| |
Discussion: U.S. Election 2016: Primary Season
Member Since: 11/27/2010
Posts: 9,806
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Citrus
I don't get why people think pundits are always trying to forward their own agenda (not including those with historically-biased articles/corporate backings). They're people who study policy for a living, I'd trust their word over a stranger's on the internet. But that's none of my business.
|
Anderson didn't study policy for a living. Nope. Rachel Maddow studied policy for a living. In reality MSNBC should've gotten the first debate not CNN.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 21,143
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Adonis
Anderson didn't study policy for a living. Nope. Rachel Maddow studied policy for a living. In reality MSNBC should've gotten the first debate not CNN.
|
I wasn't referring to Anderson. I was (indirectly  ) responding to those who say that, because media outlets like Politico and CNN have writers publishing articles saying Hillary won the debate, the media must be in some big conspiracy to back her.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 16,870
|
How I want Free College Tuition to Work
- More rigorous standards for college admissions
- Reducing college expenses like bloated faculty
- Require community service or employment to retain your assitance eligibilty
- Pass a drug test
So far, Hillary aligns the most with my views on the subject.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 3,240
|
Quote:
Originally posted by that G.U.Y.
How I want Free College Tuition to Work
- More rigorous standards for college admissions
- Reducing college expenses like bloated faculty
- Require community service or employment to retain your assitance eligibilty
- Pass a drug test
So far, Hillary aligns the most with my views on the subject.
|
Can we add on stopping unnecessary facilities? Like, I go to a cheap ass university (by comparison to others) and they make me pay for the rec center, FIVE dining halls, a **** ton of famous (well....) people to come speak, a bunch of corporate dining on campus (Pete's, Starbucks, Chik-fil-A), and a new union when the old one was perfectly fine. This is the same university that couldn't bother to give me, a student whose father literally makes as much in a year as tuition costs, any financial aid. Some of the buildings don't have working sprinkler systems and the sidewalks are ****.
I hate American higher education. Can't wait to move back to Canada tbh
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/29/2012
Posts: 13,597
|
After the debate, I can see why Bernie has a lot of supporters. I like his ideas but they are impossible to achieve with a Republican majority and might be impossible with even a Dem majority. I can't see him accomplishing his promises in 4-8 years. Hillary has a better chance at compromising which is why I am leaning towards her. Plus Bernie hasn't given clear answers of how he will achieve free college, etc. but there is still more time for that.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/1/2014
Posts: 2,096
|
Anyone else notice Hillary claiming to have the read current TPP agreement to explain her flip flop on her pushing it 45 times before she decided to be against it?
How did she get her hands on it when no one else can? Josh Ernest even said in the briefing he noticed her comment as well and pretty much implied she didn't read it. She also lied about saying she "hoped" it would be the gold standard when in fact in 2012 she called it the gold standard.
Clearly she saw the unions holding back on her and had to pander to them. Only if Anderson had asked her how did you read it if it has not been made public yet...
And no Hillary does not get access to these documents anymore, she is not in the loop anymore.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 23,857
|
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf
My problem with Bernie is that he is disingenuous about he'll pay for his plans. The top 10% of American wage earners already pay 85% of taxes. He claims free college will be paid by a magical tax on Wall Street speculation. Will a tax really pay $50,000 tuition for everyone who wants one? Plus he wants us to be like Denmark , but fails to say they pay like 25% in federal taxes, before state and other taxes. He can't tax the rich and not the middle class and expect t pay for these programs.
|
Where is the $50,000 tuition coming from though 
And I thought I was paying a lot 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 23,857
|
Quote:
Originally posted by downbywednesday
Can we add on stopping unnecessary facilities? Like, I go to a cheap ass university (by comparison to others) and they make me pay for the rec center, FIVE dining halls, a **** ton of famous (well....) people to come speak, a bunch of corporate dining on campus (Pete's, Starbucks, Chik-fil-A), and a new union when the old one was perfectly fine. This is the same university that couldn't bother to give me, a student whose father literally makes as much in a year as tuition costs, any financial aid. Some of the buildings don't have working sprinkler systems and the sidewalks are ****.
I hate American higher education. Can't wait to move back to Canada tbh
|
nnn For a moment there I thought you attented my uni until you mentioned Chik-fil-A 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 5,905
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Citrus
I don't get why people think pundits are always trying to forward their own agenda (not including those with historically-biased articles/corporate backings). They're people who study policy for a living, I'd trust their word over a stranger's on the internet. But that's none of my business.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Citrus
I wasn't referring to Anderson. I was (indirectly ) responding to those who say that, because media outlets like Politico and CNN have writers publishing articles saying Hillary won the debate, the media must be in some big conspiracy to back her. |
Just gonna respond lightly since I'm a little tired of politics for today 
CNN & Time, both of whom proclaimed her the winner almost instantly, are both owned by Time Warner, one of the biggest contributors to Hillary Clinton over the years (500k+, from what we know, which doesn't include the current election cycle). So besides the general "big corporations supporting the pro-establishment candidate" angle, they have a rather DIRECT money trail leading to her, and obviously have a stake in her campaign.
If you think businesses like these got as massive as they did purely on the pursuit of fair, objective journalism (lol), and wouldn't send a memo down to the lower levels to try and frame the public opinion that the person they funneled $500k into (likely closer to/in the millions) won, you're entitled to that belief.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/27/2010
Posts: 9,806
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Chanel.
The problem is that Iowa state law prohibits that; the caucus has to take place 8(?) days prior to any similar primary process in the entire country.
While I would certainly be fine with people not basing their assumptions on Iowa, I just know it's kind of inevitable for at least this cycle.
|
Get rid of it. No one is under any obligation to Iowa. What difference would it make if people by passed it?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/18/2011
Posts: 4,192
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Chanel.
Would you like to inform a stats major why you think any online poll ever matters and is valid (they're not!), or would you just like to continue attempting to skew things in Bernie's favor as if ANYONE but his supporters thinks he won? These are your options besides backing down.
 |
I just got here late after the whole shitstorm, so sorry for the late post about this but....
How can polls not matter at all about the outcome of a debate? Obviously, these are not scientific polls. But isn't the whole point of a debate to make --the people-- decide on who to vote? How can the media be the one that is absolutely right when they're not the ones that are going to be voting on a candidate? The whole point of debate was for the people to learn more about the candidates and then vote. This is like saying "the people's opinion is wrong, even though the debate was for them and they're the ones who're going to vote."
Unless of course, we're assuming that the polls on Facebook, CNN, Time, Fox News, Fox5, Slate, Liberal Daily, etc. etc. were overwhelmed by Bernie's supporters. The little monsters of politics, I guess?
I'm not one to take polls as complete evidence, but completely ignoring them and passing them off as nothing is hypocritical when you look at the whole picture. These polls are not about "who's going to win", they are more about "who did you like the most at the debate."
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/27/2010
Posts: 9,806
|
Rachel Maddow said that not a single candidate won the debate. It was actually the Democratic Party that won the debate. I would have to agree. The adults were in the room.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/20/2011
Posts: 12,590
|
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf
|
Not going to lie the ad is funny.
But it just proves what a huge joke he is as well as a few of the other Republican candidates.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 19,066
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucko
Anyone else notice Hillary claiming to have the read current TPP agreement to explain her flip flop on her pushing it 45 times before she decided to be against it?
How did she get her hands on it when no one else can? Josh Ernest even said in the briefing he noticed her comment as well and pretty much implied she didn't read it. She also lied about saying she "hoped" it would be the gold standard when in fact in 2012 she called it the gold standard.
Clearly she saw the unions holding back on her and had to pander to them. Only if Anderson had asked her how did you read it if it has not been made public yet...
And no Hillary does not get access to these documents anymore, she is not in the loop anymore.
|
Not surprised. I figured she was lying when she didn't disclose exactly what new information caused her to change her mind.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/27/2010
Posts: 9,806
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucko
Anyone else notice Hillary claiming to have the read current TPP agreement to explain her flip flop on her pushing it 45 times before she decided to be against it?
How did she get her hands on it when no one else can? Josh Ernest even said in the briefing he noticed her comment as well and pretty much implied she didn't read it. She also lied about saying she "hoped" it would be the gold standard when in fact in 2012 she called it the gold standard.
Clearly she saw the unions holding back on her and had to pander to them. Only if Anderson had asked her how did you read it if it has not been made public yet...
And no Hillary does not get access to these documents anymore, she is not in the loop anymore.
|
She may have read the current version. She probably had a hand in negotiating the original 2012 TPP. However, it's 3 years later and things very well may have changed significantly from the earlier versions. I don't know if she read it or not but I would've liked Anderson to ask a follow up on that. I want to know what's in it. I don't understand why people can't negotiate out in the open on these things.
Republicans didn't even broach the subject. They were too busy arguing about non issues and wanting to use the big bad government to over regulate millions of women's health needs based on their own religious beliefs.l
You are going to have to read up more before you make up stuff about Hilary Clinton lied about something she may not have.
Quote:
|
In fact, since leaving her position as Secretary of State, she has been offering frequent, subtle warnings that she would not unconditionally support the TPP. In public speeches and in her memoir Hard Choices, Clinton praised the agreement in principle, but always with some reservations. As delicately as she could, given the decorum demanded of someone who was a former member of the sitting administration, she signaled to the Obama White House that her support for the TPP was contingent on the final deal meeting her requirements for trade in the twenty-first century. Foremost among these requirements are that new trade deals should help American workers and not hurt national security.
|
However, you view the alleged flipflop... would you rather have a politician who listens to the people or would you rather have a politician who does whatever they want without any consideration for the public? No politician gets it right 100% of the time. So what would you rather have?
Me, I worry about people who refuse to upgrade their ideas. I will flip flop my ideas to better ideas. It's the reason only limited progress has been made on gay rights and race relations and economically. People have to upgrade their ideas once they realize that hating gays black and creating an environment where only the rich get richer is not a success.
Politifact rated her comments as half true.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/1/2014
Posts: 2,096
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Adonis
She may have read the current version. She probably had a hand in negotiating the original 2012 TPP. However, it's 3 years later and things very well may have changed significantly from the earlier versions. I don't know if she read it or not but I would've liked Anderson to ask a follow up on that. I want to know what's in it. I don't understand why people can't negotiate out in the open on these things.
Republicans didn't even broach the subject. They were too busy arguing about non issues and wanting to use the big bad government to over regulate millions of women's health needs based on their own religious beliefs.l
You are going to have to read up more before you make up stuff about Hilary Clinton lied about something she may not have.
|
Here is her quote:
Quote:
|
This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.
|
Of course up to 2012 she was involved in it but since then she has not been, and I am sure some things have changed, but the point is how the hell does she know? Let's just entertain for a moment that she did know. Did it really go from the gold standard to a steaming pile of crap in 3 years? If so why didn't see say so sooner? Let us be real here for once, the unions were starting to look at Republicans and the next thing you know she is against it but you know she is still for it.
Obama is the one that put the FBI on her do you think he is going to hand her a copy of the TPP?
I agree 100% about these deals being passed behind our backs, Obamacare was passed without people reading it - “But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it....” - Pelosi
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/27/2010
Posts: 9,806
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucko
Here is her quote:
Of course up to 2012 she was involved in it but since then she has not been, and I am sure some things have changed, but the point is how the hell does she know? Let's just entertain for a moment that she did know. Did it really go from the gold standard to a steaming pile of crap in 3 years? If so why didn't see say so sooner? Let us be real here for once, the unions were starting to look at Republicans and the next thing you know she is against it but you know she is still for it.
I agree 100% about these deals being passed behind our backs, Obamacare was passed without people reading it - “But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it....” - Pelosi
|
You are really using a nancy pelosi misspeak to score a point.... really? 
Secondly, I don't know what Clinton knows or doesn't know about the current deal. So I'm not ready to assume she's lying before I have the evidence to prove it. What I do know is that Clinton probably has access to many of the details of the current TPP deal that was only approved this year. I'm sure she still has contacts within the Obama administration that she just left. As the quote in the article I posted stated I'm sure she was trying to soften the blow a little bit so as not to step out of turn in relation to a former employer and with consideration that people will always complain she's flip flopped despite valid criticism of deal that wasn't even been finalized until 3 years after she left negotiations.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 3,240
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Adonis
She may have read the current version. She probably had a hand in negotiating the original 2012 TPP. However, it's 3 years later and things very well may have changed significantly from the earlier versions. I don't know if she read it or not but I would've liked Anderson to ask a follow up on that. I want to know what's in it. I don't understand why people can't negotiate out in the open on these things.
Republicans didn't even broach the subject. They were too busy arguing about non issues and wanting to use the big bad government to over regulate millions of women's health needs based on their own religious beliefs.l
You are going to have to read up more before you make up stuff about Hilary Clinton lied about something she may not have.
However, you view the alleged flipflop... would you rather have a politician who listens to the people or would you rather have a politician who does whatever they want without any consideration for the public? No politician gets it right 100% of the time. So what would you rather have?
Me, I worry about people who refuse to upgrade their ideas. I will flip flop my ideas to better ideas. It's the reason only limited progress has been made on gay rights and race relations and economically. People have to upgrade their ideas once they realize that hating gays black and creating an environment where only the rich get richer is not a success.
Politifact rated her comments as half true.
|
I have massive issues with someone who will support a free trade agreement until, as soon as she starts running for office, she starts echoing the sediments of her constitutents. She did the exact same thing with NAFTA when running in NY. Can't get a consistent answer out of her.
Obama becoming pro-gay marriage is one evolution of a view. Hillary's "position" is repeatedly flip flopping.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 21,143
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Alejandrawrrr
Just gonna respond lightly since I'm a little tired of politics for today
CNN & Time, both of whom proclaimed her the winner almost instantly, are both owned by Time Warner, one of the biggest contributors to Hillary Clinton over the years (500k+, from what we know, which doesn't include the current election cycle). So besides the general "big corporations supporting the pro-establishment candidate" angle, they have a rather DIRECT money trail leading to her, and obviously have a stake in her campaign.
If you think businesses like these got as massive as they did purely on the pursuit of fair, objective journalism (lol), and wouldn't send a memo down to the lower levels to try and frame the public opinion that the person they funneled $500k into (likely closer to/in the millions) won, you're entitled to that belief. |
....Along with Slate, Politico, and even Fox News. It's just hilarious to me the media is secretly supporting Clinton the moment they don't agree with some online public opinion polls when she's gotten more negative press this quarter than any other candidate.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 21,143
|
But your point IS valid regarding Time and CNN. That just leaves too many other outlets unchallenged for me to believe that the pundits thought Bernie had a clear victory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
