And Your First Potential 2016 US Presidential Candidate Is!!!!

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by groverj3, Mar 23, 2015.

  1. Randy

    Randy Ooh, Degrasse Tyson-son Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,787
    Likes Received:
    2,406
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
    So when he (or other people) say Hillary or her establishment supporters do something that's potentially questionable, the interpretation can be massaged around several different ways, but if he implies somebody he supports might potentially be bending the truth, it's gospel and he's being willfully ignorant?
     
  2. celticelk

    celticelk Enflamed with prayer

    Messages:
    4,382
    Likes Received:
    330
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, MI
    I engage with you (collectively) about your issues with Clinton in order to point out other potential interpretations where they exist. There's always the possibility that I'm going to see a piece of evidence that one of you has provided and decide that you're actually right. With respect to lefyguitarjoe's comment about Tulsi, there's not really any room for nuance: he's said that he thinks that her televised explicit statement that DNC politics is her trying to provide cover for her future political career. That's a statement that she's lied - on international television - purely in service of her own interests. He then immediately said that he "likes her alot;" I haven't seen her alot, so I can't comment on that aspect, but that sure sounds like a statement that he's OK with the notion that she's making false statements in public for the sake of her career. I have exactly zero information at this point about whether or not Tulsi's telling the truth, but I'm inclined to take her at her word until proven otherwise.
     
  3. Randy

    Randy Ooh, Degrasse Tyson-son Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,787
    Likes Received:
    2,406
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
    What you may be missing is that, for every point that you counter, you're both refuting the claim of those you're engaging and actively asserting your own. That's to say, for every claim you rebut, there's an alternative "truth" which you establish. So even though the bulk of the last several exchanges have been people making statements (most which you've engaged were calling into question Hillary or the DNC) and you countering those statements, the sum total of your replies actually do paint a picture (based on points you choose to bring up, ones you choose not to bring up).

    The facts here is that there is little undeniable evidence. Without being there in the room with the people making these decisions, this is all nothing but scattering a bunch of facts on the table and reading tea leaves.

    Speaking for myself (and approximating, based on the statements of others in this thread), we're simply sharing our interpretations of the facts as they've been presented so far. I personally don't marry my positions, so I'm willing and open to the idea that the way I assemble those facts into a hypothesis/conclusion could be partially or entirely wrong. That has yet to be seen, but in the interim, I (and others) have seen fit to ask those questions and put those interpretations out there.

    So, saying something like the statement I have quoted, you're hamfistedly saying that everyone who you've countered has offered information you deem "not up to your standards" and therefore, you're defaulting to whatever your preexisting position is on that matter.

    That's all fine and well, and you're entitled to that... but pay mind to the fact that the selective repudiations have established an easily interpreted bias from reading your posts. There are truths that you choose to cling to that I find no more absolute and that aren't founded on hard facts any more than the ones you're shooting down.

    And that's normal in a debate but you absolutely cannot claim the intellectual high ground when you base your positions on equally flimsy/debatable points.
     
  4. flint757

    flint757 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,400
    Likes Received:
    197
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    It was on the Facebook post that it was originally linked to on my end. There are several military personnel, past and present, on this forum that I'm sure can attest to something similar though (Grand Moff Tim I believe and perhaps USMarine75). Not following protocol with intelligence is grounds for being severely reprimanded in the military, especially to the degree Clinton has done so, accident or not. Of course she will get a free pass I'm sure because that's just how it works when you have enough money and/or clout.

    http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

    Bernie Sanders's file | PolitiFact

    Clinton has changed on NAFTA | PolitiFact

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/clinton-misspoke-about-bosnia-trip-campaign-says/

    Democratic Debate: Why Can’t Hillary Get It Right the First Time? - POLITICO Magazine



    Mrs Clinton Campaign Speech SuperPredators | User Clip | C-SPAN.org

    Clinton's 1993 NAFTA Meeting - ABC News

    Old Scandal Resurfacing for Hillary Clinton - The Worst News Possible for Her Presidential Campaign (VIDEO) - The Political Insider

    Hillary Clinton Emails: Secret Negotiations With New York Times, Trade Bill Lobbying Revealed In Latest State Department Release

    Hillary Clinton flip-flops from 2008 positions in bid for liberal voters' support - Washington Times

    All False statements involving Hillary Clinton | PolitiFact

    Essay - Blizzard of Lies - NYTimes.com





    ---

    You may think Bernie is an idealist who won't get anything done (and your content supporting the group that is half the reason that'd be the case if you happened to be right, although I don't personally think you are), but there is no arguing that Clinton lacks honest, integrity, and transparency over her entire career. Her experience comes with controversy and scandal since pretty much the beginning of her political career. It's amusing, however, that no one seemed to mind supporting Obama over Hillary even though he had zero experience, yet somehow all of a sudden it's extremely valuable. Even still it isn't like Bernie doesn't have a wealth of experience as well and his tracks to being both more honest and consistent across the board.

    You are offering her a lot of latitude that is arguably undeserved. It's fine that you like her, but to argue that she's a better candidate and someone who will follow through is not the least bit as reliable as you are implying. To top it off going through a scandal just before the general elections that involves both the FBI and State Department, which is headed by someone you would assume is her ally, not only makes her less attractive for the position, but does actually cast a lot more credibility to the issue than even I was giving it when it first arose. If a normal serviceman did what she did they'd be serving time in Leavenworth of that I have no doubt.



    http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/06/19/sailor-pleads-guilty-to-mishandling-documents.html

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-37


    The DNC pushing Clinton so hard only proves that the DNC doesn't like Sanders because he thinks for himself and won't toe the party line if it disagrees with his values. The fact that they are hitching their ride so adamantly to Clinton is purely about brand recognition and a complete lack of any other viable candidates to choose from.
     
  5. flint757

    flint757 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,400
    Likes Received:
    197
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    I'm also mildly amused by the persistent claim that no one is trying to fix this race, yet every time we see numbers about official delegate counts her numbers ALWAYS includes the super delegate votes (on all the results I've seen at least). They may very well change, and they would indeed be dumb not to if he gets the popular vote by a wide enough margin by the end, but this is a classic manipulation technique to encourage votes for Hillary and discourage votes for Bernie or discourage people from voting at all in his camp (the more likely goal since many are relatively new voters). It's the same reason they refused to publish the popular vote count for the Iowa Caucus. This is being consistently done by the DNC and most media outlets at the moment. If the DNC is doing this it isn't hard to assume that they might actually not change their vote if not changing it means Hillary wins.

    To not notice this is to be deliberately ignorant. I genuinely hope I'm dead wrong, but all evidence at this point points to it being likely true.
     
  6. tedtan

    tedtan SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,905
    Likes Received:
    488
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Location:
    Never Neverland
    This is an important point. And he brings not only his extensive experience, he also brings the political capital that comes along therewith. So in the unlikely event that Sanders were to ultimately win the office, I don't see him being any less effective than Obama in accomplishing his goals. And since he would be starting from further left than Clinton (as Randy points out), the end results of his efforts may well be more progressive than Clinton's end results.
     
  7. flint757

    flint757 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,400
    Likes Received:
    197
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Location:
    Houston, TX
  8. crg123

    crg123 SS.orgLocalArchitect

    Messages:
    2,815
    Likes Received:
    273
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    https://vine.co/v/igH3wW1Khe9 I hate just posting .... like this when there are so many valid points in this thread... But this is gold Jerry! Gold!
     
  9. flint757

    flint757 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,400
    Likes Received:
    197
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Location:
    Houston, TX




    -(great watch)

    He mentions a great deal of problems/scandals during Clinton's run for president the first time and then her run for Secretary of State for anyone claiming she is not only 'qualified', but not tarnished. The only reason her record lacks tarnish is because so many choose to literally ignore the problems in her past. Why, I couldn't tell you. It's bizarre that people consider someone in her shoes to be more electable because of the OPPOSING parties position. :lol:

    You cannot have great change through complacency and without strife. Change requires effort. Change requires discomfort. Malcolm X knew this, Martin Luther King knew this, JFK knew this, Abraham Lincoln knew this and they all have one thing in common. They were murdered by those who wanted the status quo to remain the same. Malcolm X and MLK were both deeply involved with race relations, but they weren't targeted until they started embracing socialist ideals. People in charge fear the people they are supposed to serve being truly free. Freedom of opportunity, freedom from debt, freedom of choice.

    Forgive me, I was just watching some rather wonderful critiques of the time period and the movements of Malcolm X and MLK; What people think they know and what the truth is lies a monumental gap for certain and the sort of policy Bernie wants is what they were advocating for when they were murdered. They were killed for having progressive ideals and being able to actually do something about it through the power of leadership. Hell, during the McCarthy era we literally threw out, without warning, a great progressive advocate, Charlie Chaplin. All of this leads me to the conclusion that playing the long con, waiting for people to wise up, waiting for change to happen without anyone actually, truly trying to change is fool hardy. If we want this sort of change sitting on the sidelines and playing the lesser of two evils gets us nowhere near our goals as a society at large. It's a race to the bottom, hence the Democrats becoming far more conservative over the last decade, when you exclude social rights from the equation (It's important and warrants addressing, but ultimately plays a far smaller role in what our government is responsible for on a daily basis [economy, regulation, public services, international relations, war, etc.]). Economically, they have shifted further and further right every single year and Corporate Democrats are to blame for this shift. Truly progressive and truly liberal politicians exist, and they exist in the Democrat party and independent parties, but people seem to be in denial that there are some people who wave the Democrat banner while lobbying/passing/attempting to pass economic/foreign policy that looks far from socially responsible or progressive. Much like religion, simply having a group identity doesn't by default mean you are honest or transparent or that you are someone who might even have integrity. There are some truly awful Democrats in higher leadership roles and they are like tumors that can't seem to be removed, despite even screwing the party itself the last several elections. We cannot solve this problem through complacency, apathy or apologetic politics. Activism, shockingly :idea:, requires being active.

    ---



    DNC Chair Joins GOP Attack On Elizabeth Warren's Agency

    Debbie Wasserman Schultz Just Joined Republicans to Declare War on Elizabeth Warren

    In other news, if you want to help get rid of this waste of space, Debbie Schultz, feel free to support and/or contribute to her competitor:

    https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/timcanova2016

    She's sponsoring a bill, along with a small hand full of Democrats and the Republicans, to essentially remove the teeth from Warrens agency and render it almost useless in addressing a great deal of problems.

    Also:

    [​IMG]

    ---

    Bill Clinton Just Violated Election Laws at Polling Locations Across Massachusetts



    (Above the law seems to be a favorable look on the Clinton's)

    ---

    Martin O'Malley accuses DNC of 'rigging' primary process in Clinton's favour | US news | The Guardian

    And another fine example of the dubious nature of the current DNC leadership.

    -----

    Please tell me how the Democrats have it together. That they are our best hope. That they are vastly different than Republicans. I'll agree that many of their members truly are and that some championed policies are as well, but ignore the weeds growing in your garden at your own peril or soon there will be no garden left and just a patch of weeds.

    We need to get Corporate Democrats out of congress. Simply championing positive social policy isn't enough and largely just feels like lip service when done by a great deal of politicians. The Democrats played an equal part in many of the events/policies that created the environments that lead to the recession and that is undeniable. Being better than Republicans is called setting your bar low if you're a progressive.

    ---

    As for the election, to bring it back on topic, I find it amusing that so far she has only overwhelming won the vote in states she will never win come general election. Bernie did better IMO where it counted and pretty much tied in Massachusetts. I personally think the reason why all the polls always include the un-cast votes of the super delegates is, not only to dissuade voters, but to also make it far less controversial when they don't give them to Bernie, even if he wins the populace vote. You have to dig deep to get numbers that are representative of the actual votes cast. Most of the news is 'How many delegates did each get' with no mention of the number from the populace vote. Either way, I look forward to the implosion of the DNC at this point and only hope that something better grows from it.

    [EDIT]

    Someone I know said it best:

    The more you learn about Sanders the more you like him, or at the very least respect him (if you don't agree with his platform). The more you learn about Hillary the harder it becomes to like her, much less respect her.

    I was a Hillary fan for a long time, genuinely, and a big advocate of the Clinton's, but the more research I did the nastier they began to appear and it became a lot harder for me to trust anything they said or did or will do (I would think actually being able to change one's position based on new evidence would be something to applaud, but based on some responses it would appear not). I was a fan because I only knew what little information I was fed via television and news blurbs. I was also playing the whole lesser of two evils angle back then, like many others are still, and if we compare Obama and the Clinton's to the Bush's or Ronald Reagan they are indeed better choices for liberals. That is not supporting a candidate, however, that's voting against an opponent. Nothing happens, or horrible unnoticed things happen, when you don't vote for a candidate, but against a candidate/party. This is exactly how Ted Cruz won his primary for the Texas senate and is a big part of Trumps campaign at the moment.
     
  10. flint757

    flint757 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,400
    Likes Received:
    197
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Location:
    Houston, TX

    (Skip to ~22min15sec for reference)

    He talks about her negative impact on the healthcare industry as things progressed through the 90's leaving us with horrible insurance coverage in its wake.

    The whole video is an excellent watch as well, but it's roughly just a 2 minute segments after ~22min that I'm referring to. I could listen to Hitchens talk all day though. :lol:

    At the ~36min mark he talks about some of the scandals that Bill was dealing with and evidence he uncovered about, for instance, the missile launch that hit the wrong target due to negligence (remember guys, the Clinton's were the era of 'peace' :lol:). I definitely believe Democrats give other Democrats far more leeway on past discrepancies than they would ever do for their counterpart (and vice versa), but the saddest part is many aren't aware they are doing so in the first place IME. We get busy and put our trust into a hand full of peoples trust, opinions, and research then go on about our day as if it is just factually the case, often without attempting to uncover the whole truth because we've grown far too busy as a society to actually keep that deeply informed.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile_strikes_on_Afghanistan_and_Sudan_(August_1998)
    (I believe this is the incident he is referring to)

    He also goes on about the campaign finance scandal and the broken electoral process they clearly have been taking advantage of and continue to do so to this day. Many things he's said over the years about the Clinton's and the general future of where things were going ended up being right as best I can tell.
     
  11. monkeysuncle

    monkeysuncle SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    350
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    May 11, 2013
    Location:
    under where?
    Vermin Supreme or GTFO
     
  12. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    12,972
    Likes Received:
    1,143
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    I miss the days when the amount of potential damage a candidate could do as president was small enough that I could afford to vote for a third party without guilt.

    This cycle, when it ultimately comes down to Trump versus Clinton, I hope people have the guts to vote out a majority of the republicans and democrats alike, from congress, and remove the power the parties hold.

    Remember that you vote for whomever you like best. Voting for a party gives too much power to an unnecessary political machine. If Clinton and Trump run as Democrat and Republican, and there is a third option of someone who is at least halfway honest and halfway level headed and with more intelligence than termite, NOT voting for the third option is giving into the boogey man. The trouble is that this boogey man is real as long as the majority of voters think he's real.
     
  13. Randy

    Randy Ooh, Degrasse Tyson-son Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,787
    Likes Received:
    2,406
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
  14. cwhitey2

    cwhitey2 BlackendCrust Metalâ„¢

    Messages:
    4,602
    Likes Received:
    255
    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2010
    Location:
    Binghamton, NY


    I must have been stoned when I originally posted this.

    I will most certainly not be voting for her. That's fact.
     
  15. Captain Butterscotch

    Captain Butterscotch SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    1,780
    Likes Received:
    190
    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2011
    Location:
    Stevensville, MD
    It's almost as if she doesn't realize that there is a magical place where we can find anything imaginable in the sum of human knowledge right at our fingertips. Goddammit, Hillary. /drunkpost
     
  16. vilk

    vilk Very Regular

    Messages:
    4,510
    Likes Received:
    482
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    Chicago
    ^people who would vote for Hillary are the kind of people who don't know how to use computers for that kind of thing.
     
  17. JPhoenix19

    JPhoenix19 Playing life by ear

    Messages:
    2,968
    Likes Received:
    352
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    Sounds like sorcery to me.
     
  18. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    12,972
    Likes Received:
    1,143
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    [satire]
    [/satire]

    :lol:
     
  19. celticelk

    celticelk Enflamed with prayer

    Messages:
    4,382
    Likes Received:
    330
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Ahem. Standing right here.
     
  20. vilk

    vilk Very Regular

    Messages:
    4,510
    Likes Received:
    482
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    Chicago
    I was trying to make an old people joke. Are you an old man?
     

Share This Page