U.S. Politics - no more cakes

[MerenthaClone]

Yep, but I didn't quote Acelbuy but Alex.

I guess that went way above your head?

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/127881-us-politics-no-more-cakes/page-5#entry6938703

That post right there, friend. :)

[Guest]

What does his credentials have to with Clinton's credentials?

The answer is nothing. You didn't answer the question because you wanted to deflect the question away or you can't answer the question.

Actually, I was not asked a question.

[Guy Kilmore]

Well this got silly.

[lokisnow]

Or any other Administration prior.

Depends on how you want to tranche out the term diversity. Bush appointed 8 women to cabinet posts, Clinton appointed 12, Obama has now appointed 16. So Clinton had a less male cabinet. However Clinton did have a whiter cabinet than bush, bush did go to admirable efforts in appointing a far more ethnicly diverse cabinet than his predecessors.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Or any other Administration prior.

And it was still the worst Administration since (at least) Harding.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Right wing conspiracy not working? Give blame Bush a try!

[The Marquis de Leech]

Right wing conspiracy not working? Give blame Bush a try!

Of course. Bush (like Carter and Hoover before him) will be the go-to whipping boy for the other side for decades to come. Though (unlike Carter and Hoover) he actually deserves it.

As for your "questions" about Hillary (I notice that you've stopped alleging she has zero credentials), you're rather overlooking a simple point. The voters who decide elections don't care. And come November 2016, all this will be ancient history even for those who do care. You, for instance, will have moved on to something else.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Of course. Bush (like Carter and Hoover before him) will be the go-to whipping boy for the other side for decades to come. Though (unlike Carter and Hoover) he actually deserves it.

As for your "questions" about Hillary (I notice that you've stopped alleging she has zero credentials), you're rather overlooking a simple point. The voters who decide elections don't care. And come November 2016, all this will be ancient history even for those who do care. You, for instance, will have moved on to something else.

I still haven't heard of any significant accomplishment from the Champion of the people. But you're partially right about the voters. I would agree most democrats won't care in the long run. We are talking about the low information voter block here... The rest would take a corrupt, conniving Clinton over a loss of the white house any day. It's not like you guys are worried about the direction of the country anyway, you voted for Barry twice.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I still haven't heard of any significant accomplishment from the Champion of the people. But you're partially right about the voters. I would agree most democrats won't care in the long run. We are talking about the low information voter block here... The rest would take a corrupt, conniving Clinton over a loss of the white house any day. It's not like you guys are worried about the direction of the country anyway, you voted for Barry twice.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

^Only appropriate response to that remark, coming from you. "All of the policies!"

[BloodRider]

Correct me if I am wrong here, but even if these wacked out allegations are true are they not moot because of Citizens United?

So the real question here is - why do all these right wing fascist hate freedom of speech?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Correct me if I am wrong here, but even if these wacked out allegations are true are they not moot because of Citizens United?

So the real question here is - why do all these right wing fascist hate freedom of speech?

No, they are not moot because of Citizens United. The allegation doesn't relate to outside spending to support Clinton's candidacy or some other political advocacy, but to donations to the Clinton Foundation/payment to Bill Clinton for a speech by investors in a Canadian company (Uranium One) with uranium mines in Wyoming that would later require approval of the State department for it to be purchased by a Russian state-owned energy corporation (Rosatom). The idea is that the investors stood to gain a lot of money if the sale to Rosatom went through, so they greased the wheels by giving money to Bill Clinton who would have Hillary approve. The rub is that 1) some of the donations were given before Hillary Clinton was even Secretary of State and 2) State wasn't the only department involved in approving the deal (even the Canadian government was invovled) so Hillary Clinton could not have pushed through approval by her lonesome anyway.

[SkynJay]

It's not like you guys are worried about the direction of the country anyway, you voted for Barry twice.

Is the country in some way worse after 8 years of Obama? And can the question be answered with anything other than hollow platitudes?

[Reny of Storms End]

Don't take the bait man! They're just lashing out because they haven't created a defense for Shrillary yet.

What was that nonsense you were spouting again about not being sexist?

[awesome possum]

I still haven't heard of any significant accomplishment from the Champion of the people.

See, here's the thing: it doesn't matter. No one here believes Hillary Clinton is a champion of anything other than Hillary Clinton. But for as flawed and corrupt as she may be, she is still a better alternative than anything the GOP could dredge up from the sewage system that the Republican party has become.

It's a message you should have received in 2012 and come next November, you're going to have it again. All of the pissing and moaning and pathetic digs in your limited repertoire will not change that.

[Guest]

Yeah, there's this new buzzword going around called negative partisanship which is a political science theory that us politics today is driven more by dislike or fear of the other side than by what you like about your own. It seems plausible to me as that would describe my own politics pretty well.

So it's not "Hillary is so great." It's "Jesus H Christ, these Republicans are nuts and cannot be allowed near the levers of power."

[BloodRider]

No, they are not moot because of Citizens United. The allegation doesn't relate to outside spending to support Clinton's candidacy or some other political advocacy, but to donations to the Clinton Foundation/payment to Bill Clinton for a speech by investors in a Canadian company (Uranium One) with uranium mines in Wyoming that would later require approval of the State department for it to be purchased by a Russian state-owned energy corporation (Rosatom). The idea is that the investors stood to gain a lot of money if the sale to Rosatom went through, so they greased the wheels by giving money to Bill Clinton who would have Hillary approve. The rub is that 1) some of the donations were given before Hillary Clinton was even Secretary of State and 2) State wasn't the only department involved in approving the deal (even the Canadian government was invovled) so Hillary Clinton could not have pushed through approval by her lonesome anyway.

I think it still applies. The money is still speech, and companies may spend it where they like. Giving to the Clinton foundation would be exercising speech. Furthermore, according to SCOTUS, it matters not if you can draw a direct line between the influence purchasers and the pol. They set the standard high, such that you need evidence of quid pro quo.

[Mexal]

Yeah, there's this new buzzword going around called negative partisanship which is a political science theory that us politics today is driven more by dislike or fear of the other side than by what you like about your own. It seems plausible to me as that would describe my own politics pretty well.

So it's not "Hillary is so great." It's "Jesus H Christ, these Republicans are nuts and cannot be allowed near the levers of power."

Pretty much the way I feel too. Republicans scare the shit out of me in pretty much every way possible.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I think it still applies. The money is still speech, and companies may spend it where they like. Giving to the Clinton foundation would be exercising speech. Furthermore, according to SCOTUS, it matters not if you can draw a direct line between the influence purchasers and the pol. They set the standard high, such that you need evidence of quid pro quo.

Even if Citizens United had been decided differently evidence of quid pro quo would still be needed to prosecute in this case. The contributions made to the Clinton Foundation were never regulated by McCain-Feingold and some of them were, indeed, even made when that law was still fully in effect.

There are issues similar to campaign finance here on donations, transparency/disclosure, and the appearance of corruption, but the outcome of the Citizens United decision has no bearing whatsoever.

[Guest]

And some more on negative partisanship...

I think some of y'all on the left that are dismissing the noise around Clinton are taking an enormous risk. The Republican cult is so despised by just enough of an electoral majority in this era that it seems the Dems can only lose in a Presidential election if they fuck it up. So while Clinton does bring plenty of good stuff to the table, she brings tons of baggage too. It is flat-out denial to say otherwise. I'm not saying it's clear that the party should jump ship at this moment, but I am saying that it's already dangerously late in the game to be so bizarrely overly-committed to one and only one option that is already presenting itself to be risky.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

And some more on negative partisanship...

I think some of y'all on the left that are dismissing the noise around Clinton are taking an enormous risk. The Republican cult is so despised by just enough of an electoral majority in this era that it seems the Dems can only lose in a Presidential election if they fuck it up. So while Clinton does bring plenty of good stuff to the table, she brings tons of baggage too. It is flat-out denial to say otherwise. I'm not saying it's clear that the party should jump ship at this moment, but I am saying that it's already dangerously late in the game to be so bizarrely overly-committed to one and only one option that is already presenting itself to be risky.

If there prove to be significant allegations against Clinton between now and next Spring, she will not get the Democratic nomination. If not, no Democrat is better positioned to win the general election than Hillary Clinton. I think it's unlikely that any seriously damaging baggage will come out after she's been nominated but not during primary season. She is going to be intensely scrutinized before she can ever get the nomination, as the recent NYTimes article/upcoming book demonstrates. If something really bad comes out, there will be several other Democrats waiting in the wings- including the sitting Vice President- and one of them will get the nomination instead.

I'll be voting for Sanders no matter what.