I guess you line up the people who have actually been Presidents, top to bottom, based on experience. Where does Clinton fit in? Probably around the 80%-85% mark. Is that “extreme”? I dunno, maybe for you it isn’t. I’d say “undeniably qualified” is 50%, and she’s way beyond that. But that’s what happens when people get to label their own axes.
I know people hate her, but how was she not qualified?
You said extremely qualified.
Ok, how was she not extremely qualified?
See CatBus’ response.
JEDIT: And Puggo’s.
So you seriously think she was extremely qualified? ok.
Yes.
If you say so.
In spite of the last page of me temporarily being the biggest Clinton-hater in the room, I say so too. Senator & Secretary of State alone put her above her husband, Reagan and many other recent Presidents experience-wise. She also redefined the First Lady role (much to the chagrin of many who preferred the tea parties), and prior to that, when her husband was Governor of Arkansas, I’d say she had the more distinguished career of the two Clintons. I’d say her closest recent equivalent in terms of experience was maybe Lyndon Johnson.
IIRC, Mike Verta has reported that the “destroy order” is still in effect. If Lucasfilm (now Disney) happens to get their hands on prints of the OOT, they will destroy them.
Just seems so stupid to destroy a piece of history, fair enough it may have once been common practise but to destroy a piece of film from that ers today is just ridiculous…
Actually (again, IIRC) the original destroy order dates from when there were 1997SE film prints out there. Theatres would get the reels, send them back to the studios, and the studios would send them back out again (not destroy them). That was normal. The order was to destroy all copies of the OOT as they came back in, so that only 1997SE prints would go back out. So even worse than you thought…
I just don’t think being endorsed by a hate group is comparable to voting in favor of a war crime.
Like your understatement about “don’t like”, the “endorsement” was also an understatement. Sure, the Klan was a free agent. But then Trump actually goes and works with unapologetic white supremacists. Multiple times. The endorsement goes both ways. So yeah, he’s worse in my book. And he supported the war too, he just (thankfully) didn’t have a Senate seat then. And then there’s the other reasons I gave that you didn’t quote, such as her being qualified for the job, and the fact that it was already obvious with publicly available information in July '16 that Trump was the Kremlin’s man.
Would I have liked there to have been a better candidate? Definitely. Was it a hard choice? Not remotely.
I know people hate her, but how was she not qualified?
People often say lots of things “disqualify” someone, rather than just looking at a set of prerequisites. I personally thought her vote on the AUMF was a war crime. I thought her vote on the MCA was abhorrent. I’m sure some people would say that because she used e-mail, she’s disqualified, but I’m not among them. I don’t think these things disqualify so much as significantly push down her appeal. Frankly if she’d never been a Senator, and she’d only been Secretary of State and First Lady (and all her qualifications from before), I may have happily voted for her, rather than with the same shudder I gave when I voted for Kerry. Nevertheless, the fact that she had any qualifications at all, and that she wasn’t endorsed by the Klan, and that she wasn’t the Kremlin’s pick, put her over the top for me. It’s a low bar, but she cleared it easily.
As for qualifications, she doesn’t rank up there with Jefferson or Bush I, but she’s up there. She was extremely qualified. But her record as a Senator was troubling.
So she’s a war criminal, but at least she’s not endorsed by people you don’t like?
I think “war criminal” is a bit hyperbole. It was a vote to use force against terrorists days after 9/11.
There are lots of opinions on that matter, but I’m using the Nuremburg standard. The AUMF was a blank check to someone who’d already made it very clear he planned to attack the Iraqis on any dreamed up pretext. If Bush had been a little more guarded about his plans, or if there was ever any credible link between Iraq and Sept 11, there’d be more room for argument. As it was, Hillary knew the Iraqis posed no threat, and she knew she was authorizing an attack on them. The only thing she didn’t know is that we weren’t just planning to attack, we were planning to occupy–and that there would be political fallout because of that. Had she known that, she may have calculated differently.
She was fortunate that Trump was also in the “I supported the invasion until it started losing popularity” club, or he may have gotten more votes than her.
I know people hate her, but how was she not qualified?
People often say lots of things “disqualify” someone, rather than just looking at a set of prerequisites. I personally thought her vote on the AUMF was a war crime. I thought her vote on the MCA was abhorrent. I’m sure some people would say that because she used e-mail, she’s disqualified, but I’m not among them. I don’t think these things disqualify so much as significantly push down her appeal. Frankly if she’d never been a Senator, and she’d only been Secretary of State and First Lady (and all her qualifications from before), I may have happily voted for her, rather than with the same shudder I gave when I voted for Kerry. Nevertheless, the fact that she had any qualifications at all, and that she wasn’t endorsed by the Klan, and that she wasn’t the Kremlin’s pick, put her over the top for me. It’s a low bar, but she cleared it easily.
As for qualifications, she doesn’t rank up there with Jefferson or Bush I, but she’s up there. She was extremely qualified. But her record as a Senator was troubling.
So she’s a war criminal, but at least she’s not endorsed by people you don’t like?
“People you don’t like”? We’re talking about an active domestic terrorist group!
Yeah, that Khmer Rouge. They were real downers. I totally wouldn’t want to hang with them.
I know people hate her, but how was she not qualified?
People often say lots of things “disqualify” someone, rather than just looking at a set of prerequisites. I personally thought her vote on the AUMF was a war crime. I thought her vote on the MCA was abhorrent. I’m sure some people would say that because she used e-mail, she’s disqualified, but I’m not among them. I don’t think these things disqualify so much as significantly push down her appeal. Frankly if she’d never been a Senator, and she’d only been Secretary of State and First Lady (and all her qualifications from before), I may have happily voted for her, rather than with the same shudder I gave when I voted for Kerry. Nevertheless, the fact that she had any qualifications at all, and that she wasn’t endorsed by the Klan, and that she wasn’t the Kremlin’s pick, put her over the top for me. It’s a low bar, but she cleared it easily.
As for qualifications, she doesn’t rank up there with Jefferson or Bush I, but she’s up there. She was extremely qualified. But her record as a Senator was troubling.
Sure.
Quit crying and find a better candidate next time.
I’m not crying for me. I’m a old(ish) straight male white millionaire US citizen, my life is good. It’s the people that don’t fall into that category that I cry for.
Anyone who thinks Clinton and Trump would have been equally bad is deluded.
You’re a millionaire‽
Maybe.
Monopoly money doesn’t count, Frink. I keep telling you.
IIRC, Mike Verta has reported that the “destroy order” is still in effect. If Lucasfilm (now Disney) happens to get their hands on prints of the OOT, they will destroy them.
Skyrocketing is not a defined term. If they’re skyrocketing now, prior to the ACA, they were stratosphere-o-rocketing. Going up either way, just doing it a lot less now (again, on average, you can always find individual data points going other ways). Not a problem the ACA was particularly designed to address (the ACA was about coverage more than cost), but a real problem nevertheless.
Can’t it be both poorly designed and not explode? There are problems with the ACA. Lots of them. Most are easily fixed (but require a commitment to keep the law in place, so they haven’t been–such as the legalism that allowed states to opt out of Medicaid expansion), and some are truly structural. The ACA is ultimately what you get when you try to let the free market handle insurance with minimal government interference. And that’s not unexpected with its parentage–the ACA was dreamed up at the Heritage Foundation, with Newt Gingrich an early and vocal champion for the individual mandate, and a test-run of the system at the state level under Mitt Romney. It’s the ACA’s quality of bending over backwards to avoid excessive government interference that keeps it from working very well for a lot of people. But it won’t explode.
Yes, on average, premiums are rising much slower than they did before the ACA. Nobody disputes that (outside your standard propaganda mills, using cherry-picked locations). But that doesn’t mean it’s problem-free.
Rush, there comes a moment in life where you start to become more aware of the larger societal and systemic conflicts of the world, and how often they affect others (and perhaps not yourself). When faced with this kind of info, people can go too far in either direction - speaking out or shrugging it off. This is natural if unfortunate for nuanced discussion. The key is though to realize nuanced discussion on certain topics does exist if you’re willing to look hard and challenge your own views, whatever they may be.
The problem that you probably don’t realize is that terms like SJW and PC are used to generalize and discredit. Those who make sweeping allegations that these type of people refuse to have reasonable debates are no better themselves. The truth is that yes, a lot of people take things too far (especially on the internet), but you can’t discount a whole ideology just because the word “racism” is brought up, for instance. More often than not, these people have a very well thought out argument as to why such and such is problematic and it’s a lot more than just “waaah he’s a bigot meanie.” To lump everyone into a dismissive categorization like SJW is to essentially say that anyone who thinks things like racism and sexism are still a problem are ridiculous, which is of course as ridiculous a statement as anything else.
At the end of the day, in my mind, which is worse? Someone being cautious about a potentially offensive thing even if overly so? Or someone being actually offensive?
Trump is such a charged situation. For so many people he represents the epitome of everything wrong in the country, and not in the usual “we have a different ideology” way, but in a plainly moral way. And that’s because the guy is living, breathing scum, an example of a bigoted rich old white guy so perfect as to be a parody of itself. The truth is, the bigotry is right there for anyone looking. And for many that makes him completely unredeemable. And for others it doesn’t change a thing for them (and then of course there’s those who like it). Now obviously you have a right not to mind the man’s bigotry. But for many people they just cannot understand how anyone could brush that aside, especially when that bigotry and ignorance can directly affect them. I’m certainly one to preach tolerance, so I understand Trump supporters who overlooked the troubling aspects. But I also sympathize with those who could not. To dismiss those who are so passionately against him is just as bad to dismiss those who are rationally for him. Both have a perspective and a reason for what many on either side may consider to be their extreme opinions.
Now I haven’t watched those videos but just from what you quoted I’m worried about the rhetoric. Mentioning “violent protests” is a clear bit of false framing to villainize these people on the left, because the truth is most protesting is not violent at all, as has been abundantly obvious in this country in the last few months.
Bottom line is understanding the complexity of perspectives and opinions of people in the modern world. It’s tough when you’re in high school and people are just starting to tap into a feeling and don’t know the most rational way to express it yet. But the worst thing you can do is to dismiss someone’s perspective outright on either side of the aisle, just because it doesn’t conform to what you already believe is true about the world.
Well said. I’d add that Trump’s obvious bigotry is not merely a personal criticism, it’s a political one. He campaigned on overt bigotry–and he won because of his overt bigotry, not in spite of it. That’s unusual–we haven’t seen anyone quite like him since George Wallace. So separating the bigoted man from his policies (as people sometimes do discussing Richard Nixon, Woodrow Wilson, etc) is pretty much impossible. That makes political discussions difficult when your starting position is that white supremacy is too far out to take seriously, and I’m afraid that’s a reasonable starting point.
It also doesn’t help that your standard sensitive white person thinks of racism as a binary thing. Either you’re completely free of racism or you’re wearing a hood. So when someone says something is racist, sensitive white person immediately jumps to the hood imagery and either says “Oh noes I’m not associating with that” or “That is ridiculous, you are wrong, you SJW”. But most everyone else sees racism as Palmolive. You’re soaking in it. You’ve been soaking in it since birth, every one of us, even SJW’s. And it’s just a matter of how aware you are of it, rather than if you’ve managed to wash it all off, because you can’t. This dismissal of SJW’s just because of different definitions of racism means that the SJW’s are, through repetitive practice, easy to dismiss even when someone actually is wearing a hood.
The collapse of the media was a global phenomenon, but it was a little more spectacular in the US. Consider the BBC–yeah, it has a bit of a stodgy conservative editorial bias, but it generally avoids the strident ideological stuff that’s common in the US. Plus you get to read about Big Cat sightings on occasion, so you get that 😉 Der Spiegel (yes, there’s an English version), kinda the same strain as the BBC really, so pretty nice. The Independent (UK) is pretty lacking the editorial restraint department, but it’s a good left-of-center counterbalance to the Beeb. Honestly wish there was a large left-leaning news source with good-quality editorial control, but haven’t found one. In the US, the Washington Post seems to be trying to stake out their position as the only large centrist media outlet, with pretty decent editorial control too, but we’ll see how long that lasts.
I’d recommend The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk) as a decent alternative source to the BBC (and the BBC News’ kowtowing down to the Conservative Party in recent years - likely for fear of cuts to it’s licence fee by them).
The Guardian is fairly unique in the UK media as it is owned by a trust and not run for profit (and any profit is invested back into the newspaper - instead of going to it’s owner or shareholders). This is to help keep a certain journalistic freedom and maintain the values of The Guardian - free from commercial or political interference.
If you really want a view from ‘left-field’, as it were, I occasionally opt for the Morning Star (http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/ & https://twitter.com/M_Star_Online), but they have a very limited budget - and whilst many pieces are written with good factual standards, obviously pieces are written from a very certain point of view 😉
Thanks, it’s been a while since I’ve browsed around. Back in the Iraq invasion days, I didn’t honestly see much difference between the Guardian and the Beeb, but that was a long time ago, the issues were very different then as well, and the Conservatives weren’t in power.
Also, a big advantage of the British media over American media. You get a whole new continent with news happening in it every day – Africa! We seem to have misplaced it over here.
We get the other anti-Clinton Reuters out here, I wish they’d use different names to avoid confusing people.
Come on don’t play naive. On the night before the last primaries, despite there not having been any votes in weeks, they suddenly create a “BREAKING NEWS STORY” that Hillary had enough delegates to win the nomination.
Of course, she already had the same number of delegates weeks earlier. Or on the contrary, none of the superdelegates had voted yet or were bound to vote for anyone yet.
But the point was they were colluding with the Clinton campaign, who had already wrapped up the nomination, to save her any possible embarrassment of losing California the next day. They were behaving just like the New York Times, The L.A. Times, NBC, CNN, and many other liberal outlets, which is a shame, because an organization like Reuters should just stick to the facts.
By Super Tuesday, Bernie had already lost the nomination, just like Clinton did in '08. They both just kept going. By the time California rolled around for their respective official primary losses, they were doing this “it’s mathematically possible” with the emphasis on mathematically and not so much on realistically. And the media played along because the media loves a horse race. If they had been truly neutral and not playing to the horse race narrative, Reuters would have called it weeks earlier, instead of, as you said, waiting for a slow news day and calling the primary then to help pick things up. Now I agree that on the issues, Reuters tends conservative, and so probably treated Clinton more favorably in policy reporting than Sanders. But the primary call? Not just late, but very late.
We get the other anti-Clinton Reuters out here, I wish they’d use different names to avoid confusing people.
Which parts are supposition?
I read the whole thing top to bottom twice in an attempt to figure that out. Everything is either uncontroversial or has well-documented sourcing.
The only thing I can see setting off anyone is this:
Allegations by U.S. intelligence agencies that Russian actors were behind hacking of senior Democratic Party operatives and spreading disinformation linger over Trump’s young presidency. Democrats charge the Russians wanted to tilt the election toward the Republican, a claim dismissed by Trump. Russia denies the allegations.
It’s treated like a he-said, she-said. You’ve got unnamed intelligence agencies and Democrats on one side, and Trump and the Russians on the other. Equally weighted, fair and balanced. They didn’t name all 17 of the intelligence agencies, to avoid tipping the field. Reuters is usually pretty conservative, but this is only a slight pro-Trump tilt.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN16Y1H6
A Russian bank under U.S. economic sanctions over Russia’s incursion into Ukraine disclosed on Monday that its executives had met Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and a top White House adviser, during the 2016 election campaign.
Kushner, 36, married to Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump, has agreed to testify to a Senate committee investigating whether Russia tried to interfere in the election.
Allegations by U.S. intelligence agencies that Russian actors were behind hacking of senior Democratic Party operatives and spreading disinformation linger over Trump’s young presidency. Democrats charge the Russians wanted to tilt the election toward the Republican, a claim dismissed by Trump. Russia denies the allegations.
But there has been no doubt that the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergei Kislyak, developed contacts among the Trump team. Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, was forced to resign on Feb. 13 after revelations that he had discussed U.S. sanctions on Russia with Kislyak and misled Vice President Mike Pence about the conversations.
This article seems to be a mish-mash of supposition and some facts, and it’s Reuters. I’ve been watching the C-span coverage of the hearings and the daily Press briefings mostly. Couterpropa.com is also a very fair on-line publication.
I have to wonder why they went through all the trouble of hiding both their real location and owner. That’s not the sort of thing you do on accident when your web admin sets up your DNS name wrong. It takes a real professional effort to conceal it.
H.A. Goodman is the guy who I believe runs and owns the site. He may do it out of his home and doesn’t want to get hacked by those that don’t like him. He writes articles for a lot of other publications too.
Ahh, that guy. The far-right Ayn Rand Republican who suddenly fell in love with Bernie just in time to launch a neverending “attack from the left” on Clinton. As a longtime Bernie supporter, I have already formed an opinion of him.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN16Y1H6
A Russian bank under U.S. economic sanctions over Russia’s incursion into Ukraine disclosed on Monday that its executives had met Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and a top White House adviser, during the 2016 election campaign.
Kushner, 36, married to Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump, has agreed to testify to a Senate committee investigating whether Russia tried to interfere in the election.
Allegations by U.S. intelligence agencies that Russian actors were behind hacking of senior Democratic Party operatives and spreading disinformation linger over Trump’s young presidency. Democrats charge the Russians wanted to tilt the election toward the Republican, a claim dismissed by Trump. Russia denies the allegations.
But there has been no doubt that the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergei Kislyak, developed contacts among the Trump team. Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, was forced to resign on Feb. 13 after revelations that he had discussed U.S. sanctions on Russia with Kislyak and misled Vice President Mike Pence about the conversations.
This article seems to be a mish-mash of supposition and some facts, and it’s Reuters. I’ve been watching the C-span coverage of the hearings and the daily Press briefings mostly. Couterpropa.com is also a very fair on-line publication.
I have to wonder why they went through all the trouble of hiding both their real location and owner. That’s not the sort of thing you do on accident when your web admin sets up your DNS name wrong. It takes a real professional effort to conceal it.
The collapse of the media was a global phenomenon, but it was a little more spectacular in the US. Consider the BBC–yeah, it has a bit of a stodgy conservative editorial bias, but it generally avoids the strident ideological stuff that’s common in the US. Plus you get to read about Big Cat sightings on occasion, so you get that 😉 Der Spiegel (yes, there’s an English version), kinda the same strain as the BBC really, so pretty nice. The Independent (UK) is pretty lacking the editorial restraint department, but it’s a good left-of-center counterbalance to the Beeb. Honestly wish there was a large left-leaning news source with good-quality editorial control, but haven’t found one. In the US, the Washington Post seems to be trying to stake out their position as the only large centrist media outlet, with pretty decent editorial control too, but we’ll see how long that lasts.
Fox News is a “legitimate” media outlet that is still mostly propaganda and nonsense. So are CNN and MSNBC. Like I said, it’s best to hear information from as many sources as possible, and then get a feel for how to filter out the noise.
Added text to my original post: Keep in mind, passing this test doesn’t mean it’s legit either. I mean, the National Enquirer passes this test, fergoodnesssakes. But if a site actually manages to fail, just walk away. Counterpropa, for example.
That said, news outlets shouldn’t be expected to be neutral. They can have and share opinions, and readers/viewers should be aware of those opinions. It’s when those opinions get in the way of reporting facts that it begins to be a problem. i.e. I don’t like how the New York Times has a pretty strong rightward lean these days, but they’re allowed to hold those positions. That’s much less of an issue than the overall decline in the quality of journalism. And you’re giving Fox News way too much credit–one of their local affiliates went to court (and won) over the right to deliberately misinform their viewers… but they are still a Fox affiliate, so I guess that’s not a dealbreaker.
On a practical front, you can use http://www.scamadviser.com to look up info on any site, to see if the site’s real location or the identity of its owner is being hidden–both of these are pretty serious red flags. If a site is hiding its real location and its owner’s identity, it’s pretty safe to assume it’s a scam/propaganda outlet until proven otherwise.
Keep in mind, passing this test doesn’t mean it’s legit either. But if it fails, just walk away.
Just because the election’s over doesn’t mean we get a break from the propaganda. I take small comfort in that at least some propagandists decide the paycheck isn’t worth it anymore.
“I can’t be a 24-hour cheerleader for Hezbollah, Moscow, Tehran, Beijing, and Trump anymore. It’s wrong. Period. I know it gets you views now, but it will kill your brand over the long run,” Lokey texted Ivandjiiski. “This isn’t a revolution. It’s a joke.”
Me neither. I just made a Pootie Tang joke because nobody else was going to. It’s the burden I carry.
Biddies? You still bad, I see.
I am seeing reports that Manafort, Stone, Page have all written letters to the Congressional Committee offering their testimony in the Russian/Campaign Surveillance investigation. This could turn out to be quite a wild time to be alive.
http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/testify-manafort-stone-page-russia-trump/2045/
My money’s on it being a triple display of being shocked, shocked that there was ever any espionage going on in there. And there wasn’t any espionage anyway. And Flynn was behind all of it. And we don’t recall.