The 2017 General Political discussion thread, Part 2!

[Dddrees]

Kinda look forward to hearing what Trump has to say about Healthcare today because so far I haven't heard anything to indicate he has any idea what he is talking about when it comes to this subject. Oh, I agree he said repeal and replace and once he said the bill coming from the house was mean. But other than that it's mostly been fairly incoherent. Oh, I forgot to mention he's said whatever it was would be great. But it seems to me that just a little more detail might be helpful, h*** maybe even just an outline at this point might be nice.

 

[Dddrees]

Ah, so that excuses it. I see.

No, not by any means. However the reason there's supposed to be representatives from both parties is to help ensure this doesn't happen so they need to do their part. Can't imagine it being that much different if this happened the same in a Republican district and only Republican representation was there. Maybe they would be a bit smarter to not just tally Republican votes.

The system may have flaws because people are involved, but when your not doing your part, your simply not fulfilling your responsibility. Get off your A** and do what your responsible to do and if not you have little room to complain about it.

So whether they thought it out and made a decision not to show to make political points or it was extremely difficult to find anybody it doesn't seem the outcome would have been any different as those precincts would have still been lost. But the fix in this case does seem pretty easy. Get your representatives out there to monitor what's actually is taking place. That is if your really concerned about process and not scoring political points.

 

[Kutnupe14]

In both the '08 and '10 Presidential elections in northern Ohio there were numerous precincts that reported well over 100% for one particular candidate. What do you think the odds are that one precinct...anywhere...would vote 100%....for anyone or anything? There was very little reporting and, as far as I have seen, absolutely no investigation.

I'm going out on a limb and saying that you were probably the victim of fake news.

 

[Dddrees]

I'm going out on a limb and saying that you were probably the victim of fake news.

Im still waiting on links for this one.

 

[jamil]

So he's allowed to talk like an idiot because of where he came from?

You have to admit the video greatly exaggerated the issue. What we're talking about is the way different regions pronounce words. It's ignorant to say YOUR way of pronouncing a word is "smart" sounding and a person's way who is from another region is stupid because they pronounce it differently. Having lived in several different states, maybe this is more apparent to me.

For example, when I lived in Mississippi, they made fun of me because people from the Midwest, which I am, tend to pronounce the 'r' sound at the end of a word. In the South, people don't tend to do that. While I pronounce a word like "runner" pronouncing the 'r' at the end, people in the south would pronounce it "runnah". So which pronunciation is "stupid"? Neither. What's stupid is nitpicking people about regional pronunciation. At best it shows ignorance, at worst it is irrational.

 

[Dddrees]

You have to admit the video greatly exaggerated the issue. What we're talking about is the way different regions pronounce words. It's ignorant to say YOUR way of pronouncing a word is "smart" sounding and a person's way who is from another region is stupid because they pronounce it differently. Having lived in several different states, maybe this is more apparent to me.

For example, when I lived in Mississippi, they made fun of me because people from the Midwest, which I am, tend to pronounce the 'r' sound at the end of a word. In the South, people don't tend to do that. While I pronounce a word like "runner" pronouncing the 'r' at the end, people in the south would pronounce it "runnah". So which pronunciation is "stupid"? Neither. What's stupid is nitpicking people about regional pronunciation. At best it shows ignorance, at worst it is irrational.

Exaggerated video and how he pronounces things aside, it's the baseless exaggerated claims that he always make and the fact that his ego is so over inflated which make him look stupid. Oh yeah and the fact he says a good number of things that defy reason donesn't help him either.

 

[jamil]

I'm not entrenched and I am willing to discuss it and your not open to that? You preach so often about bias but then when someone says they're willing to discuss it you have a problem with that as well? Really, at this point it appears as if your just arguing to argue. It'll be much easier for me to look at the rest of your points when you stop doing that.

First: it's "you're".

Second, I never said that I'm not open to discussing it. I'm not arguing just to argue. I am pointing out the things you've said that tends not to show you as open minded. One who thinks that pronouncing words differently because of regional dialects make people idiots, is not an example of being objectively open. Claiming there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, and then disputing the reputation of the source, and then claiming you need more sources when it's clear the source is reputable, is not an example of being objectively open.

Start saying things that are objectively true and I'll agree with you. Claim I said something I didn't say and I'll continue thinking along the same lines as I have been.

 

[eldirector]

Exaggerated video and how he pronounces things aside, it's the baseless exaggerated claims that he always make and the fact that his ego is so over inflated which make him look stupid.

Still waiting on links to the baseless, exaggerated claims and a photo of the over-inflated ego.

Am I doing this right?

 

[jamil]

Exaggerated video and how he pronounces things aside, it's the baseless exaggerated claims that he always make and the fact that his ego is so over inflated which make him look stupid.

Now see? That wasn't so hard. Trump often makes exaggerated claims. That tends to make him look stupid when those claims are demonstrably false. It's demonstrably false that his inauguration crowds were bigger than Obama's. That made him look stupid. It's yet to be determined that his claim that Hillary won because of voter fraud is demonstrably false. You can't demonstrate it until you demonstrate it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well, on to actual political discussion. Once again the president throws Session under the bus. Does he want Sessions to quit, because of his recent unpopular ideas, or (as I think) do you think it's because of his recusal? And why not fire him outright if he's so unhappy?

 

[jamil]

Still waiting on links to the baseless, exaggerated claims and a photo of the over-inflated ego.

Am I doing this right?

Well, yeah. But Trump has made some pretty baseless claims. I have no idea why he even got into the bit about crowd size. It was totally irrelevant for leftist media to bring that up during coverage and it was silly for Trump to claim his crowd was bigger than Obama's when clearly it was not. The only thing that made it matter was him making the claim. He should have instead shamed the media for reporting it when it didn't matter.

 

[Dddrees]

Still waiting on links to the baseless, exaggerated claims and a photo of the over-inflated ego.

Am I doing this right?

Yes, yes you are.

Would you like one of those links to the many sites out there that bothered to document many of his lies?

 

[Dddrees]

Well, on to actual political discussion. Once again the president throws Session under the bus. Does he want Sessions to quit, because of his recent unpopular ideas, or (as I think) do you think it's because of his recusal? And why not fire him outright if he's so unhappy?

Gave up long ago looking for any good reason from an individual who seems to be nothing but erratic. Chaos is about the only thing he's been consistent about.

 

[jamil]

Well, on to actual political discussion. Once again the president throws Session under the bus. Does he want Sessions to quit, because of his recent unpopular ideas, or (as I think) do you think it's because of his recusal? And why not fire him outright if he's so unhappy?

He didn't outright fire Spicer. Honestly I have no idea why Trump does this kind of stuff. I have no idea if the recusal excuse is even a thing to Trump or if it's just something he said. Sessions has been very loyal to Trump. I can't imagine that morale in the WH is all that great. And that's something that Trump is doing to himself. Maybe if he'd be more loyal to the people that are loyal to him, there wouldn't be so many leaks.

 

[Dddrees]

Now see? That wasn't so hard. Trump often makes exaggerated claims. That tends to make him look stupid when those claims are demonstrably false. It's demonstrably false that his inauguration crowds were bigger than Obama's. That made him look stupid. It's yet to be determined that his claim that Hillary won because of voter fraud is demonstrably false. You can't demonstrate it until you demonstrate it.

But would you go so far to say you can't prove Ted Cruz's father wasn't involved in the Kennedy Assasination until you can provide proof. He just simply makes way too many of them to spend enough time disproving all of them. The fact remains that he just simply has no credibility because of all of the baseless cr** he claims.

 

[Twangbanger]

No, not by any means. However the reason there's supposed to be representatives from both parties is to help ensure this doesn't happen so they need to do their part. Can't imagine it being that much different if this happened the same in a Republican district and only Republican representation was there. Maybe they would be a bit smarter to not just tally Republican votes.

The system may have flaws because people are involved, but when your not doing your part, your simply not fulfilling your responsibility. Get off your A** and do what your responsible to do and if not you have little room to complain about it.

So whether they thought it out and made a decision not to show to make political points or it was extremely difficult to find anybody it doesn't seem the outcome would have been any different as those precincts would have still been lost. But the fix in this case does seem pretty easy. Get your representatives out there to monitor what's actually is taking place. That is if your really concerned about process and not scoring political points.

Well, this is a novel thought: go all Libertarian, and assert there's basically no government role in assuring legitimate, fair elections - it's up to private individuals to get off their booties and police it themselves!

(Are the rest of you guys _sure_ MR Jarrell didn't un-shooter himself by proxy?)

 

[jamil]

Yes, yes you are.

Would you like one of those links to the many sites out there that bothered to document many of his lies?

I've seen some of those sites, some of the entries are spot on, and some are just hyperbole.

 

[Dddrees]

Well, this is a novel thought: go all Libertarian, and assert there's basically no government role in assuring legitimate, fair elections - it's up to private individuals to get off their booties and police it themselves!

(Are the rest of you guys _sure_ MR Jarrell didn't un-shooter himself by proxy?)

How, please tell me how when I say equal representation should be there that you can possibly get to this conclusion??

 

[jamil]

But would you go so far to say you can't prove Ted Cruz's father wasn't involved in the Kennedy Assasination until you can provide proof. He just simply makes way too many of them to spend enough time disproving all of them. The fact remains that he just simply has no credibility because of all of the baseless cr** he claims.

The Ted Cruz thing was completely baseless. It was an over-the-top accusation made during an election. That wasn't even plausible.

The idea that Trump lost to Hillary in popular vote because of voter fraud is mostly baseless, but it is plausible that there could be some there there. That's how this objective thing works. You don't just discount an idea because you might not get to hold yet one more thing against the person you hate. But you don't have to agree to an idea that is obviously nonsense. Like the cruz thing.

 

[jamil]

Well, this is a novel thought: go all Libertarian, and assert there's basically no government role in assuring legitimate, fair elections - it's up to private individuals to get off their booties and police it themselves!

(Are the rest of you guys _sure_ MR Jarrell didn't un-shooter himself by proxy?)

How, please tell me how when I say equal representation should be there that you can possibly get to this conclusion??

I'd be happy to explain it.