I'm unclear, and came into the thread a bit late. Where do you stand on Trump? You seem to be saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the lack of a smoking gun or overt quid-pro-quo does not dissuade you from believing that Clinton is... guilty of something?*
If that's the case, do you also think that Trump is guilty of something? Or in Trump's case, does the the lack of a smoking gun or overt quid-pro-quo convince you of his innocence? If you think the two cases are different, how or why are they so?
All fair questions, and I wish people would ask more than assume.
On Trump, used to like him, turned out to be a wimp who gets played by Congress and doesn't keep his promises, so I don't care anymore.
On his innocence, I think he is innocent of the Russia collusion story but not on the basis of no smoking gun, I think that's the last refuge of the desperate to be frank. I don't think he's intelligent enough to pull off any kind of coordinated illegality and get away with it, to be quite honest. Furthermore, I don't see what he has to gain by coordinating a hack with Wikileaks when Wikileaks can do this all on their own and have the same effect with less risk. They would have had to offer him something I feel like. In the Clinton case, the gains are documented.
That all being said, some things have been posted on here that make me believe he is guilty of some financial crimes although the specifics escape me at the moment.
* I'm also not quite understanding what your belief is about Clinton. Do you think she's guilty of a crime? Do you think the potential for influence peddling presented by the Clinton Foundation is different in degree or in kind from how other politically influential people in Washington are lobbied?
I don't think there's enough evidence to convict of a crime because quid pro quo is a very high standard of evidence and will basically require some communications being uncovered or somebody snitching, both highly unlikely because I doubt there was any verbal agreement to begin with, these things work on mutual understanding i'm sure.
Do I think she's personally guilty? I think she's personally guilty of taking that money knowing what it was for. Whether or not she actually acted on their behalf I can't say.
That being said, what is completely known *should* be illegal. Politicians shouldn't be taking private money from those they govern. That's such an obvious conflict of interest I can't believe it needs to be discussed. I also think there isn't any room for doubt that the Foundation has a history of influence peddling, i've provided other examples of such in this thread. Therefore when I see the exact same thing happening again i'm liable to assume it to be the pay for play that it is. And frankly, any fair minded person should see someone in a position of authority taking money while overseeing them and be concerned, no matter how little authority you think they have on paper.
But yes, it is quite different. She's not getting campaign contributions, she's getting private donations, and she's getting them at the only possible time where it would look like a conflict of interest. Even if she was getting campaign contributions at the time it would be suspect, but private donations even more so.
But yes, it is quite different. She's not getting campaign contributions, she's getting private donations, and she's getting them at the only possible time where it would look like a conflict of interest. Even if she was getting campaign contributions at the time it would be suspect, but private donations even more so.
How is it more suspect that the money is going to a charity instead of her campaign? She actually has access to her campaign funds and can use that money during the election. The Clinton Foundation is a 501c charity that has to operate under IRS disclosure rules. She wasn't even on the board at the time.
@WarChiefZeke my view is that the fact checking sites had no option about the opinion they rendered because there is no evidence to support a different opinion.
They aren't forced to uncritically publish her own statements as fact just because they can't verify it one way or another, nor are they forced to rely
unverified statements to help Clintons image or engage in all the intellectual gymnastics they do to argue in her favor. That's really not how "fact checking" should work.
Regarding Russia, hilarious how you can give all that circumstantial info but no smoking gun of quid pro quo. The parallels are funny as is the tendency for some to switch standards when convenient.
They don't support opinions anyway, at least they aren't supposed to, they are supposed to verify claims. And when a claim is true and they don't like it, they add rumors from the internet into it and run all the defense they can to give something an unfavorable rating. Pretty easy to see through.
As has been said repeatedly in this thread, Hillary did not have the power to make decisions about Uranium One. I agree in principle she could have influenced those decisions, but doing that would have been a complex process. I don't think it is at all credible to suggest that she somehow managed to exercise that influence without leaving any trace of that.
As has been repeatedly said, you don't have to be the sole decision making authority to take bribes or have folks believe you can be useful to have in their corner. Not sure why this needs to be repeated ad infinitum.
If you're argument only is there isn' a smoking gun of quid pro quo, well, we've been over that.
How much influence did she have to exercise anyway? You seem to assume a large amount when i don't think that is necessarily the case. Having a politician in your pocket as insurance policy.
If all you were saying is that people had made donations to charity in the hope that Hillary would favor them as a result - I wouldn't have spent hours of my time arguing about this. However, you've suggested that things have gone beyond that and that Hillary may be guilty of something more in relation to the Uranium One deal.
As I've said, zero evidence of her having any involvement or influence over the decisions has manifested, despite intensive searches for such evidence by people with every incentive to construe anything she did in the worst possible light.
You raised the comparison with Russia initially, not me. The point I was making was that there are serious reasons to be concerned about possible collusion with Russia. It is not normal for a US President to have private meetings with a foreign head of state that even exclude their own translator. It is not normal for a US President to contradict the unanimous conclusions of their own investigative agencies. It is not normal for a US President to want to set up unmonitored communications with another State. It is not normal for a US President to brazenly and repeatedly lie about his business interests in another country. Whether or not there has been illegal activity in relation to Trump's personal relationship with Russia has not yet been determined, but there are certainly clear avenues of enquiry. In the case of Hillary and Uranium One there are no similar avenues because no one can point to any emails, meetings, recordings, depositions, speeches by Hillary, statements by whistleblowers or anything else that suggests she actually did anything.
There is a choice between assuming:
a) an absence of evidence results from a lack of activity; or
b) an absence of evidence results from perfect concealment of her role by both her and everyone else involved
I don't find it difficult to determine which of those I think is more likely, but I won't spend any further time arguing about it.
I found a brilliant Twitter thread that I am going to paraphrase here. And the basic premise is "what if it was Hillary??":
Following Hillary's successful Presidential campaign in 2016, she fires FBI Director James Comey for refusing to drop investigation of National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, and Deputy AG Sally Yates appoints Mueller as special counsel. Over two years, he finds that:
John Podesta (Paul Manafort) is indicted for a $65 million, decades-long money laundering scheme and illegally working for the government of Ukraine. Then he is re-indicted for witness tampering. Imagine that Nick Merrill (George Papadopoulos) pleads guilty for lying to federal agents about his contacts with Russia. Imagine then that Cheryl Mills (Rick Gates) pleads guilty to participating in Podesta's scheme and begins cooperating with Mueller. Imagine then that Clinton's National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan (Michael Flynn) pleads gulity to lying to federal agents while working in the White House and for being an unregistered foreign agent for the government of Turkey. Then imagine Huma Abedin (Michael Cohen) pleads gulity to tax fraud and to an illegal campaign finance scheme to cover up a scandal in the final days of the cmapaign, directed by Hillary herself. Then Huma pleads gulity AGAIN for lying to Congress to cover-up the Clinton Foundation's dealings with Putin.
Now then. Just what position do you think House and Senate Republicans, to say nothing of the media, would be taking on this scenario?? Because I can say with 100% certainty the impeachment would have already taken place and she'd be out of office.
I found a brilliant Twitter thread that I am going to paraphrase here. And the basic premise is "what if it was Hillary??":
Following Hillary's successful Presidential campaign in 2016, she fires FBI Director James Comey for refusing to drop investigation of National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, and Deputy AG Sally Yates appoints Mueller as special counsel. Over two years, he finds that:
John Podesta (Paul Manafort) is indicted for a $65 million, decades-long money laundering scheme and illegally working for the government of Ukraine. Then he is re-indicted for witness tampering. Imagine that Nick Merrill (George Papadopoulos) pleads guilty for lying to federal agents about his contacts with Russia. Imagine then that Cheryl Mills (Rick Gates) pleads guilty to participating in Podesta's scheme and begins cooperating with Mueller. Imagine then that Clinton's National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan (Michael Flynn) pleads gulity to lying to federal agents while working in the White House and for being an unregistered foreign agent for the government of Turkey. Then imagine Huma Abedin (Michael Cohen) pleads gulity to tax fraud and to an illegal campaign finance scheme to cover up a scandal in the final days of the cmapaign, directed by Hillary herself. Then Huma pleads gulity AGAIN for lying to Congress to cover-up the Clinton Foundation's dealings with Putin.
Now then. Just what position do you think House and Senate Republicans, to say nothing of the media, would be taking on this scenario?? Because I can say with 100% certainty the impeachment would have already taken place and she'd be out of office.
Weren't the republican's threatening to impeach her on day 1 if she won?
All this hypothetical talk doesn't matter IMO.
I found a brilliant Twitter thread that I am going to paraphrase here. And the basic premise is "what if it was Hillary??":
Following Hillary's successful Presidential campaign in 2016, she fires FBI Director James Comey for refusing to drop investigation of National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, and Deputy AG Sally Yates appoints Mueller as special counsel. Over two years, he finds that:
John Podesta (Paul Manafort) is indicted for a $65 million, decades-long money laundering scheme and illegally working for the government of Ukraine. Then he is re-indicted for witness tampering. Imagine that Nick Merrill (George Papadopoulos) pleads guilty for lying to federal agents about his contacts with Russia. Imagine then that Cheryl Mills (Rick Gates) pleads guilty to participating in Podesta's scheme and begins cooperating with Mueller. Imagine then that Clinton's National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan (Michael Flynn) pleads gulity to lying to federal agents while working in the White House and for being an unregistered foreign agent for the government of Turkey. Then imagine Huma Abedin (Michael Cohen) pleads gulity to tax fraud and to an illegal campaign finance scheme to cover up a scandal in the final days of the cmapaign, directed by Hillary herself. Then Huma pleads gulity AGAIN for lying to Congress to cover-up the Clinton Foundation's dealings with Putin.
Now then. Just what position do you think House and Senate Republicans, to say nothing of the media, would be taking on this scenario?? Because I can say with 100% certainty the impeachment would have already taken place and she'd be out of office.
Weren't the republican's threatening to impeach her on day 1 if she won?
All this hypothetical talk doesn't matter IMO.
Well it does show that elected Republicans are completely full of shit and need to quit with the holier than thou fake patriotism. They are completely spineless and totally corrupt when it comes to looking in the mirror at their own values and at their own party.
A Muslim congresswoman says Israel is influencing officials to be pro-israel, which members of the PAC have bragged about on tape, but Conservatives completely lose their minds. And these same people don't say a word or mind the overt racists in their party.
So PresidentClinton got oral sex and didn't want to admit it. Conservatives lost their minds and impeached him. A few years later they are in love with Roy Moore, a kiddy diddler banned from shopping malls, and Donald "Grab em by the genitals" Trump. They are in love.
Republicans spend years crying about election fraud but when there's an actual example of it in North Carolina, they say seat the man in Congress immediately. They are just ridiculous. And their hero Trump and his lying cowardly ways where everything is everyone else's fault is a huge topic of his own.
Anyway, there's hundreds more examples, their hypocrisy knows no bounds and these Republican politicians are the worst.
It looks like Theresa May is willing to offer a vote to delay the end date for Brexit if her soft-brexit plan doesn't pass (and it sounds like it is very unlikely to do so).
I know @Grond0 has been saying Theresa May has a penchant for clearly saying she will never do something... and then eventually doing that same thing. This seems to be another example of that.
Any insight into what this might mean moving forward? Does a delay realistically lessen the chances of a hard brexit at this point? Or is the whole fiasco so late in the game that this vote is just to save face for the PM over what will inevitably be a hard brexit?
It looks like Theresa May is willing to offer a vote to delay the end date for Brexit if her soft-brexit plan doesn't pass (and it sounds like it is very unlikely to do so).
I know @Grond0 has been saying Theresa May has a penchant for clearly saying she will never do something... and then eventually doing that same thing. This seems to be another example of that.
Any insight into what this might mean moving forward? Does a delay realistically lessen the chances of a hard brexit at this point? Or is the whole fiasco so late in the game that this vote is just to save face for the PM over what will inevitably be a hard brexit?
My question is: Will the EU accept a delay? From what I've read, some in the EU have been saying that they'll just cut ties if the Brits don't get their act together.
My question is: Will the EU accept a delay? From what I've read, some in the EU have been saying that they'll just cut ties if the Brits don't get their act together.
I didn't know that, and it's kind of a big deal because I'm pretty sure that any delay and any rescinding of article 50 requires a unanimous vote by countries in the EU. I wonder if the UK's game of chicken with the brexit deadline will end up biting them in the end.
It looks like Theresa May is willing to offer a vote to delay the end date for Brexit if her soft-brexit plan doesn't pass (and it sounds like it is very unlikely to do so).
I know @Grond0 has been saying Theresa May has a penchant for clearly saying she will never do something... and then eventually doing that same thing. This seems to be another example of that.
Any insight into what this might mean moving forward? Does a delay realistically lessen the chances of a hard brexit at this point? Or is the whole fiasco so late in the game that this vote is just to save face for the PM over what will inevitably be a hard brexit?
I think it does reduce the chance of no deal, though not eliminate it. May was faced with more desertions from her party and a potential mass resignation of ministers if she continued to allow the possibility of no deal by default (i.e. deadlock in Parliament until the existing law automatically gives a no deal Brexit on 29th March). In addition, an amendment already tabled in Parliament would almost certainly have passed and forced her to do what she's agreed to today (and a bit more) - so it's not so much that she's offering a concession as trying to hold the line that the government is in control and not Parliament. What she's said is:
- there will be another vote on her proposed deal by 12th March at the latest.
- if that is defeated again she will put forward a vote on 13th March asking Parliament if they want to leave with no deal.
- if that is defeated (which it would be) there would be a further vote on 14th March asking if MPs want an extension to the process.
The financial markets have interpreted that as reducing the possibility of a no deal and I agree with that, but the possibility certainly still remains. It's already been pointed out that there's no certainty the EU would agree an extension - they definitely would if that was a technical extension just to allow legislation to be passed and almost certainly would if they thought there was a real prospect of reversing Brexit. It's possible they would be sticky, however, if this was seen as a delay without purpose (though even there most EU countries are no more prepared for no deal than the UK and could make good use of some extra time). Even if the EU grant an extension the problem remains that the only apparent majority in Parliament currently relies on combining the votes of Conservatives and Labour - and there's no sign yet that is going to happen.
While May has had a tricky time in managing her party lately, that's also the case for Corbyn. He's belatedly agreed to follow the resolution at the last party conference and say that Labour will now support a second referendum if their preferred deal (based on a customs union) is not agreed. This is a very odd policy as the deal on the table is purely about the basis for leaving the EU - the details of the future relationship (such as whether we're in a customs union) won't be negotiated until after we've left. It's also obvious that Corbyn has no enthusiasm for a second referendum and has just been forced into that position by threats of more people leaving his party as well. The momentum for another referendum, which had started to build a bit a couple of months ago, has pretty much evaporated by now, so to have any chance of that there would need to be an extension past 29th March to work on convincing skeptics.
You know, say ALL you want about Democrats, but at this point, the GOP is basically straight out of the Sopranos. I wouldn't be shocked if we found out they were chopping up bodies in the back of a pork store.
It's a threat. He should go to jail for witness intimidation.
It's cute that people still think that there is a.) any bottom to this barrel or b.) that there will be any consequences whatsoever for the entire party basically morphing into the Gambino Family.
To start the day today, I got an alert from my USA Today phone app. It was what turned out to basically be a puff piece on Jacob Wohl (the guy who tired to frame Robert Mueller). Not only were they interviewing him as if he deserved this kind of attention, but he, time after time, essentially admitted that he was a professional public liar who was PROUD of spreading disinformation to benefit Trump's cause. In the midst of which, he ALSO admitted to making fake Twitter accounts to disseminate it. Which caused him to be permanently banned by the end of the day. At the central core of Trump's takeover of the GOP is this black hole of nihilism and the idea that any ends justify the means of "owning the libs". There is nothing else holding it up.
Meanwhile, I watched Mitch McConnell take sophistry to new heights when I saw him take to the Senate floor and blame the fact that a paid operative of the Republican candidate in the NC House race literally stole the election on DEMOCRATS because they don't support certain voter ID laws. As if any voter ID law in the country would have stopped someone from seeking out and gathering absentee ballots and destroying them. The bad faith is just fucking endless.
Ok, as the father of a girl this really pisses me off. I want to hear what the liberals on this forum think of this. I personally think it's a fucking joke that dudes who 'feel' like they're girls are allowed to not only compete against females but are allowed to break 'records' that previously were only held by true females. If my daughter, who is pretty damned good at basketball, has to play against males you might as well shitcan girls sports. Sorry but this is a joke!
Edit: And don't tell me that this is some unforeseen circumstance. This was a totally predictable outcome of Connecticut's assenine 'gender equality' law. Give me one example of a female transgender wanting to compete against the boys...
I'll start caring about it when the rest of society starts caring about the disproportionate rates of suicide, homelessness, and violence committed against transgender citizens. And when the President whose dad got a doctor to lie about a health ailment to get out of Vietnam doesn't want to ban them from the military. Until then, I could honestly give two shits about a high school track meet being waged on a non-level playing field. Also, I cannot fathom why people think that those who are transgender just "feel" that way like it's some kind of phase like dying your hair blue or listening to only Led Zeppelin for six months. Like someone would choose to ostracized by much of society for the rest of their life on a whim.
I'll start caring about it when the rest of society starts caring about the disproportionate rates of suicide, homelessness, and violence committed against transgender citizens. And when the President whose dad got a doctor to lie about a health ailment to get out of Vietnam doesn't want to ban them from the military. Until then, I could honestly give two shits about a high school track meet being waged on a non-level playing field. Also, I cannot fathom why people think that those who are transgender just "feel" that way like it's some kind of phase like dying your hair blue or listening to only Led Zeppelin for six months. Like someone would choose to ostracized by much of society for the rest of their life on a whim.
I respect you for responding and I agree with you in principle. But is this really progress? Females having to compete against males in sports? This is not progress in my opinion
The difference is the amount of testosterone and the fact that true females can't compete against male muscle mass. Biology doesn't give a shit about feelings!!!
I'll start caring about it when the rest of society starts caring about the disproportionate rates of suicide, homelessness, and violence committed against transgender citizens. And when the President whose dad got a doctor to lie about a health ailment to get out of Vietnam doesn't want to ban them from the military. Until then, I could honestly give two shits about a high school track meet being waged on a non-level playing field. Also, I cannot fathom why people think that those who are transgender just "feel" that way like it's some kind of phase like dying your hair blue or listening to only Led Zeppelin for six months. Like someone would choose to ostracized by much of society for the rest of their life on a whim.
I respect you for responding and I agree with you in principle. But is this really progress? Females having to compete against males in sports? This is not progress in my opinion
This is besides the point, but most sports records aren't "fair" in any way, shape or form. Pretty much anything in baseball is bullshit before the 1960s because almost all the black players were relegated to a different league. Bill Russell won 11 championships to Jordan's 6, but it's impossible to pretend that the game and competition had evolved to anywhere near where it had in the 90s when Russell was playing. My mother held the all-time scoring record at her high school for years until my aunt (her youngest sister) passed her, but my aunt had a distinct advantage in that competition, which was the 3-pointer coming into existence. The rules have been changed to benefit QBs and the offense so much in the past decade that we have no idea how older ones may have fared under the same rules. Same applies for less physical defense being allowed in the NBA.
So I guess my point is, throw an asterisk on their "records" and we'll all move on the more important things. Or don't allow them to have the records at all. I really don't care if they do or not. I guess I even agree in principle that the whole sports thing with former male transgender athletes competing in female sports, but (trust me) there is WAY worse shit going on in high schools we should be concerned about before this. A couple years ago in the area around St. Cloud, MN there was practically a goddamn epidemic of teen suicides related to online bullying.
I'll start caring about it when the rest of society starts caring about the disproportionate rates of suicide, homelessness, and violence committed against transgender citizens. And when the President whose dad got a doctor to lie about a health ailment to get out of Vietnam doesn't want to ban them from the military. Until then, I could honestly give two shits about a high school track meet being waged on a non-level playing field. Also, I cannot fathom why people think that those who are transgender just "feel" that way like it's some kind of phase like dying your hair blue or listening to only Led Zeppelin for six months. Like someone would choose to ostracized by much of society for the rest of their life on a whim.
I respect you for responding and I agree with you in principle. But is this really progress? Females having to compete against males in sports? This is not progress in my opinion
This is besides the point, but most sports records aren't "fair" in any way shape or form. Pretty much anything in baseball is bullshit before the 1960s because almost all the black players were relegated to a different league. Bill Russell won 11 championships to Jordan's 6, but it's impossible to pretend that the game and competition had evolved to anywhere near where it had in the 90s when Russell was playing. My mother held the all-time scoring record at her high school for years until my aunt (her youngest sister) passed her, but my aunt had a distinct advantage in that competition, which was the 3-pointer coming into existence. The rules have been changed to benefit QBs and the offense so much in the past decade that we have no idea how older ones may have fared under the same rules. Same applies for less physical defense being allowed in the NBA.
Track records are not subject to those restrictions. I'm pretty sure that regardless of race, times can't be faked. If you want to argue that all records should be gender neutral then that's fine. In that case then males and females should have to compete against each other fairly. My daughter would basically have no chance to ever play basketball in High School or College. Is that desirable?
I'll start caring about it when the rest of society starts caring about the disproportionate rates of suicide, homelessness, and violence committed against transgender citizens. And when the President whose dad got a doctor to lie about a health ailment to get out of Vietnam doesn't want to ban them from the military. Until then, I could honestly give two shits about a high school track meet being waged on a non-level playing field. Also, I cannot fathom why people think that those who are transgender just "feel" that way like it's some kind of phase like dying your hair blue or listening to only Led Zeppelin for six months. Like someone would choose to ostracized by much of society for the rest of their life on a whim.
I respect you for responding and I agree with you in principle. But is this really progress? Females having to compete against males in sports? This is not progress in my opinion
This is besides the point, but most sports records aren't "fair" in any way shape or form. Pretty much anything in baseball is bullshit before the 1960s because almost all the black players were relegated to a different league. Bill Russell won 11 championships to Jordan's 6, but it's impossible to pretend that the game and competition had evolved to anywhere near where it had in the 90s when Russell was playing. My mother held the all-time scoring record at her high school for years until my aunt (her youngest sister) passed her, but my aunt had a distinct advantage in that competition, which was the 3-pointer coming into existence. The rules have been changed to benefit QBs and the offense so much in the past decade that we have no idea how older ones may have fared under the same rules. Same applies for less physical defense being allowed in the NBA.
Track records are not subject to those restrictions. I'm pretty sure that regardless of race, times can't be faked. If you want to argue that all records should be gender neutral then that's fine. In that case then males and females should have to compete against each other fairly. My daughter would basically have no chance to ever play basketball in High School or College. Is that desirable?
I think you are vastly overestimating the amount of male to female transgender students who are participating in high school athletics at a high level. I think it probably seems high because the conservative media is going to point out each and every solitary one of them they can find and shine a flood-light on it.
I'm pretty Goddamned good with statistics. A 0.3% of the population doesn't seem like much until you start talking about the cream of the crop and a minority that has an overwhelming advantage. A 0.3% minority (or even 0.15% if you think the transgender split is 50/50) becomes a huge advantage when you consider the miniscule relative amounts of athletic scholarships available for females. This is complete bullshit!
I'll start caring about it when the rest of society starts caring about the disproportionate rates of suicide, homelessness, and violence committed against transgender citizens. And when the President whose dad got a doctor to lie about a health ailment to get out of Vietnam doesn't want to ban them from the military. Until then, I could honestly give two shits about a high school track meet being waged on a non-level playing field. Also, I cannot fathom why people think that those who are transgender just "feel" that way like it's some kind of phase like dying your hair blue or listening to only Led Zeppelin for six months. Like someone would choose to ostracized by much of society for the rest of their life on a whim.
I respect you for responding and I agree with you in principle. But is this really progress? Females having to compete against males in sports? This is not progress in my opinion
This is besides the point, but most sports records aren't "fair" in any way shape or form. Pretty much anything in baseball is bullshit before the 1960s because almost all the black players were relegated to a different league. Bill Russell won 11 championships to Jordan's 6, but it's impossible to pretend that the game and competition had evolved to anywhere near where it had in the 90s when Russell was playing. My mother held the all-time scoring record at her high school for years until my aunt (her youngest sister) passed her, but my aunt had a distinct advantage in that competition, which was the 3-pointer coming into existence. The rules have been changed to benefit QBs and the offense so much in the past decade that we have no idea how older ones may have fared under the same rules. Same applies for less physical defense being allowed in the NBA.
Track records are not subject to those restrictions. I'm pretty sure that regardless of race, times can't be faked. If you want to argue that all records should be gender neutral then that's fine. In that case then males and females should have to compete against each other fairly. My daughter would basically have no chance to ever play basketball in High School or College. Is that desirable?
I think you are vastly overestimating the amount of male to female transgender students who are participating in high school athletics at a high level. I think it probably seems high because the conservative media is going to point out each and every solitary one of them they can find and shine a flood-light on it.
Read the article I highlighted and read a few more. I'm serious, kiss female athletics goodbye if this is allowed. No chance a cis girl gets a scholarship due to the scarcity of them. It's pure mathematics. Why recruit a girl when you can get a transgender? The percentage isn't low enough to prevent this with a population of over 300 million.
I'm pretty Goddamned good with statistics. A 0.3% of the population doesn't seem like much until you start talking about the cream of the crop and a minority that has an overwhelming advantage. A 0.3% minority (or even 0.15% if you think the transgender split is 50/50) becomes a huge advantage when you consider the miniscule relative amounts of athletic scholarships available for females. This is complete bullshit!
I would have to see how many male to female high school athletes are attaining college athletic scholarships to even begin to approach any level of outrage. And even then, I am almost certain the NCAA bylaws don't actually allow male to female athletes to compete on female teams:
A trans female (MTF) student-athlete being treated with testosterone suppression medication for
Gender Identity Disorder or gender dysphoria and/or Transsexualism, for the purposes of NCAA competition may continue to compete on a men’s team but may not compete on a women’s team without
changing it to a mixed team status until completing one calendar year of testosterone suppression
treatment.
A trans female (MTF) transgender student-athlete who is not taking hormone treatments related to
gender transition may not compete on a women’s team.
So, despite what is happening on the high school level, it doesn't even appear that participating on the teams is a possibility on the next level, with the only exception being a medically verified entire year of testosterone suppression.
First if all it's the daily caller so it's going to be biased outrage bait from Ben Shapiro right? But you say there's other sources. Ok so disregarding the biased article, we have two transgender girls are winning races against girls, right?
I would hope they aren't transgender just to win stupid track races. That is a life altering way of life and the shit they must get for being transgender is real. People get killed.
Are they doing this for unimaginable glory as track stars in high school? Is that really such a thing really??
So would I be happy if I had a girl going to that school and racing against them? No I guess not.
What should be done? Screw it, integrated racing teams. Everyone is welcome. Make two or three divisions and call it a day. Assign people to their appropriate division based on their physical capabilities instead of the contents in their pants. A, AA, AAA, varsity whatever divisions.
Would boys win all the time? Yeah maybe I don't know some girls are fast aren't they? We got female Navy seals why can't we get female track champions.
Don't take the outrage bait here. It's a (small) problem that can be addressed.
What if the division idea is rejected? Then support your kids decisions.
First if all it's the daily caller so it's going to be biased outrage bait from Ben Shapiro right? But you say there's other sources. Ok so disregarding the biased article, we have two transgender girls are winning races against girls, right?
I would hope they aren't transgender just to win stupid track races. That is a life altering way of life and the shit they must get for being transgender is real. People get killed.
Are they doing this for unimaginable glory as track stars in high school? Is that really such a thing really??
So would I be happy if I had a girl going to that school and racing against them? No I guess not.
What should be done? Screw it, integrated racing teams. Everyone is welcome. Make two or three divisions and call it a day. Assign people to their appropriate division based on their physical capabilities instead of the contents in their pants. A, AA, AAA, varsity whatever divisions.
Would boys win all the time? Yeah maybe I don't know some girls are fast aren't they? We got female Navy seals why can't we get female track champions.
Don't take the outrage bait here. It's a (small) problem that can be addressed.
What if the division idea is rejected? Then support your kids decisions.
I mean, I my cross-country team in high school, at the very least, TRAINED as a co-ed group. And I just so happened to be paired whenever possible by my coach with the absolute best female runner in the entire state of Minnesota, who (in this particular case and sport) had the "advantage" of clearly being anorexic. Now, of course, I realize this is a serious disease, but her obsession with keeping her weight where it was (which was essentially nothing) had everything to do with her times on runs, or it at least started that way. And I could keep up with her for MAYBE two miles before she just went off an made us all look like fools. Of course, she eventually reached a point where she started collapsing on a regular basis, but not before some state titles and a full ride to the U of M.
I'm pretty Goddamned good with statistics. A 0.3% of the population doesn't seem like much until you start talking about the cream of the crop and a minority that has an overwhelming advantage. A 0.3% minority (or even 0.15% if you think the transgender split is 50/50) becomes a huge advantage when you consider the miniscule relative amounts of athletic scholarships available for females. This is complete bullshit!
I would have to see how many male to female high school athletes are attaining college athletic scholarships to even begin to approach any level of outrage. And even then, I am almost certain the NCAA bylaws don't actually allow male to female athletes to compete on female teams:
A trans female (MTF) student-athlete being treated with testosterone suppression medication for
Gender Identity Disorder or gender dysphoria and/or Transsexualism, for the purposes of NCAA competition may continue to compete on a men’s team but may not compete on a women’s team without
changing it to a mixed team status until completing one calendar year of testosterone suppression
treatment.
A trans female (MTF) transgender student-athlete who is not taking hormone treatments related to
gender transition may not compete on a women’s team.
Then I will argue that Connecticut needs to update their high school laws in this regard. Apples to apples should apply across the board or records are meaningless. Maybe you don't care about them, but there's a reason that people keep track of records. It can be a make-or-break life changing result for a person that really deserves it. Just saying...
Comments
All fair questions, and I wish people would ask more than assume.
On Trump, used to like him, turned out to be a wimp who gets played by Congress and doesn't keep his promises, so I don't care anymore.
On his innocence, I think he is innocent of the Russia collusion story but not on the basis of no smoking gun, I think that's the last refuge of the desperate to be frank. I don't think he's intelligent enough to pull off any kind of coordinated illegality and get away with it, to be quite honest. Furthermore, I don't see what he has to gain by coordinating a hack with Wikileaks when Wikileaks can do this all on their own and have the same effect with less risk. They would have had to offer him something I feel like. In the Clinton case, the gains are documented.
That all being said, some things have been posted on here that make me believe he is guilty of some financial crimes although the specifics escape me at the moment.
I don't think there's enough evidence to convict of a crime because quid pro quo is a very high standard of evidence and will basically require some communications being uncovered or somebody snitching, both highly unlikely because I doubt there was any verbal agreement to begin with, these things work on mutual understanding i'm sure.
Do I think she's personally guilty? I think she's personally guilty of taking that money knowing what it was for. Whether or not she actually acted on their behalf I can't say.
That being said, what is completely known *should* be illegal. Politicians shouldn't be taking private money from those they govern. That's such an obvious conflict of interest I can't believe it needs to be discussed. I also think there isn't any room for doubt that the Foundation has a history of influence peddling, i've provided other examples of such in this thread. Therefore when I see the exact same thing happening again i'm liable to assume it to be the pay for play that it is. And frankly, any fair minded person should see someone in a position of authority taking money while overseeing them and be concerned, no matter how little authority you think they have on paper.
But yes, it is quite different. She's not getting campaign contributions, she's getting private donations, and she's getting them at the only possible time where it would look like a conflict of interest. Even if she was getting campaign contributions at the time it would be suspect, but private donations even more so.
How is it more suspect that the money is going to a charity instead of her campaign? She actually has access to her campaign funds and can use that money during the election. The Clinton Foundation is a 501c charity that has to operate under IRS disclosure rules. She wasn't even on the board at the time.
If all you were saying is that people had made donations to charity in the hope that Hillary would favor them as a result - I wouldn't have spent hours of my time arguing about this. However, you've suggested that things have gone beyond that and that Hillary may be guilty of something more in relation to the Uranium One deal.
As I've said, zero evidence of her having any involvement or influence over the decisions has manifested, despite intensive searches for such evidence by people with every incentive to construe anything she did in the worst possible light.
You raised the comparison with Russia initially, not me. The point I was making was that there are serious reasons to be concerned about possible collusion with Russia. It is not normal for a US President to have private meetings with a foreign head of state that even exclude their own translator. It is not normal for a US President to contradict the unanimous conclusions of their own investigative agencies. It is not normal for a US President to want to set up unmonitored communications with another State. It is not normal for a US President to brazenly and repeatedly lie about his business interests in another country. Whether or not there has been illegal activity in relation to Trump's personal relationship with Russia has not yet been determined, but there are certainly clear avenues of enquiry. In the case of Hillary and Uranium One there are no similar avenues because no one can point to any emails, meetings, recordings, depositions, speeches by Hillary, statements by whistleblowers or anything else that suggests she actually did anything.
There is a choice between assuming:
a) an absence of evidence results from a lack of activity; or
b) an absence of evidence results from perfect concealment of her role by both her and everyone else involved
I don't find it difficult to determine which of those I think is more likely, but I won't spend any further time arguing about it.
Following Hillary's successful Presidential campaign in 2016, she fires FBI Director James Comey for refusing to drop investigation of National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, and Deputy AG Sally Yates appoints Mueller as special counsel. Over two years, he finds that:
John Podesta (Paul Manafort) is indicted for a $65 million, decades-long money laundering scheme and illegally working for the government of Ukraine. Then he is re-indicted for witness tampering. Imagine that Nick Merrill (George Papadopoulos) pleads guilty for lying to federal agents about his contacts with Russia. Imagine then that Cheryl Mills (Rick Gates) pleads guilty to participating in Podesta's scheme and begins cooperating with Mueller. Imagine then that Clinton's National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan (Michael Flynn) pleads gulity to lying to federal agents while working in the White House and for being an unregistered foreign agent for the government of Turkey. Then imagine Huma Abedin (Michael Cohen) pleads gulity to tax fraud and to an illegal campaign finance scheme to cover up a scandal in the final days of the cmapaign, directed by Hillary herself. Then Huma pleads gulity AGAIN for lying to Congress to cover-up the Clinton Foundation's dealings with Putin.
Now then. Just what position do you think House and Senate Republicans, to say nothing of the media, would be taking on this scenario?? Because I can say with 100% certainty the impeachment would have already taken place and she'd be out of office.
Weren't the republican's threatening to impeach her on day 1 if she won?
All this hypothetical talk doesn't matter IMO.
Well it does show that elected Republicans are completely full of shit and need to quit with the holier than thou fake patriotism. They are completely spineless and totally corrupt when it comes to looking in the mirror at their own values and at their own party.
A Muslim congresswoman says Israel is influencing officials to be pro-israel, which members of the PAC have bragged about on tape, but Conservatives completely lose their minds. And these same people don't say a word or mind the overt racists in their party.
So PresidentClinton got oral sex and didn't want to admit it. Conservatives lost their minds and impeached him. A few years later they are in love with Roy Moore, a kiddy diddler banned from shopping malls, and Donald "Grab em by the genitals" Trump. They are in love.
Republicans spend years crying about election fraud but when there's an actual example of it in North Carolina, they say seat the man in Congress immediately. They are just ridiculous. And their hero Trump and his lying cowardly ways where everything is everyone else's fault is a huge topic of his own.
Anyway, there's hundreds more examples, their hypocrisy knows no bounds and these Republican politicians are the worst.
I know @Grond0 has been saying Theresa May has a penchant for clearly saying she will never do something... and then eventually doing that same thing. This seems to be another example of that.
Any insight into what this might mean moving forward? Does a delay realistically lessen the chances of a hard brexit at this point? Or is the whole fiasco so late in the game that this vote is just to save face for the PM over what will inevitably be a hard brexit?
My question is: Will the EU accept a delay? From what I've read, some in the EU have been saying that they'll just cut ties if the Brits don't get their act together.
I didn't know that, and it's kind of a big deal because I'm pretty sure that any delay and any rescinding of article 50 requires a unanimous vote by countries in the EU. I wonder if the UK's game of chicken with the brexit deadline will end up biting them in the end.
I think it does reduce the chance of no deal, though not eliminate it. May was faced with more desertions from her party and a potential mass resignation of ministers if she continued to allow the possibility of no deal by default (i.e. deadlock in Parliament until the existing law automatically gives a no deal Brexit on 29th March). In addition, an amendment already tabled in Parliament would almost certainly have passed and forced her to do what she's agreed to today (and a bit more) - so it's not so much that she's offering a concession as trying to hold the line that the government is in control and not Parliament. What she's said is:
- there will be another vote on her proposed deal by 12th March at the latest.
- if that is defeated again she will put forward a vote on 13th March asking Parliament if they want to leave with no deal.
- if that is defeated (which it would be) there would be a further vote on 14th March asking if MPs want an extension to the process.
The financial markets have interpreted that as reducing the possibility of a no deal and I agree with that, but the possibility certainly still remains. It's already been pointed out that there's no certainty the EU would agree an extension - they definitely would if that was a technical extension just to allow legislation to be passed and almost certainly would if they thought there was a real prospect of reversing Brexit. It's possible they would be sticky, however, if this was seen as a delay without purpose (though even there most EU countries are no more prepared for no deal than the UK and could make good use of some extra time). Even if the EU grant an extension the problem remains that the only apparent majority in Parliament currently relies on combining the votes of Conservatives and Labour - and there's no sign yet that is going to happen.
While May has had a tricky time in managing her party lately, that's also the case for Corbyn. He's belatedly agreed to follow the resolution at the last party conference and say that Labour will now support a second referendum if their preferred deal (based on a customs union) is not agreed. This is a very odd policy as the deal on the table is purely about the basis for leaving the EU - the details of the future relationship (such as whether we're in a customs union) won't be negotiated until after we've left. It's also obvious that Corbyn has no enthusiasm for a second referendum and has just been forced into that position by threats of more people leaving his party as well. The momentum for another referendum, which had started to build a bit a couple of months ago, has pretty much evaporated by now, so to have any chance of that there would need to be an extension past 29th March to work on convincing skeptics.
You know, say ALL you want about Democrats, but at this point, the GOP is basically straight out of the Sopranos. I wouldn't be shocked if we found out they were chopping up bodies in the back of a pork store.
It's cute that people still think that there is a.) any bottom to this barrel or b.) that there will be any consequences whatsoever for the entire party basically morphing into the Gambino Family.
To start the day today, I got an alert from my USA Today phone app. It was what turned out to basically be a puff piece on Jacob Wohl (the guy who tired to frame Robert Mueller). Not only were they interviewing him as if he deserved this kind of attention, but he, time after time, essentially admitted that he was a professional public liar who was PROUD of spreading disinformation to benefit Trump's cause. In the midst of which, he ALSO admitted to making fake Twitter accounts to disseminate it. Which caused him to be permanently banned by the end of the day. At the central core of Trump's takeover of the GOP is this black hole of nihilism and the idea that any ends justify the means of "owning the libs". There is nothing else holding it up.
Meanwhile, I watched Mitch McConnell take sophistry to new heights when I saw him take to the Senate floor and blame the fact that a paid operative of the Republican candidate in the NC House race literally stole the election on DEMOCRATS because they don't support certain voter ID laws. As if any voter ID law in the country would have stopped someone from seeking out and gathering absentee ballots and destroying them. The bad faith is just fucking endless.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dailycaller.com/2019/02/25/transgender-high-school-track
Edit: And don't tell me that this is some unforeseen circumstance. This was a totally predictable outcome of Connecticut's assenine 'gender equality' law. Give me one example of a female transgender wanting to compete against the boys...
I respect you for responding and I agree with you in principle. But is this really progress? Females having to compete against males in sports? This is not progress in my opinion
This is besides the point, but most sports records aren't "fair" in any way, shape or form. Pretty much anything in baseball is bullshit before the 1960s because almost all the black players were relegated to a different league. Bill Russell won 11 championships to Jordan's 6, but it's impossible to pretend that the game and competition had evolved to anywhere near where it had in the 90s when Russell was playing. My mother held the all-time scoring record at her high school for years until my aunt (her youngest sister) passed her, but my aunt had a distinct advantage in that competition, which was the 3-pointer coming into existence. The rules have been changed to benefit QBs and the offense so much in the past decade that we have no idea how older ones may have fared under the same rules. Same applies for less physical defense being allowed in the NBA.
So I guess my point is, throw an asterisk on their "records" and we'll all move on the more important things. Or don't allow them to have the records at all. I really don't care if they do or not. I guess I even agree in principle that the whole sports thing with former male transgender athletes competing in female sports, but (trust me) there is WAY worse shit going on in high schools we should be concerned about before this. A couple years ago in the area around St. Cloud, MN there was practically a goddamn epidemic of teen suicides related to online bullying.
Track records are not subject to those restrictions. I'm pretty sure that regardless of race, times can't be faked. If you want to argue that all records should be gender neutral then that's fine. In that case then males and females should have to compete against each other fairly. My daughter would basically have no chance to ever play basketball in High School or College. Is that desirable?
I think you are vastly overestimating the amount of male to female transgender students who are participating in high school athletics at a high level. I think it probably seems high because the conservative media is going to point out each and every solitary one of them they can find and shine a flood-light on it.
Read the article I highlighted and read a few more. I'm serious, kiss female athletics goodbye if this is allowed. No chance a cis girl gets a scholarship due to the scarcity of them. It's pure mathematics. Why recruit a girl when you can get a transgender? The percentage isn't low enough to prevent this with a population of over 300 million.
I would have to see how many male to female high school athletes are attaining college athletic scholarships to even begin to approach any level of outrage. And even then, I am almost certain the NCAA bylaws don't actually allow male to female athletes to compete on female teams:
A trans female (MTF) student-athlete being treated with testosterone suppression medication for
Gender Identity Disorder or gender dysphoria and/or Transsexualism, for the purposes of NCAA competition may continue to compete on a men’s team but may not compete on a women’s team without
changing it to a mixed team status until completing one calendar year of testosterone suppression
treatment.
A trans female (MTF) transgender student-athlete who is not taking hormone treatments related to
gender transition may not compete on a women’s team.
So, despite what is happening on the high school level, it doesn't even appear that participating on the teams is a possibility on the next level, with the only exception being a medically verified entire year of testosterone suppression.
First if all it's the daily caller so it's going to be biased outrage bait from Ben Shapiro right? But you say there's other sources. Ok so disregarding the biased article, we have two transgender girls are winning races against girls, right?
I would hope they aren't transgender just to win stupid track races. That is a life altering way of life and the shit they must get for being transgender is real. People get killed.
Are they doing this for unimaginable glory as track stars in high school? Is that really such a thing really??
So would I be happy if I had a girl going to that school and racing against them? No I guess not.
What should be done? Screw it, integrated racing teams. Everyone is welcome. Make two or three divisions and call it a day. Assign people to their appropriate division based on their physical capabilities instead of the contents in their pants. A, AA, AAA, varsity whatever divisions.
Would boys win all the time? Yeah maybe I don't know some girls are fast aren't they? We got female Navy seals why can't we get female track champions.
Don't take the outrage bait here. It's a (small) problem that can be addressed.
What if the division idea is rejected? Then support your kids decisions.
I mean, I my cross-country team in high school, at the very least, TRAINED as a co-ed group. And I just so happened to be paired whenever possible by my coach with the absolute best female runner in the entire state of Minnesota, who (in this particular case and sport) had the "advantage" of clearly being anorexic. Now, of course, I realize this is a serious disease, but her obsession with keeping her weight where it was (which was essentially nothing) had everything to do with her times on runs, or it at least started that way. And I could keep up with her for MAYBE two miles before she just went off an made us all look like fools. Of course, she eventually reached a point where she started collapsing on a regular basis, but not before some state titles and a full ride to the U of M.
Then I will argue that Connecticut needs to update their high school laws in this regard. Apples to apples should apply across the board or records are meaningless. Maybe you don't care about them, but there's a reason that people keep track of records. It can be a make-or-break life changing result for a person that really deserves it. Just saying...