When you can Trump Donald?
Edited by un4x at 06:23 CST, 7 February 2016 - 150425 Hits
I was on the plane with then First Lady Hillary Clinton for the trip from Germany into Bosnia in 1996. We were put on a C-17 — a plane capable of steep ascents and descents — precisely because we were flying into what was considered a combat zone. We were issued flak jackets for the final leg because of possible sniper fire near Tuzla. As an additional precaution, the First Lady and Chelsea were moved to the armored cockpit for the descent into Tuzla. We were told that a welcoming ceremony on the tarmac might be canceled because of sniper fire in the hills surrounding the air strip. From Tuzla, Hillary flew to two outposts in Bosnia with gunships escorting her helicopter.
[During the landing at Tuzla], I ventured over to listen to a member of the security detail briefing the first lady and her team on the situation we would likely encounter on the ground. As she did for every briefing she received, she listened attentively, glancing at her reading material as he talked and talked.
I found myself almost rolling my eyes as the briefer went on and on about the possibility of snipers and what the plan of action would be (essentially, making a beeline to the armored vehicles parked nearby). As the briefing continued for what seemed like half an hour, one of the journalists, a little worried, asked me if it was going to be that dangerous.
I explained I was not going to contradict the briefer, but, whispering, I told him I seriously doubted we would encounter any such threat. For heaven’s sake, I explained, it was a U.S. military base with thousands of troops, where there had not been a single such incident in the three months they had set up camp. He was relieved, but those more attentively listening to the briefer were not, as they contemplated that soon they could be running for their lives across an open tarmac a la “sniper alley” in Sarajevo.
There were of course no snipers, and as the nervous passengers exited from the rear of the aircraft off an enormous steel ramp that could handle tanks and other tactical vehicles, we were greeted by a group of Bosnian children in colorful native dress. Hope none of them is a sniper, I thought. They presented Mrs. Clinton with bright bouquets of spring flowers that were quickly gathered up by aides while the first lady patted the children on the head … The visit seemed over before it began by the time we made our way back to the airstrip and boarded the C-17 for the flight to Germany. But the threat of snipers seemed to be all most people could remember.
I'm familiar with the saying, and likewise familiar with another one often mentioned in reference to her, namely "when there is smoke, there is fire". The problem here is that the "smell", or the "smoke", is often the result of fabrications or hysteria about pretty minor issues, and the fire is almost never there. I'm aware of the state of public perception about her, yet this has zero relevance to the objective reality of her honesty.
You realize how much you sound like you're rationalizing her behavior? When did we stop caring if a politician lies or not? I can't believe you're going from "all this is fake scandal" to full cynic is only a couple posts. It's okay to lie about being under sniper fire because she was under the impression that could be sniper fire? What a low standard.That's not what I said. I said there was a plausible explanation, put forward by others, to explain why she might have sincerely misremembered the episode. I also didn't go "full cynic" or anything of the sort -- you're not making any actual point, only attempting to strawman my argument.
No, you did not address intent. She claims there was no intent and that's where it ends. Her claim. But anyone with common sense can see how flimsy this is. To her benefit, our legal system has a very high standard for this issue. There would need to be some written, video, or audio materials of Hillary Clinton spelling out her motivation for doing circumventing FOIA laws. For someone who talks about how knowledgeable she is about public policy, she surely made a huge blunder by having someone go to all the trouble to set up a secret server... Any random person off the street knows how wrong it is what she did. Heck, I've worked in gov't and they make you sign documents that state you're aware and understand the laws about public record. It's everywhere. FOIA is EVERYWHERE. This is not some random, obscure law... It is central to how the public (and the media) can keep our gov't and officials accountable (to a degree that it doesn't interfere with national security).Yes, I did address intent: there is no evidence supporting your accusation. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. All of the evidence available (and I'm not talking about her word) points to there being no intent to deceive or hide anything, except with regards to the fact that she wanted to use the kind of devices she was familiar with (blackberries). Her e-mails to Colin Powell point to that, her exchanges with her staff point to that, and her actual practice as Secretary of State points to that. With regards to the deletion of e-mails, she's not the one who went through them to separate the professional e-mails from the personal e-mails, and the only ones who were deleted were the ones who had been reviewed as personal by those in charge of making the distinction. She played no part in selecting e-mails for deletion. Now tell me, what evidence do you have of the kind of intent you're accusing her of? I'm asking for evidence, not your a-priori beliefs built on the narrative about her you've eaten up.
Activist groups, like Judicial Watch, are relentless with FOIA requests. They can just crank those things out. So it's on everyone's mind, constantly. Are you trying to argue that Clinton was so grossly unaware of this that she could go through the process of setting up a private server, use that private server for multiple years, and then permanently delete (using specialized software) all records off the hardware, and did this all out of ignorance of FOIA laws?
That amount of naivete is nothing short of breathtaking.Literally none of those are lies. You either don't know what a lie is or are unfamiliar with the facts of the case.
Since you're all into cognitive psychology, maybe you should point that analysis at yourself? Why are you so defensive about Clinton? Why are you rationalizing her lies and defending her when it's clear to most anyone (including 60-70% of US voters) that she's lied repeatedly about her server.
She said she never sent and received classified emails. Lie.
She claims she did it out of convenience so that she could use one device. Lie.
She said that Colin Powell advised her to use a private server/email. Lie.
I'm not going to bother linking you to these things because they're everywhere. They're a matter of public record at this point. Not based on the editorializing of some partisan writer.
Just one post ago you made a case about quantitative/qualitative data suggesting she mustn't be as bad (or worse) than any other politician. That there are journalists who support her and think she's an honest, trustworthy person. Now you're saying that when you look at what most people think of her, the perception of her, she's overwhelmingly seen as dishonest and not trustworthy. You can say what you want about public perception, but there's also a long list of people (journalists, politicians, whoever, take your pick) who agree with public perception about the Clintons. Ron Fournier has covered the Clintons since Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas and has said RE - PEATED - LY that the Clintons have a very loose relationship with the truth. Ron Fournier is a very middle of the road kind of guy and says in his articles, always prefacing, "I'm friends with the Clintons, but...". If you've got long-time friends and you can call them out on their poor behavior, that says something.I don't have access to Fournier's articles in the National Journal, but if I remember correctly his contributions in other media he was critical of her responses on her e-mail server story, which I addressed in my previous post: I agree that she was overly defensive about it, and that she changed her statements at different points. Like I said, I suspect that her motivations were that she saw it as a witch-hunt and probably didn't understand the e-mail server issue in-depth to begin with.
I mean, how dense do you have to be not to see this? The willing self-deception is astonishing. Even her supporters agree she lied about this! But when confronted with the alternative (Donald Trump), they're willing to back her.
One last comment about my "a priori" beliefs about her. It's really hard not to and I don't see why that's a problem. Should all our opinions and perceptions of people be immediately reset to tabula rasa when they run for President? She's been in public life for 30+ years. I barely remember George H.W. Bush's presidency but I surely remember Bill Clinton's. And Hillary was in the spotlight all the time. These two individuals -- Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton -- have an extraordinary amount of political power in the US. They are THE so-called "establishment". They've been advisors to all sorts of mega-corporations and Wall Street banks. It is fundamentally contrarian to our form of gov't that any one person has so much power. We have checks and balances because of this -- each branch of gov't (legislature, judicial, executive) checks and balances the powers of the others. And yet, with these two individuals, their spheres of influence are enormous. Apparently so enormous that the entire Democratic Party nomination process was rigged to make sure Hillary Clinton ran unopposed. Look at who ran against her: Two people (Jim Webb and Lincoln Chaffee) were complete joke candidates who dropped out after the first debate. The only individual, Bernie Sanders, who had a real attempt to oppose her was perpetually beset by actions taken by the DNC. There's Wikileaks explicitly showing coordination between the DNC and the Clinton campaign in trying to stop Bernie.This is a rant containing nothing of substance. Nobody is saying that opinions of people need to be reset at any point. I'm asking for data, for evidence, that she's a serial liar. You don't have it. And the rest is basically you complaining about Sanders losing the nomination, which is again irrelevant.
Inequality is not a problemye, 62 ppl owning half of the planet, and half of the population living on less than $2 a day is just so cool brah.
We didnt have problems with inequality when the people at the top were in a symbiotic relationship with the people on the bottom.did you even read what you just said? lemme get this straight, so people at the top(WEALTHY) were in a 'symbiotic relationship' (? lol, whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) with people at the bottom(POOR). so you're saying we didn't have problems with inequality when there was a wealth gap between rich and poor. wat.
The wealth gap makes sense because the people at the top are doing a job that the vast majority of people couldn't do.yeh like goldman sachs. doing such invaluable work. makes perfect sense.
Why should capital be taken from people who are productive and given to people who are not productive? Its immoral to take from people and they owe nothing to others.
People who cannot afford their children are entirely to blame for their situation because they should have realized that they would not be able to afford to raise them, similar to when you buy an expensive car on a loan and will then have to make payments every month to keep that car. They shouldn't be having children that they cant afford.
When things that unskilled people used to do are automated, everything will be a lot cheaper, so even though they get paid less, they still will have similar purchasing power.
People who can do more valuable work have always been in a higher position than everyone else, this kind of inequality is not really new.
The "they're the only ones who can do it" is a moral justification.
How is the idea that automated production = cheaper products wrong? Its now cheaper to produce everything. Of course it makes everyone less equal since someone like an engineer's purchasing power shoots through the roof, but he's just that much more valuable compared to someone who got replaced by a machine he invented.
You still haven't explained to me why "they're the only ones who can do it" is wrong. Taking things away from others without their consent is bad moral theory. Can you just explain why instead of saying "who cares" or "you're insane"
What is the point of tax money being used for NASA, or unprofitable sciences? What do they contribute?
Insurance still exists- so people would still be able to get treated for diseases.
The society you are imagining is one where a growing class of parasites feeds off of a productive minority- all because nobody should have to justify their existence in society. How is that a good system? Its more important to have a meritocracy where the most productive people have the most power.
Look around yourself. All the technology you see is the result of previous "unprofitable sciences". The productivity of the people you worship is exactly due to unprofitable sciences giving them the means for that.Give me an example- things like cars, airplanes, computers, the internet, radio were not unprofitable when they were first being invented. If investing in NASA is so valuable, then there should be an economic incentive for people to invest in it on their own, rather than make everyone pay for their research.
Give me an example- things like cars, airplanes, computers, the internet, radio were not unprofitable when they were first being invented. If investing in NASA is so valuable, then there should be an economic incentive for people to invest in it on their own, rather than make everyone pay for their research.
According to you, when someone is successful, they have a responsibility to other people, and when someone isnt successful, they are a victim and being successful is not their responsibility anymore. Transportation, manual labor jobs wont disappear overnight- the people working there have a responsibility to prepare themselves for the new system. Its no different from when many of the manufacturing jobs in the USA were moved over to china.
Maybe property doesn't exist in the utopia that a "moral philosopher" like yourself can dream up, but its only a utopia for people who cant take care of themselves. The outcomes are better for people who dont work, but worse for the nation and the people who are productive, who are the only ones sustaining society. Of course they're more important.
but worse for the nation and the people who are productive
So if everyone gets decent opportunities for education, healthcare
and isn't extremely poor so doesn't need to turn to crime just because
he was born in the wrong (poor) family, the end result is worse for
the nation? Are you serious? Do you really think that giving decent
opportunities to people results in a worse outcome for the nation?
You are right about a lot of the people doing the inventing did not
care for the money- but all the investors that created the airline,
radio industry certainly did.
If science creates new, profitable things that will make everyone's
life better, then it should make just as much sense to investors as it
does to the government that science is worth investing in. Investing
in science that isnt directly useful goes beyond the role of the
We have people who will give out grants to start-up companies even
though most of them will fail on the off-chance that one of them will
be the next big thing- why should we see things like scientists
working on gravity waves any differently?
Decent opportunities are different from handing unproductive people welfare checks- decent opportunities can be created by bringing low-class jobs back from china and mexico, and by giving scholarships to people based on their academic merits. Right now there are so many people in poverty in USA because they cant find any work, and they need jobs, not cash relief which does nothing to solve the problem.
That just doesn't work. You'd end up relying on rich people who support this as a hobby. That would skew science at best, or mostly kill it. Seems like you didn't grasp the fact that you can't predict which science is productive. For some sciences you can, for most you can't. Period.
You have some weird belief that there are these "horrible" parasites that just want to leech off of welfare, and I don't think that's true. Nobody wants to be on welfare, it doesn't pay much and it's embarrassing. Everyone wants to have at least some job.
That doesn't make it something that everyone should be obliged to invest in.
The point of bringing manufacturing back isn't to give "fun" jobs- its work. You should have to work for a living, weather you enjoy working or not. Higher Education opportunities are provided by merit-based scholarships, and the poor can go to trade school for a somewhat higher salary. Putting people back to work reduces the chances that they will commit crime.
35.4% of the population is on welfare. In 39 states living off welfare pays more than an $8 an hour (usually the minimum wage) job. In 8 states it pays more than being a teacher. Living off of welfare is a completely viable choice for most people who don't want to work for a living. Europe might not have this problem, but there are groups of people here that completely accept this as a way of life.
Yes it does, provided we actually care about our future.
But it's not going to solve anything. You think taxes will make companies leave the US? What about making them hire Americans for twice as much as the Chinese.
If its so important, then you can donate on your own.
Its not below 100$
why should they? Nobody has an obligation to those people.
but it provides no benefit to society.
Maybe it wont break the economy 80 years down the line
Because I got less than a hundred dollars.
If your first point is to say that no one is obligated to anyone else, well you might as well be advocating anarchy at that point.
Yes, because If we don't build rockets, then its going to be as bad as taking away electricity. Great logic there.
But obviously telling someone to give you money because you dont have as much of it as them doesn't mean they're obligated to give you anything.
Politics is about who has power over who and how society gets organized-
Your refutation is basically "science will die the companies dont care about science and will kill it". Even when lots of scientific innovations happen in companies that try to improve their product, or even when companies like spaceX get a billion dollars in funding.
I wrote that its not really about ethics because you seem to be using that as a way to not explain yourself- when I point out something very basic, like "its not their property, so they dont have a right to it", you say that I have "bad ethics" and then call me a name. I really dont think you have any kind of answer since you've used that card many times. Just because 20% of your paycheck could help make someone happier doesn't mean that they have a right to it, and I dont think you understand this. To you self-interest over group interest is "crazy", and I cant understand why you wont look at these things rationally.
Just because 20% of your paycheck could help make someone happier doesn't mean that they have a right to it, and I dont think you understand this.
They can't care. There's no linear relationship between science and profitability.
Definitely just using the word ethics to cover up my weird ass random claims.
Right, because all the work that the engineers and researchers who work for big companies do has no relationship with the companies profit.
You're using it to say that anything that puts self-interests over group interests is inherently wrong without acknowledging things like property. Is private property unethical to you?
I've already answered you about taxes.
I have been consistent- Things like infrastructure help the person who pays the taxes, but things like welfare or your precious telescopes dont help that person. Its not in a taxpayers interest to have their money spent on things that dont help them.
People should be able to choose weather they want to support poorer people or not, instead of having the government blow their tax money on people who dont contribute without giving them a choice.
People should be able to choose
WHY? Why is the ability to choose here so fundemental? Why is it more important than the right to not fucking starve?
Whats going to help in the future are the things that companies will be making in the future.
Imagine your life, but without products made by corporations (like your computer).
I would go [back] to a primate of politics, where your vote has an impact on the way things go.
The means of production don't magically disappear without the corporations, you know?
[...]whoever controls the media, or has the most advertisement money, can get people to support a candidate.
just pointing out that the government shouldn't fund things that arent going to be helpful.
The starving children is a strawman- children starving (or anyone really) is not an issue in the USA.
Because its their property that they worked for- why should they not have a choice about something that isnt essential for society?
you're setting the bar unrealistically high for not benefiting the poor(er) sufficiently.
Firstly, the AI-derived income doesn't have to be concentrated.
We can imagine a scenario (not a common one, I freely admit) of a billionaire who suffers a great psychic loss by being expropriated. I don't think it'd be moral to hurt such a person in the name of wealth equality.
Finally, I do not share your opinion on the importance of financial inequality.
There aren’t many ways to imagine someone being more beneficial to the general public (in the economic sense at least)Yeah there are.
If you claim it’s moral to take indiscriminately from the rich against their will, would you personally do it if given the chance? If no, what is it that makes the act suddenly permissible when a group of people called “the state” do it?Do you mean if I’d donate the money, or go up to rich people and steal it?
and at the same time, those 62 people you have no problem with are paying 0-15% tax compared to an average American's 30%+?
- 836 million people still live in extreme poverty
- About one in five persons in developing regions lives on less than $1.25 per day
The size of the global economy has more than doubled over the past 30 years.In 2014, its value reached nearly $78 trillion. As production and output continue to grow, there have been absolute increases in gross domestic product (GDP) – one of the main indicators of economic prosperity – in every region of the world over
this period. In South Asia, combined GDP in 2014 was more than five times what it was in 1985.
Over the past 30 years, average annual GDP growth has been higher in low- and middle-income countries than in richer ones. Average incomes in poorer countries are catching up with those in richer ones, and inequality between nations is falling.
Emerging economy powerhouses are leading this catch-up
process: China and India, for example, have driven much of the dramatic increase in the combined GDP of Asian countries. Between 1990 and 2011 economic growth in the region helped nearly a billion people to escape extreme poverty; 700 million in these two countries alone. The proportion of the world’s population living in extreme poverty fell from 36 percent in 1990 to 16 percent in 2010, such that the Millennium Development Goal to halve extreme poverty was met five years ahead of the 2015 target. Encouraged by this progress, in 2015 the world’s leaders committed to eradicating extreme poverty by 2030 as part of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Global wealth stocks, the total value of all assets – financial and non-financial – minus total debt, have also seen robust growth, nearly doubling over the past 15 years from $160 trillion in 200015 to $267 trillion in 2015.16 While the 2008 global financial crisis had a negative effect on wealth stocks, every region in the world experienced growth over the period, with some of the biggest increases being in low- and middle-income countries. Wealth stocks in Latin America and Africa more than tripled, as did wealth in China and India, two of the fastest-growing emerging economies.
Looking at the growth rates of the poorest income groups compared with the average, as the new SDG 10 sets out to do, fails to address the stark and growing gap between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ in absolute terms. Even if the incomes of the poorest people grow at the same rate or faster than the average, the absolute gap between the rich and the poor will continue to grow.
The incomes of the poorest are so low to start with that any growth in their incomes remains small in absolute terms, while for those with extremely high incomes even low growth in percentage terms can result in huge absolute increases.
The wealth of billionaires can fluctuate dramatically by significant amounts, even day to day, as reflected by the update to Forbes billionaire rankings which track wealth in real time. The wealth(bold added by me)
of the richest 62 billionaires which we analyzed includes different individuals year to year.
They refuse to play the game and don't realize most of the presidents job these days is to just keep the sinking ship afloat and make a few small improvements here and there until the next president comes in to take his place.
His crude comment towards women means nothing because every single guy under the planet will make such comments by the time they get to 60 and those that don't are either liars or gay. And I doubt most women will be innocent of never going there either.