Attacks actually happened at 6 different trump rallies.
Yes, and as it turns out, they were likely attacks provoked and/or engineered by Clinton's political machine.
But the real issue was trump offering to cover legal expenses and encouraging violence.
No, the real issue is Hillary's organization hiring goons to cause violent disturbances at Trump rallies. That's in addition to the already frequent left-wing violence at progressive and social justice-related protests, which is also caused by Hillary's (and Sander's) rhetoric.
The Democrats really are behaving more and more like the Nazi party: violent demonstrations and violent disruptions of the political events of their opponents.
These are the idiots who are likely going to win the election, start a cyber war with Russia, and be privy to the innermost secrets of our government. And instead of resigning, Hillary goes on whining about it's all Trump's fault.
For Hillary, it's never Hillary's fault, it's always a Russian conspiracy, or a vast right wing conspiracy, or bad luck, or "I didn't do it", or... WDATPDIM?
Yes, the Saudis gave about $10 million for the Clinton Presidential Library. But they gave the same amount for George H. W. Bush's library.
Yes... and Bush was also a corrupt, war mongering loser, just like Hillary. Republican primary voters were so pissed off with the Republican party establishment, presenting them with yet another panel of dynastic successors like that. It's unfortunate that their only option was Trump, but I supposed they had to make due with what they got. Unfortunately, Democrats ended up largely goose-stepping behind Hillary, instead of kicking her tired ass to the curb and voting for Sanders.
You do realise that Qatar and Saudi Arabia are two different countries yeah?
You do realize that the Saudis have given tons of money to the Clintons too, right?
And many millions of those donations weren't even for helping children in Africa, they were for letting the Clintons build a monument to themselves, the Clinton Presidential Library, which makes it even worse.
his support for an erratic, racist demagogue has outraged many of their employees and partners
So, support for a corrupt, lying manipulator shouldn't be cause for outrage? Because that's the only realistic alternative in this election. We have two horrible candidates running. If you don't see that and hurl epithets at people who make a different choice from you, the problem is with you.
...Isn't this exactly the way a representative of the people should act?
In short, no. In a representative democracy, our representatives are supposed to deliberate and study issues in detail, explain their views to the people, and then make decisions, taking into account both what their constituents want and what they themselves conclude is the right thing to do. And those decisions may sometimes be different from their personal beliefs.
So, it is fine to say "I believe in gay marriage, and here is why, but as your representative, I am not going to vote for it until I have convinced you." Or "I believe in gay marriage, and here is why, but political reality forces me to compromise... and here is why".
What is not OK is to say "I am going to lie to you about my positions to get into power, and then I'm going to do what I think is best for your interests." That is Hillary's approach, and it is not how a representative democracy is supposed to work.
Well, I think there is plenty wrong with being an opportunist, and I have been able to take advantage of opportunities without sacrificing ethical principles.
Also, my company provides BOTH a guaranteed both a guaranteed benefit pension plan, AND a 401K plan
Well, and as you're discovering, it places shackles on you. You'd have more freedom to act if the pension plan was replaced by cash or stock grants.
IBM got out of the PC business when Dell and Gateway built PC-compatibles cheaper. Now they're starving
No, they are not "starving". They got out of the PC business when it became a low margin business, a good decision.
Why would this be any different today than it was two decades ago?
Apple isn't selling server hardware anymore (they already failed in that market once).
As for Apple's desktops, they should get out of that market entirely because they won't be able to make the margins they are accustomed to in the future.
But hey, go ahead and tell us why women shouldn't have the choice how to spend their lives? See how that works.
They should have a choice. What does that have to do with federal funding for Planned Parenthood? Are you saying that the only way people have a choice in anything is if the federal government funds it?
Not a Hillary fan, but you would at least hope that politicians are able to change their minds when the general public changes their minds as well. Do you really want a politician out there who say "I was in favor eugenics in 1936, and I'm not going to change my mind just because it's 2016!"
Unfortunately, politicians really haven't changed that much, only the labels. Many of the same ideas behind eugenics and racial segregation still bedevil 21st century politics in the US and Europe.
Well, politicians change opinions often. Even Trump who is only marginally a politician. However most politicians change their opinions when public opinions change. Trump on the other hand changes his opinions every time he wakes up from a nap.
You're missing the point here. Rarely politicians hold deep convictions and govern by them; that's a reasonable thing, just as it is reasonable when their convictions change; those don't tend to survive in politics. Often politicians state opinions mainly because their pollsters and advisors say them that doing so will maximize their success; when these people change their public opinions, it's an attempt at manipulation; that's the category Hillary Clinton is in. Yet other politicians will just say whatever comes to mind, with no filter, and won't have a consistent message at all; that's Trump for you. Which of the latter two is worse everybody needs to decide for themselves.
She's consistently careful and calculating, not the sort who would take on huge risky projects.
No, she won't take on "risky projects". Instead, under Clinton, we can look forward to a gradual erosion of civil liberties and a gradual increase of handouts to big business, unions, non-profits, the health care industry and Wall St, and she will be very good at making that happen.
Trump will get into shouting matches with both parties and not get much of anything done. He's lucky if he gets a supreme court justice appointed and his budgets passed. He'll be a do-nothing caretaker for the next four years while the country can figure out how to dig ourselves out of this mess.
Our election is, once again, between A) "candidate who says what I like to hear, but probably won't do it" and B) "candidate who says what I hate and will certainly do it".
It's more complicated than that for me.
Clinton's political program is a mixed bag for me: there are some good policies in there, and some horrible policies. I don't know which of those she actually wants to enact, and which ones are just political theater. Her program is so bloated that it's anybody's guess what she will actually do. I do know that she has the political power to push through things she cares about.
Trump's actual political program (rather than his rhetoric) seems less extreme to me than Clinton's. The parts I disagree with are mostly in areas I don't care about. Most importantly, he is so politically weak that he won't be able to do much anyway.
On balance, I think Clinton loses in that comparison as the riskier choice.
Also, don't Supreme Court judges change their mind based on popular opinion? (e.g., gay marriage)
Yes, conservative judges might reverse gay marriage, and that would be unfortunate. But Clinton's appointees would likely impose serious limits on free speech, civil liberties, and business, and that would be very harmful to the country. Fear of the kind of justices Clinton would appoint is another big reason I won't vote for her.
Ah! But the question is -- is that same gay man or lesbian a bigger or smaller fool if they vote for Trump? That's where this election is at...
That is a good question. From a gay and lesbian point of view, I see little practical difference between the two candidates.
As for other policies, instead of listening to the shrill rhetoric and insults, I suggest just looking at the issues and actual policies of the candidates and parties.
It's also important to realize that voting is a compromise, and that you need to decide how important an issue is to you. Thirty years ago, social liberalism was very important to me because social conservatism was a real threat; but gay rights, marriage equality, women's rights, minority rights, and abortion are reasonably secure for now, so economic issues are more important in choosing a candidate.
It's just that the connotations changed over time, making "marriage" somehow a religious thing, with "civil union" being the same thing in practice - minus the religious connotations. Thus, he switched his support for what seemed like a viable option. A bird in hand now.... It's his job to find a compromise and push a consensus in the best interest of the citizens.
Finding a compromise would mean continuing to state "I believe marriage equality is the right thing to do, but I am willing to compromise on civil unions". That's not what he did. What he said instead is say "I do not believe in marriage equality, but something weaker." Then later he said "I lied before, for strategic reasons". Accomplishing your political goals through lying about your positions isn't "compromising", it is deception and manipulation. That kind of conduct is why partisanship and rhetoric in Washington keep getting worse. That kind of conduct is also why voters don't trust politicians, because voters have to assume that what politicians say bears little resemblance to what they will eventually do.
Which party would you say has more people who would like to ban same-sex marriage?
Republicans, obviously. But same-sex marriage to me is just a "nice to have" feature, not something that I consider essential.
Trump might not want it, but I can see him giving it away in exchange for the GOP supporting one of his policies.
I don't see that situation arising. If it came to that, I certainly see Hillary trading away gay marriage or gay rights in exchange for the GOP supporting one of her policies, because that's the kind of choice she has made in the past. I think she ought to be punished for that at the ballot box, otherwise, she is just going to take the gay vote for granted.
When it comes to gay marriage, Trump might appoint supreme court justices that overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. But the issue isn't important enough to me to make it the basis for my decision. Ultimately, the question of gay marriage should be settled by law, not the courts.
But if you want to posture as a member of an oppressed subculture and get the benefits of belonging to said group, you join up and there's a whole prefab identity waiting for you to put it on.
Well, a few of decades ago, men who had sex with men and were found out really did suffer horrific oppression even in the US, and even more so abroad. Democrats, the social justice movement, and the American left were indeed quite helpful in ending that very real oppression. But now that discrimination against homosexuals is not much of a problem anymore, these people are going overboard and are starting to hurt the people they used to help.
Hillary Clinton, however, only changed her public position when it was politically beneficial to her and didn't make any difference to gay rights anymore. Given her history, any gay man or lesbian who votes for Hillary is a fool. Politicians won't stop taking advantage of us like that unless we make them pay a steep price.
Anyone who engenders hate against any group is capable of targeting you too.
Well, with Hillary "marriage is between one man and one woman", she has already targeted us.
She only changed her tune when the majority of Americans started favoring gay marriage and her strategists worked out that it was now politically expedient for her to switch her position.
And that's what all her "public positions" are like: carefully crafted messages to voting blocs; once she's in power, she won't give a fuck about any of that.
Today, Project Include, a community for building meaningful, enduring diversity and inclusion into tech companies, said that it would no longer work with Y Combinator startups.
Pao not messing with your startup sounds like a substantial benefit to me. Thiel got his money's worth right there.
Looking at Pao's staff, I'd also suggest that she work on diversity at her own company a bit before lecturing others.
This isn't to say they didn't do anything wrong, just that "there's a 0.135% chance you're not racist" shouldn't be enough for a conviction.
Actually, I think if that number were right, it is sufficient for liability in civil and/or administrative proceedings ("preponderance of the evidence"). The trouble is that it i woefully wrong.
I think you'd need to actually examine the particulars of the applicants to determine whether the chosen candidates were not actually a better choice in some way than those not chosen, but allowing the federal government to nitpick individual candidate evaluations is a can of worms
The fact that hiring is complex is one problem with these kinds of actions. But in this case, their error is even more basic: selecting the n-best candidates from a population tends to amplify even slight differences between populations, even in the absence of any bias. For example, if you randomly select the tallest, shortest, smartest, dumbest, most peaceful, or most violent individuals from a random sample of people within a nation or city, they are going to be mostly males, simply because human males have slightly more variability than human females.
I have no trouble believing that police got hostile to people with cameras. At the same time, it's also possible that the Democracy Now reporters were arrested for actually becoming violent.
The fact that the headline is so vague and weaselly makes me think that someone is trying to put a spin on it. You might as well say that they "face jail time after brushing their teeth" and they "face jail time after getting out of bed in the morning" and it would literally be true.
Politifact is saying that it hasn't been strictly proven that Clinton actually engaged in pay-for-play. There is no question that the Clinton foundation received the money while Clinton was SoS. I consider that deeply corrupt by itself. You're free to disagree.
Factcheck gets hung up on the fact that Trump said that the State Department had "veto power", which technically only the president has. They acknowledge that State Department approval was required. The fact that approval was required makes the charge of corruption even stronger, because the State Department didn't merely let the deal through through inaction, the State Department actively had to consider the deal and come to a decision. The fact that Factcheck gets this so wrong tells you only one thing: Factcheck's judgments cannot be trusted at all.
So let me get this straight. Don't trust Buzzfeed. Instead, trust "Battle Swam Blog". Got it.
Personally, I don't trust anyone; I think for myself and check the facts. I suggest you start doing the same instead of rattling off a litany of talking points.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and as it turns out, they were likely attacks provoked and/or engineered by Clinton's political machine.
No, the real issue is Hillary's organization hiring goons to cause violent disturbances at Trump rallies. That's in addition to the already frequent left-wing violence at progressive and social justice-related protests, which is also caused by Hillary's (and Sander's) rhetoric.
The Democrats really are behaving more and more like the Nazi party: violent demonstrations and violent disruptions of the political events of their opponents.
These are the idiots who are likely going to win the election, start a cyber war with Russia, and be privy to the innermost secrets of our government. And instead of resigning, Hillary goes on whining about it's all Trump's fault.
For Hillary, it's never Hillary's fault, it's always a Russian conspiracy, or a vast right wing conspiracy, or bad luck, or "I didn't do it", or ... WDATPDIM?
It's sickening.
Yes... and Bush was also a corrupt, war mongering loser, just like Hillary. Republican primary voters were so pissed off with the Republican party establishment, presenting them with yet another panel of dynastic successors like that. It's unfortunate that their only option was Trump, but I supposed they had to make due with what they got. Unfortunately, Democrats ended up largely goose-stepping behind Hillary, instead of kicking her tired ass to the curb and voting for Sanders.
So, what's your point?
You do realize that the Saudis have given tons of money to the Clintons too, right?
And many millions of those donations weren't even for helping children in Africa, they were for letting the Clintons build a monument to themselves, the Clinton Presidential Library, which makes it even worse.
So, support for a corrupt, lying manipulator shouldn't be cause for outrage? Because that's the only realistic alternative in this election. We have two horrible candidates running. If you don't see that and hurl epithets at people who make a different choice from you, the problem is with you.
In short, no. In a representative democracy, our representatives are supposed to deliberate and study issues in detail, explain their views to the people, and then make decisions, taking into account both what their constituents want and what they themselves conclude is the right thing to do. And those decisions may sometimes be different from their personal beliefs.
So, it is fine to say "I believe in gay marriage, and here is why, but as your representative, I am not going to vote for it until I have convinced you." Or "I believe in gay marriage, and here is why, but political reality forces me to compromise ... and here is why".
What is not OK is to say "I am going to lie to you about my positions to get into power, and then I'm going to do what I think is best for your interests." That is Hillary's approach, and it is not how a representative democracy is supposed to work.
Well, I think there is plenty wrong with being an opportunist, and I have been able to take advantage of opportunities without sacrificing ethical principles.
Well, and as you're discovering, it places shackles on you. You'd have more freedom to act if the pension plan was replaced by cash or stock grants.
No, they are not "starving". They got out of the PC business when it became a low margin business, a good decision.
Apple isn't selling server hardware anymore (they already failed in that market once).
As for Apple's desktops, they should get out of that market entirely because they won't be able to make the margins they are accustomed to in the future.
Perhaps if didn't call them opportunists, they'd be more interested in joining you?
Which is why many people are starting to realize that 401k's are actually a better choice.
Banks are finally meeting their match in Apple.
If we're really lucky, there will be so much infighting between the two that both Apple and banks will become irrelevant for payment processing.
It comes on floppies and CDs? That's what old people use, right?
They should have a choice. What does that have to do with federal funding for Planned Parenthood? Are you saying that the only way people have a choice in anything is if the federal government funds it?
Unfortunately, politicians really haven't changed that much, only the labels. Many of the same ideas behind eugenics and racial segregation still bedevil 21st century politics in the US and Europe.
You're missing the point here. Rarely politicians hold deep convictions and govern by them; that's a reasonable thing, just as it is reasonable when their convictions change; those don't tend to survive in politics. Often politicians state opinions mainly because their pollsters and advisors say them that doing so will maximize their success; when these people change their public opinions, it's an attempt at manipulation; that's the category Hillary Clinton is in. Yet other politicians will just say whatever comes to mind, with no filter, and won't have a consistent message at all; that's Trump for you. Which of the latter two is worse everybody needs to decide for themselves.
No, she won't take on "risky projects". Instead, under Clinton, we can look forward to a gradual erosion of civil liberties and a gradual increase of handouts to big business, unions, non-profits, the health care industry and Wall St, and she will be very good at making that happen.
Trump will get into shouting matches with both parties and not get much of anything done. He's lucky if he gets a supreme court justice appointed and his budgets passed. He'll be a do-nothing caretaker for the next four years while the country can figure out how to dig ourselves out of this mess.
It's more complicated than that for me.
Clinton's political program is a mixed bag for me: there are some good policies in there, and some horrible policies. I don't know which of those she actually wants to enact, and which ones are just political theater. Her program is so bloated that it's anybody's guess what she will actually do. I do know that she has the political power to push through things she cares about.
Trump's actual political program (rather than his rhetoric) seems less extreme to me than Clinton's. The parts I disagree with are mostly in areas I don't care about. Most importantly, he is so politically weak that he won't be able to do much anyway.
On balance, I think Clinton loses in that comparison as the riskier choice.
Yes, conservative judges might reverse gay marriage, and that would be unfortunate. But Clinton's appointees would likely impose serious limits on free speech, civil liberties, and business, and that would be very harmful to the country. Fear of the kind of justices Clinton would appoint is another big reason I won't vote for her.
That is a good question. From a gay and lesbian point of view, I see little practical difference between the two candidates.
As for other policies, instead of listening to the shrill rhetoric and insults, I suggest just looking at the issues and actual policies of the candidates and parties.
It's also important to realize that voting is a compromise, and that you need to decide how important an issue is to you. Thirty years ago, social liberalism was very important to me because social conservatism was a real threat; but gay rights, marriage equality, women's rights, minority rights, and abortion are reasonably secure for now, so economic issues are more important in choosing a candidate.
Finding a compromise would mean continuing to state "I believe marriage equality is the right thing to do, but I am willing to compromise on civil unions". That's not what he did. What he said instead is say "I do not believe in marriage equality, but something weaker." Then later he said "I lied before, for strategic reasons". Accomplishing your political goals through lying about your positions isn't "compromising", it is deception and manipulation. That kind of conduct is why partisanship and rhetoric in Washington keep getting worse. That kind of conduct is also why voters don't trust politicians, because voters have to assume that what politicians say bears little resemblance to what they will eventually do.
Republicans, obviously. But same-sex marriage to me is just a "nice to have" feature, not something that I consider essential.
I don't see that situation arising. If it came to that, I certainly see Hillary trading away gay marriage or gay rights in exchange for the GOP supporting one of her policies, because that's the kind of choice she has made in the past. I think she ought to be punished for that at the ballot box, otherwise, she is just going to take the gay vote for granted.
When it comes to gay marriage, Trump might appoint supreme court justices that overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. But the issue isn't important enough to me to make it the basis for my decision. Ultimately, the question of gay marriage should be settled by law, not the courts.
Well, a few of decades ago, men who had sex with men and were found out really did suffer horrific oppression even in the US, and even more so abroad. Democrats, the social justice movement, and the American left were indeed quite helpful in ending that very real oppression. But now that discrimination against homosexuals is not much of a problem anymore, these people are going overboard and are starting to hurt the people they used to help.
Hillary Clinton, however, only changed her public position when it was politically beneficial to her and didn't make any difference to gay rights anymore. Given her history, any gay man or lesbian who votes for Hillary is a fool. Politicians won't stop taking advantage of us like that unless we make them pay a steep price.
Well, with Hillary "marriage is between one man and one woman", she has already targeted us.
She only changed her tune when the majority of Americans started favoring gay marriage and her strategists worked out that it was now politically expedient for her to switch her position.
And that's what all her "public positions" are like: carefully crafted messages to voting blocs; once she's in power, she won't give a fuck about any of that.
Pao not messing with your startup sounds like a substantial benefit to me. Thiel got his money's worth right there.
Looking at Pao's staff, I'd also suggest that she work on diversity at her own company a bit before lecturing others.
Actually, I think if that number were right, it is sufficient for liability in civil and/or administrative proceedings ("preponderance of the evidence"). The trouble is that it i woefully wrong.
The fact that hiring is complex is one problem with these kinds of actions. But in this case, their error is even more basic: selecting the n-best candidates from a population tends to amplify even slight differences between populations, even in the absence of any bias. For example, if you randomly select the tallest, shortest, smartest, dumbest, most peaceful, or most violent individuals from a random sample of people within a nation or city, they are going to be mostly males, simply because human males have slightly more variability than human females.
I have no trouble believing that police got hostile to people with cameras. At the same time, it's also possible that the Democracy Now reporters were arrested for actually becoming violent.
The fact that the headline is so vague and weaselly makes me think that someone is trying to put a spin on it. You might as well say that they "face jail time after brushing their teeth" and they "face jail time after getting out of bed in the morning" and it would literally be true.
Politifact is saying that it hasn't been strictly proven that Clinton actually engaged in pay-for-play. There is no question that the Clinton foundation received the money while Clinton was SoS. I consider that deeply corrupt by itself. You're free to disagree.
Factcheck gets hung up on the fact that Trump said that the State Department had "veto power", which technically only the president has. They acknowledge that State Department approval was required. The fact that approval was required makes the charge of corruption even stronger, because the State Department didn't merely let the deal through through inaction, the State Department actively had to consider the deal and come to a decision. The fact that Factcheck gets this so wrong tells you only one thing: Factcheck's judgments cannot be trusted at all.
Personally, I don't trust anyone; I think for myself and check the facts. I suggest you start doing the same instead of rattling off a litany of talking points.