|
Clearly, this charity run by family members, which has every part of its finances visible to anyone who wants to look, and whose donors she refused to provide any special treatment, that has been vetted relentlessly by actively malicious groups with an interest in destroying her, is proof of massive corruption! Edit: Oh hey, unintentional user name synergy.
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 13:06 |
|
|
Has anyone called the Hillary health conspiracists "deathers" yet?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BenjySarlin/status/773220450595958784
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Lord Hydronium posted:Has anyone called the Hillary health conspiracists "deathers" yet? sounds too cool for a bunch of kooks
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Periodiko posted:There actually is if she does a poor job of putting up a strong, publicly visible wall between the two. The point he's making quite fairly is that a conflict of interest isn't about corrupt _actions_ taken, it's the question of whether those actions could happen in the first place. When a Supreme Court justice recuses himself or herself from a case due to a conflict of interest, they're not saying that they're corrupt, they're saying that regardless of their actions there would be an appearance of potential corruption that would put the legitimacy of the case in jeopardy. It's the same reason public officials put things in a blind trust - it's about doing due diligence. And it's a perfectly legitimate and reasonable attack to say that Hillary Clinton did not meet that standard. Actually no, it's not. Your examples re: SCOTUS justices happen when the justice either (1) has worked on or decided the case before in some capacity or (2) has a financial interest in the outcome. (1) comes from codes of judicial ethics, and isn't really illuminating in this situation, it's basically to avoid Sonia Sotomayor having decided a case on the Second Circuit and then deciding on the correctness of her own decision, or Kagan having authored a brief below and now deciding on the validity of her own argument. So that leaves us with (2) where an individual, or a close family member, has a financial interest in the outcome of a case (which is why Justice Thomas wife's advocacy, though problematic, is not actually a conflict of interest). So show me how Hillary, or any of the Clintons, make money from donations to the Clinton Foundation, and then we'll talk.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Rick Wilson accurately described them as "childless men who masturbate to anime" on TV that one time. So somethingawful is a haven for the alt-right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Was anyone expecting anything else? That's how Trump is judged on everything. It's the only reason he's still in it at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Both against it. They really are all equally terrible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:https://twitter.com/theplumlinegs/status/773169386119131141 Yeah all the time
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Now let me tell you about the Liberal Media Bias, or as I like to call them, the Lame Stream Media. The second part is true though, but not for the reason the originators had.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Did Olivia become a journalist because her last name is Newsie? It's a pretty good reason tbqh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
i wonder how much of this hypercritical coverage on hillary while brushing off the actual poo poo trump is doing is because after decades of conservatives saying "liberal media liberal media liberal media LIBERAL MEDIA LIBERAL MEDIA!" a lot of the news outlets have moved to the right to avoid accusations of bias
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:does anyone know what Trump's stance is on Josta cola? What about Stein? Josta is gross, Surge supremecy
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
greatn posted:Did Olivia become a journalist because her last name is Newsie? It's a pretty good reason tbqh. Well it was either that or be the new kid in the cool orphan street gang.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:i wonder how much of this hypercritical coverage on hillary while brushing off the actual poo poo trump is doing is because after decades of conservatives saying "liberal media liberal media liberal media LIBERAL MEDIA LIBERAL MEDIA!" a lot of the news outlets have moved to the right to avoid accusations of bias It's absolutely a big part of that. This morning NPR's hourly news update (please don't restart public radio chat  ) repeated Trump's claim that he would "take great care of our vets" uncritically as they said that 88 former military leaders had signed a letter in support of him. They then read a list of military leaders who supported Hillary. This is their idea of "balanced" coverage: look, the military supports BOTH sides, and BOTH candidates support OUR TROOPS!
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
greatn posted:Did Olivia become a journalist because her last name is Newsie? It's a pretty good reason tbqh. Actually she broke in because she worked for the Weiner mayoral campaign and wrote a tell all about it and then got called a oval office on the record by his press sec'y.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
This November, on USA (Characters Welcome): She's just a simple abuela... with six months to live, and a need to kill.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Dexo posted:Does she have to wear a helmet to minimize her brain damage when she has seizures and falls? A Winner is Jew posted:SecState Helmet. Clintonian Traumatic Encephalopathy
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
This is actually nothing new. A common tactic during debates is to raise the expectations for your opponent and lower them for your own candidate. Setting expectations is step one on how you're graded by major news organizations and the American people. This is a serious mark in Trump's favor. No one really expects much of him so it's hard to be disappointed. His side tends to know that he lies and that he's corrupt and they don't care. It's not news. Trump is about a personal brand, not a business. It's about personality. The attacks can't be about what he does, but what he is. His personal Trump brand Trump. People expect lies and corruption from politicians so they don't give a poo poo. Really the only way of attacking him successfully in my opinion is to gut punch people with just how loving awful he is as a human being. Make him look indecisive, incompetent, racist, stupid and above all, find moments in his life where he shows weakness. He's a classic strongman candidate. That needs to be dispelled. He needs to be shown as weak. Weakness is his true enemy. Getting back to the debate, when you think about it it's stupid. Rhetoric and debate are skills that actually have little if anything to do with effective governance. Maybe it was necessary early on in our history, but now the internal managing of an empire has little to do with how skillfully you can weave words together on the fly domestically. It's about running a bureaucracy, diplomacy and providing global military security. The only place that I can personally think of that debate and rhetoric have an effect is when force of personality has an effect on high diplomacy and maybe some bully pulpit style stuff if you're a decent enough orator, but that's a rare skill to have. That's for foreign policy though and meaningful discussion of foreign policy is off the table for presidential debates due to agreements between D's and R's. Edit: Also I came back to 300 posts in just a few hours. I'd hoped for news, but more often than not lately I'm just finding squabbling. If people are not going to debate you openly and honestly then don't debate them. There isn't an argument to be made because most likely both parties' minds are made up and the audience here isn't going to be swayed by bickering. You might as well roll your face across the keyboard and hit "send post" into the ether. Ice Phisherman fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Sep 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:i wonder how much of this hypercritical coverage on hillary while brushing off the actual poo poo trump is doing is because after decades of conservatives saying "liberal media liberal media liberal media LIBERAL MEDIA LIBERAL MEDIA!" a lot of the news outlets have moved to the right to avoid accusations of bias 2/3 that, 1/3 "media knows on which side their bread is buttered"
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Rick Wilson accurately described them as "childless men who masturbate to anime" on TV that one time. They're already disgusting piles of putrid flesh with keyboards, no need to add sexual shaming to the mix.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
I clicked on some Sean Hannity tweet a few pages back and he retweeted some woman who was incredibly excited that Louie Gohmert was guest-hosting hahahahahahahaha
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Not so hot take alert if anyone's been following the media the last month, trump is guaranteed to win the first debate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Here's just some quick data on where economists generally are on $15/hr nationally: https://www.epionline.org/studies/survey-of-us-economists-on-a-15-federal-minimum-wage/ http://bermanexposed.org/associate/michael-saltsman/
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
You guys act like debates are actual contests about ideas and policy and not just trying not to make horrific gaffes. I still have high confidence Trump is going to majorly gently caress up, because he majorly fucks up every time he's speaking off script.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
nachos posted:Not so hot take alert if anyone's been following the media the last month, trump is guaranteed to win the first debate. Immediately afterwards, the polls will tighten to horse race levels as Republicans begin to accept him as "presidential." It happened for Romney, it will happen for Trump. Hillary still has a built in advantage, but it will be close. It has always been likely to be within only a few points.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
zoux posted:You guys act like debates are actual contests about ideas and policy and not just trying not to make horrific gaffes. I still have high confidence Trump is going to majorly gently caress up, because he majorly fucks up every time he's speaking off script. Also, he's trained to respond to his audience's reactions, and there won't be any reaction. I think that's gonna trip him up a lot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
386-SX 25Mhz VGA posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Policies_Institute Yes, I acknowledged I did not carefully vet the source. I've since provided other sources on my statement that "not all economists believe $15 nationally is a good idea."
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:So somethingawful is a haven for the alt-right? we're a bit better than the rest of the net, but GBS is a huge albatross around our necks
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:https://twitter.com/theplumlinegs/status/773169386119131141 How low can the bar possibly get? Will it be considered a success if he fails to insult more than four ethnic groups or pick out the US on a map?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
PenguinKnight posted:we're a bit better than the rest of the net, but GBS is a huge albatross around our necks I don't even go there anymore. I used to use it as a news aggregate but last I checked it was a bastion of unfunny shitposting and ironic racism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
I think it would be naive to suggest that there isn't some soft power/guanxi style benefit that Clinton donors get, especially when it comes to access. But in light of the hilariously lax corruption laws in the US and the general "tit-for-tat" style lobbying that is accepted it isn't anything outside of the norm. I'm laughing at Republicans trying to push the corruption angle in light of how hilariously corrupt the last three Republican administrations were and how actively corrupt the current House and Senate Republicans are. Trump being an alternative is pretty insane. Third party objections from Greens/Socialists/etc make sense but I'm also seeing a lot of "libertarians" being very "concerned" which is a great joke.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:So somethingawful is a haven for the alt-right? oh cool this is the first time i get to tell somebody to go to GBS in an educational way!
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
zoux posted:You guys act like debates are actual contests about ideas and policy and not just trying not to make horrific gaffes. I still have high confidence Trump is going to majorly gently caress up, because he majorly fucks up every time he's speaking off script. Sure, if the media chooses to cover it as such. A day after trump goes full hitler we get a bunch of hit jobs on Clinton out of nowhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Yes, I acknowledged I did not carefully vet the source. I've since provided other sources on my statement that "not all economists believe $15 nationally is a good idea."
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
zoux posted:You guys act like debates are actual contests about ideas and policy and not just trying not to make horrific gaffes. I still have high confidence Trump is going to majorly gently caress up, because he majorly fucks up every time he's speaking off script. Like get the countries in the former Yugoslavia wrong? I'm more pessimistic that the media will instead point that Trump only said 7 crazy things and Clinton looked frumpy so clearly Trump out debated her.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
nachos posted:Sure, if the media chooses to cover it as such. A day after trump goes full hitler we get a bunch of hit jobs on Clinton out of nowhere. 50 million people are going to be watching them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Like get the countries in the former Yugoslavia wrong? "Oops"
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
it'll be like that urban legend about the kennedy-nixon debates except not at all where the people watching it live say that hillary won and the people who watch the highlights after the fact will say that trump won.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 13:06 |
|
|
zoux posted:50 million people are going to be watching them. Is that really how many people watch them?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:40
|
|
