Off Topic Thread 3.0

Zzippy

Teferi wrote: »

So the child there are videos of her hugging before her incident, for instance?

Unless the child has an immune deficiency there is no reason he/she should be high risk...

Teferi

I'm dangerously close to seeming like I care about this more than I do, so I'll leave you with my points and bow out:

1. Faint and she is seen as weak.
2. Don't faint but risking infecting others and it gets out later that she 'hid' the illness which further fuels the "Hillary is a liar" narrative.
3. There's a fairly convincing post to on reddit that she may be hiding a larger illness. Not saying I believe it but considering the 'Hillary is a liar' narrative many will be inclined to believe it.

Either way, the Trump camp, supporters and supporting media has an absolute field day.

Bazzo

Teferi wrote: »

So the child there are videos of her hugging before her incident, for instance?

You seem pretty hell bent on this child. What exact point are you trying to make?? How old was the child? The at risk children would be newborns and very young infants. Other at risk patients would be the elderly and infirm and people with separate medical conditions leading them to be more susceptible to viral or bacterial infections.

As I said before, it's no more dangerous than hugging somebody when you have the sniffles, the same pathogens cause flu, cold, strep throat and on ad nauseum, pneumonia is just what comes about when the infection travels further down the respiratory system to the lungs.

Neil3030

I can easily imagine a narrative which looks quite favourably upon a near 70-year-old woman braving a mild pneumonia to pay her respects to 9/11 victims.

But with Hillary the narrative focuses on her being a liar and untrustworthy.

Seems a little unfair, imo.

Teferi

Neil3030 wrote: »

I can easily imagine a narrative which looks quite favourably upon a near 70-year-old woman braving a mild pneumonia to pay her respects to 9/11 victims.

But with Hillary the narrative focuses on her being a liar and untrustworthy.

Seems a little unfair, imo.

Ah in fairness now. She's had a reputation of being untrustworthy for years and then she fuels that fire with the whole email thing, along with the money for speeches thing, impropriety in the financials of the Clinton Foundation etc.

There's plenty of distasteful stuff that goes on in US politics but that reputation doesn't seem wholly unfair to me.

Teferi

Teferi wrote: »

Ah in fairness now. She's had a reputation of being untrustworthy for years and then she fuels that fire with the whole email thing, along with the money for speeches thing, impropriety in the financials of the Clinton Foundation etc.

There's plenty of distasteful stuff that goes on in US politics but that reputation doesn't seem wholly unfair to me.

There are people making a substantial living out of doing nothing but attacking Hillary at the moment (Same about Trump) and have been doing so for Hillary for over a year now as she was the presumptive nominee. For this reason, you hear a lot of crap and things blown out of proportion (some stuff justified, much not) about candidates.

The reality is that she is no different than the vast number of politicians in the US, though given the current climate the one area where she differs is that she is extremely well educated.

Teferi

Does 'but other politicians are dirty too' really hold much water as an argument? She's running for president, after all. To paraphrase Colbert, the only person she could beat in a race for the presidency is Trump.

Teferi

Teferi wrote: »

Does 'but other politicians are dirty too' really hold much water as an argument? She's running for president, after all. To paraphrase Colbert, the only person she could beat in a race for the presidency is Trump.

Meh, politics is a dirty business in the US. At the end of the day, Hillary beat Bernie Sanders who was extremely popular and well liked so Colbert is already wrong. She is definitely not the most likable, but to suggest she is any more a part of the political dealing culture than Obama for example is naive.

Teferi

Deleted User wrote: »

Meh, politics is a dirty business in the US. At the end of the day, Hillary beat Bernie Sanders who was extremely popular and well liked so Colbert is already wrong.

How the Democrats elects a candidate and how the general population would vote are two different things. Polls have shown that Sanders runs stronger against Trump than Clinton does.

Deleted User wrote: »

She is definitely not the most likable, but to suggest she is any more a part of the political dealing culture than Obama for example is naive.

Who is suggesting this?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Guilliani was on the news yesterday basically sanctioning war crimes and it barely gets a look in because a 70 year old woman got a bit faint in nearly 30 degree heat.

The media are as much to blame for it as anyone else, especially online media. They want clicks and they'll run with anything at all if it will get them. The politicians, or the people running their campaigns, are smart enough to know exactly how to milk it. You throw enough **** at a wall and eventually some will stick.

The scariest part is that you don't even have to lie about Trump and yet there's a large proportion of people that are still going to go out of their way to vote for him.

Neil3030

Teferi wrote: »

Ah in fairness now. She's had a reputation of being untrustworthy for years and then she fuels that fire with the whole email thing, along with the money for speeches thing, impropriety in the financials of the Clinton Foundation etc.

There's plenty of distasteful stuff that goes on in US politics but that reputation doesn't seem wholly unfair to me.

I see it more that people have been calling her untrustworthy for years, and none of their supportive examples stand up all that compellingly to scrutiny.

Emails: The only thing I've seen in reports was that she was "careless" with storing emails on a private server, but she never knowingly and willfully mishandled classified material. Bush's administration (also stored emails on private servers) lost 22 million emails. Petraeus gave classified information to a journalist / his mistress. Whataboutery, but it puts her actions in context.

Speeches: Earning money for speeches is nothing strange. She earns 200k per speech, along with the following people who are also represented by her agency: Guy Fieri, Ang Lee, Carla Delevingne, Chelsea Handler, Elon Musk, Mehmet Oz, Michael Phelps, Nate Berkus, and Larry the Cable Guy. Her agency also has over 500 people commanding a fee of 100k per speech.

Financials: Her financials were also investigated thoroughly by a former Wall Street Journal investigator and New York Times editor who concluded:

Jill Abramson wrote:

As an editor I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising.

Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy

I'm lifting a lot of this from an article people may or may not have read that was floating around social media a few months ago. I'm not ashamed to say that before reading it I may have been a bit guilty of an irrational dislike towards her. But I strongly recommend people who have not yet read it to check it out:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/11/1537582/-The-most-thorough-profound-and-moving-defense-of-Hillary-Clinton-I-have-ever-seen

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Teferi wrote: »

How the Democrats elects a candidate and how the general population would vote are two different things. Polls have shown that Sanders runs stronger against Trump than Clinton does.

Polls showed the Tories would struggle to get back into government. Polls showed Britain wouldn't vote to leave the EU.

Teferi

Neil3030 wrote: »

I see it more that people have been calling her untrustworthy for years, and none of their supportive examples stand up all that compellingly to scrutiny.

Emails: The only thing I've seen in reports was that she was "careless" with storing emails on a private server, but she never knowingly and willfully mishandled classified material. Bush's administration (also stored emails on private servers) lost 22 million emails. Petraeus gave classified information to a journalist / his mistress. Whataboutery, but it puts her actions in context.

Speeches: Earning money for speeches is nothing strange. She earns 200k per speech, along with the following people who are also represented by her agency: Guy Fieri, Ang Lee, Carla Delevingne, Chelsea Handler, Elon Musk, Mehmet Oz, Michael Phelps, Nate Berkus, and Larry the Cable Guy. Her agency also has over 500 people commanding a fee of 100k per speech.

I think you're missing the point in regards to her reputation of untrustworthiness. How seriously she did or did not breach laws isn't really what matters (although it gives the Republican extra ammunition), it's how she acted around these events is what matters.

Regarding the email scandal for example, she regularly just laughed off questions, made jokes etc. on the topic. This doesn't help her fight against accusations of whether or not she is a liar, indeed it further fuels them if anything. By beating around the bush instead of dealing with the issue head on she gave her opponents fuel.

Similarly with the speeches - white noise speakers blaring outside venues, refusing to release transcripts etc. makes her look like she has something to hide.

CatFromHue

Neil3030 wrote: »

Speeches: Earning money for speeches is nothing strange. She earns 200k per speech, along with the following people who are also represented by her agency: Guy Fieri, Ang Lee, Carla Delevingne, Chelsea Handler, Elon Musk, Mehmet Oz, Michael Phelps, Nate Berkus, and Larry the Cable Guy. Her agency also has over 500 people commanding a fee of 100k per speech.

Cara Delevingne gives speeches :eek:

Neil3030

CatFromHue wrote: »

Cara Delevingne gives speeches :eek:

That list had Larry the Cable Guy on it, and Cara Delevingne stood out to you?!

Zzippy

Teferi wrote: »

I think you're missing the point in regards to her reputation of untrustworthiness. How seriously she did or did not breach laws isn't really what matters (although it gives the Republican extra ammunition), it's how she acted around these events is what matters.

Regarding the email scandal for example, she regularly just laughed off questions, made jokes etc. on the topic. This doesn't help her fight against accusations of whether or not she is a liar, indeed it further fuels them if anything. By beating around the bush instead of dealing with the issue head on she gave her opponents fuel.

Similarly with the speeches - white noise speakers blaring outside venues, refusing to release transcripts etc. makes her look like she has something to hide.

Nothing concrete there, whatsoever. Looking like she has something to hide is hardly evidence. On the other hand, there is ample evidence that her opponent is unfit for the office of president, yet all the media stuff is about Hillary, but none of it is concrete evidence, just mud slinging like the above. Throw enough and it sticks, I suppose.

Teferi

Zzippy wrote: »

Nothing concrete there, whatsoever. Looking like she has something to hide is hardly evidence. On the other hand, there is ample evidence that her opponent is unfit for the office of president, yet all the media stuff is about Hillary, but none of it is concrete evidence, just mud slinging like the above. Throw enough and it sticks, I suppose.

Nothing you've said here disagrees with anything I've said, in fact you seem to be agreeing with me. Perception is 99% of the battle.

Zzippy

Teferi wrote: »

Nothing you've said here disagrees with anything I've said, in fact you seem to be agreeing with me. Perception is 99% of the battle.

Yes, it's just general mud slinging that the Trump campaign and supporters have been propagating for months now - throw enough of it and gullible people pick it up and repeat it as truth. I think Clinton is naive because she would rather debate facts and policies than have to constantly defend herself against the relentless allegations, and American politics is a dirty business. But she can't fight dirty because then she's not seen as presidential - regardless of equality women are looked at differently in politics and held to different standards. Trump is lauded for speaking straight (although he doesn't), which is short for being tactless - if Clinton made statements like he did she'd be vilified. Witness the self-righteous furore over her "deplorable" comments on Trump supporters, which were actually quite well-founded. I'm no fan of Clinton, I'd much rather see Sanders, but I'm actually quite worried the Americans could do the unthinkable and elect Trump.

bilston

How is Trump so close to the Presidency?

It's actually laughable when you think about it. Or at least it would be if it wasn't so serious.

There is a strengthening argument on the back of Brexit and potentially the US Presidential election that some people just shouldn't be allowed to vote!

CatFromHue

Neil3030 wrote: »

That list had Larry the Cable Guy on it, and Cara Delevingne stood out to you?!

I'd say Larry would have some good stories to tell, not sure about Cara. I mean she is only 24

bilston wrote: »

How is Trump so close to the Presidency?

It's actually laughable when you think about it. Or at least it would be if it wasn't so serious.

There is a strengthening argument on the back of Brexit and potentially the US Presidential election that some people just shouldn't be allowed to vote!

Neither candidate is really up to much, a lot of people really don't like Clinton or Trump.

b.gud

Seriously who goes for a run at half 12 at night

DGRulz

From what I've seen of Cara Delevingne she seems a bit out there, would definitely hesitate giving her a open mic.

molloyjh

b.gud wrote: »

Seriously who goes for a run at half 12 at night

This guy?

Is there any way to mark all threads as read? I have way too many followed threads and couldn't be arsed going through them individually.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there any way to mark all threads as read? I have way too many followed threads and couldn't be arsed going through them individually.

You can unsubscribe from them, if that's what you mean?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

You can unsubscribe from them, if that's what you mean?

Kind of. I'd like a button which reduces the number at the top right to zero, but still follows the threads. I could unsubscribe from them too but that requires a click, then a delay till I can click another one. Pain in the arse. I would have done it by now in the time it has taken me to write this post though :pac:

The Lost Sheep

Deleted User wrote: »

Kind of. I'd like a button which reduces the number at the top right to zero, but still follows the threads. I could unsubscribe from them too but that requires a click, then a delay till I can click another one. Pain in the arse. I would have done it by now in the time it has taken me to write this post though :pac:

On drop down from your username click on "mark all forums as read"

The Lost Sheep

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

On drop down from your username click on "mark all forums as read"

I love you

Zzippy

Deleted User wrote: »

I love you

Steady on!

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I love you

Zzippy wrote: »

Steady on!