Keep hoping.
You could say the same about Trump’s tax returns.
Very likely. And Pelosi has helpfully said that Trump’s tax returns can’t be used against him should they be illegally acquired. I’m sure she will keep her commitment.
Actually, the article says “Democratic strategists” fear an October surprise, which indicates that they know the kind of stuff Democrats do when they think no one is watching. Pelosi wouldn’t issue such a preemptive statement if she didn’t have good reason. Invoking Watergate is a sign of desperation.
IMHO it is possible, but as history tells me the ignorati (and there are virtually the same people now) in Climate gate had also obtained emails that hackers had stolen from climate change institutions and the right winger climate change deniers found very damaging quotes that Fox news and other right wing sources reported about for months…
Only to be shown later that the quotes omitted context and many times the cuts made made the lines sound terrible for the scientists. In the end almost a dozen investigations by scientific groups and media that was responsible found that the scientists were innocent of any wrongdoing.
Guess what news outlets refused to set the record straight to this day?I expect the same and worst from the pro ignorant and partisan hacks that will cut and paste (in fact I do remember seeing already some of that creative cutting to try to get some media outlets to report that Bernie was being sandbagged by the DNC).
Or it means what John Glenn said: “There are only two successful ways to run a campaign: Unopposed, or scared.”
Claiming someone who is far ahead of you in the polls is desperate is a much truer sign of desperation. :rolleyes: Invoking Watergate is sometimes simply accurate.
You just don’t learn very quickly, do you?
Tim Kaine in an otherwise intelligent op-ed says this:
I thought the argument was that discrimination was wrong because minorities were no more riskier to lend to or rent to than whites? If discriminators are making profits from discriminating then it’s going to take some pretty draconian enforcement to get anywhere because you’re basically forcing people to lose money and take risks that you yourself would never take. As hard as it is to legislate morality, it’s pretty much impossible to force people to risk their money for a higher social purpose.
I’d also note that what Kaine is talking about isn’t even really discrimination by race. It’s discrimination by risk, which is legal, even if there is a disproportionate impact on minorities. Unless Kaine is proposing in a mealy-mouthed way to alter anti-discrimination laws to force people to be treated equally regardless of credit risk or criminal history?
But credit risk or criminal history are very well documented at an individual level. I have a ‘credit score’ that is specific to me, and based on my past history of paying my bills. A business using my score to determine what credit limit or interest rate to give me is not discrimination.
But using a gross level of generalization on groups of people is discrimination. A business saying “we don’t give car loans to Hispanics, because they’ll default” is discrimination (even if it’s true that Hispanics default at a higher rate than other races). The business should look up the credit risk (easy to do with current computerization) of that particular Hispanic customer, and decide based on that,
Looking at the race, or gender, or age of a potential customer, and pre judging their creditworthiness from that, is clear prejudice.
In the past, banks practiced loan redlining by neighborhood, but essentially on the basis of race. Neighborhoods with a large black population were cut off from housing and business loans.
That’s harder to do nowadays, because of regulations, and thank God for that.
You point to discrimination on the basis of individual credit risk or criminal history, but what corporations used to do – and very much want to return to – is race-based discrimination, generalizing bad credit and criminality as group characteristics, not personal characteristics.
I hope you don’t really want to be siding with that kind of behavior.
I agree, but that’s not “discrimination for profit”. That’s discrimination that costs you profit because you are turning down good customers. In the example Kaine opened his op-ed with, an apartment stayed vacant longer than it otherwise would have because his client was turned away because of her race. That’s the opposite of profit. That’s a loss.
Was that a profitable behavior though? Are banks losing money now because they are forced to treat people as individuals?
I just want to know if his line was a nonsense throwaway or portends a change in policy. The Obama administration has been reinterpreting a lot of anti-discrimination law to apply to “disparate impact”, so it’s a fair question.
New stupid liberal idea, or maybe “progressive”: Black Lives Matter endorsing the anti-American anti-Israel anti-Semitic terror-loving idea of BDS to support the Palestinian terrorist Islam jihad.
It looks like whatever part of BLM has gotten organized has become Marxist. They’ve also been complaining about US imperialism.
Hopefully the next black protest movement remains nonpartisan. The problem with hitching your train to liberalism is that you then have to endorse every cause and then your movement loses its focus. BLM was better when they were giving a hearty FU to both parties.
Campaigning politicans lie and exaggerate — welcome to reality.
What irks me is the implicit assumption by Republiopathic oafs like adaher that Democrats should be held to a higher standard. Is it that they understand that the left is, on balance, much more moral than the right? To hold Republiopaths to any standards of truth would be like asking scorpions not to sting, but impugning Democrats is fair game. :smack:
When apples are compared to apples, the GOP hurries to change the subject away from truth, hypocrisy, or indeed any personal-morality topic. Remind me again: which of the two major parites now has their one-time highest elected official (and a “family-values” blowhard at that) in prison for charges relating to molesting young boys?
Poor argument. This is the stupid liberal idea thread. It’s generally considered stupid to counter with “Democrats do it too!” in the stupid Republican thread, so the same rule applies here. Using information against your opponents, regardless of how it was obtained, has always been fair game and complaining about it preemptively is pretty stupid and makes you wonder.
Banks (or their software suppliers) have developed “expert systems” to evaluate loan applications; these are pattern-recognition or neural-network algorithms that were trained with a variety of input including loan officers’ guesses. None of the bank officers, let alone regulators, will know exactly what approval criteria are trained into these automatic systems.
Your article describes one organization out of over 50. I don’t support BDS, but it’s not in support of “Palestinian terrorist Islam Jihad”.
That’s true only in the “useful idiot” sense. They don’t support it, but their actions aid and encourage it because they are under the impression that the Palestinian government has any other purpose than to wage war on Israel.
It’s relevant if the argument is that it’s a stupid liberal idea. If Democrats and Republicans are doing the same thing to the same degree it’s inaccurate to attribute the practice to one side only (and worse if the side you’re attributing it to is doing it less). Conversely, if there’s a significant difference in degree in the other direction such an application may be appropriate.
Preemptively declaring that it’s perfectly okay to use illegally-obtained information (not that we would ever encourage anyone to hack into the opposition’s records, nudge nudge, and it’s not our fault if those people decided to send us all this useful information, wink wink) is **also **pretty stupid and makes you wonder. In fact, it ought to make you wonder a lot more.
Personally I’d love to see Trump’s tax returns, but I don’t want someone hacking the IRS or his files to get them. That way lies danger.
Are there examples of Republicans getting busted through illegal info and them crying foul about it being used?
It’s not okay to hack that stuff, but if it becomes public that Democrats engage in some nefarious stuff when they don’t think anyone can see, that’s something the public should know and take into account.
That and the whole Palestinian movement is more about destroying Israel than a Palestinian state, so as long as they blow themselves up and want a “right of return” to a country other than theirs. Why do the Palestinians claim to want a state if Palestinians can also “return” to Israel? Also, most BDS supporters of people and groups seem to think “intifadas” aka terrorist jihad, is OK or even encourageable.