Indiana Primary DEM/GOP - Cruz missiles self-destruct, Trump unstumpable and r/SandersForPresident h
263 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Map in a box;50256902]Now this alone devalues your entire post.[/QUOTE]
Lol sure.
This is the guy that contribute little in Congress for decades. He has decades in his sleeves, but made no alliances among the members in the Democratic party - many are ideologically close to him. That alone shows that this guy is pretty weak. Now he makes wild promises that he will achieve in just 4 or 8 years. Get fucking real, mate. The USA is not a one man show. Not even the more fluid parliamentary system is like this. This guys smacks of edginess that it's not funny.
Do you also want a reminder on how he treated the Liberty Union Party?
IDK I don't see making corrupt alliances with other corrupt officials to be a strong trait.
Just something about keeping your friends in power instead of, idk, looking out for the American people just seems silly to me! IDK though haha
[QUOTE=geel9;50257025]IDK I don't see making corrupt alliances with other corrupt officials to be a strong trait.
Just something about keeping your friends in power instead of, idk, looking out for the American people just seems silly to me! IDK though haha[/QUOTE]
Well obviously you must have alliances with the rich and have them have you in your back pocket to be a good politician.
[QUOTE=geel9;50257025]IDK I don't see making corrupt alliances with other corrupt officials to be a strong trait.
Just something about keeping your friends in power instead of, idk, looking out for the American people just seems silly to me! IDK though haha[/QUOTE]
Ah yes. Ideological purity shit. That explains why Sanders keeps passing all these amazing laws while he was in Congress. You only require just one saviour-meme to get shit done after all!
[QUOTE=migs42;50256970]Lol sure.
This is the guy that contribute little in Congress for decades. He has decades in his sleeves, but made no alliances among the members in the Democratic party - many are ideologically close to him. That alone shows that this guy is pretty weak. Now he makes wild promises that he will achieve in just 4 or 8 years. Get fucking real, mate. The USA is not a one man show. Not even the more fluid parliamentary system is like this. This guys smacks of edginess that it's not funny.
Do you also want a reminder on how he treated the Liberty Union Party?[/QUOTE]
At least he did something other than rename a post office.
[QUOTE=migs42;50257233]Ah yes. Ideological purity shit. That explains why Sanders keeps passing all these amazing laws while he was in Congress. You only require just one saviour-meme to get shit done after all![/QUOTE]
what's with the fucking putrid flood of posters like yourself who've effectively given up on having democracy cater to you in any meaningful way, but you're on the aggressive defensive to make sure no one talks shit about how little representation they have and shitting on anyone and everything that isn't apart of the "system" because of how futile it is to fight the system.
the level of "i give up" present in these types of posts is just as high as it gets but it's what keeps things like the democratic party afloat.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50257299]what's with the fucking putrid flood of posters like yourself who've effectively given up on having democracy cater to you in any meaningful way, but you're on the aggressive defensive to make sure no one talks shit about how little representation they have and shitting on anyone and everything that isn't apart of the "system" because of how futile it is to fight the system.
the level of "i give up" present in these types of posts is just as high as it gets but it's what keeps things like the democratic party afloat.[/QUOTE]
Maybe he joined correct the record.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50257299]what's with the fucking putrid flood of posters like yourself who've effectively given up on having democracy cater to you in any meaningful way, but you're on the aggressive defensive to make sure no one talks shit about how little representation they have and shitting on anyone and everything that isn't apart of the "system" because of how futile it is to fight the system.
the level of "i give up" present in these types of posts is just as high as it gets but it's what keeps things like the democratic party afloat.[/QUOTE]
There's an interesting phrase popularized by Voltaire that says, "Better (or perfect) is the enemy of the good." It essentially means that fighting for perfection or the best outcome often works to get in the way of a good outcome. IMO, that's the line of thinking that says Bernie's purity does more harm than good.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50257299]what's with the fucking putrid flood of posters like yourself who've effectively given up on having democracy cater to you in any meaningful way, but you're on the aggressive defensive to make sure no one talks shit about how little representation they have and shitting on anyone and everything that isn't apart of the "system" because of how futile it is to fight the system.
the level of "i give up" present in these types of posts is just as high as it gets but it's what keeps things like the democratic party afloat.[/QUOTE]
I'm talking shit to a guy who has no problem calling leftist Democrats as corrupt, simply because they are part of the Democrat party. He's 3edgy5me!
Sorry, but Sanders' holy righteousness is downright annoying and counter productive. Sanders congressional record shows he only cares on making an appearance of being good, rather than achieving goodness.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50257356]There's an interesting phrase popularized by Voltaire that says, "Better (or perfect) is the enemy of the good." It essentially means that fighting for perfection or the best outcome often works to get in the way of a good outcome. IMO, that's the line of thinking that says Bernie's purity does more harm than good.[/QUOTE]
Sounds to me like a flimsy justification to vote for the corrupt candidate despite you [B]acknowledging that you prefer Bernie. [/B]
[QUOTE=Reshy;50257466]Sounds to me like a flimsy justification to vote for the corrupt candidate despite you [B]acknowledging that you prefer Bernie. [/B][/QUOTE]
I prefer a lot of people over any of the candidates, but I have no intention to write in their name for my vote. It seems like your line of logic would cause me to do just that, no matter how low their chance of ever getting any influence, whatsoever.
[QUOTE=migs42;50257443]I'm talking shit to a guy who has no problem calling leftist Democrats as corrupt, simply because they are part of the Democrat party. He's 3edgy5me!
Sorry, but Sanders' holy righteousness is downright annoying and counter productive. Sanders congressional record shows he only cares on making an appearance of being good, rather than achieving goodness.[/QUOTE]
And the congressional record of the entiritey of the democratic party since 1981 shows that they only care for the wealthy so whatever you think Sanders record shows, what it really shows is how disconnected the so called party of the people really is.
You can dance around it, but the democrats are every bit as corrupt as the republicans.
Thomas Frank wrote a great book about this. "Listen, Liberal: How the Party of the People Learned to Love Inequality" and I won't shut up about it until democrats realize how they're being fucked by their own party.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50257716]
You can dance around it, but the democrats are every bit as corrupt as the republicans.
[/QUOTE]
Some figures on how much private money either party receives would be really swell to back this point up.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50257745]Some figures on how much private money either party receives would be really swell to back this point up.[/QUOTE]
I'm trying to find the sources on Thomas Franks book but obviously, that's a lot of sources to work through.
But is it really hard to believe that the democratic party doesn't really represent the average worker?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50257867]I'm trying to find the sources on Thomas Franks book but obviously, that's a lot of sources to work through.
But is it really hard to believe that the democratic party doesn't really represent the average worker?[/QUOTE]
Is that an actual claim he's made in the book backed up by verified sources? That both parties receive the same amount of money?
[QUOTE=plunger435;50257928]Is that an actual claim he's made in the book backed up by verified sources? That both parties receive the same amount of money?[/QUOTE]
That is not what I said.
You are, once again, doing that thing you do where you become so pedantic, a discussion becomes a chore that doesn't turn up anything interesting and instead becomes this mindless back and forth of pedantic nonsense.
What I said was that both parties are equally corrupt. Now you can go right ahead and say "BUT THAT MEANS YOU IMPLIED THEY TAKE THE SAME EXACT DOLLAR VALUE". Actually, Plungy, no, I didn't. They are equally corrupt, now, if you want to summarize "Corruption" into purely a monetary value, go ahead, but I didn't, and to do so to attack my argument is nothing by dishonest. Nepotism is also a form of corruption, especially in a political realm. That is a part of the accusation he levies at the democratic party, who also take outrageous sums of money.
Do you really want to imply the party is considerably less corrupt?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50258039]That is not what I said.
You are, once again, doing that thing you do where you become so pedantic, a discussion becomes a chore that doesn't turn up anything interesting and instead becomes this mindless back and forth of pedantic nonsense.
What I said was that both parties are equally corrupt. Now you can go right ahead and say "BUT THAT MEANS YOU IMPLIED THEY TAKE THE SAME EXACT DOLLAR VALUE". Actually, Plungy, no, I didn't. They are equally corrupt, now, [B]if you want to summarize "Corruption" into purely a monetary value, go ahead, but I didn't, and to do so to attack my argument is nothing by dishonest[/B]. Nepotism is also a form of corruption, especially in a political realm. That is a part of the accusation he levies at the democratic party, [B]who also take outrageous sums of money. [/B]
Do you really want to imply the party is considerably less corrupt?[/QUOTE]
Well you haven't actually given a reason for them both being super corrupt beyond, "Do you honestly believe they [I]aren't[/I] corrupt?" If the book you keep lauding tells why then you could at least provide a statistic from it. And I asked about money because the person you directly quoted was asking about their money already.
You can't say money is an off limits topic on corruption then use it as your point.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50257745]Some figures on how much private money either party receives would be really swell to back this point up.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=plunger435;50258096]Well you haven't actually given a reason for them both being super corrupt beyond, "Do you honestly believe they [I]aren't[/I] corrupt?" If the book you keep lauding tells why then you could at least provide a statistic from it. And I asked about money because the person you directly quoted was asking about their money already.
You can't say money is an off limits topic on corruption then use it as your point.[/QUOTE]
Yeah sorry, I don't tend to keep the book with me 24/7 when I'm not at home
Is there any corruption at all in the US?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50258123]Yeah sorry, I don't tend to keep the book with me 24/7 when I'm not at home
Is there any corruption at all in the US?[/QUOTE]
If you're going to make the initial claim that it's all about nepotism and money you should at least be willing to backup those claims with verified sources.
[QUOTE=plunger435;50258130]If you're going to make the initial claim that it's all about nepotism and money you should at least be willing to backup those claims with verified sources.[/QUOTE]
You're right my bad that I don't have those on hand.
Are you going to continue to insist there's no corruption of any merit in the US political system as you seemingly always do as a proponent of the status quo?
[editline]4th May 2016[/editline]
I should remember you're also the person who thinks taking money in the form of political donations is 100% kosher and not suspicious under any circumstances so really I'd be fighting an uphill battle of you moving the goal posts forever if I were to even bother to actually engage with statistics for you.
[editline]4th May 2016[/editline]
Would it be correct to say "If there's no statistics for it, it didn't happen"?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50258164]You're right my bad that I don't have those on hand.
[B]Are you going to continue to insist there's no corruption of any merit in the US political system[/B] as you seemingly always do as a proponent of the status quo?
[editline]4th May 2016[/editline]
[B]I should remember you're also the person who thinks taking money in the form of political donations is 100% kosher[/B] and not suspicious under any circumstances so really I'd be fighting an uphill battle of you moving the goal posts forever if I were to even bother to actually engage with statistics for you.
[editline]4th May 2016[/editline]
Would it be correct to say "[B]If there's no statistics for it, it didn't happen[/B]"?[/QUOTE]
In order of the bold statements:
I never said there was no corruption in the US political system, just that your claim the democratic party is based on nepotism and taking in shady money is an exaggeration. The book you keep referencing doesn't make that claim either, just that the democratic party has shifted it's political goals to appeal to a wider demographic, and in doing so has lost it's original purpose.
I don't remember ever saying that, can I see of quote of where I said that?
If there are no stats on the "outrageous sums of money" they take, how do you know they take "outrageous sums of money"? Apply that statement to all your exaggerated claims.
If we're just looking at publicly available numbers, here you go.
[url]https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php[/url]
I did a napkin math tally of each top Repub and Top Demo donors and Republicans make more but not by a huge margin.
Now, if I have to go find publicly unavailable numbers for you, too bad so sad
[editline]4th May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=plunger435;50258228]In order of the bold statements:
I never said there was no corruption in the US political system, just that your claim the democratic party is based on nepotism and taking in shady money is an exaggeration. The book you keep referencing doesn't make that claim either, just that the democratic party has shifted it's political goals to appeal to a wider demographic, and in doing so has lost it's original purpose.
I don't remember ever saying that, can I see of quote of where I said that?
If there are no stats on the "outrageous sums of money" they take, how do you know they take "outrageous sums of money"? Apply that statement to all your exaggerated claims.[/QUOTE]
The book i'm refrencing makes the claim that modern democrats don't represent the people who they used to. I don't see how that claim is out of character with my claim that money has done this to the democrats unless you think they stopped representing the average american for non monetary reasons...?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50258241]If we're just looking at publicly available numbers, here you go.
[url]https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php[/url]
I did a napkin math tally of each top Repub and Top Demo donors and Republicans make more but not by a huge margin.
Now, if I have to go find publicly unavailable numbers for you, too bad so sad
[editline]4th May 2016[/editline]
[B]The book i'm refrencing makes the claim that modern democrats don't represent the people who they used to.[/B] [B]I don't see how that claim is out of character with my claim that money has done this to the democrats unless you think they stopped representing the average american for non monetary reasons...?[/B][/QUOTE]
Neither the stats you posted or the claim you state the book makes are indicative of any kind of corruption within the parties. Party values and ideals change, they always have. The democratic party has been around for over 150 years ago. It's your job to substantiate that last claim, not just draw a broad sweeping conclusion from thin air that them making less money than the Republican Party means both parties are corrupt. Your source, Thomas Frank, doesn't even claim this is because of wide spread corruption.
Also I'm still waiting for the evidence of that post you claimed I made in your little personal attack against me.
I frankly do not know where one finds evidence of corruption of a politician not do I know how to get that info as a citizen.
Do you?
[editline]4th May 2016[/editline]
I mean if I were a dirty politician I wouldn't keep my dirty laundry easily visible.
You're saying because it's not, it's wrong categorically to suspect them of any dubiousness or corruption.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50258338]I frankly do not know where one finds evidence of corruption of a politician not do I know how to get that info as a citizen.
Do you?
[editline]4th May 2016[/editline]
I mean if I were a dirty politician I wouldn't keep my dirty laundry easily visible.
You're saying because it's not, it's wrong categorically to suspect them of any dubiousness or corruption.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50258164]I should remember you're also the person who thinks taking money in the form of political donations is 100% kosher and not suspicious under any circumstances so really I'd be fighting an uphill battle of you moving the goal posts forever if I were to even bother to actually engage with statistics for you.[/QUOTE]
I'm still waiting on a source for this personal attack you made on me.
You move the goal posts almost every discussion we have. Maybe you don't write off those things but I remember you giving lobbyists as a whole a hard pass on any calls of corruption.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50258394]You move the goal posts almost every discussion we have. Maybe you don't write off those things but [B]I remember you giving lobbyists as a whole a hard pass on any calls of corruption.[/B][/QUOTE]
It's not moving the goal posts if you're the one who brings it up, if you're going to accuse me of saying a bunch of things I never said I have the right to call you out on it.
I also never said this newest claim either. I'd thank you to actually back up these attacks with a quote at least as proof next time you try to change the topic of the conversation.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50258338]I frankly do not know where one finds evidence of corruption of a politician not do I know how to get that info as a citizen.
Do you?
[editline]4th May 2016[/editline]
I mean if I were a dirty politician I wouldn't keep my dirty laundry easily visible.
You're saying because it's not, it's wrong categorically to suspect them of any dubiousness or corruption.[/QUOTE]
As for politicians, if you're entire evidence that the republican and democratic parties are corrupt is that they are politicians and all politicians are corrupt there isn't an argument, you're just factually wrong.
So without glaring fuck ups from the corrupt politicians it's wrong to say there's anything going on? Okay. You win. Everything is fine.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50258427]So without glaring fuck ups from the corrupt politicians it's wrong to say there's anything going on? Okay. You win. Everything is fine.[/QUOTE]
Of you're going to make broad unsubstantiated claims you should probably have evidence to back them up when pressed next time instead of resorting to personal attacks on users.
Let's just drop everything and you answer a simple question.
Is there any reason to suspect any US politicians or political parties of dubious behaviour?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.