0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Does anyone take Donald Trump seriously, anymore?
Does this mean that Clinton is disqualified and Sanders gets the nomination? Or is there some minor punishment for violating the rules? Or is this yet another case of "technically against the rules/laws but there is no punishment and therefore it is ok."
Quote from: Askold on July 02, 2016, 01:06:06 amDoes this mean that Clinton is disqualified and Sanders gets the nomination? Or is there some minor punishment for violating the rules? Or is this yet another case of "technically against the rules/laws but there is no punishment and therefore it is ok."Uh no. This is called politics as usual.
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?
Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.
Quote from: ironbite on July 02, 2016, 03:20:43 pmQuote from: Askold on July 02, 2016, 01:06:06 amDoes this mean that Clinton is disqualified and Sanders gets the nomination? Or is there some minor punishment for violating the rules? Or is this yet another case of "technically against the rules/laws but there is no punishment and therefore it is ok."Uh no. This is called politics as usual.Which is why the US isn't actually a democracy any more, in the sense that public opinion and legislative outcomes are uncorrelated.
One thing I’ve learned at The Upshot in the last year: People, from the right and the left, believe in conspiracies more than I would have thought. And elections bring out the worst of it.The political scientists Joseph Uscinski and Joseph Parent have written that “near equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats (between 40 percent and 50 percent)” are predisposed to believe in the possibility of voter fraud if their preferred presidential candidate does not win.
I'm not sure precisely who you were directing that at, Queen, but I was referring to this study:http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPPS%2FPPS12_03%2FS1537592714001595a.pdf&code=ad98a6ff44904fbd5367dab8427fc72dhttp://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
Quote from: dpareja on July 02, 2016, 04:36:06 pmI'm not sure precisely who you were directing that at, Queen, but I was referring to this study:http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPPS%2FPPS12_03%2FS1537592714001595a.pdf&code=ad98a6ff44904fbd5367dab8427fc72dhttp://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746Oh, I was definitely including you. Just because we have an electorate that predominately votes for their "team" instead of their interests doesn't make us any less a democracy. Maybe it makes a few of us dull-witted, but that is hardly exclusive to America, as seen with Brexit. Unfortunately, these people vote and that is one of the downsides of democracy. Sure, 90% of people support background checks for gerns. A similar number of people will support the individual portions of Obamacare, while only about 45% will support Obamacare itself (there must be something about that name). But these people don't vote for these issues in primaries to see the result that they desire, as generally it's the most liberal or conservative people who vote in primaries. As such, political purity to a party line trumps things like actual issues that people care about and that have a broad national consensus. Nevertheless, what can you do. The problem is essentially that the electorate is not educated enough on American politics nor patient enough to study politicians before voting and effectuate change, they just throw their hands in the air and say "Not a democracy, system's rigged" because that's easier than basic research.
Quote from: The_Queen on July 02, 2016, 04:54:34 pmQuote from: dpareja on July 02, 2016, 04:36:06 pmI'm not sure precisely who you were directing that at, Queen, but I was referring to this study:http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPPS%2FPPS12_03%2FS1537592714001595a.pdf&code=ad98a6ff44904fbd5367dab8427fc72dhttp://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746Oh, I was definitely including you. Just because we have an electorate that predominately votes for their "team" instead of their interests doesn't make us any less a democracy. Maybe it makes a few of us dull-witted, but that is hardly exclusive to America, as seen with Brexit. Unfortunately, these people vote and that is one of the downsides of democracy. Sure, 90% of people support background checks for gerns. A similar number of people will support the individual portions of Obamacare, while only about 45% will support Obamacare itself (there must be something about that name). But these people don't vote for these issues in primaries to see the result that they desire, as generally it's the most liberal or conservative people who vote in primaries. As such, political purity to a party line trumps things like actual issues that people care about and that have a broad national consensus. Nevertheless, what can you do. The problem is essentially that the electorate is not educated enough on American politics nor patient enough to study politicians before voting and effectuate change, they just throw their hands in the air and say "Not a democracy, system's rigged" because that's easier than basic research.Okay, let's take the background check issue.According to this poll: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_121715.pdf, 79% of Republican primary voters support background checks, yet somehow this gets nowhere in Congress.
Or, they did do the research, and found that neither the incumbent nor any challenger supported background checks (or said they did, but further research revealed that they were taking money from the gun lobby anyway). And meanwhile, nobody else ran because of how damned expensive it is to run for office, especially against an incumbent.
Life for the sake of life means nothing.
The FBI will not recommend criminal charges in its investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, the bureau's director says.James Comey made the announcement Tuesday, three days after FBI agents interviewed Clinton — now the presumptive Democratic nominee in the race for the White House — in the final step of its investigation."We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges," Comey said at a news conference in Washington after describing the "painstaking" investigation."Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."But Comey also said Clinton and her colleagues at the Department of State had been "extremely careless" with classified material — noting that 110 emails, in 52 different email chains, contained classified information when Clinton sent them. Eight of those chains contained top secret information, he said. "None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system," he said.
