+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: Hillary Must Lose (/Thread-Hillary-Must-Lose)
Pages:
1
2
Hillary Must Lose - PhilHos - 10-14-2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtRj6x1jHuU
He's right. It's just a shame the alternative is Trump (cause Johnson ain't winning, unfortunately; not saying I'm not voting for him BTW).
Sent from my SPH-L710T using Tapatalk
RE: Hillary Must Lose - BmorePat87 - 10-14-2016
Whoa, an Anti-feminist, Alt right Vlogger thinks Hillary is the worst candidate in history?
Shocking!
I'm not sure how one can argue she's the worst candidate ever for the DNC supporting her over an independent. His criticism is aimed solely at the fact that she represents the establishment, but that isn't inherently bad. If Hillary represents all that is bad with politics, Trump represents all that is bad with humanity. Are we suppose to accept that being in bed with establishment politics is worse than the degradation of women, minorities, non Christians, and the disabled from the least qualified candidate in US history?
RE: Hillary Must Lose - Belsnickel - 10-14-2016
(10-14-2016, 09:15 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Whoa, an Anti-feminist, Alt right Vlogger thinks Hillary is the worst candidate in history?
Shocking!
I'm not sure how one can argue she's the worst candidate ever for the DNC supporting her over an independent. His criticism is aimed solely at the fact that she represents the establishment, but that isn't inherently bad. If Hillary represents all that is bad with politics, Trump represents all that is bad with humanity. Are we suppose to accept that being in bed with establishment politics is worse than the degradation of women, minorities, non Christians, and the disabled from the least qualified candidate in US history?
The hate on "the establishment" is one of those things that I understand, but don't get. I know that seems contradictory, but yeah. Our system is set up for the establishment to rule in the Senate, in the White House, and the Court. I understand that there is a lot of concerns over the detachment from the people by the people in Washington, but the simple fact is that the section of the government, the only one designed as such by the framers, that is intended to be the one deriving its power from the people in this country is the House of Representatives.
This house of Congress has abysmal approval ratings, yet incumbents keep getting elected. Incumbents that sometimes have decades worth of time in there. And these are people supported by "anti-establishment" folks. I have a hard time really buying the rhetoric when this happens so much. If we want to change the system, the House is the first place we can make it happen at the federal level and is the best place to do so as well.
RE: Hillary Must Lose - fredtoast - 10-14-2016
(10-14-2016, 09:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This house of Congress has abysmal approval ratings, yet incumbents keep getting elected. Incumbents that sometimes have decades worth of time in there. And these are people supported by "anti-establishment" folks. I have a hard time really buying the rhetoric when this happens so much.
This.
Plus the argument is circular. Once a candidate is elected he becomes part of the establishment system. So while some people dream of a "new" establishment it is still going to be an establishment.
The people elected reflect the wishes of the voters.
RE: Hillary Must Lose - treee - 10-14-2016
If you want to be anti establishment get to work finding solutions for gerrymandering rather than attacking every minority group you can think of.
RE: Hillary Must Lose - Belsnickel - 10-14-2016
(10-14-2016, 11:41 AM)treee Wrote: If you want to be anti establishment get to work finding solutions for gerrymandering rather than attacking every minority group you can think of.
Dang straight. Why does the GOP hold the House, and will continue to hold the House with what it going on? All because of how the districts were drawn based on the 2010 census. We won't see the House have a chance of changing until 2020, but even then it isn't likely. That's called gerrymandering folks, and it is the norm when it comes to the way the districts are drawn for the HoR.
RE: Hillary Must Lose - treee - 10-14-2016
(10-14-2016, 11:44 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Dang straight. Why does the GOP hold the House, and will continue to hold the House with what it going on? All because of how the districts were drawn based on the 2010 census. We won't see the House have a chance of changing until 2020, but even then it isn't likely. That's called gerrymandering folks, and it is the norm when it comes to the way the districts are drawn for the HoR.Long term goals should include a constitutional amendment requiring some unbiased method for drawing districts, probably using an algorithm of some sort.
RE: Hillary Must Lose - Belsnickel - 10-14-2016
(10-14-2016, 11:48 AM)treee Wrote: Long term goals should include a constitutional amendment requiring some unbiased method for drawing districts, probably using an algorithm of some sort.
Some people are in favor of ridding ourselves of the districts and just apportioning the Representatives to the state at large. Combining this with the instant runoff method could, potentially, make our House of Representatives more representative of our nation.
RE: Hillary Must Lose - treee - 10-14-2016
Yeah, but people can't even do research for their own single representative, let alone 30 plus
RE: Hillary Must Lose - fredtoast - 10-14-2016
(10-14-2016, 11:44 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Dang straight. Why does the GOP hold the House, and will continue to hold the House with what it going on? All because of how the districts were drawn based on the 2010 census. We won't see the House have a chance of changing until 2020, but even then it isn't likely. That's called gerrymandering folks, and it is the norm when it comes to the way the districts are drawn for the HoR.
This is a big problem because it leads to more extremists in congress.
When a person is only running against people in his own party the most extreme candidate wins. This makes compromise harder in the House.
RE: Hillary Must Lose - bfine32 - 10-14-2016
Sems like a whole lot of "look away from the Teflon Dawn" in these rebuttals.
RE: Hillary Must Lose - fredtoast - 10-14-2016
(10-14-2016, 11:58 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Sems like a whole lot of "look away from the Teflon Dawn" in these rebuttals.
Actually I see a good discussion of the underlying principles and the problem with the "establishment system".
If this had been a Trump thread all that would have been said was "Hillary is worse!!!!"
RE: Hillary Must Lose - Belsnickel - 10-14-2016
(10-14-2016, 11:54 AM)treee Wrote: Yeah, but people can't even do research for their own single representative, let alone 30 plus
Yeah. that is one of the flaws with that reasoning. The other flaw I see is that you will have representatives focused around metropolitan areas and rural areas will never see someone in their area beyond campaign season and will not have someone to talk to that will care about their concerns.
RE: Hillary Must Lose - BmorePat87 - 10-14-2016
(10-14-2016, 11:58 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Sems like a whole lot of "look away from the Teflon Dawn" in these rebuttals.
How so? The video attacked Hillary for being an establishment politician and we're discussing that issue.
As far as I can tell, you're the only one in here not contributing to the discussion. Imagine that.
RE: Hillary Must Lose - BmorePat87 - 10-14-2016
(10-14-2016, 11:41 AM)treee Wrote: If you want to be anti establishment get to work finding solutions for gerrymandering rather than attacking every minority group you can think of.
My dad has gotten involved in some state politics and often rails against liberal gerrymandering in Maryland. My dad's colleagues and acquaintances, often Democrats, question why they shouldn't do it if red states do. That's part of the inherent problem with gerrymandering. Unless there's an amendment, as you suggested, it won't stop, because it needs to end nationwide.
For all of the criticism establishment candidates get, they're no more "evil" than a non establishment candidate. The only difference is they can get stuff done. They aren't naive to the process. How often have we seen the anti establishment candidate become the thing they hated? It's because you need to make concessions. The culture of politics will always be what it is, but we can work to send less extreme candidates to Washington.
RE: Hillary Must Lose - bfine32 - 10-14-2016
(10-14-2016, 12:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually I see a good discussion of the underlying principles and the problem with the "establishment system".
If this had been a Trump thread all that would have been said was "Hillary is worse!!!!"
Actually if it had been a Trump thread and the talk would have moved to Hills we would have been reminded that there is a seperate Hills thread.
Just pointing out the trend of the discussion. Didn't ask anyone to stop with thier postings; that's not my job.
RE: Hillary Must Lose - Belsnickel - 10-14-2016
(10-14-2016, 12:54 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: My dad has gotten involved in some state politics and often rails against liberal gerrymandering in Maryland. My dad's colleagues and acquaintances, often Democrats, question why they shouldn't do it if red states do. That's part of the inherent problem with gerrymandering. Unless there's an amendment, as you suggested, it won't stop, because it needs to end nationwide.
Yeah, much like the electoral process to make the move away from first past the post, it's either state-by-state or an amendment. The big question is: which is more likely to happen?
(10-14-2016, 12:54 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: For all of the criticism establishment candidates get, they're no more "evil" than a non establishment candidate. The only difference is they can get stuff done. They aren't naive to the process. How often have we seen the anti establishment candidate become the thing they hated? It's because you need to make concessions. The culture of politics will always be what it is, but we can work to send less extreme candidates to Washington.
This is exactly right. People who go into Washington all dead set on being the anti-politician will either go into the fold or be chewed up and spit out. People need to stop kidding ourselves, politicians are necessary. They understand the system, they get things done. The framers of our Constitution weren't a bunch of divinely inspired common folk, they were politicians. It's the way government works, has always worked, and will always work.
RE: Hillary Must Lose - GMDino - 10-16-2016
(10-14-2016, 09:15 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Whoa, an Anti-feminist, Alt right Vlogger thinks Hillary is the worst candidate in history?
Shocking!
I'm not sure how one can argue she's the worst candidate ever for the DNC supporting her over an independent. His criticism is aimed solely at the fact that she represents the establishment, but that isn't inherently bad. If Hillary represents all that is bad with politics, Trump represents all that is bad with humanity. Are we suppose to accept that being in bed with establishment politics is worse than the degradation of women, minorities, non Christians, and the disabled from the least qualified candidate in US history?
I said this morning Saying you "feel" Clinton is the worst ever carries same weight as Trump "feeling" he's worth $10 B. Just a feeling...no facts.
RE: Hillary Must Lose - McC - 11-10-2016
Fortunately, she lost. Now America will be rid of the Clinton Plague, hopefully forever.
RE: Hillary Must Lose - BengalHawk62 - 11-10-2016
(11-10-2016, 08:30 AM)McC Wrote: Fortunately, she lost. Now America will be rid of the Clinton Plague, hopefully forever.
'Murika!'