Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, March 07, 2016

OTP - 2016 March 7: Obama will take in a baseball game during his visit to Cuba

President Obama’s historic trip to Cuba later this month will include some baseball diplomacy, the White House said Tuesday.

The president will attend a March 22 exhibition baseball game between the Tampa Bay Rays and the Cuban national team during his brief trip to the island nation. The restoration of diplomatic relations with Cuba and the reopening of the U.S. Embassy after more than 50 years has been touted by the White House as a key part of Obama’s foreign-policy legacy.

Sure it is great he is visiting Cuba, but his drone policy is terrible. There is a bunch of other stuff we are supposed to denounce, so consider them bad.

Bitter Mouse, Space Tyrant Posted: March 07, 2016 at 08:41 AM | 2416 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: cuba, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 25 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›
   1. zonk Posted: March 07, 2016 at 10:14 AM (#5170734)
Until the short-fingered vulgarian is banished back to his pyrite Versailles for good, I feel it's critical that every OTP thread start with:

CLOWN HITLER!
   2. BDC Posted: March 07, 2016 at 10:21 AM (#5170736)
Disavowal Checklist:

Drones
Hillary's e-mail
Robert Byrd
LBJ
FDR
Woodrow Wilson
Andrew Jackson
No True Scotsman arguments
The 2016 short season of the X-Files, except for the one where the lizard guy turned into a human
   3. gef, more dangerous than a monkey w/ a razor blade Posted: March 07, 2016 at 10:27 AM (#5170741)
The 2016 short season of the X-Files, except for the one where the lizard guy turned into a human


You ... you reactionary. The trans community was having conniptions over that one on FB the next day.
   4. Ron J2 Posted: March 07, 2016 at 10:40 AM (#5170752)
#2798 Rousey never made a serious commitment to take the fight to the ground. She wanted to win a standup fight -- probably because she was tired of all of the "one trick pony" (armbar submission -- she's absurdly good at that) comments.

Tate by contrast just wanted to win and wanted no part of a standup with the standup expert.

Rousey's beaten Tate twice on the ground, though they were the most competitive fights of her career.
   5. bobm Posted: March 07, 2016 at 10:42 AM (#5170753)
Sure it is great he is visiting Cuba, but his drone policy is terrible. There is a bunch of other stuff we are supposed to denounce, so consider them bad.


Well done. Keep up the good work. :)
   6. zonk Posted: March 07, 2016 at 10:44 AM (#5170755)
Suspect still at large, but a pastor who delivered an invocation for Ted Cruz was shot and critically wounded in Idaho over the weekend...

No background yet on motive or persuasion of the shooter, but I fear that sadly - this probably isn't going to be the last such incident this cycle.
   7. BrianBrianson Posted: March 07, 2016 at 10:53 AM (#5170763)
Okay, there are probably enough Americans who would support a total gun ban to organize a flag football game. That was hyperbole - exaggeration for comic effect. If I'd known you'd be so literal, I'd have said Canadian football game.
   8. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 10:53 AM (#5170764)

Remember when Andy was touting Jim Webb as a candidate?

Democrat Jim Webb: I Would Not Vote For Hillary Clinton, But Maybe Trump?
   9. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:01 AM (#5170768)
They would agree because they'd be able to see through BS such as the above being spewed. The party asked for a commitment from him when they knew they'd turn around and try to screw him anyway. Which is exactly what we've seen happen.

See what I mean about shilling? The party asked for a commitment from everyone -- including him -- that they would support the eventual nominee, whoever it was. And, despite #NeverTrump from so many pundits, all the candidates in the race have committed to supporting him if he is the nominee. The other candidates trying to defeat him is not "screwing" him. This is just repeated stupid by you. The party has done nothing to Trump. It hasn't threatened not to seat his delegates. It hasn't excluded him from debates. It hasn't changed the rules in any way. (It did do that to Ron Paul in 2012. Not that Paul was going to win, but they made sure he wouldn't even be heard.) It hasn't denounced him (as, e.g., the state party did when David Duke won the nomination for Louisiana governor) or endorsed one of the other candidates.


This is 100% BS. The party has been working behind the scenes to prevent him from winning -- making phone calls, pulling various levers to try to get people in the party -- as well as pundit "outsiders" -- to speak out against him, exerting pressure over the candidates to drop out or form alliances depending on the game state of the race, etc.

Nobody sane believes this isn't happening. It's all anyone's been talking about or writing about. It's taken as a given. (e.g., Ezra Klein: "The Fact that The GOP Establishment Is "Organizing" Against Him, "Is Becoming A Boon For Trump""). Except that you deny the undeniable, because #NeverTrump.

If Trump gets a majority of delegates, he will be given the GOP nomination. If he doesn't, he has no reasonable basis to whine about being "screwed."


Being screwed is always a reasonable basis to whine about being screwed.

But it's quite clear that even if he reaches the 1237 they will consider how to try to take it away from them -- and if they think they can pull it off without the walls crashing in, they'll do it.

Not sure which planet you're living on.

"Fair and square?" After the party pulled out all the stops to prevent him from getting to 1237?

And by the party pulling out all the stops, you mean the opposing candidates -- not the party -- trying to convince voters not to vote for him. Which, yes, is entirely fair and square. (What "stops" are they "pulling out"?)


No, I mean the party pulling out all the stops. For the answer to "what stops?" see above.
   10. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:01 AM (#5170769)
Zonk, Clinton did in fact say that Muslims have nothing to do with terrorism. In context it's clear that she was using "no true Scotsman" logic (incidentally directly after 9/11 Mullah Omar offered up much the same definition in asserting that it couldn't have been Muslims -- Bin Laden in particular -- behind 9/11. Evidently he changed his mind or had some idiosyncratic definition that made the Taliban's actions OK. We're all good at coming up with rationalizations)

"Let's be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism."

In the same speech she also warned against establishing a connection between worldwide Islamic terror networks and Islam. So it's not like she was ever blind to the notion that there are organized terror groups operating in the name of Islam. As I said, NTS logic.


Umm, Ron? NTS isn't "logic;" it's a fallacy. That's the whole point of it.

Anyway, on the matter at hand:

Bill Maher: "If Americans Have To Choose Between A Party That Won't Even Say 'Islamic Terrorism' And Trump, They'll Choose Trump."

   11. Brian C Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:02 AM (#5170770)
This is 100% BS. The party has been working behind the scenes to prevent him from winning -- making phone calls, pulling various levers to try to get people in the party -- as well as pundit "outsiders" -- to speak out against him, exerting pressure over the candidates to drop out or form alliances depending on the game state of the race, etc.

As far as getting screwed goes, this is weaker than a single teabag in a 500-gallon vat. "People are making phone calls advocating against him or trying to get loser candidates to drop out" - this is pretty much the most typical conduct ever, and inherent to a competitive primary.

Seriously, this constitutes getting screwed? Really?

I mean ... really?
   12. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:02 AM (#5170771)
The issue, of course, is that this ain't actually how suicides works (apart from with terminally ill patients). Attention seekers will continue to seek attention until they get it, but they don't shoot themselves (for the obvious reason). Successful suicides are far more like extremely powerful brain farts than choices - if you intervene, the person doesn't just go do it the next day . see, e.g.

So, it's actually far more like being killed as a bystander in a shooting, or in an accident, than it is like a real choice. But then you have people like Ray living totally outside of reality, thinking if you assembled everyone in America who'd support a total ban on guns they could even play a match of touch-football rejecting it. So perhaps facts aren't the right way to go.


Even assuming your premise for the sake of argument, this makes no sense. Nor does it respond to the argument I'm making, which is that the primary societal concern is to protect victims of gun violence at the hands of others -- not by their own hand.

And indeed that's what everyone arguing for gun control pretends the issue is -- until they cite bogus statistics and then when the inevitable pushback comes ("umm, you're lumping suicides in there") they pretend such rationale is valid.
   13. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:07 AM (#5170776)
As far as getting screwed goes, this is weaker than a single teabag in a 500-gallon vat. "People are making phone calls advocating against him or trying to get loser candidates to drop out" - this is pretty much the most typical conduct ever, and inherent to a competitive primary.


One can argue over whether that's "getting screwed" or not.

David seems to be arguing that it isn't happening.
   14. zonk Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:07 AM (#5170777)
Until the GOP actually pulls Ron Paul-esque chicanery with delegates or something, Trump is really just whining about being screwed... smart whining, of course - and the #nevertrump plays into his campaign hands (i.e., so by all means, he should whine about it... it's a winning whine).

But the idea that the GOPe should just fall in line behind Winner Dear Leader is stupid.
   15. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:08 AM (#5170778)
Nobody sane believes this isn't happening. It's all anyone's been talking about or writing about. It's taken as a given. (e.g., Ezra Klein: "The Fact that The GOP Establishment Is "Organizing" Against Him, "Is Becoming A Boon For Trump""). Except that you deny the undeniable, because #NeverTrump.
The so-called "GOP Establishment" != the party. Mitt Romney is not Reince Priebus.

(Anyway, if it's actually a 'boon' for Trump, how exactly would it constitute screwing him?)

Being screwed is always a reasonable basis to whine about being screwed.

But it's quite clear that even if he reaches the 1237 they will consider how to try to take it away from them -- and if they think they can pull it off without the walls crashing in, they'll do it.
"Clear" doesn't mean what you think it means. "Quite clear" even less so. There is zero chance that he will not be the nominee if he gets a majority of delegates.

No, I mean the party pulling out all the stops. For the answer to "what stops?" see above.
Oh, they're making speeches against him! That's kind of like a military coup or assassination attempt or rigging an election with fake ballots or something.
   16. Mefisto Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:09 AM (#5170779)
I don't think anyone wants to confiscate the military's firearms, and very very few would forbid police from having them.


Well, I'd take them away from the cops too, but only after I took them from everyone else (other than military) first. I suspect my baseball game -- I hate football -- would be a bit lonely, though.
   17. Ron J2 Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:11 AM (#5170781)
#10 Of course Maher misses one thing: Even in the speech that we've been talking about, Clinton explicitly mentions "Islamic terror networks" and ISIS' Caliphate.
   18. BrianBrianson Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:11 AM (#5170782)
Nor does it respond to the argument I'm making, which is that the primary societal concern is to protect victims of gun violence at the hands of others -- not by their own hand.

This isn't an "argument", it's an "assertion".

It's probably almost the most valid argument. There's an obviously bogus rhetorical device of separating "gun violence" from "not-gun violence", especially when comparing the United States to other countries. But most gun-murders would become knife-murders or chainsaw-murders or whatever, most gun-suicides become not-suicides. Suicides are where gun control is likely to make the biggest difference. And since such people often (but not remotely always) chose to buy the gun, perhaps they're not 100% blameless, but they're far closer to someone dying of a largely preventable disease than someone making a choice where the method is happenstance.
   19. BDC Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:12 AM (#5170783)
I always assume that people who are against gun restrictions actually approve of gun violence. Suicide, domestic abuse, escalations of petty crime, accident, horseplay, children finding guns: well, the warrant goes, it should be a dangerous world, Darwnian and with harsh consequences for lapses in self-control. It makes it very difficult to argue the point. What can you say, exactly – any premise that safety should be a priority is just alien to gun culture; there's no common ground with anti-gun positions.
   20. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:16 AM (#5170785)
Well, I'd take them away from the cops too, but only after I took them from everyone else (other than military) first. I suspect my baseball game -- I hate football -- would be a bit lonely, though.
I could see a policy where the police don't routinely carry them -- perhaps they're only issued to select cops, or perhaps cops have to store them in their patrol car trunks and only get them out in specific situations¹ -- but would you actually ban every police force from possessing guns?


¹The initial Paris police response during the Charlie Hebdo attack was forced to retreat because they were unarmed.
   21. Mefisto Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:17 AM (#5170786)
@2: You forgot Norway. Also BENGHAZI!!!!!!
   22. zonk Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:18 AM (#5170787)
   23. Mefisto Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:18 AM (#5170788)
I could see a policy where the police don't routinely carry them -- perhaps they're only issued to select cops, or perhaps cops have to store them in their patrol car trunks and only get them out in specific situations¹ -- but would you actually ban every police force from possessing guns?


More like the "select cops" thing, and even those cops wouldn't carry them regularly, but would take them from storage when the criminal was known to be armed.
   24. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:19 AM (#5170789)
#10 Of course Maher misses one thing: Even in the speech that we've been talking about, Clinton explicitly mentions "Islamic terror networks" and ISIS' Caliphate.


Relevance?
   25. Joe Bivens, Floundering Pumpkin Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:21 AM (#5170791)
But it's quite clear that even if he reaches the 1237 they will consider how to try to take it away from them -- and if they think they can pull it off without the walls crashing in, they'll do it.


Spoken like a True Believer.
   26. Brian C Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:26 AM (#5170793)
"Clear" doesn't mean what you think it means. "Quite clear" even less so. There is zero chance that he will not be the nominee if he gets a majority of delegates.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "zero chance". If he wins a majority of delegates with an underwhelming plurality of votes - less than 40%, say - I would say there's a less-than-zero chance that there would be chicanery to deny him the nomination. I don't think it's in any way likely, either that he gets a majority with such a small plurality, or that he would get screwed out of the nomination if he does. It would be the last, desperate act of an imploding party. But I don't think the chances are zero, either; in that kind of scenario, there would be widespread panic throughout the party ranks, from donors to party operatives to the majority of rank-and-file voters that are horrified at giving the party reigns to Trump.

Of course, if that happens, then Ray can say Trump is getting screwed and I'll have no quibble. I think even I would be a little uneasy with it, and the last thing I am is a Republican or Trump supporter.
   27. Ishmael Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:27 AM (#5170794)
If we lived in a world in which we were surrounded by yawning, bottomless chasms on a daily basis, I imagine the suicide rate would be higher than it currently is.

In that world, there would be people arguing that those who step into the void do so only after considered deliberation and would, in a world where they were not constantly assailed by giddying, fathomless depths, simply choose another method of suicide.

That's a slightly separate question than whether it should be the government's business to try to limit suicide by limiting opportunity. But to deny that opportunity is a factor is pretty desperate stuff.

Admittedly, as BrianBrianson says, people do choose to buy the guns in the first place. But typically they don't do so intending suicide.
   28. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:28 AM (#5170795)
Come back in October and count how many times you see sound bites of these debates, or screeds on the campaign trail, being used against Trump or Cruz by the Democrats, and then tell us that they have no effect.

Tell you what: why don't you go back to 2012 and find all the sound bites from debates being used against Romney, okay?


Yes, the Democrats never were able to use Romney's "self-deportation" comment against him. Not once. That had nothing to do with the fact that the GOP's share of the Latino vote dropped to an all time low.

Somewhere underneath your blustering, you're trying to make some sort of technical point where I have to prove my case by counting the number of Democratic attack ads that showed the actual clip of that Florida primary debate, but the only substantive point is that the legacy of these Republican debates will live on during the general election campaign, and it will help to seal their fate.

   29. Brian C Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:29 AM (#5170796)
Relevance?

Not to speak for Ron J2, but the relevance is that this line of attack against Clinton rests on the implication that she is unconcerned with terrorists, when the actual context proves just the opposite.
   30. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:36 AM (#5170797)
Somewhere underneath your blustering, you're trying to make some sort of technical point where I have to prove my case by counting the number of Democratic attack ads that showed the actual clip of that Florida primary debate, but the only substantive point is that the legacy of these Republican debates will live on during the general election campaign, and it will help to seal their fate.
I'm trying to make some sort of technical point that you made a claim and the claim was false.

(And, once again, other than amnesty, self-deportation is the liberal position on illegal immigration.)
   31. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:37 AM (#5170798)
<blockquote>Not to speak for Ron J2, but the relevance is that this line of attack against Clinton rests on the implication that she is unconcerned with terrorists, when the actual context proves just the opposite.


No; the argument against her is that she's not a serious person.

She's either lying when she says Muslims have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism, or she's delusional. Of course, the answer is the former: she's a liar. (Big shock there.) And she's lying for political/ideological/PC purposes, which means she's not serious about addressing the issue at hand, i.e., terrorism.

One cannot seriously address a problem if one refuses to properly diagnose/acknowledge what the problem is.
   32. Greg K Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:38 AM (#5170799)
Not to speak for Ron J2, but the relevance is that this line of attack against Clinton rests on the implication that she is unconcerned with terrorists, when the actual context proves just the opposite.

I think it's more a case of arguing that the Democratic Party isn't a party that refuses to say "Islamic terrorism" by pointing out that Clinton said "Islamic terror networks" in that speech.

You can argue that Trump has an edge on the Democratic Party in that he can paint them as soft on terrorism, but Maher's specific statement is untrue.
   33. Ron J2 Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:39 AM (#5170801)
#29 That would be the meta point. The more literal one is that Maher asserted that Democrats "Won't Even Say 'Islamic Terrorism'" and in fact Clinton used the phrase, "worldwide Islamic terror networks".

If that's not good enough for somebody then there's no point in talking to that person.

   34. zonk Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:39 AM (#5170802)
I really do not see EITHER party "taking the nomination away" from any candidate that manages to win a majority of pledged delegates - or even a plurality-near-majority. I don't know what that line is - 49%? 47%? 45%?

But - between the internet and the cable news focusing on the delegate counts so heavily, it's just not possible anymore. It's party suicide.

However, I think there IS a line on the plurality front... and as I said above, I'm not sure what that line is. My guess is that it's somewhere in the 40-45% range. I think Trump is sitting at about 43% now, no?

The coming WTA contests will probably clarify - but I do think Trump needs to get to say, 48% (if he doesn't get to 1237).
   35. Ron J2 Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:40 AM (#5170803)
Ray you've gone off the deep end.
   36. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:47 AM (#5170805)
#10 Of course Maher misses one thing: Even in the speech that we've been talking about, Clinton explicitly mentions "Islamic terror networks" and ISIS' Caliphate.

Not to mention that anyone who actually believes that Clinton doesn't care about Islamic terrorism is also likely to believe that she set up her private email server in order to pass the minutes of cabinet meetings on to her allies in Tehran.
   37. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:49 AM (#5170806)
#29 That would be the meta point. The more literal one is that Maher asserted that Democrats "Won't Even Say 'Islamic Terrorism'" and in fact Clinton used the phrase, "worldwide Islamic terror networks".

If that's not good enough for somebody then there's no point in talking to that person.


I agree as far as that goes, but you're being far too literal. Maher et al have picked up on something. And what they have picked up on is statements from Democrats such as Hillary's Muslims "have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism." Surely you're not denying that Hillary said that. So you can't be denying that Maher et al have picked up on something. And, yet, you seem to be.
   38. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:50 AM (#5170809)
Ray you've gone off the deep end.


Uh huh.

   39. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:52 AM (#5170812)
#29 That would be the meta point. The more literal one is that Maher asserted that Democrats "Won't Even Say 'Islamic Terrorism'" and in fact Clinton used the phrase, "worldwide Islamic terror networks".

If that's not good enough for somebody then there's no point in talking to that person.


What, you mean you don't think you can ever convince Ray that Hillary's a more serious candidate than Donald Trump? O ye of little faith!
   40. BDC Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:54 AM (#5170813)
Yes, Ray, it seems to me you object to Clinton acknowledging that the US isn't actually at war with a world religion.

It's an extremely complicated situation. Numerous Muslim-majority states are US allies and trading partners, and there are a couple of million peaceful and happy Muslims in the US. Do you want Clinton to join Trump and others in characterizing all Muslims as enemies? That's counterproductive at the level of basic diplomacy and civility.

She could have expressed herself considerably better, but she has a responsibility to balance her comments – just as Obama has and just as Bush did.
   41. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:55 AM (#5170814)
What, you mean you don't think you can ever convince Ray that Hillary's a more serious candidate than Donald Trump? O ye of little faith!


Hillary Clinton
✔ ‎‎@HillaryClinton

"Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism
."


You don't get to say such lunacy and then claim that you're more serious than Donald Trump.
   42. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:58 AM (#5170815)
She could have expressed herself considerably better,


She lied. And it wasn't only in a tweet that went out; it was in a written, prepared speech she made. Nor was the tweet sent out sort of haphazardly, without enough thought beforehand; the tweet was a quotation from her prepared comments from the speech.
   43. BDC Posted: March 07, 2016 at 11:59 AM (#5170816)
Ray, indeed, she phrased something poorly, and then compounded it by tweeting the poor phrase – in the midst of a speech that says exactly what you and Bill Maher want her to say.

Whereas it's a miracle when Trump makes the occasional isolated coherent remark :)
   44. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:02 PM (#5170817)
I really do not see EITHER party "taking the nomination away" from any candidate that manages to win a majority of pledged delegates - or even a plurality-near-majority. I don't know what that line is - 49%? 47%? 45%?
Well, in the case of the Democrats this year, there are only two candidates, so there's no such thing as a plurality-near-majority. That's a very different scenario than on the Republican side. (There are also many fewer unpledged delegates on the GOP side; they didn't put in a superdelegate failsafe the way the Democrats did.) So on the Democratic side, I'm not sure you're right; if one person were 50 pledged delegates ahead with 700 unpledged, they could go the other way. (The media is complicit in making it seem like Hillary is way ahead by including all the unpledged superdelegates in her tally on an ongoing basis.) But I agree with your point that Ray is being paranoid. If Trump is clearly a distance away from winning, then they won't support him, but if he's close to winning, 'the party' won't stop him. I doubt they could even if they wanted to. After the first ballot, delegates can do what they want, and if he were at 49%, he'd pick up enough votes no matter what 'the party' wanted.
   45. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:02 PM (#5170818)
Ray, indeed, she phrased something poorly,


She lied.
   46. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:02 PM (#5170819)
Somewhere underneath your blustering, you're trying to make some sort of technical point where I have to prove my case by counting the number of Democratic attack ads that showed the actual clip of that Florida primary debate, but the only substantive point is that the legacy of these Republican debates will live on during the general election campaign, and it will help to seal their fate.

I'm trying to make some sort of technical point that you made a claim and the claim was false.


Well, here was my original claim, in the form of a rhetorical question:

Has any party in recent memory so completely done their opponents' work for them in providing them with an endless supply of general election campaign fodder?


Judging by your repeated comments in previous threads, they've certainly helped reinforce your decision to vote for Hillary Clinton. I doubt if that decision of yours was prompted by anything she's said on her own.

(And, once again, other than amnesty, self-deportation is the liberal position on illegal immigration.)

Do tell. But if it's not too much to ask, could you provide the names of say, maybe 2 or 3 actual liberals who've spoken out in favor of the Romney position?

   47. Bitter Mouse, Space Tyrant Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:03 PM (#5170821)
You don't get to say such lunacy and then claim that you're more serious than Donald Trump.


Confirmation bias at work. You hate Hillary and so work hard enough to find selected quotes you can take out of context to call "lunacy", but not so hard you have to look at the context and admit she is correct.

Well done. Except of course you and others have been beating this drum, using these exact phrases for months now. It is boring. You are never going to convince us by quoting the same words over and over and over and over and over and over ....

We get it. You want to ignore everything she said before and after and focus like a laser on a few words.
   48. BrianBrianson Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:04 PM (#5170823)
In more or less the same way you're lying Ray.
   49. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:04 PM (#5170824)
Confirmation bias at work. You hate Hillary and so work hard enough to find selected quotes you can take out of context to call "lunacy", but not so hard you have to look at the context and admit she is correct.

Well done. Except of course you and others have been beating this drum, using these exact phrases for months now. It is boring. You are never going to convince us by quoting the same words over and over and over and over and over and over ....

We get it. You want to ignore everything she said before and after and focus like a laser on a few words.


You're shilling again.
   50. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:07 PM (#5170825)
You don't get to say such lunacy and then claim that you're more serious than Donald Trump.
See what I mean about shilling? You're taking a single tweet and spinning it. Whereas Trump says he'll murder the families of terrorists and he'll torture suspected terrorists just for fun (literally -- he said that torture works, but that even if it doesn't, he'll do it anyway cause they deserve it), and the military will obey him, believe him, but it's okay because the next day he sort of says that he won't do that. Seems like you're in a tizzy over a tweet.
   51. zonk Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:08 PM (#5170826)
I agree as far as that goes, but you're being far too literal. Maher et al have picked up on something. And what they have picked up on is statements from Democrats such as Hillary's Muslims "have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism." Surely you're not denying that Hillary said that. So you can't be denying that Maher et al have picked up on something. And, yet, you seem to be.


I've picked up on a bizarro version of what some quarters would call "virtue signaling"... and more precisely, the NEED for virtue signaling.
   52. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:09 PM (#5170827)
(The media is complicit in making it seem like Hillary is way ahead by including all the unpledged superdelegates in her tally on an ongoing basis.)

That's not really true. The point is that Clinton's 206 pledged delegate lead is almost insurmountable because of the nature of the rules: Without any winner-take-all contests, even a string of Sanders wins isn't likely to be able to overcome Clinton's overwhelming wins in all the southern states.
   53. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:10 PM (#5170828)
In more or less the same way you're lying Ray.


This is interesting to watch. She says X, I point out that X is either delusional or a lie, I settle on lie, I explain why she's lying, and I'm the one who's accused of lying.

Ron said I've gone off the deep end. But Ron is the one who said she was using NTS "logic." The whole *point* of NTS is that it's the argument of a dishonest person. "Muslims have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism." "Um, the terrorists here and here and here were Muslim." "Well, no TRUE Muslim would have anything to do with terrorism." The whole point of that argument is that rather than concede that the original claim was false, a new claim is instead made ("No TRUE Muslim"), which is so vague that it can't be rebutted. The person making the claim is arguing from a position of intellectual dishonesty.

   54. BrianBrianson Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:11 PM (#5170829)
Maher said if Democrats can't say "Islamic terrorism", they'll lose to Trump. But, despite Ray's masterbatory fantasies, Clinton has been perfectly happy to say "Islamic terrorists", "Islamic Terror Networks", and so on. So the shoe don't ... uh ... fit.
   55. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:13 PM (#5170830)
See what I mean about shilling? You're taking a single tweet and spinning it.


Please familiarize yourself with the facts. It wasn't a single tweet at all. It was part of a prepared speech she gave. The tweet was a quote from the speech.
   56. zonk Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:13 PM (#5170831)

She lied. And it wasn't only in a tweet that went out; it was in a written, prepared speech she made. Nor was the tweet sent out sort of haphazardly, without enough thought beforehand; the tweet was a quotation from her prepared comments from the speech.


SBB and I went around it on last thread, but I'll point out again -- accepting that HRC's twitter skills are obviously shitty - the full passage from which the tweet derived was this:


“The bottom line is that we are in a contest of ideas against an ideology of hate, and we have to win. Let’s be clear, though. Islam is not our adversary,” she said. “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

“The obsession in some quarters with a clash of civilization or repeating the specific words, radical Islamic terrorism isn’t just a distraction. It gives these criminals, these murderers, more standing than they deserve. It actually plays into their hands by alienating partners we need by our side,


The tweet loused up her point -- that we should not CEDE "Islam" to "(Islamic, if you like) terrorists".

It's intellectually dishonest to pretend that the tweet was her point.
   57. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:17 PM (#5170833)
(The media is complicit in making it seem like Hillary is way ahead by including all the unpledged superdelegates in her tally on an ongoing basis.)

That's not really true.


Yes, it is. The media has been reporting it as:

"Hillary leads in delegates a billion to twelve. (Including superdelegates.)"

Indeed, last night I tried to find the delegates count just from the primaries voting alone and after 30 seconds or so of googling gave up.
   58. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:17 PM (#5170834)
Judging by your repeated comments in previous threads, they've certainly helped reinforce your decision to vote for Hillary Clinton. I doubt if that decision of yours was prompted by anything she's said on her own.
Please stop distorting. I said that I would vote for Hillary if necessary to beat Trump. (Not Trumpandcruz.) And that is not based on soundbites from Trump, but from who Trump is. (The things he says are evidence of how bad he is.)

(And, once again, other than amnesty, self-deportation is the liberal position on illegal immigration.)

Do tell. But if it's not too much to ask, could you provide the names of say, maybe 2 or 3 actual liberals who've spoken out in favor of the Romney position?
Other than amnesty, the Democratic position on illegal immigration is that rather than going after illegal immigrants, we ought to go after their employers. Vigorously investigate, fine and punish companies that hire illegals. That is what self-deportation means. I'm not doing your homework for you, but maybe this column will shed some light.
   59. Rickey! Filipino Diving Team Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:17 PM (#5170835)
Have you picked up the "Ray will cling to any tenuous talking point in order to maintain his internal CDS" signaling yet?
   60. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:18 PM (#5170836)
Please familiarize yourself with the facts. It wasn't a single tweet at all. It was part of a prepared speech she gave. The tweet was a quote from the speech.
Please familiarize yourself with the facts. Which shouldn't be hard, since they've been posted in this thread. The prepared speech she gave put context to that statement, which does not mean what it might look like in isolation. With the tweet, it's in isolation. With the speech, it isn't, and she's clearly not saying what you claim.
   61. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:19 PM (#5170837)
“The bottom line is that we are in a contest of ideas against an ideology of hate, and we have to win. Let’s be clear, though. Islam is not our adversary,” she said. “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

“The obsession in some quarters with a clash of civilization or repeating the specific words, radical Islamic terrorism isn’t just a distraction. It gives these criminals, these murderers, more standing than they deserve. It actually plays into their hands by alienating partners we need by our side,


Well, here we go. Here we see that Maher's point was correct: she admits to having a problem saying "radical Islamic terrorism."

If SHE makes a distinction between (1) "Islamic terror networks" or "ISIS' Caliphate" and (2) "radical Islamic terrorism," I don't see why *Maher* is incorrect in making the distinction. He's just following her lead.
   62. Brian C Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:20 PM (#5170838)
(The media is complicit in making it seem like Hillary is way ahead by including all the unpledged superdelegates in her tally on an ongoing basis.)

She's way ahead even if you don't include superdelegates.

She's either lying when she says Muslims have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism, or she's delusional. Of course, the answer is the former: she's a liar. (Big shock there.) And she's lying for political/ideological/PC purposes, which means she's not serious about addressing the issue at hand, i.e., terrorism.

Or, she phrased something inartfully, that you and the GOP have lifted out of context and are spinning it for all it's worth (big shock there). Which is why your entire case for Hillary being "unserious" rests on exactly one comment.

   63. BrianBrianson Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:20 PM (#5170839)
No, Ray, ####### read what's said before you analyse it. She says X, you assert that Z ain't true, and then act like it's some huge gotcha. That's the very deep end in question.

Muslims, collectively and overwhelmingly, aren't terrorists. Muslims, collectively and overwhelmingly, have nothing to do with terrorism.

There are (I dunno, depends, perhaps tens of thousands of) Muslims terrorists, who generally engage in terrorism for some sort of Islam-inspired, or at least, Islam-rationalized, cause. ~0.00X% of Muslims, say. It's notable, because Christians, Hindu, Shintos, Jews are, like, two orders of magnitude lower here (and overall, generally less successful too).

But at the same time, it makes no sense to pick a war with Islam, say Islam is the enemy or such (Daesh wants this, because it'd put 'em in a way, way better position than the one they're in). And not just because our efforts in wars againsts ideas, from obesity to drugs to Christmas to terror have been unmitigated failures. But because an actual war with Islam would be a ####### catastrophy. For everyone involved.
   64. zonk Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:22 PM (#5170840)

Indeed, last night I tried to find the delegates count just from the primaries voting alone and after 30 seconds or so of googling gave up.


Read more Dailykos, I guess - it's on the frontpage (for both parties) today

Dave Wasserman/Cook Political, National Journal, 538, and plenty of other sources also have them readily available with one-click links on their own respective front pages.
   65. Brian C Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:24 PM (#5170841)
Indeed, last night I tried to find the delegates count just from the primaries voting alone and after 30 seconds or so of googling gave up.

This explains ... so much.
   66. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:26 PM (#5170842)
That's not really true.
Yes, it is.
The point is that Clinton's 206 pledged delegate lead is almost insurmountable because of the nature of the rules: Without any winner-take-all contests, even a string of Sanders wins isn't likely to be able to overcome Clinton's overwhelming wins in all the southern states.
That is gibberish. A 200 delegate edge is quite small (5% of total delegates), with more than 70% of pledged delegates still to be awarded, and that lead already includes her wins in those southern states¹. If he doesn't win the nomination, it's because fewer people vote for him going forward, not because there's any mathematical problem with him catching her.


¹To be sure, there are a few more to go. But the bulk have already voted.
   67. zonk Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:29 PM (#5170844)

There are (I dunno, depends, perhaps tens of thousands of) Muslims terrorists, who generally engage in terrorism for some sort of Islam-inspired, or at least, Islam-rationalized, cause. ~0.00X% of Muslims, say. It's notable, because Christians, Hindu, Shintos, Jews are, like, two orders of magnitude lower here (and overall, generally less successful too).

But at the same time, it makes no sense to pick a war with Islam, say Islam is the enemy or such (Daesh wants this, because it'd put 'em in a way, way better position than the one they're in). And not just because our efforts in wars againsts ideas, from obesity to drugs to Christmas to terror have been unmitigated failures. But because an actual war with Islam would be a ####### catastrophy. For everyone involved.


No need to understate it, even -- I'm perfectly fine say "radical Islam" has FAR more breadth of direct and sympathetic support proportionally than "radical Christianity" or whatever...

Call it 10%... call it 20% or even 30%.... The point remains that the best weapon in defeating and limiting that proportion remains alliances with the p-80%-90% whatever percent of Islam that rejects terrorism as a tool.

Even if it's 50/50... point still stands.

Cleaning up that mess requires Muslims more than non-Muslim Americans... and it's counterproductive to put them in the crossfire - where the terrorist networks and groups are shooting at them on one side, and the west is (verbally or actually) bombing them from the other.

Keep them in that middle and one way or another, we will most surely get down to the clash of civilizations certain quarters desire... because the hundreds of millions of Muslims who want no part of suicide bombings and such will either be dead or radicalized.
   68. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:30 PM (#5170845)
(The media is complicit in making it seem like Hillary is way ahead by including all the unpledged superdelegates in her tally on an ongoing basis.)

She's way ahead even if you don't include superdelegates.
It takes roughly 2400 delegates for the nomination. She's got 600; he's got 400. So she's ahead 25% - 17%. That's ahead; it's not way ahead.
   69. Mefisto Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:32 PM (#5170846)
Here we see that Maher's point was correct


About as correct as he is on vaccination.
   70. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:32 PM (#5170847)
(The media is complicit in making it seem like Hillary is way ahead by including all the unpledged superdelegates in her tally on an ongoing basis.)


That's not really true.

Yes, it is. The media has been reporting it as:

"Hillary leads in delegates a billion to twelve. (Including superdelegates.)"

Indeed, last night I tried to find the delegates count just from the primaries voting alone and after 30 seconds or so of googling gave up.


Really? This took me 0.46 seconds of googling. But maybe my dial-up is faster than yours.
   71. Brian C Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:33 PM (#5170848)
A 200 delegate edge is quite small (5% of total delegates), with more than 70% of pledged delegates still to be awarded, and that lead already includes her wins in those southern states.

Well, yes, her lead already includes contests she's already won. That is the definition of a lead.

Not really sure the point you're trying to make. Democrats award delegates proportionally, as I'm sure you know. Hillary has won some large-ish states already by substantial amounts, giving her a big lead. No one said he's been mathematically eliminated, just that he's well behind.

My own read on the situation is that, in baseball terms, he's about 10 games back at the All-Star break, while facing a tougher schedule than the team he's trying to catch. It can be done, sure, but ... well, the other team has a big lead.
   72. zonk Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:33 PM (#5170849)
BTW-

I would note in the case of the Democratic primary - HRC's delegate lead as a proportion is actually trailing (albeit slightly) her popular vote totals... Per RCP - the total vote is about 61% HRC/39% Sanders... the delegate proportions are 58.5% to 41.5%.
   73. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:39 PM (#5170852)
I would note in the case of the Democratic primary - HRC's delegate lead as a proportion is actually trailing (albeit slightly) her popular vote totals... Per RCP - the total vote is about 61% HRC/39% Sanders... the delegate proportions are 58.5% to 41.5%.

Proving once again that old white men control all our institutions.

(Rubs hands with glee, while thinking "Thanks, losers!")
   74. Lassus Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:40 PM (#5170853)
To be sure, there are a few more to go. But the bulk have already voted.

Nice edit. At a quick glance, Mississippi, North Carolina, Indiana, and Kentucky equal 314 delegates. That's not counting the part of Illinois that's actually the south, or Florida. Or West Virginia.
   75. All Sleepy knows is what's on the internet Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:40 PM (#5170854)
#2946 Did anyone mention this article on other SecStates with "email classification scandals?"

I'm aware that this will not sway the entrenched parties (Ray and SBB will continue to hate Hillary in any way possible, and ignore the forest for their preferred definition of "trees;" Jason and Snapper will continue to shill for team GOP excepting Trumpistan.) But it seems to me more rational, less tribally affiliated people, should take note that the "scandal" in question is actually a long running intra-departmental slap fight over what is or is not "classified" taken over by a political arm of an oppo-research team.


I think that article pretty much proves the exact opposite of what you claim. Rice never used a personal account; it's her staffers that are under investigation, and Powell received two post-determined classified emails from staffers. Between them there were 12 "confidential or secret" in eight years, and only two involved one of the Secretaries directly. None were top secret and none involved intelligence information.

OTOH Clinton personally sent or received over 2000 classified emails (according to the article you linked) and 22 of them were top secret. She took negligence to a whole new level.

There are thousands of people that deal with classified information every day. The vast, vast majority of them are capable of handling the responsibility; those who are not capable lose their access. I've shown statistics in the past. Clinton was clearly not capable of handling the responsibility.
   76. Brian C Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:44 PM (#5170855)
Proving once again that old white men control all our institutions.

You're joking but it's kind of true.

It's been fairly amazing to me the way that the supporters of our Great Progressive Hope are nearly uniformly white, and the cognitive dissonance needed by said supporters to disappear this fact among the overlapping online social justice crowd. #BernistasSoWhite
   77. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:47 PM (#5170856)
It's a shame about Trump taking over the GOP, but in part they've got their own rules to blame:

Donald Trump Would Be Easy To Stop Under Democratic Rules

Read it and weep, Jason. (smile)
   78. Srul Itza Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:47 PM (#5170857)
She's got 600; he's got 400. So she's ahead 25% - 17%


Another way to say it: In delegates apportioned by vote, she has 50% more than he has.

   79. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:48 PM (#5170858)
But it seems to me more rational, less tribally affiliated people, should take note that the "scandal" in question is actually a long running intra-departmental slap fight over what is or is not "classified" taken over by a political arm of an oppo-research team.


This is what the Clinton shillers are saying, but it's utterly beside the point, which is that she doesn't get to decide what classified information is in the first place and she mishandled it in the second place.
   80. Empathy, I Promise You (SBB) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:49 PM (#5170859)
You don't get to say such lunacy and then claim that you're more serious than Donald Trump.

Exactly.
   81. Empathy, I Promise You (SBB) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:52 PM (#5170860)
Muslims aren't "peaceful and tolerant people," either. To be sure, some are. As a whole? Absurd. The idea that their Muslim-ism would itself provide them the propensity for peacefulness and/or tolerance is even more absurd.

So she fought a (losing) two-front war on batshit insanity.
   82. Rickey! Filipino Diving Team Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:53 PM (#5170861)
This is what the Clinton shillers are saying


Contrary to your little CDS bubble, I am hardly anything anyone would rationally label a "Clinton shiller." You allow your irrational hatred of the woman to blind you to reason.

but it's utterly beside the point, which is that she doesn't get to decide what classified information is in the first place and she mishandled it in the second place.


Well, Ray, actually the State Department does have a say in what gets classified or not. In point of fact, this entire brouhaha about classified material boils down to the spooks wanting to classify #### that no one in their right mind would call classified, and State responding with different rules. By the spooks' rules, any pol who went on a Sunday talk show and said "the drone program is effective and useful" would be breaking classification protocol, because officially in spookdom "the drone program" is a classified box that can't be discussed in public (which is stupid.)

Secondly, the "mishandled it" bit just doubles down on your initial begging of the question of classification.

You can harp on the fact that she intentionally set up a personal server in order to avoid FOIA requests and maintain Clinton-esque secrecy. The rest is you buying the spin of Side B because you hate Hillary.
   83. Lassus Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:53 PM (#5170862)
Muslims aren't "peaceful and tolerant people," either.

Nobody is in general, are they?
   84. zonk Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:54 PM (#5170863)
Muslims aren't "peaceful and tolerant people," either. To be sure, some are. As a whole? Absurd.


And by that logic, neither are human beings period...
   85. Empathy, I Promise You (SBB) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:57 PM (#5170864)
In point of fact, this entire brouhaha about classified material boils down to the spooks wanting to classify #### that no one in their right mind would call classified, and State responding with different rules.

No, that has nothing to do with anything at issue.

Secondly, the "mishandled it" bit just doubles down on your initial begging of the question of classification.

No, they're completely unrelated issues. As to hundreds of emails, the government, if there is to be a prosecution, will have zero problem proving the element of classification -- as they did in fact carry classified information and originated from the system that State employees use to handle classified information. Its only serious hurdle will the the requisite mental state, particularly intent. Even that seems pretty clear at this point, for the reasons previously explained.
   86. Empathy, I Promise You (SBB) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 12:58 PM (#5170865)
And by that logic, neither are human beings period...

So? And among the last grouping of human beings you'd single out for the honor she singled them out for would be ... the ones she singled out.

She has no claim to "seriousness." Being a boring and shrill policy wonk and always looking like you're sucking on a lemon doesn't make one "serious."
   87. Rickey! Filipino Diving Team Posted: March 07, 2016 at 01:00 PM (#5170866)
No, that has nothing to do with anything at issue.


We're all just super keen to hear your balanced and nuanced view of something involving a Clinton.
   88. From the International Gibberish Desk Posted: March 07, 2016 at 01:00 PM (#5170867)
This is interesting to watch. She says X, I refuse to read (or fail to understand) the context of the statement and then I point out that X is either delusional or a lie, I settle on lie, I explain why she's lying, and I'm the one who's accused of lying.

Your either ignorant, being willfully ignorant , or lying. And I doubt that your ignorant.
   89. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 01:01 PM (#5170868)
Well, Ray, actually the State Department does have a say in what gets classified or not. In point of fact, this entire brouhaha about classified material boils down to the spooks wanting to classify #### that no one in their right mind would call classified, and State responding with different rules. By the spooks' rules, any pol who went on a Sunday talk show and said "the drone program is effective and useful" would be breaking classification protocol, because officially in spookdom "the drone program" is a classified box that can't be discussed in public (which is stupid.)


This is nonsense of the highest order. A specious argument, illegitimate and absurd-beyond-absurd in every way.

State doesn't get to "decide" in advance (or after the fact) that every email sent to or received by Hillary Clinton is not classified if it's not "marked as classified," which is what she's arguing.

That you would give such argument weight shows where you are here.

She is lying (No big shock there) when she tries to mislead people by arguing that this turns on "marked as classified." It never has. Something can be classified even though it's not marked as such. Quite obviously.

"There's a blanket non-classification of any document sent or received by Hillary Clinton if it's not marked as classified" is not the rule.
   90. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 07, 2016 at 01:03 PM (#5170869)
Proving once again that old white men control all our institutions.

You're joking but it's kind of true.


Tell me something I don't know. (kind of smile)

It's been fairly amazing to me the way that the supporters of our Great Progressive Hope are nearly uniformly white, and the cognitive dissonance needed by said supporters to disappear this fact among the overlapping online social justice crowd. #BernistasSoWhite

Since it's election season, I've expanded my internet range to include some "progressive" websites like Huffpost and The Nation, and if I ever had any lingering illusions about a certain segment of the Left, I'd be quickly cured. Cognitive dissonance is exactly what's going on, and here I'm not talking about the contributors to those websites, who for the most part can see the forest for the trees. I'm talking about those who enter comments underneath the articles, which are not just pro-Bernie (fair enough), but so anti-Clinton that they sound scarcely distinguishable from some Trumpite.

And when the racial breakdown is cited as a barrier to Bernie's nomination, the response is never that Clinton may have done more groundwork over the years building bridges with African Americans, or that Bernie's at a disadvantage as a Senator from a nearly all white state. No, the response is basically that blacks are just the victims of a great big con game, and are too shortsighted to recognize their own best interests. It's a variant of the "What's the matter with Kansas?" riff, only this time directed at blacks rather than whites in the flyover states.

The truth is that this segment of the Bernie crowd isn't at all representative of Sanders supporters as a whole, as polls have repeatedly demonstrated. But like the Trump supporters, these hardcore Bernie fans know what they know, and seldom let facts get in the way of a good rant. The racial condescension is but one part of it, but it's not exactly hidden from view.
   91. zonk Posted: March 07, 2016 at 01:06 PM (#5170870)
She has no claim to "seriousness." Being a boring and shrill policy wonk and always looking like you're sucking on a lemon doesn't make one "serious."


Maybe, maybe not... but it's certainly a bit more serious than pretending "always looking like you're sucking on a lemon" is the hallmark of seriousness.
   92. Ron J2 Posted: March 07, 2016 at 01:06 PM (#5170871)
No Ray. You've simply lost your mind.

As it happens I think she's clearly wrong -- that Islam is not "a religion of peace". But one can be wrong in good faith. You're wrong in bad faith though.
   93. Rickey! Filipino Diving Team Posted: March 07, 2016 at 01:06 PM (#5170872)
State doesn't get to "decide" in advance (or after the fact) that every email sent to or received by Hillary Clinton is not classified if it's not "marked as classified," which is what she's arguing.


From what I've read, the vast majority of the "2000 classified emails" are of the variety of she and staffers banging around things like "we expect Stephanopolous to ask about drones this Sunday..." The spooks say "drone program! Classified!!!" Which is, of course, stupid at the highest degree. There's no reason to strip a potential classification off of that discussion chain.

But you got a hate to keep burning. Don't bother looking at facts that might not support your desire.
   94. Empathy, I Promise You (SBB) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 01:06 PM (#5170873)
We're all just super keen to hear your balanced and nuanced view of something involving a Clinton.

What you said the issue turns on has, in fact, nothing to do with the issue. Post hoc arguments at the margin over what should have been classified and what should be treated as classified now are irrelevant. Classified material was handled as such at State, and a close subset of Clinton's subordinates worked around that system to be able to send that material to her rogue server.
   95. Empathy, I Promise You (SBB) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 01:07 PM (#5170874)
There's no reason to strip a potential classification off of that discussion chain.

Yes, there is. From all indication, material literally couldn't be sent directly from the classified State system to her rogue server.
   96. Mefisto Posted: March 07, 2016 at 01:08 PM (#5170875)
@89: Ray, you've misunderstood Rickey's point. He's saying that State, including Hillary, does get a "first call" at determining classification. Indeed, every single person who's cleared for a classification level has that power. That doesn't mean the first judgment is unchangeable, but it does mean that if the person makes a good faith determination at first and is later overruled, the original decision is not (or at least should not be) criminal.
   97. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 01:09 PM (#5170876)
This is interesting to watch. She says X, I refuse to read (or fail to understand) the context of the statement and then I point out that X is either delusional or a lie, I settle on lie, I explain why she's lying, and I'm the one who's accused of lying.

Your either ignorant, being willfully ignorant , or lying. And I doubt that your ignorant.


If you're going to change someone's words please mark up your post in some way, e.g., by using strikethrough, so it's understood that you've done so. I never said the above. I said:

"This is interesting to watch. She says X, I point out that X is either delusional or a lie, I settle on lie, I explain why she's lying, and I'm the one who's accused of lying."
   98. Empathy, I Promise You (SBB) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 01:11 PM (#5170877)
Muslims, collectively and overwhelmingly, aren't terrorists. Muslims, collectively and overwhelmingly, have nothing to do with terrorism.

Then Germans had absolutely nothing to do with the Holocaust.
   99. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 07, 2016 at 01:11 PM (#5170878)
No Ray. You've simply lost your mind.

As it happens I think she's clearly wrong -- that Islam is not "a religion of peace". But one can be wrong in good faith. You're wrong in bad faith though.


Thanks for accusing me of arguing in bad faith.

I don't see what I took out of context. That was the context.

   100. Bitter Mouse, Space Tyrant Posted: March 07, 2016 at 01:12 PM (#5170880)
So? And among the last grouping of human beings you'd single out for the honor she singled them out for would be ... the ones she singled out.


I think think of many groups who are less "peaceful and tolerant" than Muslims. that you can't suggests a lack of imagination on your part.

She has no claim to "seriousness."


I know you won't, but please define "serious". Hillary is, by any rational definition, a serious and well qualified Presidential candidate. She has a solid resume and much relevant experience.

Donald Trump is ... not serious. He has never been elected, has no applicable experience to being President (if you think being rich or being a CEO is relevant, well you are wrong). That might be more forgivable if he had a deep policy understanding, many detailed policy proposals, and such, but of course he has no such thing.

He is a cartoon presidential candidate, colorful, but no depth at all. No nuance, or detail, rather everything is in four colors with thick lines and no real detail.

Grow up, stop shilling for the cartoon candidate.
Page 1 of 25 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Renegade JE (((Jason)))
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 2016 Sep 26: A single for Donald Trump - He doesn’t have to hit a home run to send Hillary to the showers
(1818 - 12:56am, Oct 01)
Last: Renegade JE (((Jason)))

NewsblogOT - September 2016 College Football thread
(379 - 12:44am, Oct 01)
Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)

NewsblogFox Sports: Ken Rosenthal's 2016 MLB awards
(10 - 12:44am, Oct 01)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-30-16
(127 - 12:40am, Oct 01)
Last: Bote Man makes baseball fun again

NewsblogHeyman: Twins’ hiring of Falvey raising eyebrows
(31 - 12:24am, Oct 01)
Last: Spahn Insane, stimulus-funded BurlyMan™

NewsblogOT: NBA 2016-17 Preseason Thread
(48 - 12:09am, Oct 01)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogWhat's going on inside the Blue Jays clubhouse?
(5 - 12:09am, Oct 01)
Last: Gaelan

NewsblogJesus Montero suspended 50 games for use of a stimulant
(10 - 11:25pm, Sep 30)
Last: Dock Ellis on Acid

NewsblogOT: August 2016 Soccer Thread
(639 - 11:20pm, Sep 30)
Last: Baldrick

Hall of Merit2017 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(109 - 11:14pm, Sep 30)
Last: theorioleway

NewsblogThe View is Much Better When You're the Lead Dog: Mike Trout Closes in on Another Second-Place MVP Finish
(3 - 11:13pm, Sep 30)
Last: cardsfanboy

Sox TherapyA Fan Picks Papi's Ten Best (Red Sox) Moments
(16 - 10:25pm, Sep 30)
Last: Jose Remains The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogWhy Bo Jackson chose baseball
(2 - 10:20pm, Sep 30)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogDavid Ortiz’s few remaining critics are needling killjoys who don’t deserve him | For The Win
(53 - 7:51pm, Sep 30)
Last: villageidiom

Gonfalon CubsFear, Worry, and Overthinking
(15 - 7:40pm, Sep 30)
Last: Walt Davis

Page rendered in 1.1255 seconds
47 querie(s) executed