|
Greg Sargent talked to the Sanders campaign, and sounds like there's more victories they've gotten from the platform than has been reported. Some really good stuff here https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/07/01/bernie-sanders-is-winning-some-big-victories-over-the-dem-platform/ quote:1) Eliminating conflict of interest at the Federal Reserve by making sure that executives at financial institutions cannot serve on the board of regional Federal Reserve banks or handpick their members. According to Sanders adviser Warren Gunnels, they are mostly satisfied and believe they are off to "an excellent start"
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:14 |
|
|
# ? Apr 29, 2024 16:20 |
|
Shbobdb posted:Hillary was never going to be indicted and politicians using their political capital to protect themselves is pretty standard. Pretty sure the feds could purge the Oakland PD without having to arrest themselves. They won't, because cops are held to A Winner is Jew posted:Just so you know this is level poo poo. A neo-Nazi who believes in tinfoil bullshit?
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:14 |
|
Jazerus posted:Obviously Lynch has never met a Clinton ever and is going to be hugely influenced by 30 minutes with Bill Yep, not like he appointed her to be the US Attorney for EDNY or anything like that.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:14 |
|
VH4Ever posted:I guess for me it's difficult picturing someone ordering armed guards to tell people "No phones! No recording! They're talking about GRANDKIDS in there, stand back!" unless there was something more going on. But then, this has to be the sloppiest way to "keep something secret" I can think of, because even though the meeting itself wasn't recorded, it wasn't exactly a secret meeting either. Because now there's a lot of questions about it since such a big deal was made. It's just sloppy if nothing else, and I admit it looks shady on top of that. You're assuming the armed guards were intimidating people and smashing their phones or something as opposed to 'these high-ranking people have literal armed guards around them at almost all times." If Clinton wanted to have a private meeting to secretly fix the results of whatever, they wouldn't need to meet openly. They probably would need to meet at all in fact.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:17 |
|
theblackw0lf posted:According to Sanders adviser Warren Gunnels, they are mostly satisfied and believe they are off to "an excellent start"
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:18 |
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Holy poo poo, postal banking? ... I'm actually super stoked for that
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:24 |
|
Wall Street is probably going to find a way to make sure postal banking never happens. I will be shocked if that becomes law.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:24 |
|
Lemming posted:The optics are bad. Sure. Horrible optics is something like Trump saying all Mexicans are rapists broadcast on TV where people are going to talk about it for years. The optics aren't bad, people are loving retarded. People realize that prosecutors in charge of making charging decisions in big cases frequently meet with the person they're considering charging and/or their lawyer right? Like "tell me why I shouldn't charge you for this" is a feature not corruption so trying to insinuate that this meeting was secretly about the investigation is really really dumb because meeting with the Clintons about the case wouldn't been in any way inappropriate even if it had happened (though maybe premature).
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:25 |
|
Jarmak posted:The optics aren't bad, people are loving retarded. It was meeting Former President Bill Clinton, the "accused"s husband. It looks bad, regardless of how it actually went.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:28 |
|
theblackw0lf posted:Greg Sargent talked to the Sanders campaign, and sounds like there's more victories they've gotten from the platform than has been reported. Some really good stuff here Most of those weren't contentious issues, though. They're points where everyone already agreed. #1 both are on record as favoring. #2 is so broad as to be almost meaningless but both are on record as favoring (since last summer so it's not like Sanders showing in the primaries was the reason in any way.) #3 is a Sanders proposal (though it was originally Al Franken's idea in 2010) but has broad support from Democrats as a whole and Clinton has never opposed it. #4 is a Sanders thing through and through. #5 is something both support on record. #6 is something both support on record. The biggest one on there that is actually a Bernie issue is postal banking (which is a great idea.). Presenting them all as Sanders victories is weird.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:30 |
|
Jarmak posted:People realize that prosecutors in charge of making charging decisions in big cases frequently meet with the person they're considering charging and/or their lawyer right? Like "tell me why I shouldn't charge you for this" Did Bill have his lawyer with him? I haven't heard anything about that. I'd be more understanding if that were the case; right now it sounds more like "Hey Lynch, is there anything the Clinton Foundation can do for you?" ----------------
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:30 |
|
I really don't "get" the post office banking thing. I'm fairly privileged, but are traditional banks really that uncommon in poor areas that are served by a post office?
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:30 |
|
Jarmak posted:The optics aren't bad, people are loving retarded. I can't even argue against this insanity. Lynch has already said that she didn't speak about the investigation so your argument is that she lied but it was ok because lawyers do this poo poo all the time? And even if that was the case, she decided the best person to meet was not the subject of the investigation or her lawyer but her husband? Holy gently caress, if Lynch's or Clinton's people tried arguing this it'd be loving hilarious.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:31 |
|
Jarmak posted:The optics aren't bad, people are loving retarded. Optics don't have anything to do with reality, it's just about what an uninformed idiot thinks about a situation given a one sentence summary. Given that, it looks bad. It doesn't look horrible because they also won't give a poo poo five seconds later.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:32 |
|
Goatman Sacks posted:I really don't "get" the post office banking thing. I'm fairly privileged, but are traditional banks really that uncommon in poor areas that are served by a post office?
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:33 |
|
Talmonis posted:It was meeting Former President Bill Clinton, the "accused"s husband. It looks bad, regardless of how it actually went. Why would meeting with the accused or their lawyer be okay but not the accused's husband? What sort of crazy thing could a meeting produce? Did Lynch not realize until now it was that Bill and Hillary Clinton? Did Bill cast charm person? Was this his chance to replace her with a body double? This only looks bad to morons in search of a conspiracy theory.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:33 |
|
Still don't get how it looks bad. Man bumps into woman he knows that also moves in the same professional circles and has overlapping acquaintances, and have a chat.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:33 |
|
Sorus posted:Man bumps into woman he knows that also moves in the same professional circles and has overlapping acquaintances, and have a chat. Hahaha he got into her parked plane with no press allowed as soon as she landed, he didn't see her at Starbucks. ----------------
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:34 |
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:I can't even argue against this insanity. Are you illiterate? No I'm not saying she lied, I'm saying why would she because if they had in fact discussed the case it wouldn't have been a problem.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:35 |
|
Goatman Sacks posted:I really don't "get" the post office banking thing. I'm fairly privileged, but are traditional banks really that uncommon in poor areas that are served by a post office? It's more banks won't even open up an account for poor or low credit people. E: even if you never intend to seek a loan from the bank they still won't open up an account for you. Sorus fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Jul 1, 2016 |
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:35 |
|
Kalman posted:Most of those weren't contentious issues, though. They're points where everyone already agreed. You're right. And it's frustrating how few people know that.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:39 |
|
Sorus posted:Still don't get how it looks bad. Man bumps into woman he knows that also moves in the same professional circles and has overlapping acquaintances, and have a chat. Try pretending you're retarded and you hate Clinton.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:40 |
|
^^^^^ Do you think this is YCS? You can't be this ignorant ^^^^^Sorus posted:Still don't get how it looks bad. Man bumps into woman he knows that also moves in the same professional circles and has overlapping acquaintances, and have a chat. - Bill didn't 'bump into woman', he waited 30 minutes for her plane to land after learning of it - Their meeting was kept hidden - It's a meeting between the AG and the husband of the person who is the subject of a investigation No conspiracy theories, no tinfoil -- it was just a dumb thing to do. Even Lynch knows it, as she publicly affirmed her complying with FBI recommendations this morning.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:40 |
|
Lemming posted:"Optics are horrid"...? For who? Who could possibly care about this? They could be talking on the phone for two hours every day and nobody would know. They talk for thirty minutes in person, and it's a big deal? Yes, it's unseemly. Doesn't mean I'm going to vote for Trump, but let's not pluck out our own eyes here.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:41 |
|
theblackw0lf posted:You're right. And it's frustrating how few people know that. Have to pretend Sanders got something accomplished out of this drawn-out mess, I suppose
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:42 |
|
Hackan Slash posted:Really enjoyed that Mother Jones prison article, so much so that I looked up its author. Just wanted to mention. Gawker did a small interview with Shane after the story was published. He sorta comments on your last question. Matlock Birthmark fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Jul 1, 2016 |
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:43 |
|
Narciss posted:Did Bill have his lawyer with him? I haven't heard anything about that. I'd be more understanding if that were the case; right now it sounds more like "Hey Lynch, is there anything the Clinton Foundation can do for you?" Do phones not exist in your universe? BetterToRuleInHell posted:^^^^^ Do you think this is YCS? You can't be this ignorant ^^^^^ Yes very hidden, that's why it was contemporaneously all over the internet, Lynch spoke this morning because she knows dumb people like you are making hay about it not because there was anything actually wrong with the meeting.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:44 |
|
SedanChair posted:Yes, it's unseemly. Doesn't mean I'm going to vote for Trump, but let's not pluck out our own eyes here. Apparently we have -- USPol as it turns out isn't any better than YCS, and no matter what, any Clinton-related news can't possibly be conceived as negative. Let's all go back to circlejerking about Trump's hands, the real political hot takes that matter.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:44 |
|
I'll be kinda pissed if Clinton does a bunch of awesome poo poo and Sanders gets all the credit for 'pulling her to the left'. I mean, not THAT pissed, because in this scenario awesome poo poo is happening, but still. Once again, a dude and a lady have the same idea and the dude gets all the credit for it.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:45 |
|
Post banking is so cool and good I'm pretty sure it could make the post office solvent despite congressional attempts to destroy them. So they're not likely to allow it. It also would be the first step to creating a counter factual to pay day loan services.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:46 |
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:Apparently we have -- USPol as it turns out isn't any better than YCS, and no matter what, any Clinton-related news can't possibly be conceived as negative. My post was trying to point out the nuance between "bad" and "horrible" not to claim it wasn't negative.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:48 |
|
Hackan Slash posted:Really enjoyed that Mother Jones prison article, so much so that I looked up its author. He did a Q&A about the article and someone asked him about that. Can't search for it right now, but he said something about the Iranian prison being more ordered and controlled by comparison.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:50 |
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:- Their meeting was kept hidden How was it kept hidden if we all knew about it pretty much right after it happened? It would help you sound reasonable if you didn't make poo poo up.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:51 |
|
Jarmak posted:Do phones not exist in your universe? The reporter who initially discovered the meeting was told no filming or pictures. Information being spread doesn't negate the fact that it was initially tried to kept secret. I'm arguing with a loving fence post here. There's no positives to what they did. If they hadn't have done this there would've been something else republicans would have harped on. This entire discussion could have been avoided easily if Bill had just went on his way. There's no goddamn hidden conspiracy that I'm trying to argue here. I'm just trying to get it through your head that maybe, just loving maybe it looks bad. LOOKS. That's it.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:52 |
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:^^^^^ Come the gently caress on, you can't be the goddamn stupid ^^^^ It looks bad the same way that having a hair on your shirt looks bad. It doesn't matter and nobody cares.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:54 |
|
HorseRenoir posted:Have to pretend Sanders got something accomplished out of this drawn-out mess, I suppose Postal banking is definitely something - it would be a legit good thing to have, and would be one step closer to allowing the Post Office to evolve appropriately for modern times (eg the post office serving as an ISP as was proposed once upon a time).
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:54 |
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Let me put it this way: When I say "check cashing place", you have a mental image. If it has any hope of destroying those check cashing scammers that prey on poor areas, that alone would be enough reason to demand it.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:55 |
|
Lemming posted:It looks bad the same way that having a hair on your shirt looks bad. It doesn't matter and nobody cares. Why would Lynch bother apologizing and say "it'll never happen again" if the only people that care are right-wing nuts? Wouldn't it be better to let normal voters get annoyed by their crying wolf? ----------------
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:56 |
|
showbiz_liz posted:I'll be kinda pissed if Clinton does a bunch of awesome poo poo and Sanders gets all the credit for 'pulling her to the left'. I mean, not THAT pissed, because in this scenario awesome poo poo is happening, but still. Once again, a dude and a lady have the same idea and the dude gets all the credit for it. Well, when she had demonstrably different ideas prior to their engagements, I think it's fair. I don't think it's fair that he'd get all the credit for all the ideas, but you can't deny his impact on some of it. Also, at this point I view Hillary as a woman the same way that OJ documentary portrayed OJ as black. It's a convenience thing.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:57 |
|
|
# ? Apr 29, 2024 16:20 |
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:I'm just trying to get it through your head that maybe, just loving maybe it looks bad. LOOKS. That's it. It only looks bad if you're actively looking for something to look bad. It's like the stupid bullshit over Trump's "mexican plane" thing which was very very obviously a joke and taken out of context but people were interested in fulfilling their narrative about how racist he is. (And I'm not a Trump fan so y'know.) An iota of thought reveals why this is a nonentity. The fact that people have to comment at nonentity things is one of the most annoying parts of the election cycle on both sides, because it is largely white noise. Literally nothing will convince people that Hillary Clinton isn't The New Hitler when (and it's 99% likely to be when) she doesn't end up in federal prison. The 'optics' are meaningless because it's entirely meaningless unless you're looking for something to justify your preconceived notions in either direction. Narciss posted:Why would Lynch bother apologizing and say "it'll never happen again" if the only people that care are right-wing nuts? Wouldn't it be better to let normal voters get annoyed by their crying wolf? Because this is an election cycle and people (of all political stances) have to be on tenterhooks about every little thing that would widely get ignored.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 19:57 |