Silat
When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind.
Yes you do digress. That is not the whole picture. You actually think that an urban area is an economic zone unto itself? Unaffected by the country as a whole?
The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
Yes you do digress. That is not the whole picture. You actually think that an urban area is an economic zone unto itself? Unaffected by the country as a whole?
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
C'mon now....Stick around. if all we have are folks agreeing with each other this becomes cheer leading instead of a conversation or debate.
Word of advice though - if you use the word 'fact' in a post somebody is bound to ask to see your reference material.
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
Googled it and yes....actual data was used to come up with the statement made. Now that's what I'm talkin about!
yogoshio
Annoying Libertarian
It's called the Curley Affect.
"
The Curley effect is extensive. Perhaps you have seen the chain e-mail listing the ten poorest U.S. cities with a population of at least 250,000: Detroit, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Miami, St. Louis, El Paso, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Newark. Besides all having poverty rates between 24 percent and 32 percent, these cities share a common political factor: Only two have had a Republican mayor since 1961, and those two (Cincinnati and Cleveland) haven’t had one since the 1980s. Democratic mayors have had a lock on City Hall despite these once-great and prosperous cities stagnating on their watch. This is the Curley effect in action.
Let me comment on the city on that list that I know the best—Detroit. (I grew up a few miles from its city limits.) In the 1920s, Detroit was arguably the richest city in the world. Today it is broke—a shadow of its former self after 51 years of Democratic hegemony and a Curley-like agenda."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhen...ng-the-curley-effect-nationwide/#213f926f37a7
lwien
Well-Known Member
Here's another fact. As with just about EVERYTHING that is politicized, it's damn near impossible to blame one party or the other for in just about every case, both parties are to blame for things that they have done in the past that affect the present.
What are you talking about? Little room for conversation here? This is a 261 page thread filled with nothing but conversation.
If you're going to bow out of a conversation due to the blindness of some, well then I guess I have to ask, where in the hell do you go for a general conversation about anything that is totally devoid of those who are "blind"?
Are you in the minority with some of your perspectives? Yeah you are, but I have to say that without dissenting opinions and different perspectives, this thread would be a LOT less entertaining, a LOT less informative and a LOT less challenging to preconceived ideas that we ALL have so I urge you to stick around for the benefit of us all.
yogoshio
Annoying Libertarian
I apologize for the tone.
I wrecked the car last night, been super stressed out. We have company at our house and I have not been able to let down. I will edit that out. It was not the right kind of attitude, and its exactly the attitude I dislike the most in conversation.
I wrecked the car last night, been super stressed out. We have company at our house and I have not been able to let down. I will edit that out. It was not the right kind of attitude, and its exactly the attitude I dislike the most in conversation.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
Early on I was worried about Hillary running for president and the fact that they have a large foundation. I was worried that there would be some blurred lines and that everything about the Clinton Foundation needed to be an open book.
This foundation does extremely wonderful work and I would hate to see it dismantled. I would imagine they will partner up with another foundation. I don't know a lot of about it, just what I hear or read. I do think that Hillary's campaign should have realized that they needed to have a plan. If Hillary wins, the Clinton wouldn't be able to continue as the heads of their foundation. They will need to separate themselves from it.
@yogoshio when we don't agree, that forces up to bone up on our politics and look up information that we don't know about. In the end it helps us to get more educated. I thank you for that. Also anybody else that challenges our knowledge base.
Edit
Trump doesn't like to read anything long. He has never read a biography of a president. Very interesting a limited attention span ha ha.
This foundation does extremely wonderful work and I would hate to see it dismantled. I would imagine they will partner up with another foundation. I don't know a lot of about it, just what I hear or read. I do think that Hillary's campaign should have realized that they needed to have a plan. If Hillary wins, the Clinton wouldn't be able to continue as the heads of their foundation. They will need to separate themselves from it.
@yogoshio when we don't agree, that forces up to bone up on our politics and look up information that we don't know about. In the end it helps us to get more educated. I thank you for that. Also anybody else that challenges our knowledge base.
Edit
Trump doesn't like to read anything long. He has never read a biography of a president. Very interesting a limited attention span ha ha.
Last edited:
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
Sorry to hear about your car. I can only imagine what its like to need to decompress and not be able to because of company......How about a good primal scream? Tell them you stubbed your toe.
I thought Detroit's issue was the economy (I'm not going to bring up which party threw the 2008 Molotov Cocktail on the economy-oops...guess I just did) and the affect it had on the auto industry and Detroit in general. EDIT: Forgot to mention that the inferior product Detroit was putting out didn't help.
I thought Detroit's issue was the economy (I'm not going to bring up which party threw the 2008 Molotov Cocktail on the economy-oops...guess I just did) and the affect it had on the auto industry and Detroit in general. EDIT: Forgot to mention that the inferior product Detroit was putting out didn't help.
KimDracula
Well-Known Member
This isn't good enough. It's still a list of assumptions and weak correlations. I could make lots of lists about what sucks in red states but I bet you wouldn't be convinced, nor should you be by such a vague argument. What would make your argument better is to criticize particular Democrats in specific states for actual failed policies. When you try and generalize about not only a political party but all the different places over a large chunk of time your argument gets weaker.
Republicans oppose equal rights for women, trans people, non-hetero people, racial minorities, non-Christians. They oppose worker rights by always trying to kill unions that give workers the power to negotiate from a position of power. They deny federally-funded healthcare to their poor in order to show how pure they are in their hatred of all things Obama. They deny climate change and science while pushing religion in schools and government. They pretend that Christians and white people are under siege. They constantly seek to abridge voting rights while pushing the absolute myth of voter fraud. They seek to cut government revenue resulting in pain for the most vulnerable among us and expect us to believe that tax cuts for the wealthiest will somehow result in better things for all of us while ignoring the complete failure of trickle-down/supply-side economics. They shut down the government and try to keep us from paying our debts as a nation. They stop Congress from doing anything but the most basic housekeeping of government the rest of the time lest they be primaried from the Right because they dared to try and make things better under the black president. They refuse to perform their Constitutional role in filling the Supreme Court vacancy.
Last edited:
lwien
Well-Known Member
Gunky
Well-Known Member
Say what you will about urban blight, the blue areas of the country are apparently doing pretty well because they are subsidizing the red states with their taxes.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...tates-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/
http://www.businessinsider.com/red-states-are-welfare-queens-2011-8#!IpqnG
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...tates-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
Ad hominem much? He is going off of what the FBI admitted.. Like it or not, it does not change the facts that bleachbit was used by clinton to hide her shit.
KimDracula
Well-Known Member
Has he done anything except shout about Benghazi to no effect? I have no respect for the man when it comes to what he has to say regarding Hillary Clinton, at the very least.
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
Ya know, what the fuck? Are we trying to protect government data or not? Are you really suggesting that Hillary's team should have left data on her out of service computers so that someone other than its intended audience should be able to reconstruct it?Ad hominem much? He is going off of what the FBI admitted.. Like it or not, it does not change the facts that bleachbit was used by clinton to hide her shit.
You need to decide which side of the data argument you want to be on. Should government data be secure or not? If the answer is "secure", then all data needs to be made inaccessible on decommissioned computers. It really isn't hard to understand. If Hillary made a mistake here is that she left ANY data able to be reconstructed, not that she was deleting it.
ReggieB
Well-Known Member
Gowdy might not be stupid but he seems to think that a lot of people are, data shredding has been a feature of antivirus software for some time, it's available to anyone who can download it, to do the stunning task of.. wait for it.. wait for it... protecting privacy, who'd have thought that someone might have used it for that eh?Ad hominem much? He is going off of what the FBI admitted.. Like it or not, it does not change the facts that bleachbit was used by clinton to hide her shit.
It doesn't matter whether it's for gym subscription, yoga classes or anything else what's in your private emails is private and apps like bleachbit help it to stay that way, don't let anyone tell you that your privacy doesn't matter and that you shouldn't be allowed to make that choice, whether you are SoS, a fireman, a soccer mom, it's your right to choose.
Ok. you can't claim it was for security reasons when her system was installed and unprotected for months.
These were the lawyers that used bleachbit, not the IT guys. hahahha trying to hide it from the FBI before turning them over.. The FBI looks just as bad now...
Fuck this...
Last edited:
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
Alt-Right: The Suit and Tie Version of White Supremacists
by Nancy LeTourneau
August 26, 2016 9:18 AM
Yesterday during her speech in Reno, Hillary Clinton said this while talking about the fact that Donald Trump hired Stephen Bannon of Breitbart to be his campaign CEO:
When Anderson Cooper asked Trump about that, he said:
He got part of that right. A lot of people don’t know about the alt-right. But that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Kevin Drum says that is precisely why Clinton talked about them yesterday.
Bingo! In the lead-up to her speech yesterday, the press had been informed that Clinton was going to talk about this. I noticed primers on the alt-right from people like the Southern Poverty Law Center, Dave Weigel and Media Matters. If you want to educate yourself about these folks, those are a good place to start. But here’s a handy guide, what started out as white supremacists, became white nationalists, became identitarians, became alt-right.
One name that pops up a lot when describing the alt-right is someone who takes credit for coming up with those last two more “politically correct” labels – Richard Spencer. I wrote a bit about him a year ago when Evan Osnos published a fascinating article about how his travels among white supremacists had introduced him to the idea that they were celebrating the rise of Donald Trump. Here is how Osnos described Spencer:
And here is what Spencer said about the candidacy of Donald Trump way back then:
In a blog post he wrote before Clinton’s speech, Spencer suggests why he thinks Clinton will talk about them.
I wouldn’t say that Clinton “empowered” the alt-right so much as she shined a light on the dark places they inhabit. But there is a grain of truth in what he says about her trying “to force the GOP to become what it is,” at least in terms of how it exists today with Donald Trump at the helm.
by Nancy LeTourneau
August 26, 2016 9:18 AM
Yesterday during her speech in Reno, Hillary Clinton said this while talking about the fact that Donald Trump hired Stephen Bannon of Breitbart to be his campaign CEO:
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, Breitbart embraces “ideas on the extremist fringe of the conservative right. Racist ideas.
Race-baiting ideas. Anti-Muslim and anti-Immigrant ideas –– all key tenets making up an emerging racist ideology known as the ‘Alt-Right.’”
Alt-Right is short for “Alternative Right.”
The Wall Street Journal describes it as a loosely organized movement, mostly online, that “rejects mainstream conservatism, promotes nationalism and views immigration and multiculturalism as threats to white identity.”
The de facto merger between Breitbart and the Trump Campaign represents a landmark achievement for the “Alt-Right.” A fringe element has effectively taken over the Republican Party.
Race-baiting ideas. Anti-Muslim and anti-Immigrant ideas –– all key tenets making up an emerging racist ideology known as the ‘Alt-Right.’”
Alt-Right is short for “Alternative Right.”
The Wall Street Journal describes it as a loosely organized movement, mostly online, that “rejects mainstream conservatism, promotes nationalism and views immigration and multiculturalism as threats to white identity.”
The de facto merger between Breitbart and the Trump Campaign represents a landmark achievement for the “Alt-Right.” A fringe element has effectively taken over the Republican Party.
When Anderson Cooper asked Trump about that, he said:
“Nobody even knows what it is, and she didn’t know what it was. This is a term that was just given,” Trump said when CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked if he embraces the alt-right. “There is no alt-right or alt-left.”
He got part of that right. A lot of people don’t know about the alt-right. But that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Kevin Drum says that is precisely why Clinton talked about them yesterday.
…she was giving the press permission to talk about Donald Trump’s racism. So far, they’ve tiptoed around it. But once the candidate herself calls it out, it invites a thousand think pieces about Breitbart, the alt-right, the GOP’s history of tolerating bigotry, Trump’s troubling background, and dozens of other related topics. Surrogates can blather all they want about this, but it doesn’t truly become a mainstream subject until the actual candidate for president makes it one.
This is part of the agenda-setting power that presidential candidates have. Donald Trump has used it endlessly, and now Hillary Clinton is using it too. Trump has made his bed, and Hillary is making sure he has to lie in it.
This is part of the agenda-setting power that presidential candidates have. Donald Trump has used it endlessly, and now Hillary Clinton is using it too. Trump has made his bed, and Hillary is making sure he has to lie in it.
Bingo! In the lead-up to her speech yesterday, the press had been informed that Clinton was going to talk about this. I noticed primers on the alt-right from people like the Southern Poverty Law Center, Dave Weigel and Media Matters. If you want to educate yourself about these folks, those are a good place to start. But here’s a handy guide, what started out as white supremacists, became white nationalists, became identitarians, became alt-right.
One name that pops up a lot when describing the alt-right is someone who takes credit for coming up with those last two more “politically correct” labels – Richard Spencer. I wrote a bit about him a year ago when Evan Osnos published a fascinating article about how his travels among white supremacists had introduced him to the idea that they were celebrating the rise of Donald Trump. Here is how Osnos described Spencer:
Richard Spencer is a self-described “identitarian” who lives in Whitefish, Montana, and promotes “white racial consciousness.” At thirty-six, Spencer is trim and preppy, with degrees from the University of Virginia and the University of Chicago. He is the president and director of the National Policy Institute, a think tank, co-founded by William Regnery, a member of the conservative publishing family, that is “dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of European people in the United States and around the world.” The Southern Poverty Law Center calls Spencer “a suit-and-tie version of the white supremacists of old.
And here is what Spencer said about the candidacy of Donald Trump way back then:
“Trump, on a gut level, kind of senses that this is about demographics, ultimately. We’re moving into a new America.” He said, “I don’t think Trump is a white nationalist,” but he did believe that Trump reflected “an unconscious vision that white people have – that their grandchildren might be a hated minority in their own country. I think that scares us. They probably aren’t able to articulate it. I think it’s there. I think that, to a great degree, explains the Trump phenomenon.”
In a blog post he wrote before Clinton’s speech, Spencer suggests why he thinks Clinton will talk about them.
What could she be thinking in bringing our ostracized movement into the limelight?…
Hillary is trying to push the GOP into permanent minority status by empowering the Alt Right—and, believe me, she will be empowering us today. The Alt Right is, in a way, what people wrongly accuse the GOP of being: a nationalist party for White people. Hillary’s Alt Right speech will try to force the GOP to become what it is.
Hillary is trying to push the GOP into permanent minority status by empowering the Alt Right—and, believe me, she will be empowering us today. The Alt Right is, in a way, what people wrongly accuse the GOP of being: a nationalist party for White people. Hillary’s Alt Right speech will try to force the GOP to become what it is.
I wouldn’t say that Clinton “empowered” the alt-right so much as she shined a light on the dark places they inhabit. But there is a grain of truth in what he says about her trying “to force the GOP to become what it is,” at least in terms of how it exists today with Donald Trump at the helm.
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that NOBODY has come out to defend Trump from Hillary's blistering critique yesterday? NO ONE...
Hmmm...
Oops, it's not just me..............
When Silence is the Story
by Nancy LeTourneau
August 26, 2016 12:00 PM
Let’s face it – Hillary Clinton’s speech yesterday was a devastating blow to the racism that is fueling Donald Trump’s candidacy. As Kevin Drum put it, “Trump has made his bed, and Hillary is making sure he has to lie in it.” The candidate himself responded with an unhinged twitter-storm of lies and distortions. But in the wake of that agenda-setting speech, who had Trump’s back?
What did Republican Congressional leadership have to say in defense of their candidate?
Frank Thorp V ✔ @frankthorp
Recap: Asked for response to Clinton's 'alt-right' speech:
Ryan spox: "Doubt he saw it."
McConnell spox: "I don't think he saw the speech."
6:58 AM - 26 Aug 2016 · Manhattan, NY, United States
How about the Chief Strategist and Communications Director for the Republican National Committee?
Benjy Sarlin ✔ @BenjySarlin
. @seanspicer on glaring lack of GOP pols defending Trump yesterday from Clinton speech. "I don't know. I think Congress is in recess."
8:15 AM - 26 Aug 2016
Mr. Spicer had time to tweet quite a bit yesterday about Hillary’s emails and the Clinton Foundation. But he apparently joined Congress on being “in recess” when it comes to defending his party’s presidential nominee.
Could it be that Donald Trump has become so toxic that the best his party can do is embrace a strategy of “silence is golden?” Take note because this really is extraordinary in the history of presidential politics.
Hmmm...
Oops, it's not just me..............
When Silence is the Story
by Nancy LeTourneau
August 26, 2016 12:00 PM
Let’s face it – Hillary Clinton’s speech yesterday was a devastating blow to the racism that is fueling Donald Trump’s candidacy. As Kevin Drum put it, “Trump has made his bed, and Hillary is making sure he has to lie in it.” The candidate himself responded with an unhinged twitter-storm of lies and distortions. But in the wake of that agenda-setting speech, who had Trump’s back?
What did Republican Congressional leadership have to say in defense of their candidate?
Frank Thorp V ✔ @frankthorp
Recap: Asked for response to Clinton's 'alt-right' speech:
Ryan spox: "Doubt he saw it."
McConnell spox: "I don't think he saw the speech."
6:58 AM - 26 Aug 2016 · Manhattan, NY, United States
How about the Chief Strategist and Communications Director for the Republican National Committee?
Benjy Sarlin ✔ @BenjySarlin
. @seanspicer on glaring lack of GOP pols defending Trump yesterday from Clinton speech. "I don't know. I think Congress is in recess."
8:15 AM - 26 Aug 2016
Mr. Spicer had time to tweet quite a bit yesterday about Hillary’s emails and the Clinton Foundation. But he apparently joined Congress on being “in recess” when it comes to defending his party’s presidential nominee.
Could it be that Donald Trump has become so toxic that the best his party can do is embrace a strategy of “silence is golden?” Take note because this really is extraordinary in the history of presidential politics.
Last edited:
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
@cybrguy - I'll be curious to see if the evening shows on Fox Business News (6 to 7pm and Dobbs 7 to 8pm) refer to HRCs speech. Dobbs in particular has no problem blowing chunks of vitriol based distorted facts into the TV. If Dobbs passes on a response everyone else would be hiding in a closet.
I've only watched the shows twice...I had to watch it a second time to see if my eyes and ears were playing tricks the first time.
I've only watched the shows twice...I had to watch it a second time to see if my eyes and ears were playing tricks the first time.
gangababa
Well-Known Member
This story to point out the inherent nature of Republican obstructionizm of the needs of our country.
Republicans Give Up On Trump And Work On Plan To Obstruct President Hillary Clinton
"Republicans operatives on the Hill, for instance, are already planning to block Clinton’s agenda by strategically targeting individual Democratic senators who will be up for reelection in 2018."
And all have been under corporate control. Pull out the factories and send them elsewhere, originally the sun-belt, now any next cheapest place.
Meanwhile many sad Kansas towns have been blighted by Republican think-tanking failures of governance for the corporations (Walmart anyone?).
Oh, so it was the Mayors who kicked out the industrial base. And then stopped fixing the roads because corporation rubber-promises bounced. (Corporate people are the reverse of humans, so success bounces off us(a) and sticks to them).
Urban planning plays some role in keeping or taxing companies. Offer the lowest taxes, the least regulation and actually public subsidies and you too can bleed your neighbor's town till their factory- now yours- soon to be elsewhere- moves and closes because planned obsolescence and waste counts as GDP.
... Like it or not, it does not change the facts that bleachbit was used by clinton to hide her shit.
Ah, the bit of bleachbitbit spin, seems to be another sign of Gowdy's pout, not shrewd prosecutorial wisdom. He must think all of USA are Fox fools.
CNN reports, "Rep. Gowdy made BleachBit seem like the nuclear warhead of file deletion when he told Fox News, “She and her lawyers had those emails deleted. And they didn’t just push the delete button; they had them deleted where even God can’t read them. They were using something called BleachBit. You don’t use BleachBit for yoga emails or bridemaids emails. When you’re using BleachBit, it is something you really do not want the world to see.”
The problem is that Bleachbit is a free online tool that doesn’t do what Republicans are claiming it does."
"It looks like the type of tool someone would run who's conscious of cleaning old crud off their system," Zdziarski said. "Someone trying to cover their tracks would likely pay for and use a much more expensive, specialized data destruction tool."
Thankfully this particular canard has been previously addressed above.
From their site.. Free or not..
"Shred files to hide their contents and prevent data recovery
Shred any file (such as a spreadsheet on your desktop)
Overwrite free disk space to hide previously deleted files"
We disagree here. Spin it how you want. It looks fucking bad to me.
It seems you guys can justify ANYTHING if you try hard enough.
"Shred files to hide their contents and prevent data recovery
Shred any file (such as a spreadsheet on your desktop)
Overwrite free disk space to hide previously deleted files"
We disagree here. Spin it how you want. It looks fucking bad to me.
It seems you guys can justify ANYTHING if you try hard enough.
ReggieB
Well-Known Member
It's a privacy tool, nothing more nothing less, if you want to read more into it, that's fine it's your choice to spin your interpretation exactly how you want to, it looks bad to you because you want it to, not one person has denied that it's used to delete files and stop other people from being able to recover them, what do you expect a file deletion program to do? how exactly would you protect your private files from someone else reading them after you've deleted them?