|
Obdicut posted:They make me neither more or less likely to support her. So, you're so in the bag for Hillary, that there's nothing she could do to unearn your vote. I guess Hillary chose right when she put you in charge of her Official Fan Club and Internet White Knight Defense Force
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 07:36 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:They make me neither more or less likely to support her. Because you don't think they'll have any influence over her or because you think they will and that is a good thing? quote:Hah sorry I missed this earlier. I disagree with your analysis of Libya, so I don't care about your theory that these constant attacks on Clinton by the GOP are great because they allow her to cover up the real scandal of how Hillary oversaw the destruction of Libya. What part of it do you disagree with?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
its only imperialism and destabilizing a country when a republican does it, hth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
It would be cool if Donal Drumpf beat Hillary about the head and shoulders with a Bernie for Prez yard sign
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Maoist Pussy posted:It would be cool if Donal Drumpf beat Hillary about the head and shoulders with a Bernie for Prez yard sign I though the ultimate troll would be Dornald pickie Bernie for his VP. it would be a reaganesque victory
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:I though the ultimate troll would be Dornald pickie Bernie for his VP. it would be a reaganesque victory Bernie wouldn't accept though. I suppose Trump could publicly announce that he was considering Bernie, but knew Bernie wouldn't accept so that's why he chose, X.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Bernie wouldn't accept though. I suppose Trump could publicly announce that he was considering Bernie, but knew Bernie wouldn't accept so that's why he chose, X. what other good troll candidates are there for Donald's VP? Corey Booker? Andrew Cuomo? Meghan Kelly? Chirlane McCray? That black/not black guy from BLM? Tim Cook?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:I though the ultimate troll would be Dornald pickie Bernie for his VP. it would be a reaganesque victory Hmm yeah, a ticket with at least one candidate every voter in the us hates.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Hmm yeah, a ticket with at least one candidate every voter in the us hates. Hillary/Cruz ?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Hmm yeah, a ticket with at least one candidate every voter in the us hates. Hannity/Maddow?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Hmm yeah, a ticket with at least one candidate every voter in the us hates. Fun Fact I share the same birthday with Bip Roberts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Some lackey is going to get thrown to the wolves, LOL http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/03/fbi-investigating-if-clinton-aides-shared-passwords-to-access-classified-info.html?intcmp=hpbt2 "FBI investigating if Clinton aides shared passwords to access classified info" I bet Hillary is going to claim she wrote her PW on a post it note and one of the bastards under her stole it. "Don't look at me, i don't know how the interwebs work! I'm just an abuela who don't know poo poo" 
Mister Fister has issued a correction as of 02:08 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Some lackey is going to get thrown to the wolves, LOL Yeah but this all just a vast right wing conspiracy, look the other way
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
Boomstick Quaid posted:Yeah but this all just a vast right wing conspiracy, look the other way a vast right wing conspiracy conducted by the obama justice department. i mean, poo poo, maybe clinton's done nothing wrong, or maybe she did some dodgy stuff that isnt illegal so she's safe. but this pagliano guy testifying only on condition of immunity from prosecution means that the fbi strongly suspect he has valuable inculpatory information about other, probably higher level, actors. but no, this isn't just nothing--this looks really good for hillary, somehow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
The FBI is probably going to wrap up its investigation by the spring without laying charges and when the issue is raised during the general election Hilary will seek to deflect it by saying that the FBI exonerated her. Whether or not Trump can make it into an issue can't really be predicted in advance this far out but she isn't going to be charged.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
This is all Webb Hubbell's fault.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
Hillary will be fine. Trump might be smart enough to make this cost her the election, which would be incredibly "lol."
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Because you don't think they'll have any influence over her or because you think they will and that is a good thing? Do you naturally think in terms of false dichotomies? Neither. Because going by her senate record, if they have influence it's not substantial. She's voted for strong financial restrictions. I'm sure that all the connections and all the donations do have influence on her, but that influence is not 1:1. It is not that for every dollar given to her or every banker she knows personally she is 1 unit less likely to enact legislation against them, obviously. I think this also represents a popular misunderstanding of what super-rich people use their access to politicians to do. Some people definitely give money directly to curry favor or get favors related to their business, but a ton of other people use that money to influence other issues that aren't directly related, like wanting the government to fund more autism research, or to support gay marriage, or to curtail gambling, or to oppose gay marriage, or enable consuming raw milk. This sort of influence is still bad and lovely, dollars should not be considered speech, but you're making the facile assumption that every dollar donated from the finance industry is even an attempt to influence financial legislation. Shorter answer: Because her senate record, and her stated agenda, don't show any significant influence. quote:What part of it do you disagree with? It's not like you did a real analysis, you just said Hillary 'oversaw' the process of Libya's wholesale destruction, which is fatuously crediting her with far more power than she has. I'm not going to spend time making a long counter-argument to your bare assertion, especially right after you set up the silly false dichotomy above.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Do you naturally think in terms of false dichotomies? Neither. Because going by her senate record, if they have influence it's not substantial. She's voted for strong financial restrictions. I'm sure that all the connections and all the donations do have influence on her, but that influence is not 1:1. It is not that for every dollar given to her or every banker she knows personally she is 1 unit less likely to enact legislation against them, obviously. I think this also represents a popular misunderstanding of what super-rich people use their access to politicians to do. Some people definitely give money directly to curry favor or get favors related to their business, but a ton of other people use that money to influence other issues that aren't directly related, like wanting the government to fund more autism research, or to support gay marriage, or to curtail gambling, or to oppose gay marriage, or enable consuming raw milk. This sort of influence is still bad and lovely, dollars should not be considered speech, but you're making the facile assumption that every dollar donated from the finance industry is even an attempt to influence financial legislation. Wow, another boring post by Captain of The Hillary Honor Guard
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Do you naturally think in terms of false dichotomies? Neither. Because going by her senate record, if they have influence it's not substantial. She's voted for strong financial restrictions. I'm sure that all the connections and all the donations do have influence on her, but that influence is not 1:1. It is not that for every dollar given to her or every banker she knows personally she is 1 unit less likely to enact legislation against them, obviously. I think this also represents a popular misunderstanding of what super-rich people use their access to politicians to do. Some people definitely give money directly to curry favor or get favors related to their business, but a ton of other people use that money to influence other issues that aren't directly related, like wanting the government to fund more autism research, or to support gay marriage, or to curtail gambling, or to oppose gay marriage, or enable consuming raw milk. This sort of influence is still bad and lovely, dollars should not be considered speech, but you're making the facile assumption that every dollar donated from the finance industry is even an attempt to influence financial legislation. lmao
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Do you naturally think in terms of false dichotomies? Neither. Because going by her senate record, if they have influence it's not substantial. She's voted for strong financial restrictions. I'm sure that all the connections and all the donations do have influence on her, but that influence is not 1:1. It is not that for every dollar given to her or every banker she knows personally she is 1 unit less likely to enact legislation against them, obviously. I think this also represents a popular misunderstanding of what super-rich people use their access to politicians to do. Some people definitely give money directly to curry favor or get favors related to their business, but a ton of other people use that money to influence other issues that aren't directly related, like wanting the government to fund more autism research, or to support gay marriage, or to curtail gambling, or to oppose gay marriage, or enable consuming raw milk. This sort of influence is still bad and lovely, dollars should not be considered speech, but you're making the facile assumption that every dollar donated from the finance industry is even an attempt to influence financial legislation. Stop crying you sniveling rear end
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:This sort of influence is still bad and lovely, dollars should not be considered speech, but you're making the facile assumption that every dollar donated from the finance industry is even an attempt to influence financial legislation. You must be a failure of a sociologist if you consciously reject data that opposes your thesis. This is pathetic and naive. And you're probably poo poo at games, too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Amgard posted:You must be a failure of a sociologist if you consciously reject data that opposes your thesis. This is pathetic and naive. He's not just a failure of a sociologist, he's a failure at a bunch of other stuff too!
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:Yeah that guy's a loon but I'm not sure how the facts of the case, to which Hillary has already offered a mea culpa, are anythign other than, she violated FedGov standards rather dramatically, then lied repeatedly about it, and absolutely, positively exposed dozens if not hundreds of Top Secret emails to any halfwit hacker smart enough to break into a $3 a month hosting company. POTENTIALLY. You can't convict because it could have happened. Go Hillary!
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Tony Homo posted:POTENTIALLY. You can't convict because it could have happened. Go Hillary! Right, her admitting to having the server (which she really couldn't contest), and the presence of Classified, Secret, and Top Secret emails on that server, according to the FBI, and that her assistants regularly copy-pasted classified information into standalone emails (what, was that wrong? I thought just the email ITSELF was classified, not the information in it! I'm just a doddering #abeula, I dont understand all this! When I told them to wipe the server, i meant WITH A CLOTH, because the only way anything gets cleaned in my house is if I order someone to do it, amirite?), none of which is even in question. None of that is PROOF that Hillary did anything wrong, maybe the VRWC did all this behind her back and just made it LOOK like her email, that's probably it!
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
quote:This sort of influence is still bad and lovely, dollars should not be considered speech, but you're making the facile assumption that every dollar donated from the finance industry is even an attempt to influence financial legislation.  How does poo poo like this even come out of you. Are you literally a Clinton campaign aide or ?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Maoist Pussy posted:
It's something that's really obviously true, I'm afraid, and I don't get why you can't get at that. Finance people care about things beyond finance. Even if they do care about finance, what they want may be a strengthening of regulations rather than a weakening of them; even from a purely pragmatic point of view, regulations that limit predatory business activities and bullshit ephiphytic profits benefits the companies that don't use those business models. If you're, say, a finance dude who invests in startups, you want strong regulation on banking fuckery because you want stability and growth, and the sort of mortgage-swap risk-hiding poo poo that caused the meltdown is only harmful to you, not helpful. And that's just sticking with the finance stuff, and ignoring that rich people donate to influence a much wider range of stuff. And again, going by Clinton's senate record, she favors strong banking regulations. Amgard posted:You must be a failure of a sociologist if you consciously reject data that opposes your thesis. This is pathetic and naive. Can you point out the data I'm rejecting, please, and what my thesis is?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
How does someone pledge allegiance to a candidate as calculating and shrewd, yet so obviously venal. What the gently caress is it? The despotic garb?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Toadvine posted:How does someone pledge allegiance to a candidate as calculating and shrewd, yet so obviously venal. It's a recognition of the times we live in. The best way to fight the vile, ruthless monstrosity on the other side of the aisle is with your own vile, ruthless, monster.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Bernie supporters getting pissy now that Hillary is ignoring their nonsense. It's so annoying when mom does that! I'm going to start cutting again so she'll pay attention to me!
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Bernie supporters getting pissy now that Hillary is ignoring their nonsense. It's so annoying when mom does that! I'm going to start cutting again so she'll pay attention to me! Stronger social programs with more aggressive taxation on the wealthy? "nonsense"
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:It's a recognition of the times we live in. There is no aisle, friend. Just a circular fighting pit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Toadvine posted:How does someone pledge allegiance to a candidate as calculating and shrewd, yet so obviously venal. Im wondering that myself. If you're a single issue voter, maybe Abortion is totally your fetish, and recognizing that Hillary probably also enjoys abortions (though I suspect donald has paid for a few!) then maybe out of pure self interest, vote for Hillary, regardless of how objectively lovely the rest of her politics and personality are. What I don't get, is these people who are genuinely cheerful and excited about Hillary, like Obdicut, he's totally gay for her.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Bernie supporters getting pissy now that Hillary is ignoring their nonsense. It's so annoying when mom does that! I'm going to start cutting again so she'll pay attention to me! You mean, her attempting to co-opt his entire platform, then claiming that she's the REAL SOCIALIST in this race? I mean how much more cynical can she be before someone says, hey wait a second, isn't she the one who takes tens of millions of dollars from wall street, and tens of millions of dollars more from despotic regimes around the world who stand for everything she claims to stand against? Ha ha who am i kidding, anyone who points that out will get shouted down by Obdicut and the rest of his Teen Tiger Hillary Fan Club
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Abortion is, in fact, my fetische. Like, seriously, if the Democrats would just give the people the mandatory gay abortions and unisex lingerie we so clearly want, I would vote for that. Maoist Pussy has issued a correction as of 19:53 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Stronger social programs with more aggressive taxation on the wealthy? "nonsense" Naw, she's still talking about that. She's just ignoring B.S. gobbagool posted:You mean, her attempting to co-opt his entire platform, then claiming that she's the REAL SOCIALIST in this race? I mean how much more cynical can she be before someone says, hey wait a second, isn't she the one who takes tens of millions of dollars from wall street, and tens of millions of dollars more from despotic regimes around the world who stand for everything she claims to stand against? Hillary doesn't claim to be a socialist because she cares about actually winning the election. Hillary takes campaign contributions from corporations because she actually cares about winning the election. Be thankful she's teaching you this lesson in the primary by punching Bernies dick into pulp, rather than the Republican teaching it to you in November.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Can you point out the data I'm rejecting, please, and what my thesis is? I decline to, because the purpose of my post was to demonstrate your inability to actually address any concern or question directly asked to you with even a shred of integrity. Thus far, you've demonstrated express incompetence at responding to questions in lieu of back-patting rhetorical barbs at the intent or methods of the one asking it. Responding to you as if you were capable of discussing people's issues with Hillar Clinton is an exercise in futility. You are incapable of defending your position, thus you make no effort to defend your position, merely to speculate on well written (and, at times, sourced) thoughts from competent posters. So no: I won't. Only an idiot plays ball with an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Amgard posted:I decline to, because the purpose of my post was to demonstrate your inability to actually address any concern or question directly asked to you with even a shred of integrity. Thus far, you've demonstrated express incompetence at responding to questions in lieu of back-patting rhetorical barbs at the intent or methods of the one asking it. I've addressed the questions asked of me, though. You can tell by the posts where people ask me questions and then I respond. The only one I didn't was the absurd one asking me how I disagree with just a flat-out assertion that Hillary presided over Libya's destruction, and I explained why. quote:Responding to you as if you were capable of discussing people's issues with Hillar Clinton is an exercise in futility. You are incapable of defending your position, thus you make no effort to defend your position, merely to speculate on well written (and, at times, sourced) thoughts from competent posters. I've defended my position, though. Her senate record shows that she favors strong regulations on finance. What that has to do with email, the topic of the thread, I have no clue. I'm going to go ahead and assume you can't actually point out anywhere I've ignored data, and that's why you're not giving any example.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Bernie supporters getting pissy now that Hillary is ignoring their nonsense. It's so annoying when mom does that! I'm going to start cutting again so she'll pay attention to me!
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 07:36 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Naw, she's still talking about that. She's just ignoring B.S.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:13
|
|
