2016 US Election


Off-Topic Discussions

4,501 to 4,550 of 7,079 << first < prev | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


It isn't false. I'm sorry he feels that I am deliberately misinterpreting what he said. I just don't think I am.

An apology is for something you did. Or it's not an apology.

Silver Crusade

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Rednal wrote:
I know what you're trying to say, Comrade, but I feel like you're deliberately misinterpreting what I said in order to make your point, and I think you'd be more effective at persuading people to agree with you if you didn't do that.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
Giving a false apology really isn't helping.
It isn't false. I'm sorry he feels that I am deliberately misinterpreting what he said. I just don't think I am.

It is false, because you're not apologizing for what you said, you're apologizing for how they feel about something.

You don't get to tell people how they feel about things.

Edit: ninjaed by the Wolfie.

*scritches behind ears*

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, apparently Trump wanted to execute the Central Park Five, now that DNA evidence has proven their innocence he still thinks they should be executed.

Link


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not telling him how to feel and I am not offering an apology for anything I did. I am offering condolences that he feels that way.

I wasn't misinterpreting anything, deliberately or otherwise; I was translating it.

In that previous conversation, I believe we established that every president arms Saudi Arabia, and government routinely helps out the captains of industry. I believe we (or at least I) were specifically talking about Boeing, who (I still haven't checked the timelines) are trying to bust their union and relocate to open shop South Carolina, and General Electric, who are synonymous with outsourcing and tax evasion. Should have included "tax evaders" in my list.


So no one agrees with my premise nuclear fallout is bad for people?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
It is false, because you're not apologizing for what you said, you're apologizing for how they feel about something.

Kinda like Trump's, "I apologize if anyone was offended."

Really? IF anyone was offended by his comments about sexually assaulting women? There was some doubt that at least one person on the planet would be offended by that?

Silver Crusade

CBDunkerson wrote:
Rysky wrote:
It is false, because you're not apologizing for what you said, you're apologizing for how they feel about something.

Kinda like Trump's, "I apologize if anyone was offended."

Really? IF anyone was offended by his comments about sexually assaulting women? There was some doubt that at least one person on the planet would be offended by that?

Pretttttyyyy much.


To clarify, my remarks were primarily on the supposed (and generally proven false) "Pay to Play" of the Clinton Foundation during Hillary's time in the US State Department, in which she did things like help a Nobel Peace Prize winner get stuff done. Taking on such a role is, I think, what the Government should be doing.

I'm not saying that the Government doesn't do bad things at times. I'm not even saying that Clinton herself has never done something we could consider bad. I'm just saying that in this particular case, there didn't seem to be any fire beneath all the smoke her political opponents raised. I also feel that trying to twist that into a jab at the government as a whole doesn't really work as an effective debating tactic.

Context is important. o wo/

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
So no one agrees with my premise nuclear fallout is bad for people?

Yes, yes it is.

Thank you for pointing it out to us.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thank you Rysky for agreeing with me! :)

*thought it might help us find common ground if we started with the REALLY bad stuff first*


Rysky wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Rysky wrote:
It is false, because you're not apologizing for what you said, you're apologizing for how they feel about something.

Kinda like Trump's, "I apologize if anyone was offended."

Really? IF anyone was offended by his comments about sexually assaulting women? There was some doubt that at least one person on the planet would be offended by that?

Pretttttyyyy much.

Well, now my feelings are hurt that my comments are being compared to Trump's apologies for sexual assault.

[Pouts]


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to share this because it made root beer shoot out my nose:

Twitter wrote:
@evansaathoff: Most elections have "October surprises" but this one has an advent calendar.

The Exchange

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I'm not telling him how to feel and I am not offering an apology for anything I did. I am offering condolences that he feels that way.

I wasn't misinterpreting anything, deliberately or otherwise; I was translating it.

In that previous conversation, I believe we established that every president arms Saudi Arabia, and government routinely helps out the captains of industry. I believe we (or at least I) were specifically talking about Boeing, who (I still haven't checked the timelines) are trying to bust their union and relocate to open shop South Carolina, and General Electric, who are synonymous with outsourcing and tax evasion. Should have included "tax evaders" in my list.

Shoulda just said "F*ck you" from the start...at least they wouldn't have misinterpreted to the point of offending themselves.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Um, no, I don't think I should have.


Anyway, Sunday is my Monday, so I can't wait to get back to work and see what my lone Trump-supporting Teamster brother has to say about these last couple of days. Judging from his Facebook page, it's going to be a lot about Juanita Broaddrick.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

I'm actually kind of annoyed at this.

The man is a moron, a scam artist, has the attention span of a goldfish (if that rumor about attention span was true), and either had or is willing to fake a breadth of counterfactual ignorance.

THIS is the bridge too far? Really?

I don't think it's as much as "bridge too far" as timing. Coming off the beating in the debate, and only a month out of the election. Had this been earlier in the election I don't think the Republicans would be reacting the same way.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:
Nice to know. Care to explain what makes so little sense in my "interpretation"?

Your theory that Clinton mentioning the change in her circumstances from her middle-class roots was secretly an effort to "ingratiate" herself to rich bankers and tell them that she had abandoned progressive principals.

In isolation it is a ridiculously biased stretch. In context with her other comments, including numerous progressive positions that the audience would not support, it lacks even the internal logical consistency of the Illuminati explanation.

What I was talking about it's actually basic rhetoric. You talk with an audience you better have an idea of the kind of people you are speaking with, ESPECIALLY if you are giving a speech they paid hundred thousands of dollars to hear. What you want to do (and what I believe HRC was doing in that particular circumstance) is to build bridges with your audience. You don't want to antagonize them, you want to show them you are one of their own. Enche the "I used to be middle class but I'm rich now" part of her speech.

Granted that's what most politicians would do in such circumstances, but excuse me if I expect a bit more from someone running for the POTUS chair. What I glean from this is she's willing to tell the rich & powerful that she's one of them now, and if I compare this with her positions during her campaign against Sanders I find she's duplicitous, a fact corroborated by her notion about "public vs private" positions.

Btw the fact you see "numerous progressive positions"in what she said in that speech makes me doubt we share the same idea about what "progressive" means.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Rogar Volertis wrote:
I was thinking about the nuclear issue recently. My take is this: Trump wins the elections and you've better hope he doesn't wake up angry. HRC wins the elections and you have to hope the people giving her orders don't want to make an example.

Even IF that's true, a few Killary death squads running around are better than nuclear bombs going off. IF she has them, her ninja assassins have proven that they can take out their targets quietly, efficiently, with no collateral damage and no evidence to leave behind for an FBI investigation 3 special prosecutors and 2 house subcommittee investigations to find.

Ridiculing isn't much better than strawman arguments. I already explained how and why these sentences were an exaggeration.

@ Rednal: If in all honesty you think the Saudis (just to name an example) paid the Clinton foundation for charity purposes then I don't know what else to tell you. And if it's not clear my whole argument is that Trump is a dangerous person but HRC is too. And yes I'm tired of people telling me that we need to choose the lesser of 2 evils (even if it were true she's the lesser one).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

@Rogar: Do you think it's possible that she actually meant something else by those words? For example, "I may be wealthier now, but I was raised in the middle class, and haven't forgotten how they think?" (With the undertone/context being "Here's what I think matters to them and what you should consider if you want to do business more effectively with this group.")

EDIT: You may have missed it, but earlier, I did say that some groups probably donated to the Clinton Foundation expecting to get political favors from it. My point is that they didn't get nearly the access or support they probably thought they would. Clinton may have been Secretary of State, but it's not like her decisions were made in a void, especially when they dealt with foreign powers and likely needed approval from many different people in the US Government.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:

@Rogar: Do you think it's possible that she actually meant something else by those words? For example, "I may be wealthier now, but I was raised in the middle class, and haven't forgotten how they think?" (With the undertone/context being "Here's what I think matters to them and what you should consider if you want to do business more effectively with this group.")

EDIT: You may have missed it, but earlier, I did say that some groups probably donated to the Clinton Foundation expecting to get political favors from it. My point is that they didn't get nearly the access or support they probably thought they would. Clinton may have been Secretary of State, but it's not like her decisions were made in a void, especially when they dealt with foreign powers and likely needed approval from many different people in the US Government.

-It's certainly possible. Transcripts don't carry the tone of one's speech on. I just find this unlikely.

-I didn't miss it, it's just that I disagree. In my experience when it comes to politics if you pay big then you get something back for your support, if not now later. At the very least you get privileged access in order to influence decision making (that said, I admit in reality things are more complicated than that and even the elite has divergent and conflicting interests, so some people don't get what they want even if they pay... better pay big then).
And then there's the issue of the Clinton's charity. I don't like it and from what I read what it's doing is far from what I'd call charitable work.

The exact opposite, actually


4 people marked this as a favorite.

RE: Giuliani says all men brag about sexually assaulting women.

No, no we don't, never once.

Still, give the man props for bringing the extra large shovel to bury himself on the Sunday morning political circuit.

Finally, in summation.

Hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha.


@Rogar: I'm looking at that site, and the first things I see up top are three anti-Clinton articles, including one alleging that Trump actually won the debate (when all the serious polls seem to indicate otherwise). I hope you'll understand if I don't believe that website to be a credible source.

My research of the subject suggests that a great deal of Haitian corruption was involved. The Red Cross looks to have been hit hard by that, too. (Plus a lack of expertise, etc.)


Thomas Seitz wrote:

Crystal,

Probably when they weren't in the public eye...

And when has that ever been the case?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:


EDIT: You may have missed it, but earlier, I did say that some groups probably donated to the Clinton Foundation expecting to get political favors from it. My point is that they didn't get nearly the access or support they probably thought they would. Clinton may have been Secretary of State, but it's not like her decisions were made in a void, especially when they dealt with foreign powers and likely needed approval from many different people in the US Government.

If they didn't get the favors they wanted, they just didn't give enough money.

I would also point out that many of these donors didn't give exclusively to the Clinton Foundation. Many also donated to the parties themselves (often both) individual candidates and politicians, as well as super pacs, think tanks, etc. And of course, just straight up bribery. Not surprisingly, it has resulted in the EXACT policies that benefit the richest donors. Is that just a coincidence?

I am genuinely baffled by how people can see this stuff going on in other countries, and easily recognize it as pay-to-play bribery, yet handwave the exact same stuff going on here. Why the disconnect? Why is it obvious and bad over there, but different here? Do you really think that these people believe the best way to help people is by giving to politicians charities? The Saudis take a break from stoning women and chopping the heads off of heretics, to help other heretics out of the kindness of their hearts?

Not to mention the whole idea of a legal construct giving out of the goodness of its non-existent corporate heart...


thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


Or maybe he'll listen to the intensive coaching he's liable to be undergoing just like when he started using teleprompters to keep from going off the rails in prepared speeches. Right now they're pretty much 1-1, Clinton clobbered Trump in the first debate while Pence let Kaine make an ass of himself on national TV.
Implying the VP debates matter anywhere near as much as the presidential ones
They do...as in practically nothing at all with the sides pretty much hunkered down as they are. Nothing that was going to happen at these debates is going to change the mind of a Trump zealot if everything the man has done up to now hasn't already. Pretty much goes the same for those voting for Clinton, but for other reasons. The only time a debate changed anything was Kennedy/Nixon, and no one is going to repeat Nixon's mistakes.

And yet the polls swung sharply after the first debate. The hardline supporters on either side don't change, but they don't decide the election anyway. There are plenty who could be persuaded one way or the other - or to vote instead of sitting it out. That's who's being targeted now.

"Intensive coaching"? Like the debate prep he's pointed not been doing? Yeah, they managed to get him to stay on script most of the time with teleprompters - after a lot of work. He's not going to have a teleprompter. He's not going to magically morph into a real presidential candidate at the last minute, no matter how much you want him too. This is Trump. He's not good at hiding it.

And the VP debate? Pence made himself look good, but he didn't do Trump any favors. He might have won on a tactical level, but Kaine was targeting Trump, not Pence.

Pence spent the debate pretty much campaigning ... for Pence. Kind of the same thing Christie did at the RNC. Pence positioned himself to be either the nominee in 2020 if the Republicans lose the election.. or the go to replacement if for some reason Trump decides to quit before the election.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Rogar Valertis wrote:

.

And then there's the issue of the Clinton's charity. I don't like it and from what I read what it's doing is far from what I'd call charitable work.

The exact opposite, actually

Seriously? You're backing this up with Dinesh D'Souza?

And you pretend to have any credibility on what "progressive" means?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Fergie: Nah, when it's a corporation donating, I usually assume it's for tax benefits. And/or attempts at getting political favors, which doesn't always work. Some of Clinton's donors, for example, had their requests denied because of State Department policies. It's doubtful those could have been overturned without some serious ethics probes.

When people want to donate out of genuine philanthropy or for tax reasons, giving checks to high-rated charities is a fairly decent way of doing it. Some undoubtedly tried for both potential benefits (tax benefits and lobbying with the same dollars? Yes, please), but I'm not going to assume every single donation was made with that intention. XD


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Or maybe he'll listen to the intensive coaching he's liable to be undergoing just like when he started using teleprompters to keep from going off the rails in prepared speeches. Right now they're pretty much 1-1, Clinton clobbered Trump in the first debate while Pence let Kaine make an ass of himself on national TV.
And the VP debate? Pence made himself look good, but he didn't do Trump any favors. He might have won on a tactical level, but Kaine was targeting Trump, not Pence.
Pence spent the debate pretty much campaigning ... for Pence. Kind of the same thing Christie did at the RNC. Pence positioned himself to be either the nominee in 2020 if the Republicans lose the election.. or the go to replacement if for some reason Trump decides to quit before the election.

Pretty much what I said. Which means he didn't help Trump. Which means they're not 1-1. Cause Pence wasn't playing on Trump's team, but Kaine was on Clinton's. Might be a win for Pence, in the long run, but still a loss for Trump. Which is what matters now.


Rednal wrote:

@Fergie: Nah, when it's a corporation donating, I usually assume it's for tax benefits. And/or attempts at getting political favors, which doesn't always work. Some of Clinton's donors, for example, had their requests denied because of State Department policies. It's doubtful those could have been overturned without some serious ethics probes.

When people want to donate out of genuine philanthropy or for tax reasons, giving checks to high-rated charities is a fairly decent way of doing it. Some undoubtedly tried for both potential benefits (tax benefits and lobbying with the same dollars? Yes, please), but I'm not going to assume every single donation was made with that intention. XD

Don't forget PR. Generally a big factor in corporate philanthropy.


all this chat about some home game... I don't see any mention of this topic in the Additional Resources... ;^P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Azothath wrote:
all this chat about some home game... I don't see any mention of this topic in the Additional Resources... ;^P

In case you haven't noticed this is the OFF TOPIC forum.


captain yesterday wrote:


No, no we don't, never once.

All is an exageration but at my highschool reunion last night i did overhear at least 3 comments that were almost as bad.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Frankly, the Clinton speech excerpts are overall much better than I expected. There were only a few positions I found objectionable, all of which were already known issues, and several where I was pleasantly surprised that she'd make such an argument... especially considering the audience.

They're almost exactly what I expected*. Praise for austerity measures (the Simpson-Bowles plan), talk about how the financial parasites are innovative and create jobs, soothing backrubs about how there's a "bias against people who live successful lives," we need Wall Street insiders to fix Wall Street, how it wasn't 100% true that Wall Street had rigged the economy, etc., etc.

All to people who, five to seven years prior, helped to tank the economy.

Oh yeah, and she's in favor of single-payer because "it keeps costs down" but we'll never, ever get it.

---
*"I pretty much expect that corporate shills like Hillary (and all the Republican candidates, probably Chafee and O'Malley, too, though I didn't particularly follow them) get paid big bucks to come into corporate offices and give them verbal back rubs about how great they are for the economy, innovate technology, whatever, so, as I said, I always thought this issue was pretty weaksauce and the fact that Bernie couldn't come up with better material was further evidence that Bernie really wasn't any danger to the kleptocratic, plutocratic rulers of this country."

Bernie may be weak sauce but at least he's not this:

HRC Speech Transcript wrote:
I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.
Politico wrote:
Back in February 2015 when former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was raising millions of dollars for a future juggernaut presidential campaign and he appeared in early polls to be the Republican frontrunner, Clinton’s aides examined the language of his early economic pitch.
Clinton adviser Mandy Grunwald wrote:
Very little in this speech [Jeb Bush's] that HRC wouldn’t say.

I don't understand why either candidate is so popular*.

* Except in light of the other whilst simultaneously ignoring the truth about the candidate one favors.


Fergie wrote:

If they didn't get the favors they wanted, they just didn't give enough money.

I would also point out that many of these donors didn't give exclusively to the Clinton Foundation. Many also donated to the parties themselves (often both) individual candidates and politicians, as well as super pacs, think tanks, etc. And of course, just straight up bribery. Not surprisingly, it has resulted in the EXACT policies that benefit the richest donors. Is that just a coincidence?

I am genuinely baffled by how people can see this stuff going on in other countries, and easily recognize it as pay-to-play bribery, yet handwave the exact same stuff going on here. Why the disconnect? Why is it obvious and bad over there, but different here? Do you really think that these people believe the best way to help people is by giving to politicians charities? The Saudis take a break from stoning women and chopping the heads off of heretics, to help other heretics out of the kindness of their hearts?

Did I type this? looks at profile... nope, no "Fergie" alias Huh? Um... To the rhetorical questions.

Yes, people do this. It's why we have the two leading candidates we do. It is in fact the same reason why this candidate is the best that the Libertarians can come up with.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
No, no we don't, never once.
All is an exageration but at my highschool reunion last night i did overhear at least 3 comments that were almost as bad.

Three days ago you could've dubbed in a Bill Clinton's voice impersonator to the Trump recording and no one would have known you pulled a fast one. Even keeping the year as 2005 wouldn't have tipped people off.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Azothath wrote:
all this chat about some home game... I don't see any mention of this topic in the Additional Resources... ;^P
In case you haven't noticed this is the OFF TOPIC forum.

hmmmm ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Δ

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'd like to second Rednal and ask why it's inherently bad for a politician to have a public position and a privately held belief.

Liberty's Edge

Thomas Seitz wrote:

Thank you Rysky for agreeing with me! :)

*thought it might help us find common ground if we started with the REALLY bad stuff first*

One side is now on record with 74% supporting sexual assault, anti-semitism, islamophobia, torture, war crimes (e.g. deliberately targeting children), racism against african americans, hispanics, asians, and middle-easterners, and all the other "REALLY bad stuff" Trump has advocated.

I see absolutely no reason to believe that they wouldn't be pro nuclear fallout as well, if The Donald advocated it. Which... he basically has.


CrusaderWolf wrote:
I'd like to second Rednal and ask why it's inherently bad for a politician to have a public position and a privately held belief.

If you're like John McCain* on gay marriage (privately he would never do such a thing but publicly, as an elected Senator, he openly supports it), then maybe it's ok.

If you're like Hillary you say one thing to get elected but all of your actions while in office countermand what you said to get elected, then you're just a liar and not otherwise to be trusted.

* full disclosure here - I could not, would not and shall not vote for John McCain under any reasonable circumstance; just using him as a counter to Hillary because he is a Republican and she a Democrat)


Rednal wrote:

I don't think she's necessarily wrong on the positions thing - or even unusual. Take the fact that the President has the nuclear launch codes, for example. Even if she personally has no desire to ever launch them (her private position), as President, she'd probably be obligated to uphold the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction in order to discourage others from using them (the public position). If a President felt this way, would it be wrong of them?

Similarly, part of negotiating is not letting others know how much you're actually willing to give up, usually in the interests of getting the best deal for the people you represent. Again... is having a public stance for your political opponents, and a private stance with your allies, inherently a bad thing?

If your opponents are voters, and your allies are wealthy special interests, then yes, it is a bad thing, at least for the voters. Obviously, it works out great for the wealthy!

The issue is not one of private/public beliefs, it is one of private/public policy. For example, in public, Hillary is against neoliberal policy. When speaking to the .01% who can afford her speeches, she is very pro neoliberal policy - to an almost text book, John Birch conspiracy level of neoliberalism that would make Reagan embarrassed. The problem is that the voters get the false words, and the .01% get the dollars. This is f~&%ing AMAZING for the .01%, and an economic disaster for the rest of the country.


Guy Humual wrote:

So, apparently Trump wanted to execute the Central Park Five, now that DNA evidence has proven their innocence he still thinks they should be executed.

Link

I just wanted to repost this because I think it is really important. This is a case of four black and one Hispanic teenagers who were severely mistreated by the police and prosecutors, and falsely imprisoned for many, many years. Donald trump had a major role in ruining their lives, and even though they have been proven innocent of the rape by DNA evidence, he continues to be on the wrong side of this issue.

Trump has been a consistently racist, pro-police brutality a-hole for decades.


CrystalSeas wrote:
This election is likely to give us a very good metric for how close the country is to tipping to fascism.

I fear we're much closer than some think. There are many unsophisticated people literally frothing in rage as it is. Clinton being elected might push some of them over the edge.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
For example, in public, Hillary is against neoliberal policy. When speaking to the .01% who can afford her speeches, she is very pro neoliberal policy - to an almost text book, John Birch conspiracy level of neoliberalism that would make Reagan embarrassed.

I'm sorry, but what speeches are you referring to? 'cuz they certainly aren't the ones I've been reading about;

“the economic consequences of bad decisions back in ‘08, you know, were devastating and they had repercussions throughout the world.”

“a growing sense of anxiety and even anger” in America today “over the feeling that the game is rigged”

“If there are issues, if there’s wrongdoing, people have to be held accountable and we have to try to deter future bad behavior, because the public trust is at the core of both a free market economy and a democracy.”

saying she had long called for “closing the carried interest loophole,” “addressing skyrocketing CEO pay,” and “regulating derivatives and overcomplex financial products.”

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”

“If you look at the single-payer systems, like Scandinavia, Canada, and elsewhere, they can get costs down because, you know, although their care, according to statistics, overall is as good or better on primary care, in particular, they do impose things like waiting times, you know. It takes longer to get like a hip replacement than it might take here.”

“We're in a learning period as we move forward with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. And I'm hoping that whatever the shortfalls or the glitches have been, which in a big piece of legislation you're going to have, those will be remedied and we can really take a hard look at what's succeeding, fix what isn't, and keep moving forward to get to affordable universal healthcare coverage like you have here in Canada.”


thejeff wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:

.

And then there's the issue of the Clinton's charity. I don't like it and from what I read what it's doing is far from what I'd call charitable work.

The exact opposite, actually

Seriously? You're backing this up with Dinesh D'Souza?

And you pretend to have any credibility on what "progressive" means?

Ok. Now that you made your personal attack, can you dispute what he claims? Is what he's writing false or true?


CBDunkerson wrote:


“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”

I don't have time to dig all the links/quotes at the moment, but you do realize that the above quote is 100% Hard Core neoliberalism? How do you think open trade and open borders works out for the vast majority of American workers?

In her speeches, I hear a lot of talk about "perceptions" of wrongdoing, and "misunderstandings", and "politicizing" being the problem. Here is a quick sample:

Podesta Emails wrote:


"“Even If It May Not Be 100 Percent True, If The Perception Is That Somehow The Game Is Rigged, That Should Be A Problem For All Of Us.”

*Clinton: “But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position.”*

*Clinton Said That The Blame Placed On The United States Banking System For The Crisis “Could Have Been Avoided In Terms Of Both Misunderstanding And Really Politicizing What Happened.”*

*Clinton: As Senator, “I Represented And Worked With” So Many On Wall Street And “Did All I Could To Make Sure They Continued To Prosper” But Still Called For Closing Carried Interest Loophole. *

*Hillary Clinton Said We Have To Have A Concerted Plan To Increase Trade; We Have To Resist Protectionism And Other Kinds Of Barriers To Trade. *

*Clinton Said Financial Reform “Really Has To Come From The Industry Itself.” *
*Speaking About The Importance Of Proper Regulation, Clinton Said “The People That Know The Industry Better Than Anybody Are The People Who Work In The Industry.”*

Note: Quotes copied and pasted quickly, sorry if I missed or messed up something.

Do you see the neo liberalism now?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Rogar Valertis wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:

.

And then there's the issue of the Clinton's charity. I don't like it and from what I read what it's doing is far from what I'd call charitable work.

The exact opposite, actually

Seriously? You're backing this up with Dinesh D'Souza?

And you pretend to have any credibility on what "progressive" means?

Ok. Now that you made your personal attack, can you dispute what he claims? Is what he's writing false or true?

Well, Charity Watch rates it and A. Which seems unlikely if they're as bad as D'Souza says.

However, D'Souza himself made the bunch of lies Obama's America and then repeated the trick with the equally factual Hillary's America. Oh, and in 2014 was convicted of illegally making campaign contributions therough others (a felony). All in all, he's really not a credible source.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Fergie wrote:
For example, in public, Hillary is against neoliberal policy. When speaking to the .01% who can afford her speeches, she is very pro neoliberal policy - to an almost text book, John Birch conspiracy level of neoliberalism that would make Reagan embarrassed.

I'm sorry, but what speeches are you referring to? 'cuz they certainly aren't the ones I've been reading about;

“the economic consequences of bad decisions back in ‘08, you know, were devastating and they had repercussions throughout the world.”

“a growing sense of anxiety and even anger” in America today “over the feeling that the game is rigged”

“If there are issues, if there’s wrongdoing, people have to be held accountable and we have to try to deter future bad behavior, because the public trust is at the core of both a free market economy and a democracy.”

saying she had long called for “closing the carried interest loophole,” “addressing skyrocketing CEO pay,” and “regulating derivatives and overcomplex financial products.”

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”

“If you look at the single-payer systems, like Scandinavia, Canada, and elsewhere, they can get costs down because, you know, although their care, according to statistics, overall is as good or better on primary care, in particular, they do impose things like waiting times, you know. It takes longer to get like a hip replacement than it might take here.”

“We're in a learning period as we move forward with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. And I'm hoping that whatever the shortfalls or the glitches have been, which in a big piece of legislation you're going to have, those will be remedied and we can really take a hard look at what's succeeding, fix what isn't, and keep moving forward to get to affordable universal healthcare coverage like you...

Let's be a tad less selective with our quoting.

Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote:

*CLINTON ADMITS SHE IS OUT OF TOUCH*

*Hillary Clinton: “I'm Kind Of Far Removed” From The Struggles Of The Middle Class “Because The Life I've Lived And The Economic, You Know, Fortunes That My Husband And I Now Enjoy.” *“And I am not taking a position on any policy, but I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that the game is rigged. And I never had that feeling when I was growing up. Never. I mean, were there really rich people, of course there were. My father loved to complain about big business and big government, but we had a solid middle class upbringing. We had good public schools. We had accessible health care. We had our little, you know, one-family house that, you know, he saved up his money, didn't believe in mortgages. So I lived that. And now, obviously, I'm kind of far removed because the life I've lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven't forgotten it.” [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Goldman-Black Rock, 2/4/14]
Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote:

*CLINTON SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC POSITION ON POLICY*

*Clinton: “But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position.”* CLINTON: You just have to sort of figure out how to -- getting back to that word, "balance" -- how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that's not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. And finally, I think -- I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean, it's like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what's going to work and what's not going to work. [Clinton Speech For National Multi-Housing Council, 4/24/13]
Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote:

*CLINTON TALKS ABOUT HOLDING WALL STREET ACCOUNTABLE ONLY FOR POLITICAL REASONS*

*Clinton Said That The Blame Placed On The United States Banking System For The Crisis “Could Have Been Avoided In Terms Of Both Misunderstanding And Really Politicizing What Happened.”* “That was one of the reasons that I started traveling in February of '09, so people could, you know, literally yell at me for the United States and our banking system causing this everywhere. Now, that's an oversimplification we know, but it was the conventional wisdom. And I think that there's a lot that could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really politicizing what happened with greater transparency, with greater openness on all sides, you know, what happened, how did it happen, how do we prevent it from happening? You guys help us figure it out and let's make sure that we do it right this time. And I think that everybody was desperately trying to fend off the worst effects institutionally, governmentally, and there just wasn't that opportunity to try to sort this out, and that came later.” [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13] *Clinton: “Even If It May Not Be 100 Percent True, If The Perception Is That Somehow The Game Is Rigged, That Should Be A Problem For All Of Us.” *“Now, it's important to recognize the vital role that the financial markets play in our economy and that so many of you are contributing to. To function effectively those markets and the men and women who shape them have to command trust and confidence, because we all rely on the market's transparency and integrity. So even if it may not be 100 percent true, if the perception is that somehow the game is rigged, that should be a problem for all of us, and we have to be willing to make that absolutely clear. And if there are issues, if there's wrongdoing, people have to be held accountable and we have to try to deter future bad behavior, because the public trust is at the core of both a free market economy and a democracy.” [Clinton Remarks to Deutsche Bank, 10/7/14]
Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote:

*CLINTON SUGGESTS WALL STREET INSIDERS ARE WHAT IS NEEDED TO FIX WALL STREET*

*Clinton Said Financial Reform “Really Has To Come From The Industry Itself.” *“Remember what Teddy Roosevelt did. Yes, he took on what he saw as the excesses in the economy, but he also stood against the excesses in politics. He didn't want to unleash a lot of nationalist, populistic reaction. He wanted to try to figure out how to get back into that balance that has served America so well over our entire nationhood. Today, there's more that can and should be done that really has to come from the industry itself, and how we can strengthen our economy, create more jobs at a time where that's increasingly challenging, to get back to Teddy Roosevelt's square deal. And I really believe that our country and all of you are up to that job.” [Clinton Remarks to Deutsche Bank, 10/7/14] *Speaking About The Importance Of Proper Regulation, Clinton Said “The People That Know The Industry Better Than Anybody Are The People Who Work In The Industry.”* “I mean, it's still happening, as you know. People are looking back and trying to, you know, get compensation for bad mortgages and all the rest of it in some of the agreements that are being reached. There's nothing magic about regulations, too much is bad, too little is bad. How do you get to the golden key, how do we figure out what works? And the people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry. And I think there has to be a recognition that, you know, there's so much at stake now, I mean, the business has changed so much and decisions are made so quickly, in nano seconds basically. We spend trillions of dollars to travel around the world, but it's in everybody's interest that we have a better framework, and not just for the United States but for the entire world, in which to operate and trade.” [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]
Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote:

*CLINTON ADMITS NEEDING WALL STREET FUNDING*

*Clinton Said That Because Candidates Needed Money From Wall Street To Run For Office, People In New York Needed To Ask Tough Questions About The Economy Before Handing Over Campaign Contributions. *“Secondly, running for office in our country takes a lot of money, and candidates have to go out and raise it. New York is probably the leading site for contributions for fundraising for candidates on both sides of the aisle, and it's also our economic center. And there are a lot of people here who should ask some tough questions before handing over campaign contributions to people who were really playing chicken with our whole economy.” [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13] *Clinton: “It Would Be Very Difficult To Run For President Without Raising A Huge Amount Of Money And Without Having Other People Supporting You Because Your Opponent Will Have Their Supporters.”* “So our system is, in many ways, more difficult, certainly far more expensive and much longer than a parliamentary system, and I really admire the people who subject themselves to it. Even when I, you know, think they should not be elected president, I still think, well, you know, good for you I guess, you're out there promoting democracy and those crazy ideas of yours. So I think that it's something -- I would like -- you know, obviously as somebody who has been through it, I would like it not to last as long because I think it's very distracting from what we should be doing every day in our public business. I would like it not to be so expensive. I have no idea how you do that. I mean, in my campaign -- I lose track, but I think I raised $250 million or some such enormous amount, and in the last campaign President Obama raised 1.1 billion, and that was before the Super PACs and all of this other money just rushing in, and it's so ridiculous that we have this kind of free for all with all of this financial interest at stake, but, you know, the Supreme Court said that's basically what we're in for. So we're kind of in the wild west, and, you know, it would be very difficult to run for president without raising a huge amount of money and without having other people supporting you because your opponent will have their supporters. So I think as hard as it was when I ran, I think it's even harder now.” [Clinton Speech For General Electric’s Global Leadership Meeting – Boca Raton, FL, 1/6/14]
Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote:

*CLINTON TOUTS HER RELATIONSHIP TO WALL STREET AS A SENATOR*

*Clinton: As Senator, “I Represented And Worked With” So Many On Wall Street And “Did All I Could To Make Sure They Continued To Prosper” But Still Called For Closing Carried Interest Loophole. *In remarks at Robbins, Gellar, Rudman & Dowd in San Diego, Hillary Clinton said, “When I was a Senator from New York, I represented and worked with so many talented principled people who made their living in finance. But even thought I represented them and did all I could to make sure they continued to prosper, I called for closing the carried interest loophole and addressing skyrocketing CEO pay. I also was calling in '06, '07 for doing something about the mortgage crisis, because I saw every day from Wall Street literally to main streets across New York how a well-functioning financial system is essential. So when I raised early warnings about early warnings about subprime mortgages and called for regulating derivatives and over complex financial products, I didn't get some big arguments, because people sort of said, no, that makes sense. But boy, have we had fights about it ever since.” [Hillary Clinton’s Remarks at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in San Diego, 9/04/14] *Clinton On Wall Street: “I Had Great Relations And Worked So Close Together After 9/11 To Rebuild Downtown, And A Lot Of Respect For The Work You Do And The People Who Do It.” *“Now, without going over how we got to where we are right now, what would be your advice to the Wall Street community and the big banks as to the way forward with those two important decisions? SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I represented all of you for eight years. I had great relations and worked so close together after 9/11 to rebuild downtown, and a lot of respect for the work you do and the people who do it, but I do -- I think that when we talk about the regulators and the politicians, the economic consequences of bad decisions back in '08, you know, were devastating, and they had repercussions throughout the world.” [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]
Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote:

*CLINTON TALKS ABOUT THE CHALLENGES RUNNING FOR OFFICE*

*Hillary Clinton Said There Was “A Bias Against People Who Have Led Successful And/Or Complicated Lives,” Citing The Need To Divese Of Assets, Positions, And Stocks.* “SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah. Well, you know what Bob Rubin said about that. He said, you know, when he came to Washington, he had a fortune. And when he left Washington, he had a small -- MR. BLANKFEIN: That’s how you have a small fortune, is you go to Washington. SECRETARY CLINTON: You go to Washington. Right. But, you know, part of the problem with the political situation, too, is that there is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives. You know, the divestment of assets, the stripping of all kinds of positions, the sale of stocks. It just becomes very onerous and unnecessary.” [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]
Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote:

*CLINTON SUGGESTS SHE IS A MODERATE*

*Clinton Said That Both The Democratic And Republican Parties Should Be “Moderate.” *“URSULA BURNS: Interesting. Democrats? SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, long, definitely. URSULA BURNS: Republicans? SECRETARY CLINTON: Unfortunately, at the time, short. URSULA BURNS: Okay. We'll go back to questions. SECRETARY CLINTON: We need two parties. URSULA BURNS: Yeah, we do need two parties. SECRETARY CLINTON: Two sensible, moderate, pragmatic parties.” [Hillary Clinton Remarks, Remarks at Xerox, 3/18/14] *Clinton: “Simpson-Bowles… Put Forth The Right Framework. Namely, We Have To Restrain Spending, We Have To Have Adequate Revenues, And We Have To Incentivize Growth. It's A Three-Part Formula… And They Reached An Agreement. But What Is Very Hard To Do Is To Then Take That Agreement If You Don't Believe That You're Going To Be Able To Move The Other Side.”* SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this may be borne more out of hope than experience in the last few years. But Simpson-Bowles -- and I know you heard from Erskine earlier today -- put forth the right framework. Namely, we have to restrain spending, we have to have adequate revenues, and we have to incentivize growth. It's a three-part formula. The specifics can be negotiated depending upon whether we're acting in good faith or not. And what Senator Simpson and Erskine did was to bring Republicans and Democrats alike to the table, and you had the full range of ideological views from I think Tom Coburn to Dick Durbin. And they reached an agreement. But what is very hard to do is to then take that agreement if you don't believe that you're going to be able to move the other side. And where we are now is in this gridlocked dysfunction. So you've got Democrats saying that, you know, you have to have more revenues; that's the sine qua non of any kind of agreement. You have Republicans saying no, no, no on revenues; you have to cut much more deeply into spending. Well, looks what's happened. We are slowly returning to growth. It's not as much or as fast as many of us would like to see, but, you know, we're certainly better off than our European friends, and we're beginning to, I believe, kind of come out of the long aftermath of the '08 crisis. [Clinton Speech For Morgan Stanley, 4/18/13] *Clinton: “The Simpson-Bowles Framework And The Big Elements Of It Were Right… You Have To Restrain Spending, You Have To Have Adequate Revenues, And You Have To Have Growth.”* CLINTON: So, you know, the Simpson-Bowles framework and the big elements of it were right. The specifics can be negotiated and argued over. But you got to do all three. You have to restrain spending, you have to have adequate revenues, and you have to have growth. And I think we are smart enough to figure out how to do that. [Clinton Speech For Morgan Stanley, 4/18/13]

Seems to me she's a big apologist for Wall Street and generally for big business.

Seems to me she's saying (to them) the current situation is not their fault but it's a matter of "conventional wisdom" condemning them unjustly. Also who better than Wall Street insiders to fix Wall Street, right?

I stand corrected, she's clearly a true progressive. I just wonder why she describes hereself as a moderate.

Liberty's Edge

Fergie wrote:
Do you see the neo liberalism now?

"When speaking to the .01% who can afford her speeches, she is very pro neoliberal policy - to an almost text book, John Birch conspiracy level of neoliberalism that would make Reagan embarrassed."

You have moved the goalposts... to a baseball field.

Clinton has neo-liberal tendencies... both privately and publicly. However, her speeches were NOT the pure treatises on neoliberalism that you claimed. She directly contradicted many neo-liberal beliefs and goals.


Saterday night lives take on it Its kind of telling that we can't play most events in politics this year without anything other than an nc 17 rating..


At least not with the current nominee, Hatti, no.

4,501 to 4,550 of 7,079 << first < prev | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 2016 US Election All Messageboards