Jump to content

Hillary's Campaign Kickoff

Nanker

By Nanker
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

row_33
row_33

Her named was Rodham she was a showgirl  But that was many years ago when they used to have a show  

Nanker
Nanker

No doubt, her book will be a tonic for some. For others, there's always...

Keukasmallie
Keukasmallie

Hill'ry, ya' gotta' back off the India Pale Ale before appearances; or keep on foolin' yourself that staggering is Presidential.

Posted Images

GG Hall of Famer

GG

Posted
Posted

So I guess derailment is pretty common

It happens from a natural turn in a discussion, not through intentional idiocy.

Deranged Rhino Hall of Famer

Deranged Rhino

Posted
Posted

 

Give me an example of what Snowden leaked that shows there is a systemic legal breach of peoples privacy. I don't doubt what you say, just would like to know of these troves of information that show otherwise.

 

If you want the most entertaining method, watch Citizen 4 (if you have HBO it's free on HBOGo), otherwise go check out the original Guardian reporting on the leak. I linked their hub for all the interviews and relevant documents below. There is/was/probably still is a "culture" of systemic breaches of US citizens' privacy within NSA. The primary source documents paint the picture pretty bleakly.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/nov/01/snowden-nsa-files-surveillance-revelations-decoded#section/3

 

WikiLeaks has all of the raw, released documents cached as well if you want to wade through the primary source material.

**********************************

"Indian country"... Quote from HRC's victory speech. What the !@#$ century is it?

Magox Hall of Famer

Magox

Posted
Posted

 

If you want the most entertaining method, watch Citizen 4 (if you have HBO it's free on HBOGo), otherwise go check out the original Guardian reporting on the leak. I linked their hub for all the interviews and relevant documents below. There is/was/probably still is a "culture" of systemic breaches of US citizens' privacy within NSA. The primary source documents paint the picture pretty bleakly.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/nov/01/snowden-nsa-files-surveillance-revelations-decoded#section/3

 

WikiLeaks has all of the raw, released documents cached as well if you want to wade through the primary source material.

**********************************

"Indian country"... Quote from HRC's victory speech. What the !@#$ century is it?

 

I read through that link and there is nothing definitive that shows there is a systemic legal breach of peoples privacy in there. The closest thing that I found other than a few security experts assumptions of systemic breaches was an instance where a FISA judge questioned the government's possible overreach on a particular case.

 

I must have missed it, can you copy and paste me where there is a definitive systemic legal breach of peoples privacy from that link or anywhere else? Data collection in a lock box doesn't count.

 

To believe what you are propagating is to believe that several different levels of government are in on a systemic scheme of spying on US citizens. From the Judicial branch (in which FISA has to sign off on it), intelligence services, congress to the executive branch. In other words, it would be conspiratorial.

 

Aside from the NSA's clear objective of protecting the homeland, what is the motive behind the NSA to do what you believe that they do? It appears from what you have been saying and definitely in that link (which by the way, they somehow make the connection that white judges are to blame and considering that they made the racial link, I'm guessing they are insinuating that white people don't care about matters of privacy) that the NSA has been collecting data under the guise of fighting terror. So why is there a conspiracy from the government to "snoop" on US citizens if it isn't for protecting the homeland?

Deranged Rhino Hall of Famer

Deranged Rhino

Posted
Posted (edited)

Let's take this to the other thread, this is the coronation thread after all. There are literally dozens of links and pages discussing all of these things in great detail.

Edited by Deranged Rhino
Nanker Hall of Famer

Nanker

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Let's take this to the other thread, this is the coronation thread after all. There are literally dozens of links and pages discussing all of these things in great detail.

Yes. Please. :D

Get thee hence... the fat lady is warming up...

Doc Hall of Famer

Doc

Posted
Posted

That's funny. It's more like she is the only decent choice so we vote for her. A cult? That's funny! :lol:

 

No, she's not. You have to ignore everything about her to believe that fantasy.

ALF All Pro

ALF

Posted
Posted (edited)

Can anyone recite a list of Hillary's accomplishments?

 

She makes $225K an hour for a bs speech.

 

correction make that a legal bribe

Edited by ALF
Deranged Rhino Hall of Famer

Deranged Rhino

Posted
Posted

(Vanity Fair... fair warning)

 

Why Democrats are Becoming the Party of the 1%

 

Lind’s point, which he made last Sunday in The New York Times, is that Trumpism—friendly to entitlements, unfriendly to expanded trade and high immigration—will be the platform of the Republican Party in the years going forward. Clintonism—friendly both to business and to social and racial liberalism—will cobble together numerous interest groups and ditch the white working class. Which might be fair enough, but Lind didn’t mention rich people. Where will they go?

 

(snip)

 

In a world of Trumpism and Clintonism, Democrats would become the party of globalist-minded elites, both economic and cultural, while Republicans would become the party of the working class. Democrats would win backing from those who support expanded trade and immigration, while Republicans would win the support of those who prefer less of both. Erstwhile neocons would go over to Democrats (as they arealready promising to do), while doves and isolationists would stick with Republicans. Democrats would remain culturally liberal, while Republicans would remain culturally conservative.

 

(snip)

 

It’s a costly arrangement. The more that Democrats write off the white working class, which has been experiencing a drastic decline in living standards, the harder it is for them to call themselves a party of the little guy. The more that the rich can frame various business practices as blows to privilege or oppression—predatory lending as a way to expand minority home ownership, outsourcing as a way to uplift the world’s poor, etc.—the more they get a pass from Democrats on practices that hurt poorer Americans. Worst of all, the more that interest groups within the Democratic Party quarrel among themselves, the more they rely upon loathing of a common enemy, Republicans, in order to stay united.

Things get darker still, for, if the G.O.P. becomes ever whiter, failing to peel away working-class voters of other races, then partisan conflict could look more and more like racial conflict. That is the nightmare. Our politics are bad enough when voters are mobilized mainly by culture-war issues, such as abortion, because compromise is often impossible. But when voters are mobilized by issues of identity, something most people can’t change, then nothing works. It’s just war.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/why-democrats-are-becoming-the-party-of-the-1-percent

DC Tom Hall of Famer

DC Tom

Posted
Posted

(Vanity Fair... fair warning)

 

Why Democrats are Becoming the Party of the 1%

 

Lind’s point, which he made last Sunday in The New York Times, is that Trumpism—friendly to entitlements, unfriendly to expanded trade and high immigration—will be the platform of the Republican Party in the years going forward. Clintonism—friendly both to business and to social and racial liberalism—will cobble together numerous interest groups and ditch the white working class. Which might be fair enough, but Lind didn’t mention rich people. Where will they go?

 

(snip)

 

In a world of Trumpism and Clintonism, Democrats would become the party of globalist-minded elites, both economic and cultural, while Republicans would become the party of the working class. Democrats would win backing from those who support expanded trade and immigration, while Republicans would win the support of those who prefer less of both. Erstwhile neocons would go over to Democrats (as they arealready promising to do), while doves and isolationists would stick with Republicans. Democrats would remain culturally liberal, while Republicans would remain culturally conservative.

 

(snip)

 

It’s a costly arrangement. The more that Democrats write off the white working class, which has been experiencing a drastic decline in living standards, the harder it is for them to call themselves a party of the little guy. The more that the rich can frame various business practices as blows to privilege or oppression—predatory lending as a way to expand minority home ownership, outsourcing as a way to uplift the world’s poor, etc.—the more they get a pass from Democrats on practices that hurt poorer Americans. Worst of all, the more that interest groups within the Democratic Party quarrel among themselves, the more they rely upon loathing of a common enemy, Republicans, in order to stay united.

Things get darker still, for, if the G.O.P. becomes ever whiter, failing to peel away working-class voters of other races, then partisan conflict could look more and more like racial conflict. That is the nightmare. Our politics are bad enough when voters are mobilized mainly by culture-war issues, such as abortion, because compromise is often impossible. But when voters are mobilized by issues of identity, something most people can’t change, then nothing works. It’s just war.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/why-democrats-are-becoming-the-party-of-the-1-percent

 

"Becoming" :lol:

Tiberius Hall of Famer

Tiberius

Posted
Posted

(Vanity Fair... fair warning)

The more that Democrats write off the white working class,

 

Things get darker still, for, if the G.O.P. becomes ever whiter, failing to peel away working-class voters of other races, then partisan conflict could look more and more like racial conflict. That is the nightmare. Our politics are bad enough when voters are mobilized mainly by culture-war issues, such as abortion, because compromise is often impossible. But when voters are mobilized by issues of identity, something most people can’t change, then nothing works. It’s just war.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/why-democrats-are-becoming-the-party-of-the-1-percent

Are the Democrats turning away whites? We still get 40% and there is no reason that should shrink. Democrats are doing fine. They are representitive of the national demographics while the GOP is turing into the national white peoples party. As the GOP said themselves after 2012 election, they need to be more inclusive

DC Tom Hall of Famer

DC Tom

Posted
Posted

Are the Democrats turning away whites? We still get 40% and there is no reason that should shrink. Democrats are doing fine. They are representitive of the national demographics while the GOP is turing into the national white peoples party. As the GOP said themselves after 2012 election, they need to be more inclusive

 

National white people's party, my ass. The Democrats ran all old, white people this election; while the Republicans ran a black man, two Hispanics, the mentally handicapped Bush, and an Oompa-Loompa-American.

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...