General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 472

I think my favorite part of the election is how it's distracting us from what might be the start of a new world war in Syria.

 

Negative nongman.

 

My Electoral Law professor with his dual Harvard degree and spot as one of the foremost scholars on our electoral process tends to agree me with

If you hold your representatives to that standard, sure. Me personally: we just ousted a politician who ran a corrupt campaign. See: 78th district in Missouri.

 

Edit:

 

What the fuck does that answer even mean

 

anyone else curious why Trump Jr. chose Skittles for his "analogy"? why not M&M's? or Starbursts? was he eating Skittles at the time?

 

also, another question that gets overshadowed by more important news, but why the fuck would a hotel (in this case, Trump's) get fined for having "too large a flag pole"? and why the fuck is that fine $120,000?

there's a lot of absurd, wrong things in the world and these are definitely two of them.

 

While the appeal to authority is cute, it's meaningless to me and doesn't address anything I said.

If your standards are as outlined, your nativity will be crushed in due time with the horrific reality of campaigns, just like every one else's as you get older. It sucks. Our system is horrible. The ones that aren't "corrupt" (your word) are the ones that haven't been caught yet.

 

Skittles have been the go to dog whistle in white nationalist circles after Trayvon Martin. Or he saw it shared somewhere else and stole it? I have no idea.

 

Gofundme account for Terence Crutcher's family. Posted three hours ago with a goal of $25,000 and already at almost $19,000. Donate:

Click here to support Terence Crutcher Memorial Fund by Adner Marcelin

 

Welp.

 

Welp.

 

This whole thread makes me sad.

 

lol

"These are the things that are suspect: XYZ."
"Only someone who doesn't know anything about the electoral process would think that"
"My election law expert professor does."
"Appeal to authority! Address my point!"

You didn't make a point. Nor did you address any of mine.

You baldly said that only the ignorant would have a problem with the issues cited, without ever specifying why. I corrected.

My nativity? Am I in a manger outside of a church in December? Also, I've worked on five political campaigns, so I have some insight into them, however modest.

You can ignore corruption by saying "I'm sure everyone does it". I don't. Call it naivete, intolerance, whatever you like. When one person gets caught so many more times than others, at the very least she should get hate for being really shitty at being corrupt.

Also, if there were the evidence, empirical or anecdotal, to suggest to me that every political contest is ridden with the level of manipulation and anti-democratic undertakings as was the case with the DNC Primary, I wouldn't vote. I have never known that to be the case-- in fact, I think US elections are generally much less corrupt than the subsequent reigns of the winning party, because the logistics of the election are in constant contest and under scrutiny from both sides (see: Florida, 200; Ohio, 2012)

 

Barely covered today beside the reporter that called it "boring" and "lame."

 

So you agree with making the fallacy and now change what was said:

"Any person with a modicum of respect for the credibility of our electoral processes would."
"Only if you are completely ignorant on what our actual electoral process is ..."

No, I said that only someone ignorant of the actual electoral process would say that the credibility of our electoral process was being "disrespected" by being our actual electoral process.

So very tired of this cycle with you.

 

My apologies for mistaking the chronology of the bickering. Now that I've conceded that, please grant me actual insights into how all those things that I mentioned are totally standard and not anything that voters in a democratic country should concern themselves with.

And your response implies that the level of documented voting irregularities, i.e. lost votes, exit poll inconsistencies, impeded access to ballots, etc. is perfectly in-line with the previous standards of our federal elections. That is demonstrably false. Anyone who thinks such variances are standard (which they are not) I would assume has no "modicum of respect for the credibility of our electoral processes."

Then don't respond to my posts if you have no intention of introducing substantive criticisms or disagreements. I likewise will not respond to any irrational or shameless defenses of Clinton or any other corrupt neoliberals: something that those of us who oppose her have been pretty gracious about, I think.


Honestly, one of the most appalling parts of Trump's introduction into the political arena is the burgeoning amount of persons, who would otherwise consider themselves staunchly left, who now veraciously defend Clinton against valid criticisms from the actual left. Really didn't think I'd ever have to defend the assertion of facts like Clinton being corrupt, having ran a racist campaign in 2008, etc. here

 

...

 

Electric plant fire leads leaves most of Puerto Rico without power

 

5 more days until the debate

 

I don't know what this last scene of South Park is supposed to be parodying but it's fantastic. Not a political scene either but just wanted to post that it was great

 

I am trying to think of any scenario where this debate doesn't make me angry and drunk.