|
Don't forget Cuba. The coverage folks in Cuba have been getting since the normalization process began has been pretty  -worthy. People are treating the date of agreement as a sort of impromptu holiday.I've said elsewhere that Obama is kind of a proof case for the "twice-as-good" phenomenon, whereby persons of color basically need to accomplish twice as much as whites to be given equal due. Obama dragged this loving country out of recession, wrangled healthcare reform, is brokering revolutionary overtime reforms, saw gay people finally get their love treated equally under law nationwide due in no small part to his sending Verrilli to argue in favor of it, normalized relations with Cuba, is on the cusp of seeing a groundbreaking nuke deal with Iran happen, pushed for the FCC to classify internet connections under title II, and who loving knows, he might even manage an independent Kurdish state on the way out, and shitters still be like "that lazy spook  "
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:59 |
|
|
Squizzle posted:I'm a couple of pages behind, but, A very small number of people changed their opinion around that time.  I don't dislike Hillary, but the number of people handing out free passes ITT is absurd. Her stance on gay rights has been precisely aligned with, basically, Justice Kennedy. Her platform is created by committee. This isn't inherently bad, but saying she truly believes in each of her stances strains credulity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:03
|
|
how is this even suspicious at all?
|
Job Truniht posted:She's a really high profile candidate who is going to spend even more than the $249 million that she spent in the last election? Is that reason enough to rip her and Jeb apart? Jeb has been saying stupid poo poo after stupid poo poo and it's all coming out in the open. Censorship won't help here. Right, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum and there are real and legitimate reasons that she's really, really evasive with the media, which is what I am trying to tell you. And its for reasons that virtually no one in this field can even remotely come close to relating to. Vox Nihili posted:A very small number of people changed their opinion around that time. I think questioning her on the Gay Marriage issue is silly; but that's me. It's also disingenuous, I think, to suggest that she's a craven politician who believes in nothing what so ever. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
I could easily see Hillary losing to an actually charismatic Republican candidate. She IS too wooden, calculated and inauthentic. I guess the plus is that the Republican field is such a joke and the top guys (Bush, Rubio, Walker) are about as charismatic as Hillary on a bad day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:I could easily see Hillary losing to an actually charismatic Republican candidate. She IS too wooden, calculated and inauthentic. I guess the plus is that the Republican field is such a joke and the top guys (Bush, Rubio) are about as charismatic as Hillary on a bad day. She would lose to Bush 43 in 2000 or 2004, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz7_JP7ROvA
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Right, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum and there are real and legitimate reasons that she's really, really evasive with the media, which is what I am trying to tell you. And its for reasons that virtually no one in this field can even remotely come close to relating to. And I'm saying the media doesn't need to have a legitimate reason to go after someone. I hate Fox News just as much as the next guy, but I still wouldn't censor them. Other candidates have their own drawbacks. They are less experienced or less connected than her and that was true back in 2008 as it is now. BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I think questioning her on the Gay Marriage issue is silly; but that's me. It's also disingenuous, I think, to suggest that she's a craven politician who believes in nothing what so ever. The gay marriage is silly. It should be less of a concern to voters other than who is going to put what into the next supreme court. It would be nice if candidates released a list of people who they would appoint to their cabinet, as that is a great reflection on what their personal beliefs are and what they are capable of doing without input from anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:I could easily see Hillary losing to an actually charismatic Republican candidate. She IS too wooden, calculated and inauthentic. I guess the plus is that the Republican field is such a joke and the top guys (Bush, Rubio, Walker) are about as charismatic as Hillary on a bad day. Has Hillary ever actually debated a Republican
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Has Hillary ever actually debated a Republican Next year will be her first. New York was uncontested fully.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:And I'm saying the media doesn't need to have a legitimate reason to go after someone. I hate Fox News just as much as the next guy, but I still wouldn't censor them. I am saying the media should have a legitimate reason to report poo poo about people, and that it should also be legitimate news. I say this as credentialed media. EugeneJ posted:Has Hillary ever actually debated a Republican How many debates did her and Obama have?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Great_Gerbil posted:I'm pretty sure the position is that sometimes politicians have to take politically tenable positions even if they don't believe them personally and that's nbd. On the email server: "Everything I did was permitted. There was no law. There was no regulation." Nope - The State Department's own guidance tells employees to always use secure, government email systems. Someone under the state Dept was fired for using personal email under her watch. On turning emails in: "I turned over everything that I could imagine." Except the 20 or so work related emails uncovered and not turned in that were discovered by a Benghazi subpoena to a third party. I should say "at least 20 or so" because now the servers are wiped clean and there's no way to know how many more escaped her imagination. Speaking of subpoenas: "You’re starting with so many assumptions that are — I’ve never had a subpoena.” Except for the one the House Select Committee issued in March, apparently. And this is less a straight lie than self-delusion: "Well, people should and do trust me..." I suppose technically correct because more than one person in the country trusts her. Not a majority though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:How many debates did her and Obama have?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Next year will be her first. New York was uncontested fully. She debated Lazio several times. JT Jag posted:Campaign Obama wasn't Republican. hehe
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I think questioning her on the Gay Marriage issue is silly; but that's me. It's also disingenuous, I think, to suggest that she's a craven politician who believes in nothing what so ever. I imagine people are going to circle the wagons on every matter, which is fine. But look at the TPP--if you believe that Hillary is a serious opponent to that sort of legislation, you need your memory checked out. She's become much less free-trade friendly since Sanders hopped in, but her long-term stance has gone back and forth on such agreements. Please read this Politifact page in its entirety: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/14/john-podesta/hillary-clinton-has-been-very-clear-trade-campaign/ Vox Nihili fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:I could easily see Hillary losing to an actually charismatic Republican candidate. She IS too wooden, calculated and inauthentic. I guess the plus is that the Republican field is such a joke and the top guys (Bush, Rubio, Walker) are about as charismatic as Hillary on a bad day. One of the best arguments for Bernie is that Hillary is a bad candidate who is every bit as likely to lose as anyone else the Democrats might conceivably mount. If we're only winning because the Republican field is just that bad, then we might as well pick a candidate who's going to run up the score a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:On the email server: "Everything I did was permitted. There was no law. There was no regulation." ex post facto TheDisreputableDog posted:On turning emails in: "I turned over everything that I could imagine." a different interpretation (it's nuanced) TheDisreputableDog posted:Speaking of subpoenas: "You’re starting with so many assumptions that are — I’ve never had a subpoena.” an outright selective reading of the quotation. TheDisreputableDog posted:And this is less a straight lie than self-delusion: "Well, people should and do trust me..." they do, and what the gently caress ever. Vox Nihili posted:I imagine people are going to circle the wagons on every matter, which is fine. But look at the TPP--if you believe that Hillary is a serious opponent to that sort of legislation, you need your memory checked out. She's become much less free-trade friendly since Sanders hopped in, but her long-term stance has always been in favor of such agreements. I said she was being purposefully vague on TPP so she could pivot on it, depending on how it played out as a campaign issue in spite of her personal views. So, I think we agree?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:On the email server: "Everything I did was permitted. There was no law. There was no regulation." Can you please source the agent being fired? I don't know anything about that. However, during her tenure I don't believe it was required by regulation that she use State servers. I also believe she is correct that other people have. Also, that subpoena statement completely ignores the context the question was asked in. The reporter was referring to a period before the subpoena was issued and the reporter stated she was "under investigation" when she was not at that time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I am saying the media should have a legitimate reason to report poo poo about people, and that it should also be legitimate news. I say this as credentialed media. You're allowed to say anything the gently caress you want about any public figure short of homophobic and racist comments. It doesn't matter if they did it or not. It is your right. The media works both ways, and everyone should be content with that. Trump's coverage has been glorious. I'm not going to cherrypick about who should/shouldn't receive less hostile coverage. It's fine as is. Sheng-ji Yang posted:I could easily see Hillary losing to an actually charismatic Republican candidate. She IS too wooden, calculated and inauthentic. I guess the plus is that the Republican field is such a joke and the top guys (Bush, Rubio, Walker) are about as charismatic as Hillary on a bad day. I'm legit terrified of a Jeb vs. Hillary election. Everything about it will be bad and involving consuming a lot of alcohol.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:I could easily see Hillary losing to an actually charismatic Republican candidate. She IS too wooden, calculated and inauthentic. I guess the plus is that the Republican field is such a joke and the top guys (Bush, Rubio, Walker) are about as charismatic as Hillary on a bad day. Ah, yes, those Republicans with authentic positions like: "People should work more hours." "I would have invaded Iraq, only I wouldn't have." "Protesters who want collective bargaining rights are the same thing as ISIS." And "College costs a lot of money because schools need to meet quality standards, so let's get rid of those standards, problem solved."
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Haha yeah I'm sure this time that disreputable hound will argue in good faith
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:One of the best arguments for Bernie is that Hillary is a bad candidate who is every bit as likely to lose as anyone else the Democrats might conceivably mount. If we're only winning because the Republican field is just that bad, then we might as well pick a candidate who's going to run up the score a bit. By "a bad candidate" do you mean in terms of ideological purity or ability to campaign for president? I get the critiques of Clinton on the first part but the second part would be a bit more baffling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:I'm legit terrified of a Jeb vs. Hillary election. Everything about it will be bad and involving consuming a lot of alcohol. It will also involve fairly strong third-party runs from the right and left and the winner will likely receive less than 50% of the vote.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Zelder posted:Haha yeah I'm sure this time that disreputable hound will argue in good faith Best not to engage the cur, frankly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:It will also involve fairly strong third-party runs from the right and left and the winner will likely receive less than 50% of the vote. Bernie has been crystal clear he won't run as a third party. Vox Nihili posted:Best not to engage the cur, frankly. Sensing I made a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Ah, yes, those Republicans with authentic positions like: See now in these cases I am convinced that they actually mean what comes out of their mouths.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:You're allowed to say anything the gently caress you want about any public figure short of homophobic and racist comments. It doesn't matter if they did it or not. It is your right. The media works both ways, and everyone should be content with that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:You're allowed to say anything the gently caress you want about any public figure short of homophobic and racist comments. It doesn't matter if they did it or not. It is your right. The media works both ways, and everyone should be content with that. Jeb is pretty awful. I think Hillary will be able to handle him without too much trouble. The Bush name is dirt in the eyes of moderates.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:One of the best arguments for Bernie is that Hillary is a bad candidate who is every bit as likely to lose as anyone else the Democrats might conceivably mount. If we're only winning because the Republican field is just that bad, then we might as well pick a candidate who's going to run up the score a bit. Sanders can not win the presidency. Hillary can, Biden can maybe even O'Malley or Webb but, Sanders can not win the election. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:It will also involve fairly strong third-party runs from the right and left and the winner will likely receive less than 50% of the vote. I'd hesitate to call a potential independent Trump run as "fairly strong", and Sanders will not run as an independent if he loses the Dem primary. The election is still over a year away, but at this point there is no reason to anticipate any kind of Perot or Nader situation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:You're allowed to say anything the gently caress you want about any public figure short of homophobic and racist comments. It doesn't matter if they did it or not. It is your right. The media works both ways, and everyone should be content with that. Sorry if I hold journalists to standards.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:the same people who are going to pay for any other successful candidate The dems are much more in bed with finance and wall street than the republicans, this happened during Clinton. Republicans rely more heavily on defense and energy sectors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Sure you are, I'm just not sure if you should be allowed to call that "news" unless it passes a certain standard. I don't know what else to call it. I don't want to turn this into a debate about semantics. BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Sorry if I hold journalists to standards. Political candidates especially should not be able to hold journalists to standards.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Kor posted:I'd hesitate to call a potential independent Trump run as "fairly strong", and Sanders will not run as an independent if he loses the Dem primary. The election is still over a year away, but at this point there is no reason to anticipate any kind of Perot or Nader situation. BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Bernie has been crystal clear he won't run as a third party. Uh, I'm talking about Jill Stein and Libertarian/Constitution candidates, who combined could take ~3-4% of the vote if this takes on a 2000 election narrative where "both parties are the same".
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:Uh, I'm talking about Jill Stein and Libertarian/Constitution candidates, who combined could take ~3-4% of the vote. yeah, not happening
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Jeb is pretty awful. I think Hillary will be able to handle him without too much trouble. The Bush name is dirt in the eyes of moderates. I think Bush is probably the least likely to win of the top contenders. The dude has a serious Romney problem and is named Bush and is also poo poo at campaigning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:Uh, I'm talking about Jill Stein and Libertarian/Constitution candidates, who combined could take ~3-4% of the vote. Oh, so you weren't being serious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Ah, yes, those Republicans with authentic positions like: Not sure where you got that from my post... but to be fair, I'd bet those really dumb positions are their authentic beliefs, whereas who really knows what Hillarys are. I know people are brushing off Hillary's lack of support for gay marriage up until just a year or so ago, but Bernie Sanders was supporting it in the loving 70s when it probably had single digit % support. It's hard not to see Hillary as a bit slimy when her main competition is about as saintly as any politician ever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
radical meme posted:Sanders can not win the presidency. Hillary can, Biden can maybe even O'Malley or Webb but, Sanders can not win the election. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. I think he could, versus an opponent like Trump or Jindal or even maybe Walker. So it's better to phrase this as Sanders will not win the presidency. As much as I would like him to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Can we change the thread title to 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:59 |
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Political candidates especially should not be able to hold journalists to standards. I don't think you really get what I am saying here. And if you think it's okay for the media to just print whatever, regardless of truth or newsworthiness, we're really not going to find any common ground for agreement. Sheng-ji Yang posted:Not sure where you got that from my post... but to be fair, I'd bet those really dumb positions are their authentic beliefs, whereas who really knows what Hillarys are. I know people are brushing off Hillary's lack of support for gay marriage up until just a year or so ago, but Bernie Sanders was supporting it in the loving 70s when it probably had single digit % support. It's hard not to see Hillary as a bit slimy when her main competition is about as saintly as any politician ever. I don't really get warm fuzzies about Bernie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:26
|
|