Hillary's Campaign Kickoff

[Tiberius]

This is the Hillary Campaign Kickoff thread.

So I guess derailment is pretty common

[GG]

So I guess derailment is pretty common

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

[IDBillzFan]

So I guess derailment is pretty common

 

Derailment! It's the new Obfuscation! SAD!!!

[Deranged Rhino]

 

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]

 

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]

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 April 20, 2016 by Deranged Rhino

[Nanker]

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.

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

[Tiberius]

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-york

 

Hillary got more votes in NY than ALL the Republicans combined even though Bernie got 700K votes!

 

And Bernie got more votes than any Republican

 

[B-Man]

The Democratic Party Now Belongs to Hillary Clinton.

 

 

 

 

WATCH AS ABC JOURNALIST IS MISTAKEN FOR A HILLARY SUPPORTER BY ‘BERNIE BRO.’

 

Huh. Why would an employee of the House of Stephanopoulos be mistaken for a Hillary supporter?...

 

 

 

 

CAMILLE PAGLIA: Enough with the Hillary cult: Her admirers ignore reality, dream of worshipping a queen.

[Tiberius]

 

 

CAMILLE PAGLIA: Enough with the Hillary cult: Her admirers ignore reality, dream of worshipping a queen.

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

[Doc]

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

 

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

[3rdnlng]

Can anyone recite a list of Hillary's accomplishments?

[IDBillzFan]

Can anyone recite a list of Hillary's accomplishments?

 

 

Well, for one, she has shattered the misconception that you have to be a bag lady to dress like one.

[Chef Jim]

Can anyone recite a list of Hillary's accomplishments?

 

She married a future US President?

[ALF]

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 April 21, 2016 by ALF

[Deranged Rhino]

 

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

 

correction make that a legal bribe

 

Elizabeth Warren on Clinton selling out (from 2004)

[Deranged Rhino]

(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]

(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"

[Tiberius]

(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]

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.