Hillary won more votes for President

PJ_Soul

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

I have always accepted that 90% of politicians are corrupt. To me that's just a given, so feel no compulsion to keep pointing it out every day of my life. It would be like spending my time declaring that the sky is blue and shit stinks. Corruption is a now systemically built into politics. It's what keeps good people from entering politics in the first place, and what attracts all these jerks to it. Yes, that's the status quo. Yes, I want it to change. But it's not going to any time soon, and hating the Clintons or harping on about how they conduct politics (legally) isn't going to change it either. Nothing will. Nothing short of a total collapse of the government, that is.

Knowing that...

But are you still voting?

Of course (In Canada). Some corrupt politicians are better than other corrupt politicians. If that 2% happens to be running and hold many of the same views as me that I think are important, I'll vote for them. I've only had that opportunity once in my life.

PJfanwillneverleave1

PJ_Soul said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I have always accepted that 90% of politicians are corrupt.

Is Hillary in that 90%?

Duh, obviously. I'm thinking 90% is actually a conservative estimate. I was making room for the Elizabeth Warrens and Jack Leytons of the world as well as some naive, well-meaning local politicians ... I'm thinking it's probably more like 98% once you get out of local politics. At best.

So is Hillary in your 2% then?
Duh?

Pardon? I just told you that she is in the 90 (or 98)%. Obviously. Duh.

So you are saying without a doubt Hillary is corrupt?
edit - I ask because you say legally.....

BS44325

rssesq said:

BS44325 said:

Free said:

rssesq said:

https://twitter.com/Morning_Joe/status/791588439917367297

#BILLCLINTONINC.
69 MILLION DOLLARS!

Follow the $$$$!

The corruption by the Clintons is undeniable now. I accept Trump is an asshole and yet still think he's a better choice by my own stupid calculus. I wish the Clinton supporters would at least say "I know Hillary and Bill are corrupt as fuck but I'm still with her". Can't we all just be honest at this point? Even is she wins don't you want her held to a better standard?

Not a one will answer this. They wanna talk about how any criticism of the current system is "racist". Find new material. This is straight outta the Abe Foxman playbook.

And you won't answer to your anti-semitism. We all have our hang ups I guess.

PJ_Soul

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I have always accepted that 90% of politicians are corrupt.

Is Hillary in that 90%?

Duh, obviously. I'm thinking 90% is actually a conservative estimate. I was making room for the Elizabeth Warrens and Jack Leytons of the world as well as some naive, well-meaning local politicians ... I'm thinking it's probably more like 98% once you get out of local politics. At best.

So is Hillary in your 2% then?
Duh?

Pardon? I just told you that she is in the 90 (or 98)%. Obviously. Duh.

So you are saying without a doubt Hillary is corrupt?
edit - I ask because you say legally.....

Of course, she is about as corrupt as any other sane person who has run for president in recent history. I think she is about average on the corrupt politician scale. So a normal politician. That's how I view her.
I don't think she's done anything illegal. She has not been charged with any crime.

unsung

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

I have always accepted that 90% of politicians are corrupt. To me that's just a given, so feel no compulsion to keep pointing it out every day of my life. It would be like spending my time declaring that the sky is blue and shit stinks. Corruption is a now systemically built into politics. It's what keeps good people from entering politics in the first place, and what attracts all these jerks to it. Yes, that's the status quo. Yes, I want it to change. But it's not going to any time soon, and hating the Clintons or harping on about how they conduct politics (legally) isn't going to change it either. Nothing will. Nothing short of a total collapse of the government, that is.

Knowing that...

But are you still voting?

Of course (In Canada). Some corrupt politicians are better than other corrupt politicians. If that 2% happens to be running and hold many of the same views as me that I think are important, I'll vote for them. I've only had that opportunity once in my life.

But you acknowledge that the system is corrupt. So why continue to participate in it? I'm not saying this to be rude, I'm saying it because voting can't fix it. Corruption at any level should be grounds for physically removing these crooks by any and all means necessary.

PJfanwillneverleave1

PJ_Soul said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I have always accepted that 90% of politicians are corrupt.

Is Hillary in that 90%?

Duh, obviously. I'm thinking 90% is actually a conservative estimate. I was making room for the Elizabeth Warrens and Jack Leytons of the world as well as some naive, well-meaning local politicians ... I'm thinking it's probably more like 98% once you get out of local politics. At best.

So is Hillary in your 2% then?
Duh?

Pardon? I just told you that she is in the 90 (or 98)%. Obviously. Duh.

So you are saying without a doubt Hillary is corrupt?
edit - I ask because you say legally.....

Of course, she is about as corrupt as any other sane person who has run for president in recent history. I think she is about average on the corrupt politician scale. So a normal politician. That's how I view her.
I don't think she's done anything illegal. She has not been charged with any crime.

Ok.
So is Hillary corrupt?

unsung

I believe that issue is agreed upon by most people.

Go Beavers

PJ_Soul said:

I have always accepted that 90% of politicians are corrupt. To me that's just a given, so feel no compulsion to keep pointing it out every day of my life. It would be like spending my time declaring that the sky is blue and shit stinks. Corruption is now systemically built into politics. It's what keeps good people from entering politics in the first place, and what attracts all these jerks to it. And what turns good people to the dark side (almost all do IMO). Yes, that's the status quo. Yes, I want it to change. But it's not going to any time soon, and hating the Clintons or harping on about how they conduct politics (legally) isn't going to change it either. Nothing will. Nothing short of a total collapse of the government, that is.

I don't see the non-corrupt politicians getting very far- meaning voters choose the candidate that has qualities they end up resenting. Voters are manipulated by the money in politics and they want the ego driven person. A person running a campaign and platform of high ethical standards and compromise is going to come across as less appealing. People want to see an individual encapsulate things beyond the reality of the position and what they can do.

PJfanwillneverleave1

Go Beavers said:

PJ_Soul said:

I have always accepted that 90% of politicians are corrupt. To me that's just a given, so feel no compulsion to keep pointing it out every day of my life. It would be like spending my time declaring that the sky is blue and shit stinks. Corruption is now systemically built into politics. It's what keeps good people from entering politics in the first place, and what attracts all these jerks to it. And what turns good people to the dark side (almost all do IMO). Yes, that's the status quo. Yes, I want it to change. But it's not going to any time soon, and hating the Clintons or harping on about how they conduct politics (legally) isn't going to change it either. Nothing will. Nothing short of a total collapse of the government, that is.

I don't see the non-corrupt politicians getting very far- meaning voters choose the candidate that has qualities they end up resenting. Voters are manipulated by the money in politics and they want the ego driven person. A person running a campaign and platform of high ethical standards and compromise is going to come across as less appealing. People want to see an individual encapsulate things beyond the reality of the position and what they can do.

Ok.
Same question to you GoBeavers.
Is Hillary corrupt?

CM189191

PJ_Soul said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I have always accepted that 90% of politicians are corrupt.

Is Hillary in that 90%?

Duh, obviously. I'm thinking 90% is actually a conservative estimate. I was making room for the Elizabeth Warrens and Jack Leytons of the world as well as some naive, well-meaning local politicians ... I'm thinking it's probably more like 98% once you get out of local politics. At best.

So is Hillary in your 2% then?
Duh?

Pardon? I just told you that she is in the 90 (or 98)%. Obviously. Duh.

According to the Corruption Perceptions Index, we're only 24% corrupt. Seems we should look to the Northern Europeans for advice.

unsung

Go Beavers said:

PJ_Soul said:

I have always accepted that 90% of politicians are corrupt. To me that's just a given, so feel no compulsion to keep pointing it out every day of my life. It would be like spending my time declaring that the sky is blue and shit stinks. Corruption is now systemically built into politics. It's what keeps good people from entering politics in the first place, and what attracts all these jerks to it. And what turns good people to the dark side (almost all do IMO). Yes, that's the status quo. Yes, I want it to change. But it's not going to any time soon, and hating the Clintons or harping on about how they conduct politics (legally) isn't going to change it either. Nothing will. Nothing short of a total collapse of the government, that is.

I don't see the non-corrupt politicians getting very far- meaning voters choose the candidate that has qualities they end up resenting. Voters are manipulated by the money in politics and they want the ego driven person. A person running a campaign and platform of high ethical standards and compromise is going to come across as less appealing. People want to see an individual encapsulate things beyond the reality of the position and what they can do.

I used to think this was why Rand didn't get traction.

PJ_Soul

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

I have always accepted that 90% of politicians are corrupt. To me that's just a given, so feel no compulsion to keep pointing it out every day of my life. It would be like spending my time declaring that the sky is blue and shit stinks. Corruption is a now systemically built into politics. It's what keeps good people from entering politics in the first place, and what attracts all these jerks to it. Yes, that's the status quo. Yes, I want it to change. But it's not going to any time soon, and hating the Clintons or harping on about how they conduct politics (legally) isn't going to change it either. Nothing will. Nothing short of a total collapse of the government, that is.

Knowing that...

But are you still voting?

Of course (In Canada). Some corrupt politicians are better than other corrupt politicians. If that 2% happens to be running and hold many of the same views as me that I think are important, I'll vote for them. I've only had that opportunity once in my life.

But you acknowledge that the system is corrupt. So why continue to participate in it? I'm not saying this to be rude, I'm saying it because voting can't fix it. Corruption at any level should be grounds for physically removing these crooks by any and all means necessary.

Because someone's going to win whether I vote or not. Because no one is going to remove these people. Because I'm not up for starting a revolution that tears down the government (and neither are you). Because I know that this kind of change is a slow evolutionary process (or a quick complete and deadly disaster). So I think the only logical thing to do is choose the best candidate and vote for them. Because the best of a bad lot is still better than the rest. I am not delusional about the power of my actions, so understand that not voting for anyone in protest is completely pointless, and can actually contribute to putting the worse of the candidates in office, which only makes the problems worse instead of better.

unsung

But you say that only the demise of the system will bring about change, so then the worst candidate should hasten it.

In turn begin anew.

PJ_Soul

unsung said:

But you say that only the demise of the system will bring about change, so then the worst candidate should hasten it.

In turn begin anew.

Maybe in a couple of hundred years it could evolve in a positive direction. Not in our lifetime. But I don't consider the collapse of the government (likely to be replaced by something even worse) to be the best option. Not at all. I don't know why you would assume that such a thing would result in any kind of improvement. Seems crazy. Also, why would the worst candidate hasten such a thing??? I don't think that's true at all. Usually, the worst candidate just gets politicians further entrenched in corruption.

PJfanwillneverleave1

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

But you say that only the demise of the system will bring about change, so then the worst candidate should hasten it.

In turn begin anew.

Maybe in a couple of hundred years it could evolve in a positive direction. Not in our lifetime. But I don't consider the collapse of the government (likely to be replaced by something even worse) is the best option. Not at all. I don't know why you would assume that such a thing would result in any kind of improvement. Seems crazy.

No one is assuming anything.
Just responding to your thoughts.
Don't know why you would think that.
lol

PJ_Soul

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

But you say that only the demise of the system will bring about change, so then the worst candidate should hasten it.

In turn begin anew.

Maybe in a couple of hundred years it could evolve in a positive direction. Not in our lifetime. But I don't consider the collapse of the government (likely to be replaced by something even worse) is the best option. Not at all. I don't know why you would assume that such a thing would result in any kind of improvement. Seems crazy.

No one is assuming anything.
Just responding to your thoughts.
Don't know why you would think that.
lol

How do you know what unsung is or isn't assuming any better than me then?

PJfanwillneverleave1

PJ_Soul said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

But you say that only the demise of the system will bring about change, so then the worst candidate should hasten it.

In turn begin anew.

Maybe in a couple of hundred years it could evolve in a positive direction. Not in our lifetime. But I don't consider the collapse of the government (likely to be replaced by something even worse) is the best option. Not at all. I don't know why you would assume that such a thing would result in any kind of improvement. Seems crazy.

No one is assuming anything.
Just responding to your thoughts.
Don't know why you would think that.
lol

How do you know what unsung is or isn't assuming any better than me then?

I can assume the unsung will call Hillary corrupt openly.
I can't assume you will.
Will you?

unsung

PJ_Soul said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

But you say that only the demise of the system will bring about change, so then the worst candidate should hasten it.

In turn begin anew.

Maybe in a couple of hundred years it could evolve in a positive direction. Not in our lifetime. But I don't consider the collapse of the government (likely to be replaced by something even worse) is the best option. Not at all. I don't know why you would assume that such a thing would result in any kind of improvement. Seems crazy.

No one is assuming anything.
Just responding to your thoughts.
Don't know why you would think that.
lol

How do you know what unsung is or isn't assuming any better than me then?

I was just trying to have a conversation.


It seems these forums demand the use of disclaimers anymore. ***non-hostile intent***

PJ_Soul

unsung said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

But you say that only the demise of the system will bring about change, so then the worst candidate should hasten it.

In turn begin anew.

Maybe in a couple of hundred years it could evolve in a positive direction. Not in our lifetime. But I don't consider the collapse of the government (likely to be replaced by something even worse) is the best option. Not at all. I don't know why you would assume that such a thing would result in any kind of improvement. Seems crazy.

No one is assuming anything.
Just responding to your thoughts.
Don't know why you would think that.
lol

How do you know what unsung is or isn't assuming any better than me then?

I was just trying to have a conversation.


It seems these forums demand the use of disclaimers anymore. ***non-hostile intent***

Lol. I thought you and I were having a pleasant conversation. PJfan doesn't seem to like those though.

PJ_Soul

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

But you say that only the demise of the system will bring about change, so then the worst candidate should hasten it.

In turn begin anew.

Maybe in a couple of hundred years it could evolve in a positive direction. Not in our lifetime. But I don't consider the collapse of the government (likely to be replaced by something even worse) is the best option. Not at all. I don't know why you would assume that such a thing would result in any kind of improvement. Seems crazy.

No one is assuming anything.
Just responding to your thoughts.
Don't know why you would think that.
lol

How do you know what unsung is or isn't assuming any better than me then?

I can assume the unsung will call Hillary corrupt openly.
I can't assume you will.
Will you?

I'm not fucking playing this game with you. Stop asking me a question I already answered the first time.