This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Alternative Facts
Pages: 1 ... 666768 6970 ... 306
2011
« on: January 30, 2016, 12:39:26 PM »
ClintonFor the past painful year, the Republican presidential contenders have been bombarding Americans with empty propaganda slogans and competing, bizarrely, to present themselves as the least experienced person for the most important elected job in the world. Democratic primary voters, on the other hand, after a substantive debate over real issues, have the chance to nominate one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history.
Hillary Clinton would be the first woman nominated by a major party. She served as a senator from a major state (New York) and as secretary of state — not to mention her experience on the national stage as first lady with her brilliant and flawed husband, President Bill Clinton. The Times editorial board has endorsed her three times for federal office — twice for Senate and once in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary — and is doing so again with confidence and enthusiasm.
Half of a Kasich EndorsementMore than a half-dozen other candidates are battling for survival. Jeb Bush has failed to ignite much support, but at least he has criticized the bigotry of Mr. Trump and the warmongering of Mr. Cruz. Senator Marco Rubio, currently embracing the alarmist views of the front-runners, seems to have forgotten his more positive “New American Century” campaign, based on helping the middle-class. The terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino exposed Ben Carson’s inability to grasp the world. Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey has said he would shoot down Russian planes, engage with the dead king of Jordan and bar refugees, including orphaned Syrian toddlers.
Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, though a distinct underdog, is the only plausible choice for Republicans tired of the extremism and inexperience on display in this race. And Mr. Kasich is no moderate. As governor, he’s gone after public-sector unions, fought to limit abortion rights and opposed same-sex marriage.
Still, as a veteran of partisan fights and bipartisan deals during nearly two decades in the House, he has been capable of compromise and believes in the ability of government to improve lives. He favors a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and he speaks of government’s duty to protect the poor, the mentally ill and others “in the shadows.” While Republicans in Congress tried more than 60 times to kill Obamacare, Mr. Kasich did an end-run around Ohio’s Republican Legislature to secure a $13 billion Medicaid expansion to cover more people in his state.
“I am so tired of my colleagues out here on the stage spending all their time talking about Barack Obama,” he told a town hall crowd in New Hampshire. “His term is over.” Mr. Kasich said recently that he had “raised the bar in this election. I’ve talked about hope and the future and positive things.” In this race, how rare that is.
Iowa Caucus is next week.
2012
« on: January 30, 2016, 09:54:20 AM »
I posted.
Do I get to pick which member gets unbanned?
2013
« on: January 29, 2016, 11:10:34 PM »
I'm gonna have to lock this
2014
« on: January 29, 2016, 09:36:17 PM »
I like the grey ones.
2015
« on: January 28, 2016, 05:08:42 PM »
I took Kiyo's place.
Not much of an upgrade.
2016
« on: January 28, 2016, 03:48:26 PM »
you shouldn't talk shit about someone who isn't present to defend themselves tbh
If they aren't there because of a medical issue, or perhaps a family crisis, sure.
If the person in question chooses not to attend because they just don't want to, that's completely justified in my opinion.
Choosing not to attend because he doesn't want to play games with an eejit moderator is fair enough imo
Yet that isn't what his press release, posted by Cadenza, says - it says that he just doesn't want to debate because he's won the past six times.
Not that a campaign's press release is ever indicative of the whole issue, but this is Trump's official statement. He should be criticized for skipping out because he doesn't want to go.
Not really though
He'd be wasting his time at another debate kerbstomping the other spineless candidates
What he's doing instead is going to be better for his campaign, helping out wounded veterans with a fundraiser rather than wasting oxygen on fox news. Regardless of the ulterior motive, which of those is more likely to strike home with mass appeal?
'Trump quits debates in arrogance/petulance'
or
'Trump snubs debates to help veterans'
How do you think it's going to end up being spun?
How it's going to be spun by his campaign and the rest of the media is not what we're discussing - you said he shouldn't be attacked by the other candidates, I'm saying he should be.
2017
« on: January 28, 2016, 03:44:12 PM »
I'm only a fan of 679.
Macklemore is better, and even Macklemore is pretty bad.
2018
« on: January 28, 2016, 03:42:42 PM »
you shouldn't talk shit about someone who isn't present to defend themselves tbh
If they aren't there because of a medical issue, or perhaps a family crisis, sure.
If the person in question chooses not to attend because they just don't want to, that's completely justified in my opinion.
Choosing not to attend because he doesn't want to play games with an eejit moderator is fair enough imo
Yet that isn't what his press release, posted by Cadenza, says - it says that he just doesn't want to debate because he's won the past six times. Not that a campaign's press release is ever indicative of the whole issue, but this is Trump's official statement. He should be criticized for skipping out because he doesn't want to go.
2019
« on: January 28, 2016, 03:40:34 PM »
Sexuality isn't that basic.
No, it does not make you gay.
2020
« on: January 28, 2016, 03:36:43 PM »
you shouldn't talk shit about someone who isn't present to defend themselves tbh
If they aren't there because of a medical issue, or perhaps a family crisis, sure. If the person in question chooses not to attend because they just don't want to, that's completely justified in my opinion.
2021
« on: January 28, 2016, 09:56:54 AM »
WaPONEW BLOOMINGTON, Ohio — On the phone, the boy was frantic. After traveling hundreds of miles from a village in Guatemala, he had made it across the U.S. border and into a government-funded shelter for unaccompanied minors.
But then something went terribly wrong.
Instead of sending him to his uncle, Carlos Enrique Pascual, a landscape worker in Florida, authorities said the shelter released the teenager to traffickers who took him to central Ohio, held him captive in a roach-infested trailer and threatened to kill him if he tried to leave.
“Please, how can I get out of this?” Pascual’s nephew begged him during a stolen moment with a telephone. “I’m hungry, and my heart is bursting with fear.”
Pascual called police and, in December 2014, authorities found his nephew, then 17, and seven other boys living in cramped, dirty trailers about an hour outside of Columbus. Authorities said they were working at Trillium Farms, one of the country’s largest egg producers, debeaking hens and cleaning cages nearly 12 hours a day, six days a week, for as little as $2 a day.
The boys were part of a surge of children flowing across the U.S.-Mexico border over the past four years, overwhelming federal officials responsible for their safekeeping, child advocates say. Since 2011, more than 125,000 unaccompanied minors from Central America have been stopped at the border, many placed in shelters funded by the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) has demanded a response from the Obama administration to whistleblower claims that thousands of those children have been released to sponsors with criminal records that include homicide, child molestation and human trafficking. Legal advocates for the children say many have wound up in abusive situations, where they have been forced to work to repay debts or living expenses. Some children simply stop showing up for immigration hearings and vanish.
“We have a large percentage of these kids that disappear, and I don’t know what happens to them,” said Jessica Ramos, a lawyer with Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, an Ohio nonprofit group that represents children in immigration proceedings.
Andrea Helling, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the Office of Refugee Resettlement, said the inspector general is investigating the whistleblower allegations. She acknowledged that the agency briefly relaxed identity requirements for family members collecting children at the height of the surge in May 2014 to help place children more quickly.
Since then, she said, the agency has strengthened its protection efforts by reinstituting a fingerprint requirement for many people who claim children from federally funded shelters, expanding a hotline to report abuse, and requiring caseworkers to call and check up on children within 30 days of their release.
“We are committed to placement of unaccompanied children with appropriate sponsors that serve the best interest of the child,” Bob Carey, the agency’s director, said in a statement.
Still, the agency conducted post-release checks on only about 6,500 children in fiscal 2014, Helling said. Once the children are settled with sponsors, she added, state and local child protection agencies are responsible for their well-being.
“Once a child is placed with a sponsor,” she said, “the local community becomes very important.”
Helling declined to discuss the agency’s handling of individual children, including Pascual’s nephew. Federal prosecutors indicted six people in connection with the trafficking scheme; five have plead guilty.
No legal action has been taken against Trillium Farms, whose executives say they were unaware that a subcontractor hired to provide manual labor was engaged in human trafficking.
“Our employment guidelines are strict, and we participate in all federal programs to verify employment,” chief operating officer Doug Mack said in a statement. “While we have the same requirements for our contractors, it is clear in this case we were misled by the contracting company, which intended to act illegally.”
Alarmed by the case, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, opened an inquiry into the government’s system for processing unaccompanied minors. The results are scheduled to be made public Thursday, when Portman plans to chair a hearing on the matter.
“Based on what I have learned to date, I am concerned that the child placement process failures that contributed to the [egg farm] trafficking case are part of a systemic problem rather than a one-off incident,” Portman said in a statement.
The article goes much longer and in depth, so check the link if you wish to read more.
2022
« on: January 27, 2016, 09:11:54 PM »
I have mad props to Fox News for standing up against Trump's desire to have Kelly removed from the moderating panel.
2023
« on: January 26, 2016, 04:28:48 PM »
*Hillary
(remembers Benghazi) lmao, she's not getting my vote.
*Donald Trump
Financially he can help the country, but lets not forget how hot temper he can be, also he's just a business man, so my expectations on Donald is low.
*Bernie Sanders
Does he really think that getting rid of big cooperation's will help america? No it won't, what if a new corporations rises to big cooperation's and has a lot of greed, complete waste of time.
Conclusion: well fuck.
It's like you have no idea what they are saying, whatsoever. Or the fallout of any of their policies. GG.
2024
« on: January 25, 2016, 12:30:37 PM »
It's bound to fail, because it's trying to unify people in countries whom have too many differences.
2025
« on: January 25, 2016, 12:29:14 PM »
I remember you
2026
« on: January 23, 2016, 04:38:12 PM »
Ads are like Aids!
As a gay man, that's kind of offensive.
2027
« on: January 23, 2016, 04:35:10 PM »
343 continues to disappoint me.
2028
« on: January 23, 2016, 01:51:43 PM »
Deadline is in...March?Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg – a onetime moderate Republican who has crusaded on gun control -- is considering throwing $1 billion of his vast fortune into an independent bid for president, according to several sources familiar with his plans.
He has set March as a deadline, according to one, and his decision will likely be contingent on the results of early primaries, and he's more likely to take the leap if the "extremes" -- meaning Trump, Ted Cruz or Democrat Bernie Sanders -- prevail.
"If you have a Democratic frontrunner who is opposed to capitalism, and a Republican frontrunner who wants to deport 10 million immigrants, yeah, that'll make a difference," said the person, who has direct knowledge of his preparation, which includes polling and message-testing.
Another Bloomberg associate familiar with the former mayor's plans put the likelihood of an actual run between 30 and 50 percent.
“I wouldn’t say he is leaning toward,” the source said, adding that Bloomberg has been “looking harder and harder” at the possibility of testing his chances as the race has become more fractured. “It’s gone from idle chit-chat, to ‘let’s take a real look.’”
“A lot of people on a daily basis tell him, ‘you should do it.’" the source said. "I think he’s been watching and toying with it for a while.”
Bloomberg would be less interested in running if Hillary Clinton or a more moderate GOP candidate emerges from the early contest, two sources in Bloomberg's circle told POLITICO. In 2013, he reportedly urged her to consider running for New York City mayor and succeeding him. But one of the insiders added that part of Bloomberg’s thinking now is that if Clinton becomes the party’s nominee and a Department of Justice probe leads to a federal indictment, that would undermine her ability to serve.
The former mayor was raised in a Democratic family outside of Boston, and contributed to Democratic campaigns as a young man. But he always viewed the two-party system as a political Uber -- a convenient means of getting where he wanted to go that commanded little personal allegiance -- and ran for mayor under the Republican banner only because it offered him an easier path to nomination.
Bloomberg’s exploration of a bid, first reported in the New York Times on Saturday, is motivated by his belief that the ascent of Trump, a fellow billionaire the business information executive has known for two decades, represents a crisis in the two-party system that calls for a third-party solution. But he's equally wary of Sanders, a Democratic socialist who has called for the break-up of big Wall Street banks -- the target consumers of Bloomberg's multi-billion-dollar business metrics service.
Bloomberg has become increasingly agitated by the "tone and tenor" of the campaign so far, but is realistic about his chances, people close to him say. He has discussed a number of potential strategies with a collection of advisers and friends -- including the possibility of concentrating his immense resources on a single state like Florida, which both major-party candidates need -- to leverage changes in policy.
Even if he doesn't run, the mere mention of his billion-dollar bid would have a ripple effect. The front-page splash on the homepage of the Times mirrors a similar gambit he undertook eight years ago, with little effect. In January 2008 – as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton dueled it out New Hampshire -- Bloomberg hosted a bipartisan summit of moderates in Oklahoma designed to raise attention for his cause, but ultimately it underscored his marginalization from the national political conversation.
The three-term former mayor, who governed with a middle-of-the-road philosophy of social liberalism and low-tax conservatism, has struggled to gain political traction since leaving office in 2013. Bloomberg, 73, spent tens of millions in an unsuccessful bid to toughen the nation’s gun control laws in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., school shootings – and many gun rights activists claim his name alone created a backlash that helped sink his cause.
Even if Bloomberg carries out his promise to serve as his own super PAC, the odds of his winning are steep, verging on impossible. He would most likely serve as a spoiler in Northeastern states, and potentially Florida, which has a large Jewish population -- and he’s just as likely to draw votes from the Democratic nominee as the Republican pick, whether it’s Trump or anyone else.
During his mayoralty, Bloomberg has surrounded himself with a stable of well-regarded political operatives with deep connections in Democratic circles – former Hillary Clinton aide Howard Wolfson and Kevin Sheekey, a former staffer for late New York Sen. Pat Moynihan who was recently considered as a possible chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden.
And many of his loyal former aides are eager for him to step back into the political ring. “A lot of people who worked for him in the past believe he has more to contribute and want to be a part of it,” a Bloomberg associate said. Kinda laughable.
2029
« on: January 22, 2016, 05:28:18 PM »
If we hit 100 pages, I'll post a nude in Anarchy
2030
« on: January 21, 2016, 08:58:37 PM »
Helps when dealing with the Constitution and the boundaries of the office, international law, etc.
But only marginally so, I reckon.
Or at least, the merits of a business degree (or in Trump's case, experience) are equal to and arguably greater than a law degree, especially when the country is as much debt as it is.
President has such a minor role in economics though - Congress controls the budget, appropriations, etc.
2031
« on: January 21, 2016, 07:54:40 PM »
You look older, but also like a redneck.
No points gained.
2032
« on: January 21, 2016, 07:48:10 PM »
Because as nice of an ideal that this is, the office of the Presidency, the state of national politics and global affairs as a whole makes this extremely difficult to accomplish - it's kind of why we only see Presidents that graduate with college degrees (namely with law degrees) these days.
I don't see how a law degree helps in that regard.
Helps when dealing with the Constitution and the boundaries of the office, international law, etc.
2033
« on: January 21, 2016, 07:41:30 PM »
Forgive me, but why does a leader need to have political experience to "matter"? Isn't the leader of the country meant to represent the people and their values, while making decisions that reflect that?
If you can do that, what's the issue?
Because as nice of an ideal that this is, the office of the Presidency, the state of national politics and global affairs as a whole makes this extremely difficult to accomplish - it's kind of why we only see Presidents that graduate with college degrees (namely with law degrees) these days. Although it would be nice to elect someone who represents the people as a whole and has never engaged in politics, they would drown in the duties and requirements that a President is required to handle.
2034
« on: January 21, 2016, 07:18:55 PM »
He is literally running on name alone.
He is literally running on his business career, if you are going to call that "name alone" then Clinton is running on "name alone" as well you hypocrite.
Business career is not politics. As much as we'd like to think that someone with zero political experience can just skyrocket to the Oval Office and succeed, it won't happen.
2035
« on: January 21, 2016, 07:17:47 PM »
First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States,
Let's be honest here, these don't mean shit.
Considering her and her staff had far more power and access to the President during her tenure as FLOTUS, it really does.
2036
« on: January 21, 2016, 05:25:23 PM »
nothing but name alone
Ya know, besides the time she spent volunteering for political campaigns and congressional officials during her younger years, along with her experience as First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, State Senator for 8 years, and Secretary of State for 4 years.
But sure, let's elect the guy with zero political experience and throw him into the office of the most powerful world leader.
Because it'd be so much smarter to elect a known corrupt political official. God you're insufferable. I bet you'd vote for her if she outright admitted to all her corruption
Besides the email issue, mind sharing her corruption?
http://sep7agon.net/serious/hillary-clinton's-sweeping-ties-to-corruption/msg703722/#msg703722
I remember that thread, wanted to read more on it. Is there any other material I should do for it?
2037
« on: January 21, 2016, 05:18:45 PM »
"He's been in Congress for 25, he's been in an elected office longer than I have." Because Congress/elected office is the only place that gives experience in the political field. I totally forgot this. When most of America was against gay marriage, so was she. Which is why...- Told supporters she was against DADT in 1999. - Spokesperson stated that although she supported DOMA, she also supported same-sex unions and said Clinton support making sure those unions received the same rights as marriage. - Spoke out against, and voted against, a federal amendment banning same-sex marriage in 2004. Also, you fail to know that in 2006, Bernie Sanders took a similarly cautious approach to same-sex marriage. In 2006, he took a stand against same-sex marriage in Vermont, stating that he instead endorsed civil unions. Sanders told reporters that he was “comfortable” with civil unions, not full marriage equality.Next to no public official supported same sex marriage before they noticed that public perception was rapidly changing. The fact that the OP hates Clinton because she's running on "Nothing but name alone" is kinda funny when compared to Trump. I never compared her to Trump though. You just pulled him out of your ass.
Like I said, Trump and Clinton are the two frontrunners nationally. Trump is going to, at this moment, be the likely GOP candidate in November. He is literally running on name alone.
2038
« on: January 21, 2016, 04:58:41 PM »
nothing but name alone
Ya know, besides the time she spent volunteering for political campaigns and congressional officials during her younger years, along with her experience as First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, State Senator for 8 years, and Secretary of State for 4 years.
But sure, let's elect the guy with zero political experience and throw him into the office of the most powerful world leader.
Because it'd be so much smarter to elect a known corrupt political official. God you're insufferable. I bet you'd vote for her if she outright admitted to all her corruption
Besides the email issue, mind sharing her corruption?
2039
« on: January 21, 2016, 04:47:01 PM »
nothing but name alone
Ya know, besides the time she spent volunteering for political campaigns and congressional officials during her younger years, along with her experience as First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, State Senator for 8 years, and Secretary of State for 4 years.
But sure, let's elect the guy with zero political experience and throw him into the office of the most powerful world leader.
Sanders has been doing this shit for 25 years
That's great, I was referring to Trump with my last statement.
Your point being?
Sanders has been doing political shit for way longer than Clinton, and isn't just parroting the polls
They both began volunteering and working in the political field in the late 1960's and 1970's. So no, he hasn't been doing this for "Way longer" than Clinton. Care to share some examples of parroting the polls? That's great, I was referring to Trump with my last statement.
Your point being?
That it's silly to bring up trump when no one's talking about him...?
He's the current frontrunner of the Republican Party and will (at this moment) be going up against either Clinton or Sanders in November. The fact that the OP hates Clinton because she's running on "Nothing but name alone" is kinda funny when compared to Trump.
2040
« on: January 21, 2016, 04:39:31 PM »
nothing but name alone
Ya know, besides the time she spent volunteering for political campaigns and congressional officials during her younger years, along with her experience as First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, State Senator for 8 years, and Secretary of State for 4 years.
But sure, let's elect the guy with zero political experience and throw him into the office of the most powerful world leader.
Sanders has been doing this shit for 25 years
That's great, I was referring to Trump with my last statement. Your point being?
Pages: 1 ... 666768 6970 ... 306
|
Show Posts