...
The email faux scandal is likely coming to final, sad end. We've just been through two weeks of breathless reporting in which exciting headlines and lots of weasel words like 'raises questions' and 'on-going concerns' were used to cover up the boring reality that nothing of any real concern was found in the emails. This last gasp of air now appears to more of a dead cat bounce then anything.
Boring to you maybe... I assure you that its a big fething deal and this retired military veteran KO'ed her:
talking, while Hillary does it behind closed doors and denies it.
