2016 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - All Politics & Dumb Opinions Here

[jcardstore]

Originally Posted by jdandns

I don't know. Neither do you.
We have that in common, but only one of us knows that.

Lying under oath is wrong. Being extremely careless about the handling of state secrets is wrong. I would hope we can all agree on that one.

[timber09]

Originally Posted by jcardstore

Lying under oath is wrong. Being extremely careless about the handling of state secrets is wrong. I would hope we can all agree on that one.

I'm not sure what your end game here is with your "Clinton is a liar" cross-examination.

Are you saying one cannot in their right mind vote for Clinton and/or are you saying one should, in-turn vote for Trump?

[jdandns]

Originally Posted by jcardstore

How? You're defending a criminal because of her political affiliation

I'm not defending a criminal because she is literally not a criminal.
How do you still not get that one is not a criminal unless they are convicted of a crime? Due process is one of the very cornerstones of our Democracy.

But perhaps I am mistaken.

Please list the specific times Clinton has been convicted of a crime for my edification. Make sure these convictions occurred in our actual material world in a genuine court of law (as opposed to the those registered solely during one of your own partisan-driven fitful and angry nocturnal emissions).

Once I have that information, I'll get back to you.

[jcardstore]

Originally Posted by timber09

I'm not sure what your end game here is with your "Clinton is a liar" cross-examination.

Are you saying one cannot in their right mind vote for Clinton and/or are you saying one should, in-turn vote for Trump?

No, if you would have read my first post you would have seen that I am voting for neither because I do not believe either is fit to be president. If you want to vote for Hillary fine that's your right but to say she's not a liar or you don't know if what she did was wrong or not shows the wool has been effectively pulled right over your head

[TOMBB25]

When just a couple posts in I saw that NYfancamp was voting for Hillary, it really cemented my decision to vote for Trump.

Today's politics just scare the crap out of me. I hate that we have to decide between Trump and Hillary. I have been a republican since I could vote, but I hate the guilt that seems to be associated with it by mainstream media. I go to church yes, I own a gun, yes, I am also white, so I am already the enemy.

I believe all men are created equal.
I believe women are our equal, but probably our better.
I believe in gay marriage and I believe it is not a choice.

But for some reason because I register republican, I am a hate mongering, ak-47 wielding, KKK member that wants to keep my wife in the kitchen and take away all of their rights and health care.

Honestly, most of us, both republicans and democrats want 99% of the same things but the media will make damn sure none of us know it. I really hope for this country it all works out. I hope for our future generations we can find love again. I cannot believe it is more appropriate to kill a cop than arrest a criminal. I don't want to vote for Donald Trump, the guy is a jerk, but I can't vote for someone who is the most two-faced, blatant liar that we have ever seen when it comes to politics. She is a disgrace to the democratic party, she is a disgrace to women and she is definitely a disgrace to our country and our rights as citizens. The cover-ups between email scandals, Benghazi, dozens and dozens of mysterious deaths that surround her. Plus just who her husband is and the stories of her covering up his affairs and sexual misconduct. She is one scary B.

Good day all.

[jdandns]

Originally Posted by jcardstore

Lying under oath is wrong. Being extremely careless about the handling of state secrets is wrong. I would hope we can all agree on that one.

Fair enough. List everyone who has never made a mistake in their entire lives. Trump, Clinton, Johnson, and Stein obviously will not make the cut.

From that list, we'll whittle it down to a write-in candidate the Blowout Forums can really get behind.

[jcardstore]

Originally Posted by jdandns

I'm not defending a criminal because she is literally not a criminal.
How do you still not get that one is not a criminal unless they are convicted of a crime? Due process is one of the very cornerstones of our Democracy.

But perhaps I am mistaken.

Please list the specific times Clinton has been convicted of a crime for my edification. Make sure these convictions occurred in our actual material world in a genuine court of law (as opposed to the those registered solely during one of your own partisan-driven fitful and angry nocturnal emissions).

Once I have that information, I'll get back to you.

Ok fine, I'll give you that she's not a "criminal" under the technical definition of the term.

She's still a liar and a hypocrite and unfit to be president. It's obvious that she can do no wrong in your eyes and you can't even admit that lying under oath is wrong. It's pretty scary that people like you are so brainwashed into this train of thought.

[meucci67]

Originally Posted by jcardstore

SO then we need to ban all semi automatic rifles then? Let's ban all semi automatic hand guns while we're at it. We can just go back to flintlock pistols and muzzle loaders

To be honest, I prefer bolt-action rifles and single-action revolvers over anything else, but i would not mind owning one of these if we have to regress in technology...

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

Michael

[COEFOR]

I always assume that people who defend Hillary and her personal email server have no experience dealing with sensitive information or Government email systems.

As somebody who has been read on to multiple SAPs, transported sensitive information (with geographically appropriate courier cards), and who has a clearance I will say categorically that if I did what she did I would be in jail. No doubt about it. Feigning ignorance of the rules and procedures of handling sensitive information is no excuse and as somebody who has been in the Federal Government for decades now, Hillary should know better. It amazes me that she gets a free pass from some.

To establish your own personal server in your home linked to your civilian email address is insane and I have no idea how it wasn't red flagged at the State Department. To make note, Colin Powell never had his own email server to secure his own communication nor did he use a civilian email address exclusively.

"Hey, I need to send an email to the boss. Do you have her .state address?"
"Uh, about that, she has this Clinton email address that she uses so you can send it to that."
"Yeah! Sounds good, no issue!"
"Oh, just be sure you delete any classification headings."

What? Evidently she also sent mass emails to numerous people using the same address and nobody thought it was odd? I would never send anything to a civilian address that was work related. Period.

I guarantee she knew better, but she wanted nobody to be able to access her emails.

And nobody thinks it's odd that she turned over 30K work related emails and deleted 32K personal emails? She was at State for 4 years, working the numbers, if she sent emails 7 days a week that's 23 "personal" emails a day. More so than "work related" emails. What kind of department head spends more time emailing personal traffic than work related traffic?

[timber09]

Originally Posted by jcardstore

No, if you would have read my first post you would have seen that I am voting for neither because I do not believe either is fit to be president. If you want to vote for Hillary fine that's your right but to say she's not a liar or you don't know if what she did was wrong or not shows the wool has been effectively pulled right over your head

I asked a pretty straightforward question to get clarity on your assessment as it seems pretty one-sided over the course of the last few pages. You'll have to forgive me if I do not remember your first post in this thread - I haven't been keeping a tally.

Per Politifact -

Donald Trump Statements by Ruling
True (3%) - 5
Mostly True (8%) - 14
Half True (14%) - 26
Mostly False (16%) - 30
False (40%) - 73
Pants on Fire (19%) - 34


Hillart Clinton Statements by Ruling
True (23%) - 50
Mostly True (28%) - 62
Half True (22%) - 48
Mostly False (15%) - 33
False (11%) - 25
Pants on Fire (1%) - 3

[jcardstore]

Originally Posted by timber09

I asked a pretty straightforward question to get clarity on your assessment as it seems pretty one-sided over the course of the last few pages. You'll have to forgive me if I do not remember your first post in this thread - I haven't been keeping a tally.

Per Politifact -

Donald Trump Statements by Ruling
True (3%) - 5
Mostly True (8%) - 14
Half True (14%) - 26
Mostly False (16%) - 30
False (40%) - 73
Pants on Fire (19%) - 34


Hillart Clinton Statements by Ruling
True (23%) - 50
Mostly True (28%) - 62
Half True (22%) - 48
Mostly False (15%) - 33
False (11%) - 25
Pants on Fire (1%) - 3

What are these numbers from? You literally just posted some random figures with no substance behind it so I cannot possibly respond. I'm not saying you're wrong either but I was specifically responding to the ridiculousness of one member

That being said I never said Trump was a saint, I plainly stated in the quoted response that I don't support him either so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove?

[fulltritty]

Originally Posted by NickM

If you use someone else's Netflix password, you are violating federal criminal law.
Every PBM who registers for a new account on BO is committing a federal crime by doing so.

I agree with the first one and not only do I not have Netflix, but I would never do that.

I'd like you to explain the second one though.

[timber09]

Originally Posted by jcardstore

What are these numbers from? You literally just posted some random figures with no substance behind it so I cannot possibly respond. I'm not saying you're wrong either but I was specifically responding to the ridiculousness of one member

That being said I never said Trump was a saint, I plainly stated in the quoted response that I don't support him either so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove?

Not literally, not random, with substance.

I did not link but I did say where they came from - here is a link to the website and all of the rulings on statements by, well, pretty much everyone.

Fact-checking U.S. politics | PolitiFact

[fulltritty]

Originally Posted by jcardstore

Yea because sharing Netflix passwords and creating multiple BO account are TOTALLY the same as illegally handling state secrets some people....

This is a good one, but we weren't talking about Hillary. I believe I was responding to a Gary Johnson post. He admits he smokes pot every day (just won't do it as President if you believe that). This could be why he looks stoned in every interview. I cannot vote someone for President who violates Federal law. How can you enforce it if you violate it was my point. The argument works for Hillary too though.

[TheFrenzy]

This might get buried, but can I toss out some useful info?

1. "A vote for a third party candidate is really a vote for Evil Candidate X!" is only true if you live in a SWING STATE.

Because our president is selected via the Electoral College and not a popular vote, your vote is already basically wasted if you don't live in a swing state. If you live in...

- Ohio
- Colorado
- Iowa
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- Virginia
- Florida

...then yes, your vote does matter and voting for a third party could tip the scales toward a candidate you especially despise. HOWEVER, if you live ANYWHERE else, your state is basically already decided as far as who will pick up its Electoral College votes. This means that literally every single vote the losing candidate receives is wasted and every single vote over 50% the winning candidate receives is wasted.

It's a really messed up system because it means that roughly ~40% of voters in 43 states are irrelevant.

2. Ok, so a crap ton of votes are wasted. But still, 40% of 43 states wouldn't be enough to elect Jesus or John Lennon if they ran third party, so what's the point?

The point is (and sooo few Americans know this) that if a third party can garner just 5% of the national vote, they will receive public campaign funding assistance AND a spot at the 2020 presidential debates.

So even if voting Libertarian, Green, Constitutionalist, etc. won't change the 2016 race, it could have huge effects on the 2020 race. Not only that, but I'm guessing most of us here are sick of the partisanship. Most might not prefer Libertarian or Green proposals, but having a middle voice could substantially help moderate the main parties. Something which would benefit all Americans.

Just my $0.02 as an American Government teacher and while I'll be voting for the future this fall when I vote (as a Texan) third party.

[jdandns]

Originally Posted by jcardstore

Ok fine, I'll give you that she's not a "criminal" under the technical definition of the term.

She's still a liar and a hypocrite and unfit to be president. It's obvious that she can do no wrong in your eyes and you can't even admit that lying under oath is wrong. It's pretty scary that people like you are so brainwashed into this train of thought.

That's your opinion, stated as fact, yet again.

[jdandns]

Originally Posted by fulltritty

This is a good one, but we weren't talking about Hillary. I believe I was responding to a Gary Johnson post. He admits he smokes pot every day (just won't do it as President if you believe that). This could be why he looks stoned in every interview. I cannot vote someone for President who violates Federal law. How can you enforce it if you violate it was my point. The argument works for Hillary too though.

Just move the White House to Colorado...

[timber09]

Originally Posted by fulltritty

This is a good one, but we weren't talking about Hillary. I believe I was responding to a Gary Johnson post. He admits he smokes pot every day (just won't do it as President if you believe that). This could be why he looks stoned in every interview. I cannot vote someone for President who violates Federal law. How can you enforce it if you violate it was my point. The argument works for Hillary too though.

Correct me if I am wrong here but I feel like I remember Johnson saying that he hasn't smoked pot in like 60 days and that he will not if elected or until the conclusion of the election.

I'm not 100% certain on this but I think I saw him say that in an interview.

[fulltritty]

Originally Posted by jdandns

Just move the White House to Colorado...

It doesn't matter where the White House, it is still illegal under Federal Law and once we get a President in office who will actually enforce the laws that their job states they do, you will see States like Colorado kiss their illegal drug laws away as they lose Federal funding.

[jcardstore]

Originally Posted by jdandns

That's your opinion, stated as fact, yet again.

She is a liar (fact), hypocrite (fact), unfit to be president (opinion).

There, since you want to be technical, I cleared it up for you.

[fulltritty]

Originally Posted by timber09

Correct me if I am wrong here but I feel like I remember Johnson saying that he hasn't smoked pot in like 60 days and that he will not if elected or until the conclusion of the election.

I'm not 100% certain on this but I think I saw him say that in an interview.

I think my quote stated that he claimed he wouldn't smoke if he was President, but can you really believe that? If it was that easy to stop being a pothead than everyone could do it.

[jcardstore]

Originally Posted by timber09

Not literally, not random, with substance.

I did not link but I did say where they came from - here is a link to the website and all of the rulings on statements by, well, pretty much everyone.

Fact-checking U.S. politics | PolitiFact

The substance I was referring to was the link, but thank you. I will look over this.

[timber09]

Originally Posted by fulltritty

I think my quote stated that he claimed he wouldn't smoke if he was President, but can you really believe that? If it was that easy to stop being a pothead than everyone could do it.

If you are asking if "I" could believe him - I personally couldn't care less if he fired up a bowl in the Oval Office after negotiating a sweet trade deal (insert whatever you feel would be a win here - not really the point) to celebrate. Smoking weed, drinking scotch, drinking wine...whatever...it's all the same to me.

If you are asking if "one" could believe him - I would personally have to question the mental health of anyone who believes what any candidate tells them. Every statement/promise should be met with a fair amount of skepticism.

[gatordeve86]

I hate voting Republican in PA knowing that 3 counties outweigh the rest of the state
last time a Republican won the state was Bush in 1988 and the last time and the last time a 3rd party won the state was Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 so my vote is pointless either way

[jcardstore]

Originally Posted by gatordeve86

so my vote is pointless either way

Most of the rest of the country feels the same way. We really need serious structural changes or this is just going to continue getting worse