|
rscott posted:Whats Hillary Clinton's position on the death penalty again Basically that states have proven themselves unable to implement it and either the states themselves or SCOTUS should abolish it. She waffles on the federal death penalty, saying that it's appropriate for certain, very rare cases - Oklahoma City, for one. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/transcript-of-the-democratic-presidential-debate.html
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 13:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 13:25 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
Honestly, as bad as the forum was, I'm beginning to turn to thinking that in the grander arc of the campaign it will have a net positive result. Most of the pushback against Lauer is from his unequal treatment of the candidates and his unwillingness to fact check el Donaldo. This will likely have an effect on prep for the real debates, where the moderators will feel necessary pressure to fact check the candidates and come prepared with refuting evidence, simply to try and earn/keep the respect of their peers.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:I'm sorry, this race is not a six point race. Try two or three. So what are you doing about it? Are you phone banking? Knocking on doors? Trying to work to change the race in anyway? Or just posting here in a tizzy? Yes, we have to win. Have to, this time. So go out and work for it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2016 12:39
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:It takes longer to adequately refute a lie than it does to make one. Trump can just keep making them and move on, and all he has to do is say "but what I said is true!" a lot. What I secretly really hope happens is the first time HRC points out something Trump said is a lie, or contradicts something he said before, and he goes "but I never said that" or "I've always said X" and the moderator moves on to the next question, she stops for just five seconds, looks right at the camera, and says "someone on my staff please post the video of Mr. Trump saying exactly X" to my twitter, and then they do. No idea of how it would work for live viewing, but am certain that the live fact-checking and providing sources would do really well in the post narrative.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
radical meme posted:First of all, all these police protests are reactionary, not proactive protest for anything; what you have in NC right now is a mob, not a movement. Second, there is no clear leader, there is no MLK or even Malcolm X agitating for change. Equating this to the Civil Rights Movement shows a lack of understanding of history. Also, violence doesn't accomplish anything. Ok, if you think the civil rights protests weren't reactionary, and if you think BLM doesn't want "anything," you can go to hell right now. "Lack of understanding of history" my rear end. But to try to constructively engage, presenting civil rights protests as a unified group all led my MLK or even Malcom X is a massively flawed understanding of history itself. The civil rights movements had many heads and came in many forms, from SNCC, SCLC, the NAACP and CORE through to the black panthers, and had many leaders, some of whom had different opinions and fought among themselves and believed in different methods of advocacy. This myth that MLK came along and led everyone and all the blacks got along together through the movement is just that, a myth. Second, white engagement is actually going to be critical at some point, so maybe consider engaging rather than just castigating BLM for how it's leading PoC at the time? It's a trite example, but look at Indianapolis after the assassination of MLK - Bobby Kennedy's participation and legitimization of black grievances helped calm the city down. Accept that minorities have grievances when you hear it from them, and engage rather than condemn their methods.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:So why is Flowers being there a bad thing for Trump? Because "Donald Trump, in a debate with Hillary Clinton, invites her husband's alleged mistress to sit in front row" isn't the best headline when he's already losing women by a historic amount?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Indigofreak posted:So, from this single example, I guess we will be left with, 'Was it actually MARKED classified?!?!?!!!!' And my response is, I don't give a poo poo. He asks you to provide factual examples of when she lied, and your response is I don't give a poo poo if the piece of information that makes her response true or a lie is true.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Harrow posted:(this past week alone, by the same standards, Clinton made 8 provably false statements, and Trump made over 80, source). And one of Clinton's statements was judged provably false because she relied on Trump's statement's of his own net worth to make a point about his tax plan.. gently caress Politico.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Eep. Eep eep eep. Eep.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 13:25 |
|
|
sail hatin' So I was debating with a friend of mine, and we couldn't quite figure out what we watched, since it wasn't a debate. What's a word for something halfway between a murder and a train wreck?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2016 07:51
|
|