[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I would just remove the quotation marks here, I think very few people have consciously bad intentions, from their perspective they are trying to do good — even if you disagree with the goals they support or with the way they achieve these goals.

I agree, but if the moral deficiency of the means wildly outstrips the value of the ends, I argue it is, for all intents and purposes, equivalent to bad intentions.

[subego]

And I feel I should repeat, except for her position on guns, policy wise, Hillary is my dream Democrat. I mean, she's a friggin pro-business war-hawk.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, she hasn't just won elections, but she has wielded power and has had a major influence on politics for >10 years. I think it is sexist to claim that she was riding on Bill's coat tails, it's not as if Bill was holding her hand in the war room or when she met with foreign leaders. I think you are blinded by your dislike of Clinton.

Well, if you don't know by now I don't care if you throw labels such as "sexist", being PC means nothing to me. If Hillary was Bill's husband, I'd say the same thing. It makes no difference. What has she done that's been of benefit to anyone but herself and her ambitions? What did she do as a senator? As SoS? (Both of which were gained due to her husband being president.)

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Well, if you don't know by now I don't care if you throw labels such as "sexist", being PC means nothing to me. If Hillary was Bill's husband, I'd say the same thing.

Sure you would.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

What has she done that's been of benefit to anyone but herself and her ambitions? What did she do as a senator? As SoS? (Both of which were gained due to her husband being president.)

You fault successful people for being ambitious? The two usually go together, Bill Gates didn't make billions because he was always Mr. Nice Guy. He strong armed his way to the top at times, abusing the power he had. But you can be ambitious to do what you perceive to be good. And Bill Gates' life ambition was to put a computer on every desk. He succeeded, and I don't fault him for making a fortune while at the same time transforming humanity for the better. Nor do the mistakes he made (in my mind, at least) erase the good his actions did. Just like anything, things aren't black and white, they have shades of gray.

Just separate the policies that the Clintons stand for with their success. People whose politics you despise don't have to be sinister or bad at their job. As subego wrote, Hillary Clinton was feared by Republicans precisely because of her success. She knew how the game was played, she did all her homework and she played the game to win.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I agree, but if the moral deficiency of the means wildly outstrips the value of the ends, I argue it is, for all intents and purposes, equivalent to bad intentions.

Bad intentions in English is inherently ambiguous, because one meaning is that Clinton acts in bad faith. This is the team mentality coming through here, and it is the team mentality that got the US political into the current mess. Ditto when you say “moral deficiency”. I argue it is much better to focus on actions, this thing that Hillary Clinton did or proposed was (morally or otherwise) bad. For example “The way she reacted when it was discovered she did not handle classified information properly was bad.”

Assuming bad faith in others really limits your point of view, and it makes it easier to see the world in an us-vs.-them way. It contributes very strongly to the atmosphere where it becomes easy to act according to “If a member of my team does it, it is ok, if it is the other team, he or she should be impeached.” It clouds your judgement.

[subego]

I honestly don't think she's someone who acts in bad faith. I mean, I'm sure she has acted in bad faith at times, but I'm not singing it out as a character flaw.

What I do single out as a character flaw is whatever drove her to cover-up a forgivable transgression by orchestrating a a year-long deception campaign.

The evidence points to this flaw being paranoia.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Sure you would.

Glad we agree.

You fault successful people for being ambitious?

She's successful because of Bill, otherwise she'd be completely unknown. There's nothing she's done to benefit anyone but herself, or anyone else, since she gave birth to Chelsea. People recognize that, and that's why she couldn't even defeat Trump, the second weakest candidate nominated by a major party in the last half century.

Just separate the policies that the Clintons stand for with their success. People whose politics you despise don't have to be sinister or bad at their job. As subego wrote, Hillary Clinton was feared by Republicans precisely because of her success. She knew how the game was played, she did all her homework and she played the game to win.

I disagree w/ subego there, she's had no personal success. Bill's coattails are just extraordinarily long.

[Waragainstsleep]

Is it fair to write someone's entire career or life off because of their initial leg up? GW Bush would never have gotten anywhere without daddy and that doesn't seem to inspire such malice towards him.

I don't know why people are still banging on about Hillary's emails when you have an actual POTUS who discusses classified material out loud in his public restaurants. If the same people care about one and not the other then they have no right to moan about either any more.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Dems lose a governorship: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...ublican-241300

West Virginia's Democratic governor announces switch to Republican party

West Virginia Democratic Gov. Jim Justice announced at a rally Thursday evening with President Trump that he is changing his political affiliation to the Republican party.

At Thursday's rally in West Virginia, Justice said he no longer could help West Virginians anymore as a Democratic governor, adding that the "Democrats walked away from me."

Justice added that he suspects both of his parents, who were "staunch Republicans," are in Heaven right now saying, "Jimmy, it's about damn time you came to your senses."

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Is it fair to write someone's entire career or life off because of their initial leg up?

"Leg up"? Unlike other women who got where they are on their own merits, and there are many of them, Bill is all she ever had.

[BadKosh]

What about Webb Hubble?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

This is where the both-sides talk irks me. I don't think Hillary is some noble spirit, but don't the difference in their policies and competence count for something?

My intent was to point out how little the Trump administration has actually accomplished. There's be a lot of screaming and yelling and tweeting and an unprecedented amount of internet outrage, but as far as actual changes? Not really anything.

[andi*pandi]

Hillary had a lot of clout even when Bill was running. Remember, they billed them as a "two-fer" getting two smart policy people in the white house.

Did name recognition help her run for senate? Sure, it's a foot in the door. Let's ask the Bush's about name recognition helping them in politics.

But getting your foot in the door doesn't always get you elected, does it Jeb?

I feel like we've said all this before, but some are trying to rewrite history that Hillary has never been popular or done anything. That's not true, obviously.

And why has the conversation circled back to her again? Deflection from the current President?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

And why has the conversation circled back to her again? Deflection from the current President?

It's a general thread and not specifically about anyone, so...

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

My intent was to point out how little the Trump administration has actually accomplished. There's be a lot of screaming and yelling and tweeting and an unprecedented amount of internet outrage, but as far as actual changes? Not really anything.

Immigration, war conduct (civilian casualties), environmental rollbacks including the Paris thing, civil forfeiture, trying to kill the Iran deal, LGBT rights rollbacks, Neil Gorsuch. Off the top my head. I agree their pace is poor but they make up for it partially by being so damn right wing on a few of these.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

And why has the conversation circled back to her again? Deflection from the current President?

That my fault. I called out Laminar and since we talkin Hillary everyone has an opinion.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Immigration, war conduct (civilian casualties), environmental rollbacks including the Paris thing, civil forfeiture, trying to kill the Iran deal, LGBT rights rollbacks, Neil Gorsuch. Off the top my head. I agree their pace is poor but they make up for it partially by being so damn right wing on a few of these.

I don't have a good way to judge the actual effects of any actual policy changes. Articles claim that it's the end of the world in every single case - I'm not so sure. Trump is good at creating hype (good or bad, he doesn't care), and in today's world of clicks, likes, views, and manufactured outrage, the media is more than willing to be complicit in that.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I don't have a good way to judge the actual effects of any actual policy changes.

That's fair – to a certain point.

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Articles claim that it's the end of the world in every single case - I'm not so sure. Trump is good at creating hype (good or bad, he doesn't care), and in today's world of clicks, likes, views, and manufactured outrage, the media is more than willing to be complicit in that.

Immigration stats can be looked up (and have been posted). The travel ban debacle was on full display in airports and reporting. Neil Gorsuch is a reality who's votes can be checked on. I mean, how about healthcare? Trump is literally trying to destabilize the markets; No need to read the media there, the system itself is telling you what it thinks.

Can we agree these differences are significant?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

"Leg up"? Unlike other women who got where they are on their own merits, and there are many of them, Bill is all she ever had.

What makes you think she didn't help him to get where he did? You can't possibly have a clue either way about that.

I suppose people like Carrie Fisher or Angelina Jolie don't deserve any credit for their careers because their famous parents helped them get into the movie industry in the first place?

Your'e making a mountain out of what should only be a fairly small bug up your ass.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Your'e making a mountain out of what should only be a fairly small bug up your ass.

That sounds familiar, where have I heard that before?

[andi*pandi]

was there really a need for someone to photoshop that?

http://radaronline.com/wp-content/up...e-walk-003.jpg

[Cap'n Tightpants]

It's not really that different.

[andi*pandi]

I know, what's the point? While they were at it they could have added some catheter lines, and big red circles n arrows.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I know, what's the point?

What's the point? It's a joke. Like how SNL, et al. embellish everything regarding Trump (Baldwin's parodies of Trump were brilliant at first, but now they're getting a little stale).

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Immigration stats can be looked up (and have been posted).

I see articles posted, but again, Trump has succeeded in making me doubt the claims made by many publications as biased and exaggerated.

The travel ban debacle was on full display in airports and reporting.

Poor execution doesn't necessarily mean poor policy.

Neil Gorsuch is a reality who's votes can be checked on.

I mean, how about healthcare?

I always had them impression that that was driven by the GOP legislature and would be happening even if Clinton were in office. I've rarely seen Trump's name connected to any of it outside of mentions of his promise to sign off.

Trump is literally trying to destabilize the markets; No need to read the media there, the system itself is telling you what it thinks.

And what happens when Hillary relaxes regulations on and promises bailouts for her friends at Goldman Sachs et al.? Another 2008 meltdown?

Can we agree these differences are significant?

The only thing we can guarantee is that it would be less of a media shitshow. We can't know the actual effects on the lives of individual Americans and America as a country.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

I honestly don't think she's someone who acts in bad faith. I mean, I'm sure she has acted in bad faith at times, but I'm not singing it out as a character flaw.

What I do single out as a character flaw is whatever drove her to cover-up a forgivable transgression by orchestrating a a year-long deception campaign.

The evidence points to this flaw being paranoia.

I honestly believe this is because she let analytics run the direction of her campaign at the outset, and she adjusted her public statements to match what the analytics said would have the best outcome. Obama used these tools to great effect, and Hillary was hoping to do the same. It started with small deviations (or spin) from the truth when the analytics pointed towards responding a certain way. Unfortunately, that set her down a path of bigger and bigger deviations from the truth to make the narrative self-consistent. In a panic to align the "back-end" with what she went on record stating, a cascading snowball effect led to even bigger mis-steps in handling the scrutiny, eventually culminating with year-long deception campaign and full-blown coverup when she had the emails erased while under subpoena through to the election.

The irony is that to avoid a minor 2-week negative press cycle early on, she invited the issue to become the defining issue of her campaign (and likely her career as a whole) in trying to avoid it.

[subego]

She has an analytics issue, but it wasn't the origin of this particular problem.

FWIU, after her loss in 2008, she went over her campaign's emails, and came to the conclusion they would have caused irreparable damage had they leaked.

So she locked that shit down.

When the story broke, analytics didn't guide her, but instead a fervent desire no one look what's behind the curtain.

Of course, the painful irony being they got leaked because she put it behind the curtain, and her putting them there ended up causing way more damage than the leaks ever did.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

But they have had missiles that can reach Japan for years now and recently tested ballistic missiles that could reach the US. Where have you heard that at least the intermediate range missiles aren't armed with nuclear war heads? (Since I live in Japan, I'd really like to know.)

Just today, the IC flipped their "public" opinion of whether NK has nukes small enough to fit on a missile.

The timing makes the claim slightly suspect, but we'll see how it shakes out.

[The Final Dakar]

Sounds like Trump just had a red line moment.

[The Final Dakar]

"North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen... he has been very threatening beyond a normal state. They will be met with fire, fury and frankly power the likes of which this world has never seen before"

HIs body language during this statement was mesmerizing. He looked like a teenager that didn't want to be there.

[subego]

Okay! We get it!

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?p=4386107

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I see articles posted, but again, Trump has succeeded in making me doubt the claims made by many publications as biased and exaggerated.

Immigration numbers are verifiable. You can check if you doubt.

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Poor execution doesn't necessarily mean poor policy.

Not poor execution – DHS was literally lying to people getting them to sign their rights away so they could deport them. It's also come to light that the admin expected and stonewalled DHS from talking to any congresspeople that showed up.

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I always had them impression that that was driven by the GOP legislature and would be happening even if Clinton were in office. I've rarely seen Trump's name connected to any of it outside of mentions of his promise to sign off.

There'd be no reason for the GOP to replicate their current partisan approach because presumably their effort would be DOA. There are several GOP members on record in favor of stabilizing the markets so a bipartisan solution would have been the only real option.

Originally Posted by Laminar 

And what happens when Hillary relaxes regulations on and promises bailouts for her friends at Goldman Sachs et al.? Another 2008 meltdown?

I don't equate crippling the industry that keeps us alive with an economic recession. But you and I both know she'd have to do your theoretical with GOP help because Bernie would lead the charge against doing such a thing.

Originally Posted by Laminar 

The only thing we can guarantee is that it would be less of a media shitshow. We can't know the actual effects on the lives of individual Americans and America as a country.

Like I said, to a point. Eventually, you have to use your own best judgment. Trying to avoid making a choice is a choice within itself – the choice to abdicate. It certainly has its optical and political advantages, but used in a blanket manner I'm not seeing much a difference between it and acceptance.

Its reminiscent of people who won't vote because they can't trust either candidate.

[Laminar]

Fair enough.

[The Final Dakar]

This might be the first unlucky thing Trump has had to deal with - he finally got a terror attack on US soil and it was committed by alt-right us citizens. I have to think his handling of it finally gets him to new lows.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

^^ That sure is some interesting spin.

[Chongo]

Who does the Chancellor of Berkeley need an escape exit from?
http://www.dailycal.org/2016/07/29/c...lifornia-hall/

[subego]

Holy shit... they're this desperate?



It would have been easier to call us on the phone.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

Holy shit... they're this desperate?



It would have been easier to call us on the phone.

Well, it should be obvious that our little corner of the internet isn't being read by the government - at least by the secret service. Otherwise, they definitely wouldn't put those ads there .

[subego]

Though I hear the hooker benefit package is pretty sweet.

And you get fancy pins.

[subego]

Out of curiosity, did anyone here ever read the comic American Flagg?

If so, have you noticed we're basically living in that universe right now?


This is old, but it's what specifically made me realize it.



This is totally a scenario Chaykin would come up with.

Papapa ooooo mow mow.

[el chupacabra]

… .

[andi*pandi]

They were telling nazis to go home. Which they did.

Boston stood up for those who have been targeted for hate by the white nationalists. The protesters were jews, black people, brown people, and white people. And about 30 idiots.

http://whdh.com/news/free-speech-ral...boston-common/

[Cap'n Tightpants]

There were no nazis speaking, though. None. Though, that one conservative speaker from Bangladesh looked terrified. Good job?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Thousands Take To Streets In Boston to Protest Against Free Speech

What exactly are they protesting, and what exactly do they think they'll accomplish with this nonsense?
Are they trying to make it law that certain speech is banned?

Wait, you actually think they're protesting free speech? How gullible are you when it comes to branding?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Yes, people were actually out protesting free speech. In their opinion some people should be entitled to free speech, and they're wrong.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Wait, you actually think they're protesting free speech? How gullible are you when it comes to branding?

From the article

Thousands of people in Boston protested a "Free Speech" rally featuring right-wing speakers on Saturday, with hundreds of police mobilised to prevent a recurrence of violence that left a woman dead at a Virginia white-supremacist protest last week.

In historic Boston Common park alone, hundreds of protesters who believe the event could become a platform for racist propaganda dwarfed the few dozen rally participants.

[andi*pandi]

The Boston "Free Speech" rally was rebranded and many speakers dropped out. One of the WN speakers from VA was going to speak. Not sure if he did. The safety zone around the gazebo was so large none of the speakers could be heard.

"The Boston Free Speech Coalition, which organized the event, said it has nothing to do with white nationalism or racism and its group is not affiliated with the Charlottesville rally organizers in any way."

Yet the assumption is there, that the phrase "free speech" is code for "saying racist and horrible things."

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

The Boston "Free Speech" rally was rebranded and many speakers dropped out. One of the WN speakers from VA was going to speak. Not sure if he did. The safety zone around the gazebo was so large none of the speakers could be heard.

Looking it over, I'd say calling it a "free speech" rally is a little disingenuous, but these don't seem like Nazis either. More like reactionary (in the French Revolution sense) Milo types.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

Looking it over, I'd say calling it a "free speech" rally is a little disingenuous, but these don't seem like Nazis either.

They weren't nazis, but some on the Left will never be convinced. Their problem is, there simply aren't enough real nazis around to satisfy their outrage, they're attacking anyone Right of center instead.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

They weren't nazis, but some on the Left will never be convinced. Their problem is, there simply aren't enough real nazis around to satisfy their outrage, they're attacking anyone Right of center instead.

It sound like anyone they disagree with is a Nazi.