US Election 2016: DO NOT MY FRIENDS BECOME ADDICTED TO WATER

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

Just now, Kalbear said:

No, I mean the time that you failed to produce any actual evidence of your position and believed that events that happened after the fact caused things that happened before. And then you got all happy because I stated 2015 instead of 2014, even though we were talking about 2012. 

 

You must have hallucinated that, because it didn't happen.  Are we going to start this again?  The NATO bombing campaign started on 19 March 2011.  The Syrian Army started large scale operations on 25 April 2011, and organized armed resistance started on June 4 2011. How hard is that to understand? 

[Shryke]

11 minutes ago, All-for-Joffrey said:

See, in a normal election year (a la 2012) I would largely agree with this analysis. The problem is this year that the GOP has completely jumped the shark with the Trump nomination. To be sure, because of the way our electoral college works, I will still be voting third party as I don't live in a swing state. However, if I did live in a swing state this year, I would bite my lip and vote for the lesser of the two evils, Clinton, simply to keep Satan out of office. I know to a lot of people the "but Republican candidate X is way way worse than Democratic candidate Y" argument rings hollow because it's used by Democratic voters every election cycle to justify and maintain the two-party status quo, but I think it's objectively true this year. (Though to be fair, I'd still be voting for Clinton if I lived in a swing state if Cruz were the nominee -- which is more of a reflection on how far right the GOP continues to swing).

It's objectively true every year. When was the last time it wasn't?

[alguien]

35 minutes ago, Kay Fury said:

For fucks sake, you guys. Can we stop referring to any human being as "illegitimate" based on moral judgements about sex their parents had? Seriously, knock it off.

I have zero problem with Sanders's family dynamic; I was attempting to frame it as it would no doubt be framed by his opponent (the Republican party of "family values") in a hypothetical general election.

I think he's good family man and as stand-up a guy as anyone in politics with a net worth of half a million dollars. 

If that came off as my own implied judgement, apologies for not being clearer. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, All-for-Joffrey said:

Maybe I haven't been following this thread closely enough, but certainly on Facebook people categorically reject the argument that it creates a powerful incentive for Clinton to be less tough on Wall Street reform, probably even less tough than Obama. And five years ago isn't that long ago, nor does it change the calculus of "oh, this guy and his firm helped me and my family out, I should do him a solid in office so I can expect future personal funds once I leave office." And the fact that the firm isn't doing well isn't relevant to this at all -- all it shows is that Chelsea's husband is an incompetent investor. It doesn't change the fact that Clinton's daughter and son and law were able to set the firm up in the first place because of Rich Uncle Penny Bags from Goldman Sachs. And again, this is bigger than any set of paid speeches or hedge fund startup funding; it more broadly points to how chummy Clinton is with a lot of these people. Financial motivations aside, you're less likely to enact policies that will be detrimental to your friends.

Oh, I'm sure that's the case. I don't expect Clinton to be that hard on Wall Street compared to, say, Sanders. Sanders would go after Wall Street regardless of law or facts behind him, mind you, so that's not saying much.

I think it creates an incentive to not perhaps go hard against that person. I'm not sure that it creates a major incentive to not go hard against the industry in general, and I especially don't think it makes it hard to go for things like higher taxes and the like. 

Her goals of going after shadow banking - something she's been pretty consistent about - would probably help Goldman Sachs while also helping the economy be more stable. That's probably not a bad thing. 

Ultimately I think a lot of it depends heavily on what you think the problems are and how to fix them. If you believe that the prime source of every single problem that the US has is due to wall street and banks, chances are good that there is nothing that Clinton will do to make you trust her. If you believe that they were part of the problem and having more checks and balances are good but destroying them is not, chances are good she'll follow through with that. 

[alguien]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

On the speeches, it's highly unlikely that there was any quid pro quo involved. But their existence does undermined her claim that she is going to get tough on Wall St., and it's exacerbated by the fact that she has basically all but said bleep off if you have any hopes on seeing those transcripts.

Did you see the article I linked about removing bankers from the board of the Fed? I took it as a pretty positive sign. I

Quote

 

It was higher than that iirc. I think it was in the low $20 mill range.

I dug this up if anyone is interested. Clinton apparently made $21.6 million between 2013-15 on 92 paid speeches. 

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/news/economy/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs/

 

That's over 92 speeches at 225K a pop, only 8 of which were to different banks. So the point stands that banks can't really buy much for $225k for someone worth over $8million. 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

You must have hallucinated that, because it didn't happen.  Are we going to start this again?  The NATO bombing campaign started on 19 March 2011.  The Syrian Army started large scale operations on 25 April 2011, and organized armed resistance started on June 4 2011. How hard is that to understand? 

It was pretty hard to understand given that the actual declaration of civil war stated before that (March 3rd). But hey, I'm sure light speed ain't got nothing on you. 

[Shryke]

18 minutes ago, All-for-Joffrey said:

I think what's been lost about the problems with Clinton's Goldman Sachs speeches is the fact that Goldman Sach's CEO has also donated an as-of-yet undisclosed amount of money to her son in law to start up his hedge fund. I mean, an organization paying you and your immediate family personal income creates obvious and immediate conflicts of interest as a [likely] future public official (let alone president). I don't know why Clinton supporters seem completely incapable of and unwilling to even acknowledge this.

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/27/hillary-clinton-wont-say-how-much-goldman-sachs-ceo-invested-with-her-son-in-law/

 

I think Clinton supporters are fully capable of acknowledging this. I've seen it acknowledged every time it comes up personally.

What I've yet to see is any reason why I should care. What's the problem here exactly? A guy who wants to run a Hedge Fund goes to a famous company for funding. And ... I'm at a loss where the problems crop up here.

[All-for-Joffrey]

8 minutes ago, Shryke said:

It's objectively true every year. When was the last time it wasn't?

 

Obama v. Romney 2012. But I'm not getting into this argument ad nausem with you again for the upteemth time.

ETA: The new quote system strikes again. (Seriously, when are they going to fix that?) Read below for my response to your other post.

 

 

Quote

I think Clinton supporters are fully capable of acknowledging this. I've seen it acknowledged every time it comes up personally.

What I've yet to see is any reason why I should care. What's the problem here exactly? A guy who wants to run a Hedge Fund goes to a famous company for funding. And ... I'm at a loss where the problems crop up here.

 

I already explained the problem in the exact bloc of text you quoted and then expanded further in my response to Kalbear. Try rereading. (And btw, you say you're capable of acknowledging it's a conflict of interest and then go on to say it's not a problem. Please, what exactly are you "acknowledging" then?

 

 

Quote

 

 

Quote

Maybe I haven't been following this thread closely enough, but certainly on Facebook people categorically reject the argument that it creates a powerful incentive for Clinton to be less tough on Wall Street reform, probably even less tough than Obama. And five years ago isn't that long ago, nor does it change the calculus of "oh, this guy and his firm helped me and my family out, I should do him a solid in office so I can expect future personal funds once I leave office." And the fact that the firm isn't doing well isn't relevant to this at all -- all it shows is that Chelsea's husband is an incompetent investor. It doesn't change the fact that Clinton's daughter and son and law were able to set the firm up in the first place because of Rich Uncle Penny Bags from Goldman Sachs. And again, this is bigger than any set of paid speeches or hedge fund startup funding; it more broadly points to how chummy Clinton is with a lot of these people. Financial motivations aside, you're less likely to enact policies that will be detrimental to your friends.

ETA: Oh, and let's not forget that Hillary's Goldman Sachs speaking fees pale in comparison to Bill's $1.5 million plus in Goldman Sachs speaking fees.

 

 

 

 

 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, alguien said:

Did you see the article I linked about removing bankers from the board of the Fed? I took it as a pretty positive sign. 

Yeah, I did, and yeah, her taking the Fed Up stance is a good sign. As always, Clinton tends to make the less splashy moves that end up making differences. This is a major blessing and a major curse, but it does mean that she can hear points of view and incorporate them and change when it makes sense to do so, and this made sense to do. 

That's another thing that bugs. I understand that there is a lot of appearance of cronyism with Clinton that exists, and like I said before it sucks and was a poor move on her part. At the same time, what evidence exists of her actually helping in a way that would be otherwise untoward? Per an article she was instrumental in getting Dodd-Frank passed, as an example, and that has had the effect of reducing risk and reducing the size of banks. She didn't do much against wall street as SoS, but you wouldn't expect her to as SoS either. Is there something in her policy record that would indicate she'd be heavily capitalist and against the things she says she wants to do?

[Shryke]

9 minutes ago, All-for-Joffrey said:

Maybe I haven't been following this thread closely enough, but certainly on Facebook people categorically reject the argument that it creates a powerful incentive for Clinton to be less tough on Wall Street reform, probably even less tough than Obama. And five years ago isn't that long ago, nor does it change the calculus of "oh, this guy and his firm helped me and my family out, I should do him a solid in office so I can expect future personal funds once I leave office." And the fact that the firm isn't doing well isn't relevant to this at all -- all it shows is that Chelsea's husband is an incompetent investor. It doesn't change the fact that Clinton's daughter and son and law were able to set the firm up in the first place because of Rich Uncle Penny Bags from Goldman Sachs. And again, this is bigger than any set of paid speeches or hedge fund startup funding; it more broadly points to how chummy Clinton is with a lot of these people. Financial motivations aside, you're less likely to enact policies that will be detrimental to your friends.

ETA: Oh, and let's not forget that Hillary's Goldman Sachs speaking fees pale in comparison to Bill's $1.5 million plus in Goldman Sachs speaking fees.

Except we know what her actual policies are and they are good ones.

And your connection here is INCREDIBLY tenuous. Just look at what language you are using. "Rich Uncle Penny Bags from Goldman Sachs" is not Hillary Clinton. She's not the one that loaned them the money. Nor is she an employee of Goldman Sachs.

This whole thing is based on the idea that Clinton will not follow through on the policies she's laid out in her campaign based on the fact that her daughter's husband got a loan from a company that once paid her to give a motivational speech to them. It's farcical.

[Shryke]

3 minutes ago, All-for-Joffrey said:

Obama v. Romney 2012. But I'm not getting into this argument ad nausem with you again for the upteemth time.
 

Well sure, why would you want to get laughed at again for acting like Romney wouldn't be a far more horrible president then Obama?

Like, seriously, did you ever even look at what Romney said he wanted to do? His 47% comments alone tell you everything you need to know about how he would have run the domestic side of things.

And god only knows what would pass under his pen from the nutters in the GOP Congress. /shudder

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It was pretty hard to understand given that the actual declaration of civil war stated before that (March 3rd). But hey, I'm sure light speed ain't got nothing on you. 

I would love to see your reference for that.  The most generous date, which you used in the previous thread, is March 15th, but that's really the start of the protests and not the fighting.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

I would love to see your reference for that.  The most generous date, which you used in the previous thread, is March 15th, but that's really the start of the protests and not the fighting.

I'd love to see your sources from the other stuff. You completely ignored it. So...yeah, I don't really care to engage you on it particularly much. March 15th is still earlier than March 19th, right? If we're quibbling about time travel in general, I don't think you've made the point you want to. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

24 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

Protagors:

Also, "let Trump win" may sound good, unless you're going to be one of those people that he'll shit on, like immigrants, women, LBGT people, Muslims, and anyone not rich. The idea that we must endure this horrible pain to get to a better political world for the leftist ideals is an elitist and privileged outlook, which, to be fair, is what the Sanders campaign has been the most successful in drawing - entitled, privileged, white people.

As Clinton might say, this is nothing more or less than an artful smear. 

First, even if we assume for a second that we're using terms like "privileged" and "white people" as pure descriptors, and not race-baiting, identity politics red-meat, how the fuck could one say, with anything remotely approaching seriousness, that this subset of Sanders supporters is "entitled" ? What does that even really mean in this context? I know that we can demonstrate whiteness. I suspect we could come up with an consensus understanding of what it actually means to be "privileged." But entitled? Entitlement is a mind-set. How can you plausibly demonstrate the truth of this assertion? You can't.

Second, and more straightforwardly, this is just an incredibly gross simplification of the demographics of who is voting for Sanders and Hillary. While it's certainly true that on one axis - specifically race, and specifically with Blacks - the results are fairly consistently skewed in favor of Blacks voting for Hillary. But along all other axes, the demographics are mixed. Clinton tends to do slightly better with people earning less than $30,000 per year (a few percentage points), but she also tends to do better with people earning ABOVE $100,000 per year (a few percentage points). Sanders and Clinton often do about the same with people who have only a high school degree. Sanders consistently does better with people who have "some college" or a college degree. Clinton, on the other hand, tends to do better with people who have a graduate degree. When you look at the "ultra privileged" - people who has a post-graduate degree and make above $100,000 per year - these people are more likely to be Clinton supporters than Sanders supporters. 

[Protagoras]

51 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

A lot of this is what the Sanders crowd says too. It remains bullshit in the US. Here's why.

• Unlike Sweden, the president is elected. And unlike Sweden, the way that the president is elected is by a first past the post voting scheme. First past the post voting schemes always devolve into two parties, because two parties are optimal for it. 
• This means that voting for a third party which cannot win will not provide value to you even if they are most aligned with your goals, because it generally means your vote is being taken away from the candidate who you agree with more and ends up resulting in the candidate winning who you agree with less. Which means less change.
• There are some who believe both parties are 'pretty bad'. There are others who emphatically disagree with that notion.
• There are some who believe that the US has been moving more rightward. This is easily counteracted with the US giving the rights of gay people to marry, giving transgender rights, adding more health care, adding more civil rights, etc. It isn't clear that the US has moved particularly right. It is probably more fair to say that the rest of the world has moved to the left faster. 
• When the same logic was applied to 'getting to move more left' by allowing a right win, we got Bush in 2000. Bush resulted in a world recession, two wars that have caused massive regional instability, massive debt and a breakdown of foreign relations. As well as a massive use of police state tactics that would make China blush with pride. The idea that you have to take one for the team so often and then come back even stronger simply is factually unsound. It doesn't work, especially for presidential elections. 
• If you really cannot see the difference between someone who has supported women's rights for their entire career, is the only secretary of state to declare that LGBT rights are human rights, and has supported better health care for their entire life with someone who openly calls women cunts, calls Mexicans rapists and wants to deport 11 million people, I would argue the problem is with you. 

I think the main problem I have is that you don´t suggest an attractive counter-option. After all, many/some Sanders-voters as you say seems to agree with me so why should they care about you and the Democratic party? Some may emphatically disagree that US is going right, but if these groups (I guess) seems to think so, so shouldn´t they vote on what they perceive to be in their interests? I for one as a white male only care about getting a socialist economy and the progression on that front has been minimal if not none. As I see it - it has gone backwards. So, if people agree with me and we start a movement - why should we care about say gay right progression when our big topic isn´t fought for by the party we both belong to? If you don´t scratch my back - I won´t scratch yours.

Its not about realizing Clinton is better than Trump because she obviously is. Its about realizing that neither option gives me what I want in the long run and that the party who say they represent me really doesn´t. Nader might be seen as a failure since Bush won, but maybe if that road is taken again and again and again, the democrats might get the signal (after all, the Greens are a known party because of this). You take the future solution and throwing it away because of the Now and I find it regrettable. And no - this isn´t me trying to be morally pure, this is me trying to win. 

And Yes, Swedens elections are superior to USA. Maybe that should be the first step. A proportional voting system.

33 minutes ago, All-for-Joffrey said:

See, in a normal election year (a la 2012) I would largely agree with this analysis. The problem is this year that the GOP has completely jumped the shark with the Trump nomination. To be sure, because of the way our electoral college works, I will still be voting third party as I don't live in a swing state. However, if I did live in a swing state this year, I would bite my lip and vote for the lesser of the two evils, Clinton, simply to keep Satan out of office. I know to a lot of people the "but Republican candidate X is way way worse than Democratic candidate Y" argument rings hollow because it's used by Democratic voters every election cycle to justify and maintain the two-party status quo, but I think it's objectively true this year. (Though to be fair, I'd still be voting for Clinton if I lived in a swing state if Cruz were the nominee -- which is more of a reflection on how far right the GOP continues to swing).

Exactly! It rings hollow. And whats worse - it stops anything from changing the situation!

45 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

Protagors:

 

Sanders is simply unelectable in the general election. The only people who don't care about his socialist label are the ones who're already converted. These people are delusional in thinking that the general voting population will get on board and elect a socialist to be president.

 

Also, "let Trump win" may sound good, unless you're going to be one of those people that he'll shit on, like immigrants, women, LBGT people, Muslims, and anyone not rich. The idea that we must endure this horrible pain to get to a better political world for the leftist ideals is an elitist and privileged outlook, which, to be fair, is what the Sanders campaign has been the most successful in drawing - entitled, privileged, white people.

Ok, so those socialist who are ok with the term, why should they suck it up? Their goal should obviously be to get socialism ok and electable, not selling out to a party not working for their issues. If you think they should just give up their vision, you are not coming off as reasonable and give them in return zero reason for backing your important issues. 

Do you want those entitled, privileged, white people to vote for Democrats? Because I can say, as one of them (I think), that I sure wouldn´t until you got me what I want or at least promised to work for them. Hillary doesn´t - she is pretty right in the Party and because she takes the party in the wrong direction it is a problem, since her being popular means my direction wont win. 

21 minutes ago, Shryke said:

It's objectively true every year. When was the last time it wasn't?

And this logic is the reason the situation will never change. 

[Kalbear]

Probably a more factual claim that would cut even worse would simply be that Sanders has done a much better job attracting young, white men to his campaign. You can let the reader decide whether young white men are the ones that would lose more or less when it comes to a Trump win. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Probably a more factual claim that would cut even worse would simply be that Sanders has done a much better job attracting young, white men to his campaign. You can let the reader decide whether young white men are the ones that would lose more or less when it comes to a Trump win. 

I'm sure there's a planet where describing people as "young, white men" might "cut even worse" than calling that same set of people "entitled, privileged, white people." 

But that planet is not Earth. One of those is clearly intended to embed a number of pejorative connotations. The other is not. 

[All-for-Joffrey]

3 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Except we know what her actual policies are and they are good ones.

And your connection here is INCREDIBLY tenuous. Just look at what language you are using. "Rich Uncle Penny Bags from Goldman Sachs" is not Hillary Clinton. She's not the one that loaned them the money. Nor is she an employee of Goldman Sachs.

This whole thing is based on the idea that Clinton will not follow through on the policies she's laid out in her campaign based on the fact that her daughter's husband got a loan from a company that once paid her to give a motivational speech to them. It's farcical.

Dude, it's her fucking son in law and daughter. His income=her income. Parents are often generally concerned about their children's well being and success. Likewise, Bill's $1.5+ million from Goldman Sachs is also Hillary's income. (Then of course there are the Goldman Sachs Clinton Foundation donations and Goldman Sachs's active lobbying of the Clinton State Department re: the export-import bank.)

"Rich Uncle Penny Bags" is basically lobbying a likely future president in everything but the legal definition of lobbying. But hey, thanks for proving my initial point to Kalbear about how Clinton supporters, like you, are completely unwilling to acknowledge that this is a problem or a conflict of interest at all.

 

 

 

 

 

[Swordfish]

53 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

Protagors:

 

Sanders is simply unelectable in the general election. The only people who don't care about his socialist label are the ones who're already converted. These people are delusional in thinking that the general voting population will get on board and elect a socialist to be president.

i thought the idea was that those people should bite their lip and vote for him anyway, in order to prevent Trump from becoming president?

 

If they didn't, wouldn't they then be subject to all the pejorative descriptors you guys have been applying to Sanders supporters for the past couple months?

I'd love to see some data on specifically which demographic would vote for Clinton but not for Sanders.

 

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

I'd love to see your sources from the other stuff. You completely ignored it. So...yeah, I don't really care to engage you on it particularly much. March 15th is still earlier than March 19th, right? If we're quibbling about time travel in general, I don't think you've made the point you want to. 

So you have no sources, is that what you're saying?  A civil war requires armed groups from both sides in organized combat.  That started on June 6th, 2011 in Syria.

http://www.britannica.com/event/Syrian-Civil-War