Printable View
The victim wasn't happy with the outcome. The victim was really unhappy about Hillary laughing about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Rape-apologist? LOL as long as the person is actually guilty you'll be hard pressed to find another person on this board advocating the penalty I would support for rape.
You really should read the snopes summary before continuing. You can read, right? Do you need me to get you a Pashto translation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
24 days until the election? Sounds about right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
My fears for a Trump victory are kind of abating, what I am not so relaxed about is the risk of a next time where a populist who doesn't want to make you wash your hands after having seen him on TV joins the race for the White House. Anti-establishment feelings obviously are strong in the US, we may have a lucky escape this time, but we may not always be this lucky. Next time we may nog be so lucky as to get an all-over sleazebag trying to overthrow things.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...79042895558058
Alternatives. :o
The victim was unhappy about the Clinton tape. The victim has point blank stated that fact. Are you suggesting she is lying about her feelings about the tape?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
He's always been a long shot. Why do you think I was so pissed he won the Republican nomination?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
That being said there is a reason there is a massive amount anti-establishment feeling. The establishment sucks. Everything is looked at in the lens of re-election. Stand for principal? Only if it can be spun correctly and help their electoral chances. EVERYTHING is about it. Until we actually get someone who will vow (and carry out) the goal of lowering the debt in absolute terms and fix the nanny state and entitlement spending time bombs we are foisting on future generations people should stay anti-establishment.
Well, if that's what you think, isn't then the solution to start thinking about how you can get a political class less inclined to be obsessed with re-election and maybe a bit more representative? What might help is fewer elections, and then elections in a way that Joe Sixpack with new ideas actually can get elected and afford to be elected. In the USA it seems very much that millionaires have a disproportionate chance of getting elected and be elected. Can you really effectively represent your voters if you get $174,000.- a year, are expected to live in DC but also have a house in your district, without being loaded to start with?
It smacks a bit of Roman democracy, where being in office could only be afforded by the richest citizens.
Term limits is something that has often been suggested. We have it for the presidency why not for congress?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Ultimately even that won't solve the issue since it becomes a revolving door - serve time in congress than go on to be a lobbyist, run a campaign or a be part of a foundation. Power corrupts. The best way to get that corruption out is to minimize the discretionary funding of the government. Don't allow the possibility of pork barrel politics. Instill the idea that government is the last resort not the first resort to problems. Sadly that ship too has sailed as the current generation cares far more about economic security than liberty.
I think you misunderstood me. I am against term limits: a higher turnover of the same type of people is not going to achieve anything. Making elective office something even Joe Sixpack can afford to do is the solution. You created a system where only people with serious money can afford to attempt getting elected.
You get a substantial expense account for the DC apartment and staff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
No rises were allowed for the last 8 years and secondary conditions are being curtailed. Seems to be a big reason for the high percentage of rich representatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscong...Allowances.htmQuote:
In 2012, individual representatives received MRA allowances ranging from $1,270,129 to $1,564,613, with an average of $1,353,205.13.
I think they can survive. Plus everyone knows you get the real money once you leave office and get the private sector job you're woefully unqualified for.
Now, I suggest you read what you just wrote again and think how that in any way is going to get us better representatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Millionaires might be over-represented in the House, but they still only make up 32% of Congressmen. The easiest path to victory is to have the right connections, which means working in other successful campaigns. Obviously having money doesn't hurt, especially if it's derived from being a successful businessperson, but it's far from necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
"American News" making the Daily Mail look like a credible news source :haha:
https://twitter.com/b9AcE/status/790...rc=twsrc%5Etfw
Sigh, soon the FBI will be investigating e-mails sent by people who were acquaintances of people who at some time were e-mailing with Hillary Clinton. Don't tell me you weren't warned if they're coming to impound your PC.
I really don't know why you hate that newspaper so much. Your views here and what they think fit to print seem to back eachother up word for word.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Just because I don't 100% love your beloved institution and find it to be infallible doesn't mean I agree with that rag.
http://europe.newsweek.com/george-w-...s-497373?rm=eu
uh oh
dear oh dearQuote:
“It’s about as amazing a double standard as you can get,” says Eric Boehlert, who works with the pro-Clinton group Media Matters. “If you look at the Bush emails, he was a sitting president, and 95 percent of his chief advisers’ emails were on a private email system set up by the RNC. Imagine if for the last year and a half we had been talking about Hillary Clinton’s emails set up on a private DNC server?”
*shakes head sadly*
Somewhat biased source given the language used but I thought the issue with Clinton was that they were HER emails including national security secrets not an advisors emails.
If it was Bush himself it would be an apt comparison.
Some of Bush' advisors probably would have had access to classified information. But that aside, is there any sane person still interested in that whole e-mail thing? Are Americans even going to get over Watergate to the extent that they don't go entirely bezerk every time somebody implies a politician might possibly at some time have felt that some parts of their lives are actually not part of their public life? This bloody scrutiny of scrutiny of scrutiny is really mind numbing.
If the emails in question were private ones then there'd be no story. It is illegally putting classified information on these emails that is the story not her private life.
I know many people who use two phones or email addresses, one for work and one for personal. Had she put her personal emails alone on a separate server this wouldn't be getting discussed.
Your attempts to make this about an intrusion into her privacy are cute.
I am not doing that. I am pointing out the excessive nature of scrutiny; it has already been established that there basically is no case. Nothing bigger can get out of this than the news that maybe emails were forwarded that Clinton probably should have treated with a little bit more care but the presence of which outside of the government infrastructure already wasn't a sufficient breach of security to prosecute. You can not build a case about classified information being re-leaked ; once it's out it's out.
https://theconversation.com/in-getti...titution-67906
#plotthickens
I heard a pundit say the US has been "criminalizing politicians" since Watergate -- every time you turn around there's a congressional committee asking for an investigation or special prosecutor for something, or demands for someone to step down or resign after a hot mic moment -- that's how deeply it affected/infected us. Don't know if he's right, since politicians have been disdained and mistrusted as self-serving opportunist *crooks* for generations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Federal agencies taking sides in elections to settle old scores. LOL.
A dirty political family's misdeeds coming back to haunt them. LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Want to try to defend that pardon?
Yep, settling old scores more important than democracy.