|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 10 2016 00:30 Mohdoo wrote:
I don't how giving up those things makes someone more qualified to be president. Someone doing something selfless does not give them qualifications to be president. I could see how being a high ranking general or something would give you a lot of experience dealing with our countries and require an understanding of foreign policy. But being a marine? No.
It's more basic than that. Serving in the military requires learning how to make decisions quickly under high-stress situations.
It's probably over-valued, but I'd say it's very much not-irrelevant experience as far as being president is concerned.
|
On October 10 2016 00:57 Plansix wrote:Also, just a reminder when people talk about a rigged system, remember is was the GOP that did this: ![[image loading]](http://theparagraph.com/files/pics/ohioCongressionalMap.png) That is a map of voting districts for Ohio.
As someone unfamiliar with the geography of Ohio, is the implication that the convoluted shapes of the districts are meant to influence election outcomes? How are the districts used in determining the outcome of an election, for someone unfamiliar with the process?
Also, is that red district at the top and middle the same? Wow.
Edit1: Looked at another map, this one just reuses certain colours, which was confusing in context.
Edit2: Found a link talking about the issue. Unsure as to its quality. I also learned how congressional districts are defined.
https://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting_in_Ohio#Congressional_redistricting.2C_2010
|
On October 10 2016 01:18 Adreme wrote:
Ive still been waiting the past 30 pages (reading most every post) for someone to actually explain what makes Hilary corrupt. I mean I know all the scandals and have looked closely at them for both sides but the problem with hers is the closer you look the more it just looks like a whole bunch of nothing and no one has given me a scandal that did not turn out to be a whole bunch of nothing.
There are really two major issues: she can be a blundering idiot on matters of policy (most blatantly, in FP) and matters of conduct (the whole email issue), and she does a whole lot of favor trading and generally sleazy, if run-of-the-mill, political dirty play. If you're looking for some single truly damning and career ending piece of evidence, it doesn't reside within the current releases of information on her work. If you want to see what I'm talking about in terms of her terrible blundering idiocy and general unpleasant politicking... well you pretty much have to be willfully ignorant not to see it because it's pretty ubiquitous.
|
On October 10 2016 00:57 Plansix wrote:Also, just a reminder when people talk about a rigged system, remember is was the GOP that did this: That is a map of voting districts for Ohio.
What the fuck are these borders? They look eerily like my friend trying to draw his friend's country while on Ambien.
|
On October 10 2016 00:57 Plansix wrote:
It is one of the reasons I liked McCain as a Republican. He always seemed to understand the need for strong foreign policy, but gave the impression that he pumped to go to war.
You can't be serious, McCain is the most warmongering neo-con psychopath of them all. Thank god Obama beat him in 2008, he may be horrible at foreign policy but at least the World is still here.
|
On October 10 2016 01:24 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 01:18 Adreme wrote:
Ive still been waiting the past 30 pages (reading most every post) for someone to actually explain what makes Hilary corrupt. I mean I know all the scandals and have looked closely at them for both sides but the problem with hers is the closer you look the more it just looks like a whole bunch of nothing and no one has given me a scandal that did not turn out to be a whole bunch of nothing. There are really two major issues: she can be a blundering idiot on matters of policy (most blatantly, in FP) and matters of conduct (the whole email issue), and she does a whole lot of favor trading and generally sleazy, if run-of-the-mill, political dirty play. If you're looking for some single truly damning and career ending piece of evidence, it doesn't reside within the current releases of information on her work. If you want to see what I'm talking about in terms of her terrible blundering idiocy and general unpleasant politicking... well you pretty much have to be willfully ignorant not to see it because it's pretty ubiquitous.
Everyone keeps saying she is corrupt and just assumes its taken as fact and just never backs it up with anything.
So far the only things that have meat are the fact that she admits she made a mistake using that email server and then after that they just start listing things she is involved in say they are corrupt and then never back it up with any facts or evidence and I am just supposed to believe them.
I would more then happily believe someone is corrupt but you have to give me evidence. People proved to me that Donald Trump was a bad businessman who cheated everyone he could and would never keep his word to anyone. That belief is based on the actual things he has done but with her no one can give me things she has done to make me think she is corrupt.
|
On October 10 2016 01:24 Mr. Wiggles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 00:57 Plansix wrote:Also, just a reminder when people talk about a rigged system, remember is was the GOP that did this: That is a map of voting districts for Ohio. As someone unfamiliar with the geography of Ohio, is the implication that the convoluted shapes of the districts are meant to influence election outcomes? How are the districts used in determining the outcome of an election, for someone unfamiliar with the process? Also, is that red district at the top and middle the same? Wow. Edit1: Looked at another map, this one just reuses certain colours, which was confusing in context.
It's called gerrymandering, where you redraw the lines of districts to favor a certain party for the election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
Shit, look at how bad Texas is.
![[image loading]](http://media.publicbroadcasting.net/ketr/newsroom/images/3480076.gif)
Compare Ohio or Texas to a state like Minnesota
![[image loading]](https://www.arrm.org/images/ARRM%20images/MN_Congressional_Maps_2014.jpg)
|
John Rambo McCain, the guy who wanted to stay in Iraq for the next 100 years and has yet to find a single war he wouldn't want to be involved in.
|
On October 10 2016 01:24 Mr. Wiggles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 00:57 Plansix wrote:Also, just a reminder when people talk about a rigged system, remember is was the GOP that did this: That is a map of voting districts for Ohio. As someone unfamiliar with the geography of Ohio, is the implication that the convoluted shapes of the districts are meant to influence election outcomes? How are the districts used in determining the outcome of an election, for someone unfamiliar with the process? Also, is that red district at the top and middle the same? Wow. Edit1: Looked at another map, this one just reuses certain colours, which was confusing in context.
they were afraid to lose seats so districts were redrawn to make the districts as uncompetetive as possible. And you probably end up with a bunch of crazies that way
|
On October 10 2016 01:18 Adreme wrote:
Ive still been waiting the past 30 pages (reading most every post) for someone to actually explain what makes Hilary corrupt. I mean I know all the scandals and have looked closely at them for both sides but the problem with hers is the closer you look the more it just looks like a whole bunch of nothing and no one has given me a scandal that did not turn out to be a whole bunch of nothing.
Bro just search anything GH has posted since Bernie lost..
|
On October 10 2016 01:33 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 01:18 Adreme wrote:
Ive still been waiting the past 30 pages (reading most every post) for someone to actually explain what makes Hilary corrupt. I mean I know all the scandals and have looked closely at them for both sides but the problem with hers is the closer you look the more it just looks like a whole bunch of nothing and no one has given me a scandal that did not turn out to be a whole bunch of nothing. Bro just search anything GH has posted since Bernie lost..
He posts a lot about emails that suggest people in the DNC wanted Hilary to win and was willing to do things to help her win if needed but the two important things to note there are that they did show them ACTUALLY DOING anything and also worth noting that they explicitly state that the leader of the DNC would not approve. I guess also worth noting that at no point during any of this not wrongdoing does it imply she even knew of the considered plans that were never going to be carried out in the first place
|
On October 10 2016 01:33 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 01:18 Adreme wrote:
Ive still been waiting the past 30 pages (reading most every post) for someone to actually explain what makes Hilary corrupt. I mean I know all the scandals and have looked closely at them for both sides but the problem with hers is the closer you look the more it just looks like a whole bunch of nothing and no one has given me a scandal that did not turn out to be a whole bunch of nothing. Bro just search anything GH has posted since Bernie lost..
Not a bad place to start; in general just looking at any strings of discussion that GH has almost always been involved in regarding Hillary's dirty dealings is a good way to go about it.
Beyond that, I'm not going to bother. It's not a topic I have much interest in rehashing because it's not very interesting or productive, and explaining things to Adreme is about as productive as trying to explain imperialism to Cowboy24.
|
On October 10 2016 01:30 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 01:24 Mr. Wiggles wrote:On October 10 2016 00:57 Plansix wrote:Also, just a reminder when people talk about a rigged system, remember is was the GOP that did this: That is a map of voting districts for Ohio. As someone unfamiliar with the geography of Ohio, is the implication that the convoluted shapes of the districts are meant to influence election outcomes? How are the districts used in determining the outcome of an election, for someone unfamiliar with the process? Also, is that red district at the top and middle the same? Wow. Edit1: Looked at another map, this one just reuses certain colours, which was confusing in context. It's called gerrymandering, where you redraw the lines of districts to favor a certain party for the election. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GerrymanderingShit, look at how bad Texas is. Compare Ohio or Texas to a state like Minnesota
here's georgia. they break atlanta into 6 different districts, rofl.
![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Georgia_Congressional_Districts%2C_113th_Congress.tif/lossless-page1-800px-Georgia_Congressional_Districts%2C_113th_Congress.tif.png)
|
On October 10 2016 01:30 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 01:24 Mr. Wiggles wrote:On October 10 2016 00:57 Plansix wrote:Also, just a reminder when people talk about a rigged system, remember is was the GOP that did this: That is a map of voting districts for Ohio. As someone unfamiliar with the geography of Ohio, is the implication that the convoluted shapes of the districts are meant to influence election outcomes? How are the districts used in determining the outcome of an election, for someone unfamiliar with the process? Also, is that red district at the top and middle the same? Wow. Edit1: Looked at another map, this one just reuses certain colours, which was confusing in context. It's called gerrymandering, where you redraw the lines of districts to favor a certain party for the election. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GerrymanderingShit, look at how bad Texas is. Compare Ohio or Texas to a state like Minnesota
Ok, that makes sense, thanks.
Reading through that link, it looks like the major opposition to having neutral/cross-party bodies determining district lines comes from the political parties themselves. I guess that makes sense, why have a neutral body perform redistricting, when you can draw the lines yourselves to favour your party?
In the US, is there any body with the authority to impose homogeneous districting rules across states, if it so wanted?
|
On October 10 2016 01:30 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 01:24 LegalLord wrote:On October 10 2016 01:18 Adreme wrote:
Ive still been waiting the past 30 pages (reading most every post) for someone to actually explain what makes Hilary corrupt. I mean I know all the scandals and have looked closely at them for both sides but the problem with hers is the closer you look the more it just looks like a whole bunch of nothing and no one has given me a scandal that did not turn out to be a whole bunch of nothing. There are really two major issues: she can be a blundering idiot on matters of policy (most blatantly, in FP) and matters of conduct (the whole email issue), and she does a whole lot of favor trading and generally sleazy, if run-of-the-mill, political dirty play. If you're looking for some single truly damning and career ending piece of evidence, it doesn't reside within the current releases of information on her work. If you want to see what I'm talking about in terms of her terrible blundering idiocy and general unpleasant politicking... well you pretty much have to be willfully ignorant not to see it because it's pretty ubiquitous. Everyone keeps saying she is corrupt and just assumes its taken as fact and just never backs it up with anything. So far the only things that have meat are the fact that she admits she made a mistake using that email server and then after that they just start listing things she is involved in say they are corrupt and then never back it up with any facts or evidence and I am just supposed to believe them. I would more then happily believe someone is corrupt but you have to give me evidence. People proved to me that Donald Trump was a bad businessman who cheated everyone he could and would never keep his word to anyone. That belief is based on the actual things he has done but with her no one can give me things she has done to make me think she is corrupt.
The email thing was not just "making a mistake". On purpose after that she deliberately tried to cover it up, obstruct justice and basically did as much as possible to hide it until it blew in her face.
How about Bill's rape accusations and her help covering it up? He even settled many times. This is actual mistreating of woman, as oppossed to some locker room comments before a TV pilot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations
Broaddrick's allegations resurfaced in the 2016 presidential campaign. In various media interviews, Broaddrick stated that Clinton raped her and that Hillary Clinton knew about it, and tried to threaten Broaddrick into remaining silent. She claimed that she started giving some interviews in 2015 because Hillary Clinton's statement that victims of sexual assault should be believed angered her.[7]
Or the recently leaked mails of her getting payed to suck up to Wall Street.
There is def enough evidence of very shady behavior at the very least, or in my opinion flat out criminal behavior.
|
On October 10 2016 01:43 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 01:33 Rebs wrote:On October 10 2016 01:18 Adreme wrote:
Ive still been waiting the past 30 pages (reading most every post) for someone to actually explain what makes Hilary corrupt. I mean I know all the scandals and have looked closely at them for both sides but the problem with hers is the closer you look the more it just looks like a whole bunch of nothing and no one has given me a scandal that did not turn out to be a whole bunch of nothing. Bro just search anything GH has posted since Bernie lost.. Not a bad place to start; in general just looking at any strings of discussion that GH has almost always been involved in regarding Hillary's dirty dealings is a good way to go about it. Beyond that, I'm not going to bother. It's not a topic I have much interest in rehashing because it's not very interesting or productive, and explaining things to Adreme is about as productive as trying to explain imperialism to Cowboy24.
I arrived at the same conclusion. Candidates in the past might have taken some searching to convince yourself. Hillary's outline of corruption and missteps (like FP) has been reported on in many major news outlets because of the size and scope. If you're still asserting smoke and mirrors instead of serious issues at this point, it's willful self deception.
|
Not at the moment. Some states have set up neutral or bipartisan bodies but its up to the states to decide how they redistrict. AFAIK the only federal involvement comes from the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act which forced certain states to submit any changes in their election laws to the feds before they could be approved. I believe the preclearance section of the VRA is no longer in effect after a Supreme Court decision in 2013.
|
On October 10 2016 01:51 Mr. Wiggles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 01:30 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 10 2016 01:24 Mr. Wiggles wrote:On October 10 2016 00:57 Plansix wrote:Also, just a reminder when people talk about a rigged system, remember is was the GOP that did this: That is a map of voting districts for Ohio. As someone unfamiliar with the geography of Ohio, is the implication that the convoluted shapes of the districts are meant to influence election outcomes? How are the districts used in determining the outcome of an election, for someone unfamiliar with the process? Also, is that red district at the top and middle the same? Wow. Edit1: Looked at another map, this one just reuses certain colours, which was confusing in context. It's called gerrymandering, where you redraw the lines of districts to favor a certain party for the election. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GerrymanderingShit, look at how bad Texas is. Compare Ohio or Texas to a state like Minnesota Ok, that makes sense, thanks. Reading through that link, it looks like the major opposition to having neutral/cross-party bodies determining district lines comes from the political parties themselves. I guess that makes sense, why have a neutral body perform redistricting, when you can draw the lines yourselves to favour your party? In the US, is there any body with the authority to impose homogeneous districting rules across states, if it so wanted?
No such body exists and there is no constitutional or statutory method to make it happen. Everybody likes safe seats. The balance of power dictates who gets more of them. I don't forsee any citizen movements (and it would have to be state by state) to change this.
|
Given these recent trump tapes, her reluctance to do press conferences makes perfect sense. I'd wondered how she was so confident to just run out the clock, this is why. As for the debate tonight, trump is going to go down in flames and drag everyone he can down with him. I don't even know if there will be a third debate. Unless a 4D chess playing, humble, policy focused version shows up, one can dream.
|
On October 10 2016 02:13 biology]major wrote:
Unless a 4D chess playing, humble, policy focused version shows up, one can dream.
If such a version existed, the time to reveal himself would have been before this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
