What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (3 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
SaintsInDome2006 said:
fourd said:
Parrothead said:
http://www.aol.com/article/2015/09/03/worker-who-helped-clinton-set-up-email-server-takes-fifth/21231162/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl5|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D-1027225200

Nothing shady gong on here.. IT worker who helped set up server takes the fifth.. :lmao:
Click to expand...
It's not just Congress, either. He won't cooperate with the FBI or the inspector general.https://www.yahoo.com/politics/clinton-aide-has-rebuffed-fbi-and-state-department-128271848515.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma
Click to expand...
At that point, the FBI also sought to question Pagliano and he again refused.
Click to expand...
- That, mis amigos, is either very ballzy, or very scared, behavior.

But this week, MacDougall wrote its chairman, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., a letter informing him that his client would not answer questions, citing the fact that the issue is a subject of investigative activity by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice.
Click to expand...
And he worked for....
Click to expand...
Or very smart behavior for following his lawyer's advice. Many FBI related convictions are for making a false statement or obstruction of justice (by making the supposedly false statement). Pagliano could be wanting to avoid a Julie Hiatt Stele situation - where she cooperated and answered questions truthfully (she claimed) but did not give the answers the prosecutors wanted and had to go to trial for making false statements and for obstruction of justice.

 
squistion said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
fourd said:
Parrothead said:
http://www.aol.com/article/2015/09/03/worker-who-helped-clinton-set-up-email-server-takes-fifth/21231162/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl5|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D-1027225200

Nothing shady gong on here.. IT worker who helped set up server takes the fifth.. :lmao:
Click to expand...
It's not just Congress, either. He won't cooperate with the FBI or the inspector general.https://www.yahoo.com/politics/clinton-aide-has-rebuffed-fbi-and-state-department-128271848515.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma
Click to expand...
At that point, the FBI also sought to question Pagliano and he again refused.
Click to expand...
- That, mis amigos, is either very ballzy, or very scared, behavior.

But this week, MacDougall wrote its chairman, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., a letter informing him that his client would not answer questions, citing the fact that the issue is a subject of investigative activity by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice.
Click to expand...
And he worked for....
Click to expand...
Or very smart behavior for following his lawyer's advice. Many FBI related convictions are for making a false statement or obstruction of justice (by making the supposedly false statement). Pagliano could be wanting to avoid a Julie Hiatt Stele situation - where she cooperated and answered questions truthfully (she claimed) but did not give the answers the prosecutors wanted and had to go to trial for making false statements and for obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...
You are a piece of work. :lmao:

 
:lol: did the Hillary campaign seriously tell this guy to answer questions and be transparent? Good lord, how do they keep a straight face.
 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
The Commish said:
So, I feel like I need to pause here and ask a dumb question. Is there an alternate story to SiD's story being told by anyone other than Hillary's campaign? Have there been other experts not associated with the campaign come forward to negate or contradict the negative claims being asserted? If so, I'd like to hear their side to.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: :whistle: :coffee: :tumbleweed:
Click to expand...
Silence is golden....or defining. Haven't figured out which.

 
Brian Fallon on CNN talking about the Bryan Pagliano 5th Symphony:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kxMr1FSVzY

With Brianna Keilor.

At 5:30 (the lovely) Brianna gets at why Hillary deleted everything off the server where they had been and made copies on thumb drives. Of course the thumb drives would not have any residual metadata revealing what had been there, that would have only been on the server when wiped.

At 6:13 she asks about the metadata,

At 6:30... Fallon says: "I don't know what wiped means."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
But BassNBrew, we had to loan those banks money. If they had failed, it would have been far worse for the small investor, not to mention everyone with a 401k seeing all of their savings wiped out. We narrowly avoided a situation worse than the Great Depression. This is a case when the Establishment worked. It saved our collective bacon.

If the anti-establishment folks had been in charge, the Sanders/Warren people on the left or the Tea Party types on the right, there would have been no bailout, because both extremes were ideologically opposed to it, and they care more about ideology than they do practicality, which is always the problem with extremists, and why we will always need the establishment center to take charge.
Click to expand...
1. The establishment caused the mess to begin with.

2. Whether TARP saved our bacon or not is debatable. I'd argue it just kicked the can down the road.

3. The establishment refused to punish the crooks who broke the law, thus encouraging them to do the same thing next time.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I'll ask this; Pagliano has pleaded the 5th. Is there conceivably anything he would have done which would not have been at Hillary's direction?
Click to expand...
It's conceivable that he's doing it on his own. Highly unlikely, but it's not 100% she's pulling the strings.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, it is possible. Just to be clear I meant in the original setup of the server and then anything else he would have been involved in like migrating the data in 2013. It is possible that someone else directed him, or maybe it's possible he was just managing the data.

 
Slapdash said:
timschochet said:
But BassNBrew, we had to loan those banks money. If they had failed, it would have been far worse for the small investor, not to mention everyone with a 401k seeing all of their savings wiped out. We narrowly avoided a situation worse than the Great Depression. This is a case when the Establishment worked. It saved our collective bacon.

If the anti-establishment folks had been in charge, the Sanders/Warren people on the left or the Tea Party types on the right, there would have been no bailout, because both extremes were ideologically opposed to it, and they care more about ideology than they do practicality, which is always the problem with extremists, and why we will always need the establishment center to take charge.
Click to expand...
Sanders or Warren would have nationalized the banks that needed capital and wiped out their corrupt, criminal management.

You don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...
You could be right about what Sanders or Warren would prefer to do. I'm not sure that nationalizing banks would be a good idea, however. We'd just be trading one set of criminals for another.

 
timschochet said:
BassNBrew said:
timschochet said:
BassNBrew said:
timschochet said:
But BassNBrew, we had to loan those banks money. If they had failed, it would have been far worse for the small investor, not to mention everyone with a 401k seeing all of their savings wiped out. We narrowly avoided a situation worse than the Great Depression. This is a case when the Establishment worked. It saved our collective bacon.

If the anti-establishment folks had been in charge, the Sanders/Warren people on the left or the Tea Party types on the right, there would have been no bailout, because both extremes were ideologically opposed to it, and they care more about ideology than they do practicality, which is always the problem with extremists, and why we will always need the establishment center to take charge.
Click to expand...
Interesting enough when we bailed out the banks we implemented regulations that hindered the small investor. Now big business has even a further leg up on the small business / investor.
Click to expand...
Are you speaking of Dodds-Franks or something else?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure which "reform" screwed us but I'm sure of the tickle down results. I'm honestly surprised you're not seeing this in your business dealings.
Click to expand...
I am. Loans are certainly harder to get since Dodds-Frank. But perhaps they were too easy to get before Dodds-Frank. Truth is I'm kind of torn on this.

Here's where I agree with you: we will never get out of this situation unless we grow ourselves out of it. And the type of regulations that Sanders and Warren want aren't going to help that. But I don't believe in the simplistic tax cuts that all the Republicans want either. Which is why I find myself, as on so many other issues, supporting Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? "The situation" is that banks and Wall Street are illegally taking advantage of the masses, and government encourages them. We can't grow our way out of that.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I'll ask this; Pagliano has pleaded the 5th. Is there conceivably anything he would have done which would not have been at Hillary's direction?
Click to expand...
Are you talking about pleading the 5th, or setting up the server.

I would guess Hillary would have preferred that he not take the 5th - now everyone speculates why he is hiding, and what Hillary is hiding. Now admittedly sometimes it is better to let people guess what is hidden, than to open up and confirm.

As for setting up the server - I doubt Hillary had much actually input into to configurations, or regular updates/patches. I suspect her actual technical know-how is somewhere between "wiping the serve with a cloth" and Sys-Admin.

 
I meant about the server. Good points, I agree it's possible. I can't help but think Hillary's and Fallon's pointedly saying they have no idea what is meant by wiping a server is totally unrelated to this concept though.

 
If I was the IT guy, I would take the 5th. There is lots of stuff that is very wrong here, and who knows who the FBI will nail.

 
jon_mx said:
If I was the IT guy, I would take the 5th. There is lots of stuff that is very wrong here, and who knows who the FBI will nail.
Click to expand...
Hell yeah.

I cant believe anyone would seriously argue this guy should leave himself explosed to the mercies of Hillary and the FBI.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I meant about the server. Good points, I agree it's possible. I can't help but think Hillary's and Fallon's pointedly saying they have no idea what is meant by wiping a server is totally unrelated to this concept though.
Click to expand...
ah....thought you were talking about taking the fifth...carry on

 
timschochet said:
DocHolliday said:
Slapdash said:
timschochet said:
Baloney Sandwich said:
NCCommish said:
timschochet said:
NC Commish and Slapdash: though I am certainly no expert, my very limited understanding is that the repeal of Glass-Steagel was a bad thing for our economy. Does that mean the overall principle of trying to get rid of onerous restrictions is a bad one? Not necessarily. It is also my understanding that removing Glass-Steagel was coupled with pressure from Fannie Mae to offer loans people who never should have gotten them. That was pushed for by progressives, and it also surely contributed to what happened in 2008. I think there's truth to both accusations.

And yeah, Bill Clinton was President. So what? I think most liberally minded and progressive people would agree that, overall, he was a pretty good President.
Click to expand...
Apparently the "onerous regulations" were necessary. The proof is out there.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:
Click to expand...
I find it interesting that Sinn Fein and BassNBrew are arguing that the establishment was wrong for the bailouts because they interfered with capitalism, while you guys are arguing that the establishment was wrong for removing government restrictions on business. Seems like the only thing you guys have in common is that you know you dislike the establishment.
Click to expand...
It seems like that because, again, you are clueless about this issue.

We removed regulations that kept the banking industry safer. Size was limited and activities were limited so that insured depository institutions were not allowed to lever up and take outsized risks. Then we bailed these same companies out, left their management in place, and did not prosecute them for their crimes. You cannot remove regulations and then also remove the consequences when those companies become so risky they fail.

And we'll bail them out next time too. Wall Street will be the top donors to the eventual nominees. Just like they are each year.
Click to expand...
The Tim beat down continues.

Our representatives have proven over and over that they cannot be trusted. We keep electing the same ones or same types over and over. Money is always the answer.

Of course, Hillary is different. She cares about her peasants.
Click to expand...
:P

Yeah I'm getting beat down, because, just as in the NSA debate, the extremists on the left have joined forces with the extremists on the right and libertarians and so I'm totally outnumbered here. That's OK. I love all you guys. But you need to show a little love in return. Have some kindness for us centrist, moderate, pro-establishment types. We're not having a good time of it these days.
Click to expand...
When you are a centrist or a moderate we often find mutual ground. When you are pro-establishment it's a lot harder because your support of said establishment flies in the face of all logic. Have you lived through the last 30 years? I have and it has been an absolute disaster for a lot of people in this country. And the establishment has decided in it's infinite wisdom to keep right on as it has. I really don't understand your insistence.

We call Russia a kleptocracy or an oligarchy. We ridicule them for allowing the rich and powerful to run the nation for their own benefit. And we pretend that because we get a choice between the establishment Kang and Kodos we are somehow different from them. Sadly not as much as all that. If it we were really living in a responsive democracy we would have background checks. Overwhelmingly supported by the voters at over 90%, well supported by NRA members at over 70%. Did we even get this simple sop Tim? No because the established power structure in this country is only in tune with the biggest check and so nothing is done. And we have what the FBI classifies as a mass shooting everyday. That means at least 4 people shot in a single incident. Every day. We lead the world in mass shootings. And still this is where we are.

I chose background checks because it really pisses me off but I could go on about issue after issue that has been derailed by an establishment that has lost it's way. Can't really support it these days.

 
NCCommish said:
When you are a centrist or a moderate we often find mutual ground. When you are pro-establishment it's a lot harder because your support of said establishment flies in the face of all logic. Have you lived through the last 30 years? I have and it has been an absolute disaster for a lot of people in this country. And the establishment has decided in it's infinite wisdom to keep right on as it has. I really don't understand your insistence.

We call Russia a kleptocracy or an oligarchy. We ridicule them for allowing the rich and powerful to run the nation for their own benefit. And we pretend that because we get a choice between the establishment Kang and Kodos we are somehow different from them. Sadly not as much as all that. If it we were really living in a responsive democracy we would have background checks. Overwhelmingly supported by the voters at over 90%, well supported by NRA members at over 70%. Did we even get this simple sop Tim? No because the established power structure in this country is only in tune with the biggest check and so nothing is done. And we have what the FBI classifies as a mass shooting everyday. That means at least 4 people shot in a single incident. Every day. We lead the world in mass shootings. And still this is where we are.

I chose background checks because it really pisses me off but I could go on about issue after issue that has been derailed by an establishment that has lost it's way. Can't really support it these days.
Click to expand...
You're gonna tell me with a straight face that the people in this country are worse off today than in 1985?

 
cstu said:
NCCommish said:
When you are a centrist or a moderate we often find mutual ground. When you are pro-establishment it's a lot harder because your support of said establishment flies in the face of all logic. Have you lived through the last 30 years? I have and it has been an absolute disaster for a lot of people in this country. And the establishment has decided in it's infinite wisdom to keep right on as it has. I really don't understand your insistence.

We call Russia a kleptocracy or an oligarchy. We ridicule them for allowing the rich and powerful to run the nation for their own benefit. And we pretend that because we get a choice between the establishment Kang and Kodos we are somehow different from them. Sadly not as much as all that. If it we were really living in a responsive democracy we would have background checks. Overwhelmingly supported by the voters at over 90%, well supported by NRA members at over 70%. Did we even get this simple sop Tim? No because the established power structure in this country is only in tune with the biggest check and so nothing is done. And we have what the FBI classifies as a mass shooting everyday. That means at least 4 people shot in a single incident. Every day. We lead the world in mass shootings. And still this is where we are.

I chose background checks because it really pisses me off but I could go on about issue after issue that has been derailed by an establishment that has lost it's way. Can't really support it these days.
Click to expand...
You're gonna tell me with a straight face that the people in this country are worse off today than in 1985?
Click to expand...
read it again

 
NCCommish said:
timschochet said:
DocHolliday said:
Slapdash said:
timschochet said:
Baloney Sandwich said:
NCCommish said:
timschochet said:
NC Commish and Slapdash: though I am certainly no expert, my very limited understanding is that the repeal of Glass-Steagel was a bad thing for our economy. Does that mean the overall principle of trying to get rid of onerous restrictions is a bad one? Not necessarily. It is also my understanding that removing Glass-Steagel was coupled with pressure from Fannie Mae to offer loans people who never should have gotten them. That was pushed for by progressives, and it also surely contributed to what happened in 2008. I think there's truth to both accusations.

And yeah, Bill Clinton was President. So what? I think most liberally minded and progressive people would agree that, overall, he was a pretty good President.
Click to expand...
Apparently the "onerous regulations" were necessary. The proof is out there.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:
Click to expand...
I find it interesting that Sinn Fein and BassNBrew are arguing that the establishment was wrong for the bailouts because they interfered with capitalism, while you guys are arguing that the establishment was wrong for removing government restrictions on business. Seems like the only thing you guys have in common is that you know you dislike the establishment.
Click to expand...
It seems like that because, again, you are clueless about this issue.

We removed regulations that kept the banking industry safer. Size was limited and activities were limited so that insured depository institutions were not allowed to lever up and take outsized risks. Then we bailed these same companies out, left their management in place, and did not prosecute them for their crimes. You cannot remove regulations and then also remove the consequences when those companies become so risky they fail.

And we'll bail them out next time too. Wall Street will be the top donors to the eventual nominees. Just like they are each year.
Click to expand...
The Tim beat down continues.

Our representatives have proven over and over that they cannot be trusted. We keep electing the same ones or same types over and over. Money is always the answer.

Of course, Hillary is different. She cares about her peasants.
Click to expand...
:P

Yeah I'm getting beat down, because, just as in the NSA debate, the extremists on the left have joined forces with the extremists on the right and libertarians and so I'm totally outnumbered here. That's OK. I love all you guys. But you need to show a little love in return. Have some kindness for us centrist, moderate, pro-establishment types. We're not having a good time of it these days.
Click to expand...
When you are a centrist or a moderate we often find mutual ground. When you are pro-establishment it's a lot harder because your support of said establishment flies in the face of all logic. Have you lived through the last 30 years? I have and it has been an absolute disaster for a lot of people in this country. And the establishment has decided in it's infinite wisdom to keep right on as it has. I really don't understand your insistence.

We call Russia a kleptocracy or an oligarchy. We ridicule them for allowing the rich and powerful to run the nation for their own benefit. And we pretend that because we get a choice between the establishment Kang and Kodos we are somehow different from them. Sadly not as much as all that. If it we were really living in a responsive democracy we would have background checks. Overwhelmingly supported by the voters at over 90%, well supported by NRA members at over 70%. Did we even get this simple sop Tim? No because the established power structure in this country is only in tune with the biggest check and so nothing is done. And we have what the FBI classifies as a mass shooting everyday. That means at least 4 people shot in a single incident. Every day. We lead the world in mass shootings. And still this is where we are.

I chose background checks because it really pisses me off but I could go on about issue after issue that has been derailed by an establishment that has lost it's way. Can't really support it these days.
Click to expand...
Some rich people let Timschrotus manage their monopoly houses and he is on their jock forevermore.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sinn Fein said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I'll ask this; Pagliano has pleaded the 5th. Is there conceivably anything he would have done which would not have been at Hillary's direction?
Click to expand...
Are you talking about pleading the 5th, or setting up the server.

I would guess Hillary would have preferred that he not take the 5th - now everyone speculates why he is hiding, and what Hillary is hiding. Now admittedly sometimes it is better to let people guess what is hidden, than to open up and confirm.

As for setting up the server - I doubt Hillary had much actually input into to configurations, or regular updates/patches. I suspect her actual technical know-how is somewhere between "wiping the serve with a cloth" and Sys-Admin.
Click to expand...
Another thought on this (about the server, and wiping it) - Hillary has said more than once she was the "responsible official," that she made the decisions, because you know allegedly she is claiming to be just like an ordinary employee who every day has to decide what to keep and what not to (though that really isn't up to the employee, if something is official or related to substantive business you can't delete it) (and even though she made the decision on what not to keep as late as 5+ years after receiving or making the record in the first place, which is quite different). She is indeed the responsible official/employee but the reality is, if you watch Fallon's interview with CNN, that she delegated that responsibility to others. Her decision-making consisted of directing others to make that decision and other decisions. Basically "get it done, I don't care how." It's possible that whoever did the review or made the decision decided there were things that shouldn't be found.

As for the earlier setup and migrations and access or network issues, it's similar. Hillary would have made the decision to have a private server solely, but obviously Pagliano would have been doing the actual configuring. In a similar way Hillary would have given the initial delegation but Pagliano would have been doing the actual handling of data.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NC Commish, I respectfully disagree. Your example of background checks is proof of political pluralism and has nothing to do with the elitism you claim. The 70% support figure you cited is meaningless because most of those people aren't willing to emphasize that issue enough to vote on it or spend time and money on it. But the minority opposed to extending background checks are willing to do all of these things, thus in a pluralistic society they get their way. There is no establishment at work making the choices in this situation.

I also don't agree that overall things have gotten worse in the last 30 years. We are going through economic change as a result of technological advancement, and there are always people that are going to be hurt in such situations. But in the long run the benefits usually outweigh the bad stuff.

 
timschochet said:
NC Commish, I respectfully disagree. Your example of background checks is proof of political pluralism and has nothing to do with the elitism you claim. The 70% support figure you cited is meaningless because most of those people aren't willing to emphasize that issue enough to vote on it or spend time and money on it. But the minority opposed to extending background checks are willing to do all of these things, thus in a pluralistic society they get their way. There is no establishment at work making the choices in this situation.

I also don't agree that overall things have gotten worse in the last 30 years. We are going through economic change as a result of technological advancement, and there are always people that are going to be hurt in such situations. But in the long run the benefits usually outweigh the bad stuff.
Click to expand...
Not sure if you're aware of it or not, but comments like this are exactly what NCCommish and others of us are talking about. In your post you just said that since the minority is willing to throw more money in the ring, they get what they want. That's not how democracy is supposed to work Tim. And that's sure as hell not what pluralism is.

 
But Tim's point about background checks being a poor example of the establishment is true. This is not an issue that is driven by the establishment, which I view as the wealthy/powerful.

 
The Commish said:
timschochet said:
NC Commish, I respectfully disagree. Your example of background checks is proof of political pluralism and has nothing to do with the elitism you claim. The 70% support figure you cited is meaningless because most of those people aren't willing to emphasize that issue enough to vote on it or spend time and money on it. But the minority opposed to extending background checks are willing to do all of these things, thus in a pluralistic society they get their way. There is no establishment at work making the choices in this situation.

I also don't agree that overall things have gotten worse in the last 30 years. We are going through economic change as a result of technological advancement, and there are always people that are going to be hurt in such situations. But in the long run the benefits usually outweigh the bad stuff.
Click to expand...
Not sure if you're aware of it or not, but comments like this are exactly what NCCommish and others of us are talking about. In your post you just said that since the minority is willing to throw more money in the ring, they get what they want. That's not how democracy is supposed to work Tim. And that's sure as hell not what pluralism is.
Click to expand...
Its EXACTLY the way our system is supposed to work. It IS pluralism, and once again I urge you to read Robert Dahl. A true democracy would be a terrible form of government, and our founding fathers knew this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And it's not just more money Commish. It's more emphasis.

If you ask someone in favor of extending background checks if they're willing to make that their number one priority in terms of voting for or against an elected official, most of them will say no. But if you ask someone opposed to more background checks a lot of them will say yes. That's the difference.

 
BTW, despite losing I thought Michigan already looks much better than last year. A lot more physical. I think they should start Ty Isaac though.

 
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
timschochet said:
NC Commish, I respectfully disagree. Your example of background checks is proof of political pluralism and has nothing to do with the elitism you claim. The 70% support figure you cited is meaningless because most of those people aren't willing to emphasize that issue enough to vote on it or spend time and money on it. But the minority opposed to extending background checks are willing to do all of these things, thus in a pluralistic society they get their way. There is no establishment at work making the choices in this situation.

I also don't agree that overall things have gotten worse in the last 30 years. We are going through economic change as a result of technological advancement, and there are always people that are going to be hurt in such situations. But in the long run the benefits usually outweigh the bad stuff.
Click to expand...
Not sure if you're aware of it or not, but comments like this are exactly what NCCommish and others of us are talking about. In your post you just said that since the minority is willing to throw more money in the ring, they get what they want. That's not how democracy is supposed to work Tim. And that's sure as hell not what pluralism is.
Click to expand...
Its EXACTLY the way our system is supposed to work. It IS pluralism, and once again I urge you to read Robert Dahl.A true democracy would be a terrible form of government, and our founding fathers knew this.
Click to expand...
I read his wiki page as you suggested when you suggested it. You appear to be confusing his pluralistic theory of "polyarchy" with pluralism. That's the only explanation. What's more, even his theory flies in the face of what you're saying here.

In his book, Democracy and Its Critics (1989), Dahl clarifies his view about democracy. No modern country meets the ideal of democracy, which is as a theoretical utopia. To reach the ideal requires meeting five criteria:[9]

  1. Effective participationCitizens must have adequate and equal opportunities to form their preference and place questions on the public agenda and express reasons for one outcome over the other.
  2. Voting equality at the decisive stageEach citizen must be assured his or her judgments will be counted as equal in weights to the judgments of others.
  3. Enlightened understandingCitizens must enjoy ample and equal opportunities for discovering and affirming what choice would best serve their interests.
  4. Control of the agendaDemos or people must have the opportunity to decide what political matters actually are and what should be brought up for deliberation.
  5. InclusivenessEquality must extend to all citizens within the state. Everyone has legitimate stake within the political process.
Instead, he calls politically advanced countries "polyarchies". Polyarchies have elected officials, free and fair elections, inclusive suffrage, rights to run for office, freedom of expression, alternative information and associational autonomy. Those institutions are a major advance in that they create multiple centers of political power.[10]
Click to expand...
Every single one of these points flies in the face of your "if you have the most time/money you get what you want" philosophy.

 
timschochet said:
And it's not just more money Commish. It's more emphasis.

If you ask someone in favor of extending background checks if they're willing to make that their number one priority in terms of voting for or against an elected official, most of them will say no. But if you ask someone opposed to more background checks a lot of them will say yes. That's the difference.
Click to expand...
Tim.....that's primarily how emphasis is determined in this country.

 
The Commish said:
timschochet said:
And it's not just more money Commish. It's more emphasis.

If you ask someone in favor of extending background checks if they're willing to make that their number one priority in terms of voting for or against an elected official, most of them will say no. But if you ask someone opposed to more background checks a lot of them will say yes. That's the difference.
Click to expand...
Tim.....that's primarily how emphasis is determined in this country.
Click to expand...
It is in some cases. Not in the case of background checks. Another example where money clearly played no part: the recent removal of the confederate flag in South Carolina. That was a ground swell effort, and no amount of money would have prevented it.

But I agree that money can play too big a role. Given the CU decision I'm not sure what can be done about it, though.

 
The Commish said:
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
timschochet said:
NC Commish, I respectfully disagree. Your example of background checks is proof of political pluralism and has nothing to do with the elitism you claim. The 70% support figure you cited is meaningless because most of those people aren't willing to emphasize that issue enough to vote on it or spend time and money on it. But the minority opposed to extending background checks are willing to do all of these things, thus in a pluralistic society they get their way. There is no establishment at work making the choices in this situation.

I also don't agree that overall things have gotten worse in the last 30 years. We are going through economic change as a result of technological advancement, and there are always people that are going to be hurt in such situations. But in the long run the benefits usually outweigh the bad stuff.
Click to expand...
Not sure if you're aware of it or not, but comments like this are exactly what NCCommish and others of us are talking about. In your post you just said that since the minority is willing to throw more money in the ring, they get what they want. That's not how democracy is supposed to work Tim. And that's sure as hell not what pluralism is.
Click to expand...
Its EXACTLY the way our system is supposed to work. It IS pluralism, and once again I urge you to read Robert Dahl.A true democracy would be a terrible form of government, and our founding fathers knew this.
Click to expand...
I read his wiki page as you suggested when you suggested it. You appear to be confusing his pluralistic theory of "polyarchy" with pluralism. That's the only explanation. What's more, even his theory flies in the face of what you're saying here.


In his book, Democracy and Its Critics (1989), Dahl clarifies his view about democracy. No modern country meets the ideal of democracy, which is as a theoretical utopia. To reach the ideal requires meeting five criteria:[9]

  • Effective participationCitizens must have adequate and equal opportunities to form their preference and place questions on the public agenda and express reasons for one outcome over the other.
  • Voting equality at the decisive stageEach citizen must be assured his or her judgments will be counted as equal in weights to the judgments of others.
  • Enlightened understandingCitizens must enjoy ample and equal opportunities for discovering and affirming what choice would best serve their interests.
  • Control of the agendaDemos or people must have the opportunity to decide what political matters actually are and what should be brought up for deliberation.
  • InclusivenessEquality must extend to all citizens within the state. Everyone has legitimate stake within the political process.
Instead, he calls politically advanced countries "polyarchies". Polyarchies have elected officials, free and fair elections, inclusive suffrage, rights to run for office, freedom of expression, alternative information and associational autonomy. Those institutions are a major advance in that they create multiple centers of political power.[10]
Click to expand...
Every single one of these points flies in the face of your "if you have the most time/money you get what you want" philosophy.
Click to expand...
glad you read this. But your interpretation is incorrect, and you simplified my argument into something it isn't. Pluralistic energy, in terms of emphasis and money, is s powerful factor in our political system. So is elitism, at times. So are technocratic concerns. And sometimes stuff happens that nobody can predict- political scientists call this the "chaos factor". For instance 9/11 radically altered the way our government has operated ever since. These are all competing factors in how our system works. You point to one event and I will say, that's clearly pluralism at work (as in the case of background checks). You point to another, like the TPP passing despite a majority of Americans opposed, and I will say, that's the elite/establishment having their way. And so on. There are no simple or always consistent answers for how all of this works.

 
"At the end of the day, I am sorry that this has been confusing to people and has raised a lot of questions, but there are answers to all these questions,"

 
timschochet said:
Hillary says she didn't get that it was a big deal. Long interview. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Well, I haven't seen it yet and we don't have a transcript but I can see from the news reports that she has already changed the meaning of "convenience" from having one device and one email to meaning carrying on what she was doing in the Senate. It's yet another changing of the story.

What's also ridiculous is that in the Senate we know she had an ATT email, yet upon entering the SOS she set up a whole new system, new URL, new accounts.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Did you guys hear her talk about foreign policy? There is nobody running on either side who is even close to her knowledge and expertise on this stuff.

 
timschochet said:
Hillary says she didn't get that it was a big deal. Long interview. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
People inside government (FBI, CIA, DoD) get the importance of protecting national secrets. The fact that she doesn't get it says a lot about her. She set up the server for selfish reasons while endangering a lot of very sensitive information. People inside government go to great lengths and trouble to keep certain information secret. She needs to start getting it and this is enough to keep her out of the White House.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
timschochet said:
Hillary says she didn't get that it was a big deal. Long interview. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
People inside government (FBI, CIA, DoD) get the importance of protecting national secrets. The fact that she doesn't get it says a lot about her. She set up the server for selfish reasons while endangering a lot of very sensitive information. People inside government go to great lengths and trouble to keep certain information secret. She needs to start getting it and this is enough to keep her out of the White House.
Click to expand...
Not for me. Not when she knows so much more about foreign policy than everyone she is running against, especially several people on the right.
 
timschochet said:
jon_mx said:
timschochet said:
Hillary says she didn't get that it was a big deal. Long interview. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
People inside government (FBI, CIA, DoD) get the importance of protecting national secrets. The fact that she doesn't get it says a lot about her. She set up the server for selfish reasons while endangering a lot of very sensitive information. People inside government go to great lengths and trouble to keep certain information secret. She needs to start getting it and this is enough to keep her out of the White House.
Click to expand...
Not for me. Not when she knows so much more about foreign policy than everyone she is running against, especially several people on the right.
Click to expand...
Never mind the illegality stuff...

 
jon_mx said:
timschochet said:
Hillary says she didn't get that it was a big deal. Long interview. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
People inside government (FBI, CIA, DoD) get the importance of protecting national secrets. The fact that she doesn't get it says a lot about her. She set up the server for selfish reasons while endangering a lot of very sensitive information. People inside government go to great lengths and trouble to keep certain information secret. She needs to start getting it and this is enough to keep her out of the White House.
Click to expand...
They didn't even bother to check if all of the mail servers were secure.

 
timschochet said:
jon_mx said:
timschochet said:
Hillary says she didn't get that it was a big deal. Long interview. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
People inside government (FBI, CIA, DoD) get the importance of protecting national secrets. The fact that she doesn't get it says a lot about her. She set up the server for selfish reasons while endangering a lot of very sensitive information. People inside government go to great lengths and trouble to keep certain information secret. She needs to start getting it and this is enough to keep her out of the White House.
Click to expand...
Not for me. Not when she knows so much more about foreign policy than everyone she is running against, especially several people on the right.
Click to expand...
She potentially compromised classified, secret information, and her defense is she did not know it was classified. Do you believe that? If so she may be the least qualified person in the race.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mr. furley
Long Island serial killer suspect in custody
Replies
34
Views
1K
Dezbelief
Dezbelief
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
191K
Pip's Invitation
Pip's Invitation
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
1K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top