Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

[Belz...]

Hey don't blame me, it was Foolmewunz who, earlier in the thread, presented a figure of 330 million.

Can you register with a party affiliation even though you don't register to vote? If not, something's quite not adding up here.

Where does your 40% figure come from, then?

 

[caveman1917]

Godwinning the thread yet again - good job

That's not a Godwin. Argue the point made.

 

[caveman1917]

Would you prefer an autocracy or a communist state?

False trilemma.

 

[caveman1917]

Where does your 40% figure come from, then?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/180440/new-record-political-independents.aspx

 

[The Don]

That's not a Godwin. Argue the point made.

Of course it's a Godwin - a reference to the final solution...

 

[The Don]

Here

Then you're not very good at understanding things.

The 330 million figure clearly refers to the total number of people, not the number of registered or eligible voters.

 

[Belz...]

False trilemma.

I was asking a question, not somehow claiming to include all possibilities.

Please explain what your problem with "liberal capitalism" is, and what your alternative is.

 

[Belz...]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/180440/new-record-political-independents.aspx

Do you know what "independant" means? Hint: go back a few posts.

 

[caveman1917]

Of course it's a Godwin - a reference to the final solution...

Of course it's not a Godwin. Not every mere mention of Hitler or Nazis is a Godwin. A Godwin is a comparison of someone to Hitler/Nazis, and then even not every comparison is a Godwin. I've applied your reasoning to another case to show you the error.

Person X has killed large numbers of people in group Y.
It was political orthodoxy at the time to kill people in group Y.
Therefor it is not inconsistent to support person X while claiming to be "thinking of the people in group Y".

Set X = Clinton, Y = children and you get your argument.
Set X = Hitler, Y = jews and you get my response.

 

[caveman1917]

I was asking a question, not somehow claiming to include all possibilities.

Ok then:

Would you prefer an autocracy or a communist state?

No.

Please explain what your problem with "liberal capitalism" is, and what your alternative is.

No thank you.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Which is, what, about 10% of voters? That still leaves you the other 30% of independents to account for.

You're not from 'round these parts, are ya boy?

Population of USA: 325,000,000
Population eligible to vote: 245,000,000
Actual Voters: 125,000,000

Which number is your imagination working with?

 

[Mader Levap]

I checked turnout figures against this, seems that turnout for elections is at around 60%, so it's probably more likely that people self-identifying as independents don't vote.

Failtastic. You would have to prove that those 40% of independents never vote and republicans and democrats always vote.

In other words, that 40% of one thing (how many independents are) and 60% of completely different thing (turnout in some certain election) sums up to 100% almost certainly is accident. Burden of proof (that they actually ARE related) is on you.

 

[Bob001]

Is it because there's the word "liberal" in it? I ask because I think you're a liberal too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism



Don't people on the left and right generally agree on all of this?

Pretty clearly not. The right is doing everything it can to restrict voting rights, its presidential candidate wants to reduce press freedom, and to them "free markets" means no safety or environmental regulations, no employee rights, no union contracts and limited (if any) taxation. Etc., etc. Not to mention creationism and climate change denial. The right pretty clearly divides the world into "them" and "us," and their "us" gets to do whatever it wants to their "them."

 

[Bob001]

And?

And claiming in court documents that the 12-year-old rape victim is lying about the assault and fantasizes about being with older men hardly fulfills her legal obligation to "always treat adverse witnesses and suitors with fairness and due consideration, and ... never minister to the malevolence or prejudices of a client in the trial or conduct of a cause."

 

[Bob001]

Instead, you want a win at all costs con man?

The ethical thing for any lawyer is to do the best job for his or her client. In fact, they take an oath to do just that. The victim was not subjected to a harsh cross examination and the defendant's sentence was in line with others committing the same crime.

The suggestion that we should dismiss from consideration an extremely qualified candidates from the Presidency for doing her job the way she is required by law to do 40 years prior is ABSURD.

A President Clinton is clearly preferable to a President Trump. Pretty much any name selected from any U.S. phone book (remember them?) would be preferable to Trump. Odds are that at least they wouldn't be crazy. But that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't examine Clinton's lifelong shady practices, from her earliest career through her purportedly selling special access as SecState to her foundation donors.

The real subject for discussion should be how did our system go so far awry that these are our only choices?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

More Americans identify as independents than either as Democrats or Republicans. Yet in the election they all vote for either the Democratic or Republican candidate. Do you have another explanation for this phenomenon that is not that self-fulfilling "realist" argument?

So you now move the goalpost to "all elections"?

In the current election, Stein is incompetent and unqualified to be POTUS. Johnson and Weld head a party that had one candidate dance naked on the stage at their convention. It's hard to take them seriously and Libertarianism is an extreme view that the market solves all problems. The evidence demonstrates without question that is untrue and an unregulated marketplace means the rich have even more power.

As for people registering as 'no party affiliation', records show the majority of them vote as if they were in one of the two major parties regardless. IOW, IINOs

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's not dedication. It's an honest assessment about what is best for the nation.

One candidate has spent a lifetime of helping people and in public service.
The other has spent a lifetime cheating people and looking out for himself.

One fought to make Healthcare a right
The other wants to take it away.

One has fought for equal rights for women
The other says that the best way with women is to treat them like ****.

One has fought for unions and working people.
The other has fought to prevent workers from organizing.

One has a history of fairly consistent stands.
The other has been on both sides of every single issue.

One has an in depth knowledge of both domestic and foreign policy.
The other is TOTALLY CLUELESS.

One has a plan to help working people directly.
The other thinks that helping the rich helps the poor.

There are probably a million more reasons why Hillary is a much better choice than the narcissistic orangutan, but those will do for now.

QFT

Well said.

 

[Bob001]

You consider a lawyer defending a client against rape charges who gets her client to plead guilty to be "winning"?

The guy was facing 30 years in the state pen, and he took a deal. Most criminal prosecutions are resolved with a plea bargain to a lesser charge. She didn't get him to plead guilty; the prosecutor did.

97 percent of federal cases and about 95 percent of state cases are resolved by plea bargains, and, in practice, these are almost invariably dictated by the prosecutor.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/392417/plea-against-pleading-conrad-black

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Caveman, I believe you are confusing self-fulfilling prophecy with wishful thinking.

 

[acbytesla]

A President Clinton is clearly preferable to a President Trump. Pretty much any name selected from any U.S. phone book (remember them?) would be preferable to Trump. Odds are that at least they wouldn't be crazy. But that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't examine Clinton's lifelong shady practices, from her earliest career through her purportedly selling special access as SecState to her foundation donors.

I haven't seen any shady practices from Clinton that I haven't seen practiced by all 535 members of the House and Senate. Money buys access at every level of the US government. That doesn't mean it buys favors. It gets you in the door.

I'm all in favor of laws and rules that would lessen the role that money plays in politics. But frankly, I'm not Don Quixote or some pretty young naive virgin who doesn't realize that the boy she has a date with wants to get inside her pants.