Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-06-2016, 05:35 AM
 
Location: Long Island
57,317 posts, read 26,228,587 times
Reputation: 15648

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
Nixon was going to be impeached, and he would have never been reelected. Additionally, had Ford not pardoned him, he would have most likely been criminally indicted.

It's most likely that Nixon had nothing to do with the Watergate break in. What he did was abuse his office to try and cover it up. Had he and his minions pled the 5th and destroyed the tapes, he would have most likely gotten away with it.

I'm not sure what Hilary did isn't much different in terms of outrage.
Clinton was guilty of being careless with classified emails, Nixon's and his staff was responsible for placing wiretaps in Democratic Headquarters and then covering it up. One was premeditated and one was not, that comparison is worlds apart.


There is nothing to compare to what Clinton did, we have had emails for quite some time but I don't recall any criminal convictions for carelessness by a cabinet member.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-06-2016, 05:38 AM
 
Location: Phoenix
30,377 posts, read 19,177,636 times
Reputation: 26275
There's always been benefits of being rich and powerful making the rules fluid and able to get away with things. I think what's changed is you have a large number of people (Democrats) that don't care if their leaders do highly illegal and unethical things...in fact, they celebrate them. So we are becoming more and more like venezuela, mexico, & Brazil....our best days are behind us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2016, 06:19 AM
 
10,829 posts, read 5,439,336 times
Reputation: 4710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Clinton was guilty of being careless with classified emails, Nixon's and his staff was responsible for placing wiretaps in Democratic Headquarters and then covering it up. One was premeditated and one was not, that comparison is worlds apart.

There is nothing to compare to what Clinton did, we have had emails for quite some time but I don't recall any criminal convictions for carelessness by a cabinet member.
Doesn't matter.

She -- by FBI Director Comey's own admission -- violated the "gross negligence" element of 18 USC Section 793, and the punishment for that is up to ten years in prison.

Don't pretend that she didn't know the law. She's a lawyer.

Don't pretend she didn't know the rules. She was briefed on them when she became Secretary of State.

Don't pretend what she did wasn't premeditated and deliberate. It was premeditated and deliberate.

Why did she do it?

The only plausible explanation is that she was using the State Department to enrich herself and Bill. And she didn't want anyone to see all the quid pro quo emails that took place.

Countries and companies would lobby the State Department for favors. Hillary would grant them.

Then said countries would make big contributions to the Clinton Foundation, and pay Bill exorbitant amounts of money for making speeches.

In the meantime, the Clintons used foundation money to pay for their private jets, etc.

And Hillary got her own opportunity to get paid outrageous amounts for making speeches after she left the State Department.

The Clintons didn't get to be worth over 100 million dollars just by writing books and serving in office, that's for sure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2016, 06:26 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,645,820 times
Reputation: 18521
One to the temple.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2016, 06:29 AM
 
Location: Near the Coast SWCT
83,528 posts, read 75,355,132 times
Reputation: 16626
Just wanted to show todays front pages.. Key word .... "AGAIN"

This decision is testing the intelligence of the U.S. It's like a 3rd world government. If you leave a child in a hot car & that child is harmed, u will be charged with negligence, even if your action was unintentional. No difference with Crooked Hillary.

Covers | New York Post

Todays Paper - The New York Times

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2016, 08:58 AM
 
8,275 posts, read 7,950,716 times
Reputation: 12122
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike View Post
So- you don't trust the oldest and most experienced federal law agency, the FBI? Or the integrity of our federal legal system?
No and absolutely not. The federal government exists to propogate and protect the power of the elites - party is irrelevant.

Quote:
Who then DO you trust more?
Virtually everyone and anything

Quote:
Are you claiming our office holders are all dishonest? If so, then how are they dishonest? In what? Do you think Congress hires our federal law enforcement officers?
I would say most of our office holders are dishonest. They are in it for themselves. Congress doesn't hire our federal LEOs but they are supervised by politically appointed hacks. Everyone knows that if you want to get ahead, the boss has to stay happy.

Quote:
Do you think the politician you plan to vote for is a crook? Or is it always someone else's political choice?
Undoubtedly, which is why I no longer have confidence in democracy either.

Quote:
And why would you want to arbitrarily kick the honest guys out of office on the belief they are always corrupted? When is it that they corrupt? The first year, the second, or when?
Because we don't know who the two honest people in DC are. DC is filled with the lowest of the low. Politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists and crony capitalists. The professionals with the most honor in DC are the prostitutes.

Quote:
I'm not being snarky here. I tend to think you haven't thought all this through very much. But if I'm wrong, then please offer some details. I don't think our system is rigged, even though it is out of balance. We have plenty of ways of self-correction that can restore the balance, but all of them require an amount of trust in our government.
Our government is beyond trust. It is beyond fixing. We are far beyond the point where a little bit of tinkering around the edges would fix the problem. The only way to fix our government is to tear it down and start over. We desperately need a Constitutional convention.

Quote:
If you can't trust our elected officials, then who can you trust? Harley Jim, the guy who lives in Fat Bob's basement?
Our country was founded on DISTRUST of government. It's written into the fabric of the Constitution. Distrust of government is why we have three branches of government with numerous checks and balances (that no longer work). You are the outlier in your Christlike faith in government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2016, 12:58 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
29,219 posts, read 22,376,569 times
Reputation: 23858
Quote:
Originally Posted by janelle144 View Post
[/b]

Might as well with the do nothing Congress. You do know the public has little to no trust in our elected officials don't you in many polls? Why do you think the outsider is getting more votes, the ones that get elected turn into puppets of some sort or another.
Sure; I fully realize the frustration that lies like a thick cake of mud that covers this election. And I wasn't picking on the person I responded to- I was simply using that post to ask some basic and important questions to all of us here, including myself.

All the questions I asked really revolve around only two of them:

1.If you do not trust our government, then who do you trust?

Voting is nothing more than officially trusting the candidate will do the job he's seeking. Everything in our government works (or doesn't) based on trust alone. It is important to trust the government.

If you cannot, then a person has to have a viable alternative to what now exists. No one "Sends a message" with their vote except for this; I trust that person. I don't trust the other person.

Every other 'message' is so vague that it cannot ever be interpreted accurately. So no elected official really knows what the true meaning of the message is. Since they are all obligated by oath to follow the laws of the United States, the best they can do is to uphold their pledge and follow those laws, with an attempt to decypher what the 'message' is supposed to be.
This can lead to a government collapse. One person's vague message can be different than another person's. Our officials have no way of really knowing which to follow or not, or which is vital or not. And the messages that are sent are continually shifting in all directions from the pressures of the moment on our society.

No 'message' is 'loud and clear'. Discontent can sure be loud, but it's the loud static of the mob. Lots of voices all saying different things, producing only a lot of noise that has no definition. Only a babble of opposing loud voices.
Any misunderstanding can do massive damage to all of us, especially when there is no understanding or overwhelming belief to be found in the noise.

Brexit is a perfect example of this. Enough voters were angry enough to vote for something they didn't know enough about. The vote was nothing more than a signal of angry unhappiness.
So the government, obeying the will of the people, had to go along with the voters. And when they did, every single person suddenly found they lost 1 of every 3 dollars they owned. That certainly wasn't the message they intended to send.
And then, because their political leaders cannot read minds, they began to resign. Leaving the government both crippled and leaderless in very uncertain times all around the world.

i don't think we want to do that to ourselves.

2. If you must trust someone, why is it better to trust someone you do not know more than someone you know? How is a stranger more worthy of blind trust than a person a voter can already estimate what actions he will take?

All voters are faced with this question every election. There is always a brand-new person who wants the job. Sometimes, our choice is between two brand-new people, but most often, it is between someone we know and someone we don't.
They will both promise tempting promises. They will both claim they are the absolutely best person for the job. They will both offer their qualifications. We, as voters, judge all of this, and choose the one who will lead us all- those who voted for the person and those who did not alike. And then, only time will inform us if our judgement was good or not.

If the stranger proves worthy of delivering on his promises, and enough people are happy enough with his work, then he will be the known person the next time around, facing another stranger. Our trust has been vindicated in him.
There will always be those who think that person did a lousy job. Or that he was a crook. Or that he did nothing at all except take his salary.

There will always be those who think that the person said one thing to get elected and then did another. Since all we have is our trust in that guy, if he doesn't go the way some people think he should, then he's either doing his job, or he's somehow a traitor, a quisling, or a weakling that bows down to some un-defined mysterious power that's out there in the shadows someplace.

Because every decision any elected person makes is not going to ever make some voters happy. Some will always be disappointed over some decision, no matter what it is. That is the essential nature of a republican system of democracy.

And it is always the greatest strength and the greatest weakness, at the same time, of any democracy. Any democracy can fail instantly when enough voters make the wrong choices and continue to make them a few times.
Look at Venezuela. Brazil. England. Haiti. All are modern failed democracies. There are dozens of failed democracies in the past.

Failure is what comes when too many citizens vote their emotions over their best and most serious judgement. That's very easy to do, especially when a nation is in trying times with a lot of unfocused but wide discontent.

Sometimes, a democracy offers no choices that are very appealing to us all. Sometimes, one person is so appealing as to dominate the other contender, and the choice is very simple. Sometimes, both are so appealing either would be as good on the job as the other.

That's always the way it is at some level of our government. But no matter the outcome, we all put our trust in someone. The alternative is no government at all. Anarchy.

Anarchy was once considered to be viable, 100 years ago or more. It's a romantic belief that the common man is noble, pure in all intentions, and is always wise and thoughtful. That with no government to rule us, we would all be happier, more prosperous, and more content wihtout the burdensome yoke of the government on our necks.

Has there ever been a time like that? No. Because human beings are simply not like that, even though it is the very most pleasant thought we all share. A century ago, it was even more romantic than nowadays.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2016, 01:13 PM
 
Location: The ends DO NOT justify the means!!!
4,783 posts, read 3,743,613 times
Reputation: 1336
This "anarchist", libertarian, agorist, insert label, has no problem with "government" per se...

I am only opposed to any institution which claims a "right" to initiate force upon the individual.

A "government" limited to being only a retaliatory force against those who initiate force is perfectly moral and just. And it is completely capable of "governing". It is completely capable of maximizing human freedom for every individual.

Humans do not need to be "coerced" into forming agreements with one another, or be "coerced" into allowing other humans to be free. They only need to be restricted the "legal" right to initiate force upon others.

The non-aggression principle is a simple consistent morality which any child can understand, and does understand intuitively unless they are mentally ill. Having "government" obey this same morality is not Utopian, it is how sane individuals live their daily lives.

Anarchists, libertarians, agorists are not advocating chaos in any way whatsoever. They simply reject the notion that any person, group, or government has a right to initiate force upon the individual (whether that is the identified ideology, foundation or not). They simply reject the notion that any person, group, or government has a "right" to impose its will upon another through aggression and violence. And implying that those who believe in human freedom, voluntarism, and peaceful cooperation are somehow delusional are ignoring that that is precisely how most individuals live their daily lives. No form of "government" should be "permitted" to be a slave owner or God ruling over any individual any more that any person has a right to impose their personal will upon their neighbor.

I put my trust in myself and those that interact with me peacefully. And any person, group, or government that imposes its will upon me without my consent with initiations of force, is obviously evil and immoral and thus my enemy.

No person, group, or government ever has a right to initiate force upon any person, group, or government for any reason.

The only just force is retaliatory force.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2016, 01:16 PM
 
Location: Metro Detroit, Michigan
29,826 posts, read 24,917,786 times
Reputation: 28526
If you have to ask if the system is rigged, than I'm afraid I am going to have to ask... Have you been living under a rock all your life???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2016, 01:20 AM
 
10,829 posts, read 5,439,336 times
Reputation: 4710
The system has always been rigged, but people tried to hide it in the past.

Now they rub our faces in it and laugh at us.

Comey, Obama, Lynch and the Clintons have no more respect for us than high school bullies have for their victims.

So learn to enjoy being slammed up against your locker and having your lunch money stolen.

Plenty more shakedowns coming your way if the Clintons retake the White House.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:36 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top