The US Election 2016, Part IV

[Meshugger]

 

 

Hillary's extreme carelessness with her e-mail may not have been a victimless crime: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cotton-clinton-discussed-executed-iranian-scientist-on-email/article/2598807

 

Wait, wait.

 

- The guy dissappears from Iran in 2009 in Saudi

- Appears in 2010 in the US at the Pakestani embassy, demands to be sent back to Iran, claims to be held against his will by the Saudis and the US

- Gets talked about in Hillarys email, on her unsecured server a few days later

- Sent home nine days later to Iran via Pakistan

- The Irani authorities arrest him, convicts him for treason and executes him today

 

The implications are simply disasterous.

 

No need to jump to conclusions young grasshopper.....as I mentioned the article is not confirmation

 

You wouldn't just assume people are guilty would you? Dont you prefer evidence 

 

 

Yes, lets wait for the Iranian authorities publicly thanking wikileaks, or saying that they hacked the server or that they got a tip from Russia, who admitted they got all the emails or until FBI confirms that the Iranian intelligence got their info from there or oh, wait....the FBI confirmed that it was pretty much open to anyone to such a degree that we will never know who had access until they admit it, as any intrusion could be easily erased, whops! Oh well, as long as it gets the attention away from the Clinton Foundation, it's all good for the Clinton camp. 

 

Speaking of which:

 

[Guard Dog]

Bruce, once again you have not answered my question. While it cannot be conclusively proven Iran learned of him through a compromised e-mail sent by Hillary Clinton, he WAS mentioned as a source in a compromised e-mail sent by Hillary Clinton. That fact is not in dispute. Therefore isn't it POSSIBLE then that Hillary Clinton's "extreme carelessness" exposed a US intelligence source and led to this man being executed?

 

Please answer my question. It only requires a one word answer. Yes or No. 

[Pidesco]

Does Clinton have more or less blood than Reagan on her hands?

[Guard Dog]

 

Edit: Nice victory against abuse of Eminent Domain: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/08/05/court-strikes-down-taking-that-is-a-manifest-abuse-of-the-the-eminent-domain-power/

 

Yes that is a win for Liberty. But the sad thing is had the CRDA had their s--t together then the court would have sided with them under the precedent set by Kelo.  I'll take it, it is a win. But not a complete one.

[Guard Dog]

Does Clinton have more or less blood than Reagan on her hands?

Not even close. But if you want to see which President has the most blood on their hands it's Woodrow Wilson hands down. 53k+ American Servicemen killed, 200k+ wounded. In a war that was none of our business. Presuming of course that US participation in WWII & the Civil War were unavoidable (since we were attacked first in each) those two don't count. Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon are a close 2nd & 3rd. 4th place Harry Truman is not even close.

Edited August 7, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Wrath of Dagon]

Does Clinton have more or less blood than Reagan on her hands?

A President has to make decisions whether or not to go to war. A person running for President should not be guilty of exposing highest government secrets, so your question is a non-sequitur.

[Pidesco]

A President has to make decisions whether or not to support terrorist organizations, you mean.

[BruceVC]

Bruce, once again you have not answered my question. While it cannot be conclusively proven Iran learned of him through a compromised e-mail sent by Hillary Clinton, he WAS mentioned as a source in a compromised e-mail sent by Hillary Clinton. That fact is not in dispute. Therefore isn't it POSSIBLE then that Hillary Clinton's "extreme carelessness" exposed a US intelligence source and led to this man being executed?

 

Please answer my question. It only requires a one word answer. Yes or No. 

Yes of course its possible 

[Rostere]

 

Proportional representation. You know you want it.

We don't want it. 4-5 viable parties would be enough.

 

Think about this for a minute. In a FPTP system, if there are (say) two right-wing parties and three left-wing parties evenly splitting the voters of their respective ideologies, and sympathies for left and right ideologies are roughly evenly split, then the right-wing will always be at an advantage.

 

Introducing more parties into a FPTP system doesn't make it less retarded. In fact, you could easily argue that it makes FPTP more retarded. If your argument was correct, then it would be good if, say, the US had several equally viable right-wing parties. But in reality, this would just ensure Democratic control of pretty much all government institutions. So as you see, in FPTP you want your side to be united under one viable party, while the opposing side divides their votes, which ensures they can never win. Even if at one point there would be 5 parties in the US with equal support, the system would immediately encourage the reduction to two viable parties - with the possible exception of regional parties, which effectively replace one of the main two viable parties in some region - basically what the SNP does in the UK.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Why don't you quote the post where I answered your question? I said having run-offs in elections would fix this.

[Rostere]

Why don't you quote the post where I answered your question? I said having run-offs in elections would fix this.

 

Sorry, was looking through old posts, I forgot which was the last post.

 

Run-offs is infinitesimally better, but the exact same basic problem still remains - you need to eliminate spoilers on your side, while encouraging them on the other. This leads, effectively, to the exact same system which is in place today. Suppose the left-wing parties would field two candidates (let's call them "Bernard" and "Hillary") while the right-wing parties field 16 or so candidates. The cancer in FPTP shows clearly again, and the right-wing voters are forced to strategize and avoid spoilers while the left-wing voters laugh as their candidates are the ones who will likely win the run-off.

 

One of the few scenarios where run-offs would be helpful and not induce gamism is if there were only three candidates, ideologically evenly spaced.

 

The next closest thing to proportional representation is really preferential voting. With a long enough list of preferences, this approaches proportional representation systems in that you can actually safely vote for the person you sympathize with, without risking acting like a spoiler. When electing a president - one person - this system is actually half-decent, but when using this method to elect multiple people to some assembly you get the typical retarded FPTP malfunctions such as arbitrarily brutally favouring parties with certain geographical distributions, and so on.

[Longknife]

Does Clinton have more or less blood than Reagan on her hands?

 

Is this meant to defend Hillary Clinton?

 

This is the entire problem with her campaign: she shifts blame and points the finger. If I'm a total slob and my room has rats in it, but when you call me out on it I point out my neighbor is equally slobby, that does not change the truth of your initial accusation that I'm a slob. What's more, Hillary is not even president yet. The comparison falls a tad flat in that the people you may compare to did their damage while in office; Hillary has not reached the status of President, yet we're already comparing her as though she is...? That should speak volumes about the problem.

[Bartimaeus]

I also don't much care for the comparison between somebody who's not a president and somebody who is/was...the fact that you're already making the comparison BEFORE she's president is not a great sign of things to come...

 

...Of course, the other choice is still Trump...

[HoonDing]

Trump has more blood on his tiny hands than Reagan and Clinton combined.

Think of how many Chinese children died mangled by weave machines producing Make America Great Again! caps and T-shirts.

[BruceVC]

Trump has more blood on his tiny hands than Reagan and Clinton combined.

 

Think of how many Chinese children died mangled by weave machines producing Make America Great Again! caps and T-shirts.

Yes, that will  be added to the list of his crimes once the election is over....but nothing can be done now 

[Leferd]

 

Trump has more blood on his tiny hands than Reagan and Clinton combined.

Think of how many Chinese children died mangled by weave machines producing Make America Great Again! caps and T-shirts.

 

Yes, that will  be added to the list of his crimes once the election is over....but nothing can be done now

To be fair, Donald Trump did make it a point to say that his caps are made in the USA. Which I don't necessarily doubt.

[Pidesco]

 

 

Trump has more blood on his tiny hands than Reagan and Clinton combined.

Think of how many Chinese children died mangled by weave machines producing Make America Great Again! caps and T-shirts.

Yes, that will  be added to the list of his crimes once the election is over....but nothing can be done now

To be fair, Donald Trump did make it a point to say that his caps are made in the USA. Which I don't necessarily doubt.

 

 

I'm sure that by caps he meant the letters he prints or installs in everything he owns.

[Guard Dog]

The US Nazi Party (called the ANP) has endorsed Donald Trump. The US Communist Party and the Black Panther Party (I didn't know they were still a thing) have endorsed Hillary Clinton.

 

I'd just like to point out the only viable Presidential candidate who has not been endorsed by villains is Gary Johnson. Just sayin'

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

Why don't you quote the post where I answered your question? I said having run-offs in elections would fix this.

 

Sorry, was looking through old posts, I forgot which was the last post.

 

Run-offs is infinitesimally better, but the exact same basic problem still remains - you need to eliminate spoilers on your side, while encouraging them on the other. This leads, effectively, to the exact same system which is in place today. Suppose the left-wing parties would field two candidates (let's call them "Bernard" and "Hillary") while the right-wing parties field 16 or so candidates. The cancer in FPTP shows clearly again, and the right-wing voters are forced to strategize and avoid spoilers while the left-wing voters laugh as their candidates are the ones who will likely win the run-off.

 

One of the few scenarios where run-offs would be helpful and not induce gamism is if there were only three candidates, ideologically evenly spaced.

 

The next closest thing to proportional representation is really preferential voting. With a long enough list of preferences, this approaches proportional representation systems in that you can actually safely vote for the person you sympathize with, without risking acting like a spoiler. When electing a president - one person - this system is actually half-decent, but when using this method to elect multiple people to some assembly you get the typical retarded FPTP malfunctions such as arbitrarily brutally favouring parties with certain geographical distributions, and so on.

 

You've actually made my point for me. In your previous example, with 2 liberal parties and 3 conservative ones, equally split ideologically, you'd always have a liberal and a conservative in the run-off, so no problem. With 16 conservative parties they would of course always lose, so unless brain dead they'd consolidate into fewer parties, just like the 2 party system works now. And that's what I said, we want 4-5 parties, not 16-100.

[Raithe]

[Wrath of Dagon]

Both parties live in an ideological fantasy world of their own, so apparently they don't know.

 

Edit: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/07/hillary-clinton-needs-help-getting-stairs/ We'll have to see if Darth Nihilus can hold herself together with her willpower alone until after the election.

Edited August 8, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[Raithe]

[Guard Dog]

[Gromnir]

The US Nazi Party (called the ANP) has endorsed Donald Trump. The US Communist Party and the Black Panther Party (I didn't know they were still a thing) have endorsed Hillary Clinton.

 

I'd just like to point out the only viable Presidential candidate who has not been endorsed by villains is Gary Johnson. Just sayin'

am thinking that you actual has made a rather scathing denouncement o' gary johnson. no person who has ever achieved greatness has done so without being cast in the role o' villain. gandhi, mlk and even mother teresa has been denounced as villains.  in our mind, failure to find approval o' any villainous group suggests lack o' conviction and a failure to have accomplished anything worthy o' angered criticism. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

New Jersey says you can't drink coffee in your car. Still think we live in a free country? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/08/08/nj-distracted-driving-bill-ban-motorists-drinking-coffee-road/88380406/

 

Oh, by the way, did you notice what political party is driving that b------t? The same ones that want to outlaw sodas, candy, and potato chips across the river.