Liberal vs. Conservative

[Mug]

On ‎03‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 7:38 PM, DutchTexan said:

People vote for Donald, becasue they are paying attention. 

 

Oh god, oh god no... Just stop... Just stop now...

[stconquest]

32 minutes ago, Mug said:

Oh god, oh god no... Just stop... Just stop now...

Trump 2016! - "How much worse can it get?"

 

 

I think Trump will get stomped... but then I get this fear...

 

...

[DutchTexan]

6 hours ago, Quinnbeast said:

The FBI investigation itself may be illegal

Goodbye

[Quinnbeast]

10 hours ago, DutchTexan said:

Goodbye

 

Did I say something wrong?

 

Firstly, the FBI has already confirmed that it found no criminal evidence in the current batch of e-mails. The matter has is now considered resolved. What does that sound like to you other than a shit-slinging exercise? As I said, they are hoping that sufficient damage has been done even though the investigation amounted to nothing.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/06/fbi-director-hillary-clinton-email-investigation-criminal-james-comey

 

Secondly, the criticism of James Comey has been coming out thick and fast from a variety of sources, including from Alberto Gonzales (Attorney General to George W Bush) and Congressman Joe Walsh, neither of whom could be classed as Democratic supporters. The former said that Comey made an "error of judgement", and the latter said it was "wrong and unfair to Hillary". On the 30th October, the twitter account FBIRecordsVault became active after a year of silence and started dumping documents relating to Bill Clinton and Marc Rich. Given that no official account can be expected any time soon, the most robust speculation is that rogue FBI agents have threatened to leak the information themselves, forcing Comey to make an official release (either willingly or otherwise) and break FBI guidelines. Typically, they would not (and should not) release sensitive data within 60 days of an election date, and even worse, they should not release any important details of the investigation before it has formally concluded. This points to one of two options; corruption or negligence.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/31/fbi-obtains-warrant-to-search-emails-as-hillary-clintons-11-poin/

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/james-comey-fails-to-follow-justice-department-rules-yet-again/2016/10/29/3a2fad58-9ddd-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html

 

Goodbye, and godspeed.

[Misanthrope]

Honest question: Do you think that the fact that (allegedly) there is not enough evidence of a crime for an indictment means everything it's automatically a.o.k. ? Even if it's perfectly legal I am still not comfortable with a candidate receiving money from Saudi Arabia or Qatar that they can't properly explain (Sorry but the literal patriarchy of the middle east that funds terrorists doesn't strikes me as the type of guys that'd give to charities through the west)

 

Even if there's not enough evidence or no actual crime committed, she's pretty obviously compromised. Badly. Please try to answer this questions without saying Trump is just worst regardless of your reasons.

[Quinnbeast]

37 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Honest question: Do you think that the fact that (allegedly) there is not enough evidence of a crime for an indictment means everything it's automatically a.o.k. ?

 

Absolutely not. I agree that there are questionable sources of money, and that a certain level of corruption has been and will be par for the course in past, present and future administrations. I just don't think Hillary is particularly unique in these aspects. And while it's healthy to assume that all is not as it should be, this is partly down to the nature of old, archaic and overly complex forms of government. They lack transparency and accountability.

 

But as you say, there's not enough evidence on a crime having been committed. Moreover, the nature of the investigation itself is dubious enough that it practically renders itself inert by it's own ill-judged nature and break from guidelines. Even if there was something to disclose, it was flawed from the outset. If you're going to accuse someone of something at this level, you need to do it categorically by the numbers, or not at all.

 

For me, this election choice is about a gut feeling of who I consider to be the least untrustworthy. Nothing more.

[Misanthrope]

12 minutes ago, Quinnbeast said:

 

Absolutely not. I agree that there are questionable sources of money, and that a certain level of corruption has been and will be par for the course in past, present and future administrations. I just don't think Hillary is particularly unique in these aspects. And while it's healthy to assume that all is not as it should be, this is partly down to the nature of old, archaic and overly complex forms of government. They lack transparency and accountability.

 

But as you say, there's not enough evidence on a crime having been committed. Moreover, the nature of the investigation itself is dubious enough that it practically renders itself inert by it's own ill-judged nature and break from guidelines. Even if there was something to disclose, it was flawed from the outset. If you're going to accuse someone of something at this level, you need to do it categorically by the numbers, or not at all.

 

For me, this election choice is about a gut feeling of who I consider to be the least untrustworthy. Nothing more.

Yes I agree on this and I can see it being applied on both sides: We know conservatives love hyperbole and being alarmists but this election it's surprising we've seen it just as much from the left.

 

Ultimately I tie a lot of this to bipartisanship: 2 major choices are quite insufficient and the primaries just isn't a democratic enough process (neither are the elections but the true choice that should happen on the primaries is even more important imho). Not that I really see an honest way out of this tbf.

[Quinnbeast]

29 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Yes I agree on this and I can see it being applied on both sides: We know conservatives love hyperbole and being alarmists but this election it's surprising we've seen it just as much from the left.

 

Ultimately I tie a lot of this to bipartisanship: 2 major choices are quite insufficient and the primaries just isn't a democratic enough process (neither are the elections but the true choice that should happen on the primaries is even more important imho). Not that I really see an honest way out of this tbf.

This is one of many reasons that I'd gladly vote for either a break-up of the UK, or at the very least the abolishment of the current Westminster system (First Past The Post) in favour of proportional representation.

 

The former gives a sense of a strong unified government that appears to function smoothly (excluding a hung parliament), but can ultimately give the result of a majority/winning government to as little as 35-36% of the overall vote. For the most part, this too tends to become a two-horse race (Conservative/Labour), although not to the same extent as the presidential election (i.e. you vote for a selection of local candidates rather than option A or B). But it still is, quite literally, decades (if not centuries) out of date.

 

I know what you mean by the primaries being more important in terms of candidate selection. The end result is that the presidential election tends to become a selection of two derivatives, and nowhere near a true representation of public choice.

[DutchTexan]

On 11/6/2016 at 4:35 PM, stconquest said:

Trump 2016! - "How much worse can it get?"

 

 

I think Trump will get stomped... but then I get this fear...

 

...

 

On 11/6/2016 at 4:08 PM, Mug said:

Oh god, oh god no... Just stop... Just stop now...

Oh and @Quinnbeast

 

I'm not here to rub it in or anything... but... Trump won over 98% of the 3,141 counties that make up America. What do you have to say about that? She won 57 out of 3,141. 

[stconquest]

2 hours ago, DutchTexan said:

 

Oh and @Quinnbeast

 

I'm not here to rub it in or anything... but... Trump won over 98% of the 3,141 counties that make up America. What do you have to say about that? She won 57 out of 3,141. 

...and he lost the popular vote.    What is he, down like 1 million?

[captain_to_fire]

Regardless whether one is a Liberal or Conservative, can someone please tell me why the GOP is still keeping someone like Sarah Palin? Like seriously. Is the video below an official endorsement or an SNL skit by Tina Fey?

 

 

 

 

[DutchTexan]

@hey_yo_ You assume I like her? Lol she's fucking crazy, man. I don't need to watch those videos to know that. She's worse than Jill Stein. She's just what happens when you are from Alaska or some parts of BC and Florida.

 

 

 

 

44 minutes ago, stconquest said:

...and he lost the popular vote.    What is he, down like 1 million?

So, 1.8% of the counties should rule the other 98.2%? So, NY, California and Illinois should rule the entire nation, exactly how they want, no exceptions? The electoral college is designed to prevent that tyranny. Without that system, our country and her people would kill itself within a decade. Pure democracy kills itself, every single time. That is why we are a Constitutional Republic and not a pure, direct democracy. Representation is key. Representation. Representation issues is why there was an American revolution. Lack of proper representation is exactly why we are no longer British colonies. Proper representation is why this beautiful nation is the worlds' leader.

 

If she wins the popular vote by 1 million, then that is not even 1% of the votes cast. You understand that, right? So way less than 1% vote lead from a whopping 57 of the 3,141 counties should rule the entire country for 4 years? Really, is that is what you want? Hillary and the media got CRUSHED. Corporate elites, mainstream media and the entire Republican+Democratic establishment got FUCKED INTO OBLIVION. The democratic party lost in literally every single way it could have possibly lost. Maybe, you shouldn't be so keen to value and defend their leadership. It obviously is not working.

 

306 electoral votes for Trump; the mainstream, corporate media preached there was a 99.9% chance that that would have happened for Clinton, exact opposite of reality. Yet, kids are completely freaking out, becasue they have been lied to. They don't understand how elections actually work, becasue this is the first time the vast majority of young people and first time voters paid slight attention. Hispanics and African Americas are scared for their lives, becasue the Clinton campaign fear-mongered them into believing Trump will deport legal citizens. Illegal citizens are the only ones who have the ground to be upset, but guess what, they aren't Americans! They are ILLEGALLY here.

If you're Muslim and live in the US, there's no reason things changed all of a sudden. If you think it has, it is manufactured and not reality. I work with a Muslim. We are good friends and he's a straight up badass. He also thinks the media is trying way too hard to think for him. He told me if he wanted what Hillary really stands for, then he would never have moved here and became a citizen. 

 

Now, cherry pick what I said and try to discredit the entire post. I will not return, this is over. Wish you the best of luck for you, your future and your family.

I only returned to illuminate reality

 

[stconquest]

26 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

So, 1.8% of the counties should rule the other 98.2%? 

I said no such thing.  I never said what should or should not be.  Sounds like you have doubts...

 

...so a county in bumfuck idaho with a population of 250 should have the same political weight as a county of 50K?

 

What is it with this word "rule"?  The president of the USA (or the GOP) should not be trying to "rule" over anyone.  This is why you have idiot right wingers talk small government then pass laws to force women that have miscarriages to have a goddamn funeral for the fetus/zygote/etc... Seems too many religious fundamentalists forgot that the USA is a secular nation.

Quote

So, NY, California and Illinois should rule the entire nation, exactly how they want, no exceptions? The electoral college is designed to prevent that tyranny. Without that system, our country and her people would kill itself within a decade. Pure democracy kills itself, every single time. That is why we are a Constitutional Republic and not a pure, direct democracy. Representation is key. Representation. Representation issues is why there was an American revolution. Lack of proper representation is exactly why we are no longer British colonies. Proper representation is why this beautiful nation is the worlds' leader.

 

If she wins the popular vote by 1 million, then that is not even 1% of the votes cast. You understand that, right? So way less than 1% vote lead from a whopping 57 of the 3,141 counties should rule the entire country for 4 years? Really, is that is what you want? Hillary and the media got CRUSHED. Corporate elites, mainstream media and the entire Republican+Democratic establishment got FUCKED INTO OBLIVION. The democratic party lost in literally every single way it could have possibly lost. Maybe, you shouldn't be so keen to value and defend their leadership. It obviously is not working.

 

306 electoral votes for Trump; the mainstream, corporate media preached there was a 99.9% chance that that would have happened for Clinton, exact opposite of reality. Yet, kids are completely freaking out, becasue they have been lied to. They don't understand how elections actually work, becasue this is the first time the vast majority of young people and first time voters paid slight attention. Hispanics and African Americas are scared for their lives, becasue the Clinton campaign fear-mongered them into believing Trump will deport legal citizens. Illegal citizens are the only ones who have the ground to be upset, but guess what, they aren't Americans! They are ILLEGALLY here.

If you're Muslim and live in the US, there's no reason things changed all of a sudden. If you think it has, it is manufactured and not reality. I work with a Muslim. We are good friends and he's a straight up badass. He also thinks the media is trying way too hard to think for him. He told me if he wanted what Hillary really stands for, then he would never have moved here and became a citizen. 

 

Now, cherry pick what I said and try to discredit the entire post. I will not return, this is over. Wish you the best of luck for you, your future and your family.

I only returned to illuminate reality

 

You illuminate no one.  You actually believe you won something.  This is the government of your country we are discussing and the person you think "won", has not proven whether or not he can even do the job.  Come back in four years.

[captain_to_fire]

44 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

 You assume I like her? Lol she's fucking crazy, man. I don't need to watch those videos to know that. She's worse than Jill Stein. She's just what happens when you are from Alaska or some parts of BC and Florida.

Oh god no. By no means do I paint all republicans with the same brush, the same way I don't paint all democrats as true textbook liberals. I posted that to lighten things up and probably give everyone a laugh. I mean, why does the GOP keep her? Keeping her will just make the GOP look bad.

 

"I can see Russia from my house." 

[Quinnbeast]

9 hours ago, DutchTexan said:

 

Oh and @Quinnbeast

 

I'm not here to rub it in or anything... but... Trump won over 98% of the 3,141 counties that make up America. What do you have to say about that? She won 57 out of 3,141. 

I'd say I'm genuinely happy for you. Congratulations.

 

I'd also say you did a fine job of picking statistics that suited your viewpoint - but then, that's the nature of layman discussions about the world, the universe and everything. Being objective is not a fundamental requirement. Countries, states, counties, neighborhoods... every time you redraw an imaginary line on the map, you end up with a different result. None of them are absolute. You can't distill the result any more finely than individual votes, because it's the only way that each and every vote can be considered equal without getting into arguments about the bias of different voting systems. Factoid of the day - your current system (one of nearly unlimited possible options) had a slave-owning white male Virginian as president for the first 32 out of 36 years. I'm glad it's working out for you personally.

 

Trump lost the popular vote. He does not speak for the majority of US citizens. See you at the next election.

 

4 hours ago, DutchTexan said:

Proper representation is why this beautiful nation is the worlds' leader.

This is why I love this forum so much; the comedy. Thanks for that!

[Misanthrope]

5 hours ago, DutchTexan said:

-Lots of texty texts here-

If you put it that way, it seems compelling sure. However you're working out of a few premises you might not be considering or that we might not agree on:

 

1) You assume eliminating the electoral college would not change the way political campaigns work at all. This is a point people keep bringing about TJ's response (@AmazingAtheist) and disregarding his response to it, yes with the electoral college gone and a popular vote system the political map right now would mean overwhelming victories from the urban areas like Cali and NY. However most republicans would quickly change strategies and campaign hard on this states.

 

In fact this would be a positive change since their conservative values that sometimes do have merit are obscured by their constant pandering of fucking nonsense shit Christian Fundamentalist want which is no gay marriage, no abortions and instituting a Christian based Theocracy. And go figure: if the ignorant, reactionary conservative hicks and rednecks have so much say in the electoral college you'll keep seeing republicans screaming about shooting Prisoners of War with pig blood coated bullets because that's what the average voter on bumbleshit, Sisterfucker USA wants to hear.

 

If on the other hands Republicans were forced to appeal to majority they'd campaign to more moderate conservatives (and Dems to more moderate leftists too) it would basically be a race to the center of the spectrum, a far better compromise vs the current system that polarizes the fuck out of the population by appealing to extremists on both sides.

 

2) You're also greatly overstating the power the President has, and the power he should have. Right now there is popular vote representation in the government in the form of the senate and congress. The legislative and not the executive should be the main form of Democracy, of reaching people's voices. Now have some presidents abused their powers like veto in the past? Sure. But if you make it so the President figure has a lot less veto or decrete attributions and you make SCOTUS appointments a popular vote with terms then you'd have proper representation without saying "California dictates shit for all of the country!" Because they wouldn't they might have a big influence on who's president (and maybe not if you read point 1) but he'll still have or should have to get everything past the legislative.

 

There's 3 major branches of government for this very reason, having an electoral college however is not something that the Founding fathers conceived thinking we would ever have 10 million motherfuckers living on a single urban center.

[Misanthrope]

33 minutes ago, Quinnbeast said:

Trump lost the popular vote. He does not speak for the majority of US citizens. See you at the next election.

Actually how would you respond to this comment though:

 

I don't bring up that argument myself because 1) I don't know where he got that number from  N/M here's his source and 2) I don't know how many of the "illegal aliens" would be illegal if there was a chance to give reasonable fucking amnesty to many of them that have been productive members of society for decades now regardless of how they got there. 

 

But the ranting asshole has a point nevertheless.

[stconquest]

3 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Actually how would you respond to this comment though:

 

I don't bring up that argument myself because 1) I don't know where he got that number from and 2) I don't know how many of the "illegal aliens" would be illegal if there was a chance to give reasonable fucking amnesty to many of them that have been productive members of society for decades now regardless of how they got there. 

 

But the ranting asshole has a point nevertheless.

If you want a point of contention, Greg Palast has a compelling argument against an voting anti-fraud system in place:  Crosscheck.

 

http://www.gregpalast.com/election-stolen-heres/

[Misanthrope]

8 minutes ago, stconquest said:

If you want a point of contention, Greg Palast has a compelling argument against an voting anti-fraud system in place:  Crosscheck.

 

http://www.gregpalast.com/election-stolen-heres/

It seems like a dirty tactic yes. However having non citizens vote is even dirtier at least the one quoted on the article has some measure of plausible deniability. 

 

However since I strongly believe both parties fucking cheat like it's nobody's business, I am willing to concede that the Republican operators where just smarter about it this time around.

[stconquest]

18 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

It seems like a dirty tactic yes. However having non citizens vote is even dirtier at least the one quoted on the article has some measure of plausible deniability. 

 

However since I strongly believe both parties fucking cheat like it's nobody's business, I am willing to concede that the Republican operators where just smarter about it this time around.

When we are voting here in Canada, we get voter cards sent to us in the mail well before voting day.  It is your responsibility to go get one if you have not received one.  My government knows where I live and who I am regardless of who I vote for.  That card is turned in to the poll operators before I cast my ballot.

 

How are non-citizens on any sort of registry in the USA?  That does not make sense.  There has to be a paper trail for every voter in the election.  Weird.  If Clinton made some sort of special registry for undocumented individuals, that registry can be contended before the election... and those voters turned away at the polls.

 

[captain_to_fire]

23 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

fact this would be a positive change since their conservative values that sometimes do have merit are obscured by their constant pandering of fucking nonsense shit Christian Fundamentalist want which is no gay marriage, no abortions and instituting a Christian based Theocracy. And go figure: if the ignorant, reactionary conservative hicks and rednecks have so much say in the electoral college you'll keep seeing republicans screaming about shooting Prisoners of War with pig blood coated bullets because that's what the average voter on bumbleshit, Sisterfucker USA wants to hear.

It's no secret that I don't like Donald Trump as a candidate but am I the only who thinks that Donald Trump is somehow a progressive republican? I don't agree with a lot of the things he said that he's very likely to do like imposing tax cuts to the rich and defunding Planned Parenthood but he is less dangerous than the likes of Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and Mike Pence. Trump's candidacy isn't really fueled by extreme right-wing ideologies but rather by populism. Those three however are really the embodiment of extreme right wing Christian theocracy who also wants to teach creationism in science class in public schools. They really, really want to repeal not just the Affordable Care Act but also the SCOTUS decision to make same sex marriage legal. 

 

But then, since the Republicans won both the Senate and the House, I'm afraid that they'll act as the men behind the curtain pulling strings on Donald Trump. Trump is now showing signs of his cluelessness on the responsibilities of a POTUS. I just hope Obama gave him enough crash course on how to be a president.

 

 

 

[Misanthrope]

9 minutes ago, stconquest said:

When we are voting here in Canada, we get voter cards sent to us in the mail well before voting day.  It is your responsibility to go get one if you have not received one.  My government knows where I live and who I am regardless of who I vote for.  That card is turned in to the poll operators before I cast my ballot.

 

How are non-citizens on any sort of registry in the USA?  That does not make sense.  There has to be a paper trail for every voter in the election.  Weird.  If Clinton made some sort of special registry for undocumented individuals, that registry can be contended before the election... and those voters turned away at the polls.

 

It all hinges on what documentation you're asked to provide: My dad has an American SSN, Valid driver's licence, bank account, valid US address. He just got his resident passport but didn't have it for over a decade (it was taken away over a silly dispute several years ago and he just recently got it reissued) and never had a green card or full citizenship as of today and still could easily work and vote since you underestimate how easy it is for immigrants to blend in almost without questioning on several haven cities and places.

[stconquest]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

It all hinges on what documentation you're asked to provide: My dad has an American SSN, Valid driver's licence, bank account, valid US address. He just got his resident passport but didn't have it for over a decade and never had a green card or full citizenship as of today and still could easily work and vote since you underestimate how easy it is for immigrants to blend in almost without questioning on several haven cities and places.

That's messed up.  Such an easy thing to do, to have a functional registry for elections.

[Misanthrope]

Just now, stconquest said:

That's messed up.  Such an easy thing to do, to have a functional registry for elections.

Why do you think I have so much with all this wall stuff? Your average illegal alien was at one point blue collar guys working the fields sure, but that has quickly changed to middle class Mexicans that can easily get a tourist passport, plane ticket and eventually a resident passport and just fully blend in without issues. 

[stconquest]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

Why do you think I have so much with all this wall stuff? Your average illegal alien was at one point blue collar guys working the fields sure, but that has quickly changed to middle class Mexicans that can easily get a tourist passport, plane ticket and eventually a resident passport and just fully blend in without issues. 

Blending in is not the issue.  The paper trail that should be required for each voter to be on a registry in each voting district is the issue.  Everyone with a birth certificate should be reachable.  New citizens (naturalized, non-birth) will also have a paper trail. 

 

How would an undocumented individual get into a poll booth?