|
gobbagool posted:It's surprising that he has time given that he's a VIDEO GAMER DESIGNER/ACE PROGRAMMER/ SOCIOLOGIST/ HISTORIAN/ POLITICAL SCIENTIST/ HEROIC SOCIAL WORKER/ WORLD'S GREATEST SUPERGENIUS, Wrong, he's a quote:I'M OBDICUT,
|
# ? Mar 4, 2016 21:25 |
|
|
# ? May 6, 2024 03:26 |
|
stephenfry posted:the delegate count is p much what we'd expect it to be if the candidates are neck-and-neck nationally, because if super-delegates want to keep the party intact they are going to start switching to Bernie. I don't know that clinton or her lawyers will see much return on investment in turning their attention to emailgate. Is this just more "ANY DAY NOW THEY'LL INDICT THAT WITCH!" or do you actually think super delegates are going to start switching to the candidate with less delegates because REVOLUTION? Hillary has 50% more pledged, not super, delegates than Bernie does right now.
|
# ? Mar 5, 2016 03:54 |
|
7c Nickel posted:Is this just more "ANY DAY NOW THEY'LL INDICT THAT WITCH!" or do you actually think super delegates are going to start switching to the candidate with less delegates because REVOLUTION? Hillary has 50% more pledged, not super, delegates than Bernie does right now. JeffersonClay posted:...she can afford to ignore it...
|
# ? Mar 5, 2016 05:18 |
|
Obdicut posted:I am a not-rich person with most of my income budgeted for rent and food and books and stuff Hillary is definitely going to make this better for you
|
# ? Mar 5, 2016 11:09 |
|
EngineerSean posted:Hillary is definitely going to make this better for you
|
# ? Mar 5, 2016 18:11 |
|
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. I find it remarkable that you're so willing to disregard -- indeed you don't even mention it here -- the pattern of companies with important business before the state department who made significant donations to the Clinton fund. You're suggesting that when the Saudi government gave at least $10 million to the Clinton fund they did this for philanthropic reasons? Or that the majority of the corporations and super wealthy individuals who have business overseen by the state department were giving money to the Clinton fund around that same time out of a commitment to philanthropy and without any expectation of greater access or influence? Meredith McGehee, who is Policy Director at the Campaign Legal Center, an organization that seems to have a solid record of opposing bad decisions like Citizens United and which supports various initiatives to reduce the role of money in politics, has repeatedly singled out the Clintons for their bad behavior in this regard. One example: International Business Times posted:Former President Bill Clinton accepted more than $2.5 million in speaking fees from 13 major corporations and trade associations that lobbied the U.S. State Department while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, an International Business Times investigation has found. The fees were paid directly to the former president, and not directed to his philanthropic foundation. And this is just the really egregious stuff. The fact is that what you said is also true: political corruption isn't always a 1:1 pay-for-play situation. But that really doesn't make the Clintons look any better, it just reinforces the extent to which powerful corporate players have spent years cultivating deep relationships with the Clintons that will help ensure that the Clintons -- in addition to a fair amount of old school money-for-influence style shenanagins -- are also just primed to view these corporate titans very favourably after years or even decades of close relations and big cash payouts. quote: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. You're slinging all these insults but without posing those "false dichotomies" (and your answer suggests it wasn't that false after all) getting any kind of actual statement of how you think about Clinton or her role in various positions is like pulling teeth. Anyway I'll just quote a few news stories and maybe you can react to them. According to this report, based on numerous interviews with leaked tapes, it was Clinton who spearheaded the decision to attack Libya. Apparently other senior US officials and elected representatives, from Pentagon generals to Dennis Kucinich, were so disturbed by Clinton's jingoism that they took the almost unheard of step of establishing back door communications with the Libyan government to try and resolve the crisis.They also pointed out that US interests were not at stake and that many of the NATO backed rebel groups appeared to be motivated by radical Islamist ideology quote:Numerous U.S. officials interviewed by The Times confirmed that Mrs. Clinton, and not Mr. Obama, led the charge to use NATO military force to unseat Gadhafi as Libya’s leader and that she repeatedly dismissed the warnings offered by career military and intelligence officials. Here's a New York Times report with more on-the-record discussion of Clinton's key role as one of the most hawkish of Obama's advisors in pushing the reluctant administration into the war: quote:It was late afternoon on March 15, 2011, and Mr. Araud had just left the office when his phone rang. It was his American counterpart, Susan E. Rice, with a pointed message. quote:Two of Mrs. Clinton’s top Libya advisers said in interviews that they had harbored misgivings about the intervention precisely because of fears that the coalition would not be able to stop short of regime change, with no ability to manage the aftermath. Here's an example (same article) of Clinton's clear eyed assesment of the situation on the ground: quote:When Mr. Jibril and his Libyan entourage showed up in Rome in May to meet with Mrs. Clinton, they expected a 10-minute check-in. Instead, they talked for nearly an hour. quote:Now Mrs. Clinton took what one top adviser called “the activist side” of the debate over whether to counter Qatar by arming more secular fighters. Jesus, let's just quote that one line again for emphasis. This is clearly a woman who learned the lessons of Iraq! quote:Mrs. Clinton understood the hazards, but also weighed the costs of not acting, aides said. They described her as comfortable with feeling her way through a problem without being certain of the outcome. She was comfortable feeling her way through the annihilation of a country and the arming of a bunch of rebel groups nobody really understood. Now should I also post multiple news stories about how poo poo Libya has become or how much more destabilized the region is or how the war in Libya fed directly into an influx of weapons in Mali, leading directly into another bloody conflict in which Islamists almost seized control of the country and the French ended up sending a military force to retake control of the area? How much are you going to dispute that the outcome of the Libya adventure was a disaster, both from the self stated goals of the US government to preserve its interests and from the standpoint of basic human decency and humanitarianism?
|
# ? Mar 5, 2016 18:57 |
|
Helsing posted:I find it remarkable that you're so willing to disregard -- indeed you don't even mention it here -- the pattern of companies with important business before the state department who made significant donations to the Clinton fund. You're suggesting that when the Saudi government gave at least $10 million to the Clinton fund they did this for philanthropic reasons? Or that the majority of the corporations and super wealthy individuals who have business overseen by the state department were giving money to the Clinton fund around that same time out of a commitment to philanthropy and without any expectation of greater access or influence? Yes. I'm not sure you know much about the Clinton Fund. They do a ton of public health poo poo in the Middle East, and the Saudis giving money to them isn't weird. The Clintons also don't benefit at all from the fund, so this conspiracy story is kind of legless. quote:And this is just the really egregious stuff. The fact is that what you said is also true: political corruption isn't always a 1:1 pay-for-play situation. But that really doesn't make the Clintons look any better, it just reinforces the extent to which powerful corporate players have spent years cultivating deep relationships with the Clintons that will help ensure that the Clintons -- in addition to a fair amount of old school money-for-influence style shenanagins -- are also just primed to view these corporate titans very favourably after years or even decades of close relations and big cash payouts. Then why did she favor and vote for stronger financial regulations? And what does this have to do with her emails? quote:You're slinging all these insults but without posing those "false dichotomies" (and your answer suggests it wasn't that false after all) getting any kind of actual statement of how you think about Clinton or her role in various positions is like pulling teeth. It's really not. It's just that I'm not giving answers along the lines that you want, nor accepting most of your premises. And yes, it was a false dichotomy. It's also funny that you call me out for 'slinging insults' when there's people here calling me a oval office, a moron, etc. What was the insult I slung at you? Do you mean calling your argument fatuous, or saying your argument was silly? I don't think the topic of this thread is 'Clinton's foreign policy' or 'demand people who support Clinton react to various stories', is it? So why are you talking about it here?
|
# ? Mar 5, 2016 19:03 |
|
Obdicut posted:Yes. I'm not sure you know much about Sounds legit.
|
# ? Mar 5, 2016 19:06 |
|
ThirdPartyView posted:Sounds legit. 1MDB isn't anything like The Clinton Foundation, at all. It's a state-owned company.
|
# ? Mar 5, 2016 19:14 |
|
Obdicut posted:Yes. I'm not sure you know much about the Clinton Fund. They do a ton of public health poo poo in the Middle East, and the Saudis giving money to them isn't weird. The Clintons also don't benefit at all from the fund, so this conspiracy story is kind of legless. The idea that a wealthy power broking couple with ongoing political aspirations don't benefit from the control of a massive multi-million dollar organization that puts them into regular and direct liaison with other power brokers and foreign governments is just so staggeringly naive that I can't help but question your intellectual honesty here. This is a staggering level of blindness to how the super rich maintain influence and build ties with each other. Obviously this is speculative but I really question what your takeaway would be if we attributed the exact same behaviours to, say, Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld. Also it's interesting how selective your replies are. No response to the millions in speaking fees they receive from arms manufacturers, Goldman Sachs, etc. No reaction to Meredith McGehee's criticisms. In fact you're acting as though its just nakedly ridiculous that anyone could be even slightly suspicious of this behaviour, even though there are examples of people from across the political spectrum raising red flags. quote:Then why did she favor and vote for stronger financial regulations? Good God man are you honestly this naive? There's a long and well established literature in political science regarding how senators and congressman in the US government will trade votes or take strategic stances to secure their future political aspirations. Anyway, an actual review of Clinton's record shows that for the most part she simply kept to the sidelines of financial related issues following her husbands key role in deregulating financial practices in the 1990s. However, she did support from very heinous legislation supported by the Banks such as changing bankruptcy laws to favour lenders. Her record in the senate is pretty telling. She half heartedly supporting a few bills that never made it out of committee, in particular right in 2007 when she was warming up for her first presidential bid, but overall her record is mostly one of seemingly calculated avoidance, with a couple notable instances where she was pretty unambiguously on the wrong side of the issue: quote:WASHINGTON — The financial services executive reached out to Senator Hillary Clinton’s office to discuss legislation that would affect banks. It seemed natural to make the connection: The executive represented some of the largest New York financial institutions. quote:And what does this have to do with her emails? Remember when I explained to you before that the e-mail scandal acts as a partisan smoke screen, corralling confused liberals and Democrats into assuming that any criticism of Clinton's tenure at the state department must be baseless Republican scaremongering? quote:It's really not. It's just that I'm not giving answers along the lines that you want, nor accepting most of your premises. And yes, it was a false dichotomy. It's also funny that you call me out for 'slinging insults' when there's people here calling me a oval office, a moron, etc. What was the insult I slung at you? Do you mean calling your argument fatuous, or saying your argument was silly? Because we're talking about whether a fake scandal is being used to cover up a real scandal, and obviously her role in foreign policy as Secretary of State is relevant to a discussion of whether her behaviour as secretary of state meets the criteria for a "scandal", which I'm arguing it does thanks, in particular, to the Libya disaster.
|
# ? Mar 5, 2016 19:23 |
|
Obdicut posted:1MDB isn't anything like The Clinton Foundation, at all. It's a state-owned company. Not sure why it matters whether it's a state investment vehicle, 501(c)(3) or another vehicle to act as a slush fund...?
|
# ? Mar 5, 2016 19:25 |
|
Obdicut posted:Yes. I'm not sure you know much about the Clinton Fund. They do a ton of public health poo poo in the Middle East, and the Saudis giving money to them isn't weird. The Clintons also don't benefit at all from the fund, so this conspiracy story is kind of legless. You made a polite request to me to do so, so I declare this post incredibly poo poo, Obdicut. Once again you twist, dodge, worm, evade, and feign ignorance when someone corners you. Carrying water for the Clintons to this extent, glossing over the mass slaughter and destabilization of an entire region, is one of the most vile and pathetic things I've ever seen from a self-described liberal. It is almost beyond me to describe how perfectly this post is a microcosm of your history. Your tactics are transparent, and you would recognize it if you had two neurons to rub together or even an ounce of self-awareness. Go ahead, Obdicut! I'm sure you have it in you. You're in a real sticky spot. Maybe you can cite vague "site rules" (on loving Something Awful no less) again, or you could whine about topicality, or even obfuscate the conversation with bullshit questions. No one expects anyone to respond to every last point brought up, so it's perfectly fine, you can complain about niggling details and ignore the enormous contradictions and stark evidence staring you in the face. Or you could engage and write a genuine, sincere, honest answer for once in your life. Give it a go.
|
# ? Mar 5, 2016 19:42 |
|
Helsing posted:The idea that a wealthy power broking couple with ongoing political aspirations don't benefit from the control of a massive multi-million dollar organization that puts them into regular and direct liaison with other power brokers and foreign governments is just so staggeringly naive that I can't help but question your intellectual honesty here. Well it helps that they don't control the Clinton Foundation. quote:Also it's interesting how selective your replies are. No response to the millions in speaking fees they receive from arms manufacturers, Goldman Sachs, etc. No reaction to Meredith McGehee's criticisms. In fact you're acting as though its just nakedly ridiculous that anyone could be even slightly suspicious of this behaviour, even though there are examples of people from across the political spectrum raising red flags. It's interesting you think this thread is about random poo poo about the Clintons, rather than her use of email--to which the Clinton Foundation is just barely, barely connected. The rest isn't . Can you explain why you want to talk about all that in this thread, about the email thing? quote:However, she did support from very heinous legislation supported by the Banks such as changing bankruptcy laws to favour lenders. Yes, that was a lovely vote, which she acknowledged as lovely. She opposed the bill when it came up again in 2005. quote:
The support in 2007 wasn't half-hearted, though. It was full-throated, the bill was good, and the timing of it was a financial crisis, as well as a presidential campaign. Her voting record in the senate is consistently in favor of banking regulations with a few exceptions--the bankruptcy bill, which she has acknowledge as bad, being one of them. Again, this has gently caress-all to do with emails. quote:Remember when I explained to you before that the e-mail scandal acts as a partisan smoke screen, corralling confused liberals and Democrats into assuming that any criticism of Clinton's tenure at the state department must be baseless Republican scaremongering? You have a weird habit of mixing up your assertions for facts: you explained your theory about that. It doesn't make much sense since a smokescreen is something intentionally deployed, I think what you mean is that people know that Clinton comes under constant bullshit attack from the right wing (like conspiracy stories about the Clinton Foundation) and so people tend to be wary of believing criticism of her because it so often has its roots in right-wing bullshit. That's not a 'smokescreen', that's a natural reaction to the torrent of smears put out against her. It definitely does make it harder to get people to listen to a case about her mishandling Syria, but calling it a smokescreen implies she started it, which is silly. quote:Because we're talking about whether a fake scandal is being used to cover up a real scandal, and obviously her role in foreign policy as Secretary of State is relevant to a discussion of whether her behaviour as secretary of state meets the criteria for a "scandal", which I'm arguing it does thanks, in particular, to the Libya disaster. see, again here you imply she somehow is involved in this fake scandal, that there's intentionality here, and that's such a weird idea. There is always a biased, lovely attack on clinton, even if this email thing wasn't going on, most people would be leery of accusations against her because so many of them have been GOP fever-dreams. This discussion isn't about her behavior as secretary of state, though, it's about the use of email and the investigation into it. If you've got any more to say on that, have at it, but if you just want to talk about her as secretary of state either the main primary threads or a thread about her as secretary of state seems like a better place. I'm not going to continue that with you here. ThirdPartyView posted:Not sure why it matters whether it's a state investment vehicle, 501(c)(3) or another vehicle to act as a slush fund...? Because it doesn't act as a slush-fund, it has a big, credible board, 501(c)(3)s make public filings. The comparison only exists if you already accept the conspiracy theory.
|
# ? Mar 5, 2016 19:49 |
|
sure OP "Hey Hillary don't move classified information off the secure government server" "Ok." *moves classified information off secure government server* "What the gently caress Hillary" "What? I didn't do anything." "Okay, We believe you but we need to look at how this was leaked."
|
# ? Mar 5, 2016 19:54 |
|
Obdicut posted:Because it doesn't act as a slush-fund, it has a big, credible board, 501(c)(3)s make public filings. This reads like the start of every tax/accounting fraud scandal, FYI.
|
# ? Mar 5, 2016 20:00 |
|
Obdicut posted:Well it helps that they don't control the Clinton Foundation. Are you actually enthusiastic about Hilary at all? You're answering in this bizarre and almost litigious fashion as though this is some kind of formal debate and you're hoping the moderator will intervene on your side to protect you from answering awkward questions. I kind of assumed that you'd have actual answers instead of these elaborate dodges. I feel like if I pressed one of the Bernouts or Trump supporters on their candidates views they'd probably be a lot quicker to actually defend what their candidates have said and done, rather than trying to insist the entire conversation somehow isn't germane.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2016 17:11 |
|
I'm excited. One reason is that I think this country is even more sexist than it is racist. (note it is still pretty drat racist) If you thought having a black man as president broke some brains, just wait til Hillary wins.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2016 20:57 |
|
7c Nickel posted:I'm excited. Bullshit. Donald Trump isn't firing up his supporters with promises to pay women less or send them back to the kitchen. Female Lives Matter isn't a controversial statement. Sexism is certainly an ingrained problem but the class struggle has been misconstrued as a race issue, not a gender issue.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2016 21:31 |
|
7c Nickel posted:I'm excited. I mean even if what you say is true (it isn't quite, racism can take on far more bizarre and perverse forms than sexism) it gets old fast. And good trolling isn't necessarily good governance.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2016 22:12 |
|
7c Nickel posted:I'm excited. Are you an MRA? No one gives a poo poo Hillary is a women except her most fervent supporters, like obdicut etc. Oh and also if you use generic insults like "Bitch", apparently because of hillary you can't say that anymore.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2016 22:21 |
|
There are no women in America excited for the prospect of a female president. The word bitch does not have a gendered connotation. Things bernouts actually believe.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2016 22:29 |
|
Helsing posted:Are you actually enthusiastic about Hilary at all? You're answering in this bizarre and almost litigious fashion as though this is some kind of formal debate and you're hoping the moderator will intervene on your side to protect you from answering awkward questions. I kind of assumed that you'd have actual answers instead of these elaborate dodges. If you want to PM me or something feel free, but this is not the thread for 'random questions about Hillary". It's about her email server. But feel free to PM. And no, I'm not enthusiastic about Clinton. I think people who are 'enthusiastic' about political figures are silly, mostly. Also, when someone asks your arguments make sense and be based in reality, that's not insisting on 'formal debate'.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2016 22:38 |
|
JeffersonClay posted:There are no women in America excited for the prospect of a female president. You are a lil' bitch, how about that? The first isn't as many as you'd like, because not everyone is a internet leftist. People support Hillary for reasons other then her gender! ate shit on live tv has issued a correction as of 23:12 on Mar 6, 2016 |
# ? Mar 6, 2016 23:09 |
|
Mice Neltdown
|
# ? Mar 6, 2016 23:15 |
|
JeffersonClay posted:Mice Neltdown Pls reboot your server! Geez did you have a State Department guy set this up?
|
# ? Mar 6, 2016 23:22 |
|
JeffersonClay posted:Mice Neltdown
|
# ? Mar 6, 2016 23:29 |
|
This thread is a shithole but some of these links are loving gold. Nice work Helsing.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2016 23:43 |
|
|
# ? May 6, 2024 03:26 |
|
JeffersonClay posted:Mice Neltdown paranoid randroid posted:mice neltdown
|
# ? Mar 7, 2016 00:09 |