Bay 12 Games Forum

fairly even-handed.

It places Hillary Clinton, someone whose voting record lists as among the most liberal senators, as occupying a place to the right of liberalism.  It has the republican party as being as far right wing as south american dictators who had regimes of murder and terror in order to break the peasants.  And of course it does the old trick of calling libertarianism the exact opposite of oppression which leads to funny things like calling the most libertarian regimes in history as the least libertarian on the compass.  Oh hey and let's not forget calling Hitler a centrist.  Y'know the guy who rounded up leftists and put them in death camps, started a war of genocide against a leftist regime and welcomed right wing politicians into his government.  Totally a centrist, guys!

It's not even handed.  It's just that the bias you see is a familiar bias.

Ok explain this then :
One million dollars from Qatar for Bill's consulting company birthday.

The man attached his name to a foundation so that his fame could be leveraged to solicit donations exactly like this.

And remember, in 2008, Hillary's reported net worth was minus 8 millions dollars. Today, it's 31 millions dollars.
That's a lot of speaker fees.

As pointed out you were wrong about the 2008 net worth.
Yes, it is a lot of speaker fees.  It's also a lot of book sales.  Because she is a person who people would pay money to hear speak and buy the book of.  Because she is an interesting person in very high demand.

Now I have a question of you:
Will you take these explanations, you have just found yourself crying wolf.  Will you accept that maybe you were crying wolf other times?  Or will you insist that you being wrong this time has no bearing on all the other times and you were right all those times as well?

This by the way is why I hate Bernie Sanders.  Yes there is truth to the idea that elite individuals like Hillary Clinton occupy a position of privilege.  Not only should be pay close attention to how they use that privilege, we should consider the idea we allow such positions in the first place.  But it is a radically different idea to be concerned about elitism and throw around words like corruption.  When you talk about corruption you make people think that people like Hillary Clinton are enriching themselves at the expense of the public.  Even when Clinton is acting altruistically she is attacked that way.  The Sanders campaign created an ugly monster and we are going to be stuck with it for a long time.  But people are so caught up in this mythical Saint Sanders that his legend will keep feeding the monster.  He could, if he cared, kill the monster that he created but he wont for whatever reason.  Maybe because it would invite upon him the sort of anger he has unleashed on other people.

Unfortunately the circumstances that would let him win Utah also likely seal the deal on Clinton, so he might win Utah but he won't win the Presidency.

It'd still be a hell of a thing, though, for him to win Utah.

538's article on the subject said that his chances of winning Utah are pretty much independent of Clinton vs Trump elsewhere.

Because somehow clarifying and saying, and I quote, "I am wrong" is just making excuses.

By the standard you set out for anyone saying Clinton isn't a liar, yes, that is exactly correct.

Personally I think your standard is wrong and you should just ditch the standard, realize that Clinton isn't dishonest and we can all have a group hug.

Thinking back on it, I was conflicted over Clinton's hawkishness. Not sure I am so much any more; we had Obama's relative dove-ness and that did very little to improve global opinions nor actually help out the world all that much. I suspect the ideal that all military intervention that isn't absolutely necessary should be avoided at all costs doesn't actually do much to help the US.

Note that when I speak of Clinton's hawkishness, it's not to imply that it's particularly extreme. She's a hawk relative to Obama being a dove; she's a dove relative to many Republicans being hawks.

Yeah, personally I would say that both Clinton and Obama are hawks, but she is a little more hawkish then them.  Meanwhile the republicans are... I dunno, raptors?

stop squandering its potential on senseless bullshit and incompetent individuals barely worth a fraction of our attention

Great, so let's elect Hillary Clinton, an extremely accomplished and qualified candidate and just ignore Donald Trump for the rest of the election.

Seriously, you are bitching about the quality of candidates but your attitude is exactly the problem.  Because you are acting like there is no difference between the hardworking woman who is the standard bearer for an enormous amount of progress and the reality tv clown.  When you do that you are eroding the support for serious candidates in our democracy.  The attitude you are showing is why four years and eight years and twelve years from now more candidates will try to replicate what Donald Trump is doing.

So I am wrong. Hillary Clinton is absurdly dishonest (in my view), but she has the capacity to generally avoid outright lies.

You know just an hour ago you were creating a strawman where you accused Hillary Clinton supporters of excuse making.  Now that you are shown to be wrong, you are making excuses.

It's more an instance of you create a strawman then actually looking at what we are saying.  This isn't even a conversation, really.

Wait, let me put it in your terms:

It's more like everything that UXLZ puts is "Oh let me put this lazy conspiracy theory and see if they notice.  Oh shit, they noticed?  Well quick, I better tell a bunch of lies because I'm a liar!  Gee, doesn't it suck that I'm a vessel for someones thinly disguised narrative rather then a real person?"

Look, they even defend him in UN!

Sometimes it feels like they are just phoning it in when it comes to coming up with a strategic vision.

"So what about the fact that Obama's brother won't vote for you?"
'Well Donald, that's interesting that you felt it wise to bring that up, considering all of the republican politicians who've said they won't vote for you.'

Cue wikileaks stories about how Clinton colluded with republicans to stop Trump.

Yeah you aren't going to fix it easily and quickly but the guy was king for decades.  Even in a purely symbolic role that is plenty of time to get dialogues going.  It doesn't make him horrible but if your legacy is angry thugs you cant be that great leader.