The debate "Agree if Hillary Rodham Clinton should have been president of the United States" was started by
January 8, 2017, 12:32 pm.
20 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 25 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
historybuff posted 4 arguments, PoliticsAsUsual posted 18 arguments to the agreers part.
neveralone posted 13 arguments, XenoBoy posted 1 argument, MrShine posted 13 arguments, PoliticsAsUsual posted 4 arguments to the disagreers part.
shuhel_2005, PoliticsAsUsual, historybuff, WolfiesMom, emshanley, dapollman, Nemiroff and 13 visitors agree.
neveralone, ProfessorX, redeemed, XenoBoy, KrotoR, MrShine, bigB, thereal, Ziadovic, R3HAB, Your_dad, LeftoverEye70, dj41523, Fallaciae and 11 visitors disagree.
Winner take all against proportionate vote is not a bad idea. It doesn't necessarily go against the electoral college though, since it is not merely the singlet voter for a state, rather the magic 538, which can be divided even in the state based on principles of the state. It still doesn't interfere with the idea of an electoral vote, it simply means winner take all is a bad idea.
I would like to understand why the state representation gets so much flack. The states were given the power to decide what was best for each state, and clearly the president cannot neglect any of them. Voiced concerns on denied votes due to the electoral college should also consider that the issue with state numbers compared to state size. Also, if it truly was a disservice to progress to have states decide issues based on the 10th, then why do most presidents allow this, Obama as well?
they can still vote another way. they will just lose. what is ur solution? let 49? of America decide how everyone lives? that's worse. this election has split America in two. let's hope we can come back together.
so at a state level when the cities vote one way and the rural people vote the other the same thing happens. as long as 51% of the election college goes to one candidate then the other 49% are forced against their will to vote for that candidate too. how is that democracy? winner takes all makes no sense.
There is a difference with the fifty to one, there are multiple pieces that can be rearranged to reach 270, it's not as simple as one big state vs. others
Some states are considered swing states because of their voting history. This past election showed the public that no state is actually locked though, since Trump gained non-swing states.
There is such a thing as winner take all and partial representation, and eventually a majority vote is needed. Nationwides's issues of mob rule are mitigated when brought to a lower level. Eventually a majority represents people, but a value is assigned to the groups.
the system of the electoral college doesn't change that one group can control the fates if others. it is just changing which group has the critical control. I'm not an expert on American politics, but as I understand if there are only ever 10 or so states that actually matter. the rest are pretty much locked to one party.
besides that, many states have a winner take all feature. the person who gets the most just takes all of them. so 49% of a state can mean absolutely no representation in the election.
I don't see it as shifting. I did say I'd be willing to have counties choose if it was properly calculated, and any system will never be fully representative. However, if we move to a popular vote system it guarantees the states won't receive full representation. Electoral votes by states mean a majority of the state votes so, votes throughout the states, while can appear in different economic opportunities, rarely change in climates or social decisions. Saying divided and united, that is some separating words in itself. America is a union of states, people politically involved vote for their states representatives! Majority rule guarantees cities would decide, a small number as well since not even ten would be decisive, and the president would only campaign for a few, only favors for a few. The cities population would not be given an upper cap, and so it would be much more widespread. Saying that neglect is going to happen goes without saying, not every vote is on the winning team, America is diverse. The electoral college makes the politicians running for president work for their win. I also stand by my statement for the 10th in favor. Isn't there an instance in the past where the 10th benefited a state when no other state would allow a rule they did? Representation is very much similar to this decisive right, because it is incremental progress in some places and collaboration in others. The election is collaborative.
There is a distinct difference, I don't know how to put maps here but check out a population density map of the US. Majority vote wouldn't need to many places to agree, and so not representative of values across the entire united States.
and no, having 50 sets of smaller disenfranchised groups is not the same as having 1 larger disenfranchised group. it's a similar amount of people. on the other hand, some states want to do some backward, non American things. like dumbing education, keeping people from voting, and violating the rights of many people.
states are no less massive and monolithic (relative to local individuals) then the federal government, and have far worse track records as far as civil rights then the Fed which has been doing an excellent job of juggling everyone's interests fairly.
your just shifting the problem. instead of bigger states lording over smaller states, in the states first picture, you'll have bigger counties lording over smaller counties. just because a state is primarily coal or manufacturing doesn't mean every corner of that state participates in those industries, and the needs of those regions can be dismissed. just as the states economies are not tied together, neither are the economies of all the regions within a state. the same goes for values. in fact values are more rural/urban divided then by state.
likewise, you said a representative should support interests that keep the state unified, I would like to keep the nation unified as well. the purpose of states rights in the Constitution was to convince the states which were completely separate at the time to join the union. we are now 1 and have been for a long time. it is time to stop thinking that a divided America is a stronger one.
Because if there's one thing Trump has shown it us that he is receptive to constructive criticism and open to different viewpoints.
On another note, his cabinet is full of conflicting ideas. No more yes men I hope.
the economies of certain regions are more specific, and the values are different anywhere. a standardized rule nationwide would eventually favor the smaller cities. Of course that is not to mention the divide between cities and rural areas, or mother and southern. Therefore, the outlined states are a better rule, counties even more so yet the economies of states are not tied together flat. Economic is my biggest and most used example because while not everyone shares certain values money is universal. BUT! Money comes from different regulations, lack of, and so forth. A representative should represent interests that keep the states unified. If we look by county, the US would be fairly satisfied by results, if we look by population density, no wonder California would secede if it were up to them.
I didn't mean the electoral college. I meant the general push for state control of everything. why the state?
If it is county, then we could update to this system. We have the technology our founding fathers didn't, and counties can represent states as a whole. The electoral votes would be much higher and time sacrifices, but not a bad idea. It would also need the high population cities and keep them from deciding the economic and social situations as easily as a simple majority (since the top four populated areas would win by majority alone.)
Not really against voting by county, but if we look at this previous election maps counties...
then why not county?
It is a more specialised movement though
btw, what's the difference between federal majority rule and state majority rule?
it's still mob rule. states are still mobs. I bet you don't know everyone in your regional big city. forget about the whole state! States are the size of most nations. majority still rules, you just have a weird math game at the end which may or may not be more fair/equal/just, but certainly is not more "democratic" by any definition.
no worries, I often like to ramble as well. the concern is that it really isn't productive to the end goal of conveying one's thoughts, and is more a critique than a complaint. forgive the tongue in cheek framing. and of course the counting of every vote is important, however the error was in the tallying of names prior to voting as declared by the reporters at snopes.
as a side note, I voted agreed not because of the popular vote, but because I feel she should have won. it was not voter fraud, it was propaganda. they tarred and feathered her with every false accusations they could come up with. then again, it should have been obvious, they've been doing that for decades. the Democratic leadership really is a bunch of absolute morons. although I don't have nice words for the Republicans either.
the mountain of fake news surrounding her is so massive, distrusting her is in most of our subconscious.
As to go case by case, point by point, I would say is the qualm a moral one, one based on the terms of victory, or terms based on qualification?
I would say right now that the qualification one would turn into how messed up the political system has become, and how it should be much simpler, how experience is a career excuse to keep the system broken and unaccountable.If an average voter cannot be explained it, there's plenty wrong.
My bad, when I start writing I don't like to stop. I do however would like to note that my point, while it could be assumed with ballot stuffing with multiple voters, still stands if the one counting them miscounts. Even if it was a 1/3 double count, you'd think to want the one counting should be careful.
In using the doubts placed on the election, I wanted to establish a worst case. In statements from the CIA on a Russian hacking, not even a piece of information is provided, and it isn't even the higher echelon that stated there was evidence. The FBI also disagrees, and evidence has always been presented before, so why not now? It is my case that if there is a claim of unfairness, it does not lean against Donald Trump.
I would think that this argument should go towards the fairness of the electoral college. By this, I established not only how victory was won, but to which degree dissent would prove distrust, and used the 10th amendment to show mob rule does not represent the nation's, but it would be state by state.
TLDR Snopes has established a difference between hammer and bleachbit, tomato to-ma-to, the original point was on fairness and sway on investigation as fairness can affect representation of the people, and finally the 10th amendment as a support for the electoral college.
btw, do you know why I don't like text walls? look at how much detail and nuance we can go in from a single point of your first post? imagine the cluster f*** that would happen if we tackle all the issues you raised in all your posts at once, bouncing back and forth, never settling a single issue. is that productive?
I agree suspicion is an excellent feature of our democracy and EVERYTHING suspicous, within budgetary reasons and cost benefit analysis, should be investigated. but do you really think jumping to partisan conclusions is beneficial to our nation?
welcome back Mr shine. missed your often great views, not so much your long winded presentation of them :p
I do this for fun, and do have real life to deal with, thus your wall of text is quite intimidating.
I'll try to read it later, but there is a good chance I'll just reply to the point I spotted at the beginning of your soliloquy about the voter numbers mismatch.
that definitely is something suspicious and should be looked into, but why does the right always jump to the conclusion that is most convenient for them prematurely.
some quick research I did showed at least one explanation. according to snopes the error was in the counting of voters when compiling the books, not in the fraud. which makes perfect sense since if it was fraud as you claimed, we would by now have a list of names not on the rolls or doubled up, as well as prosecutions following up on that, but we dont, so snopes claim sounds accurate.
also I remember hearing in NY during the primaries, many voters were illegally removed from the rolls, and were instructed to fill out affidavit ballots, which would also result in more votes than names in the book, and still absolutely no fraud.
as I said, this was quick, surface level research, I'm not saying your absolutely wrong, but I am curious as to why you felt that jumping to a convenient conclusion was satisfactory in your development of your own stance?
oh, to clarify, it didn't change to fully support Donald, but they were more supportive than the previous numbers
I didn't say it was rampant, I'm surprised it was the first topic. I simply said in instances of recounts, the demographic changed in favor of Donald Trump, and that the Detroit recount had more votes than eligible voters. Guess who they voted for? http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/records-many-votes-detroits-precincts/95363314/
Sorry Mr. Shine, it's hard to get through your 4 post wall of text to debate specific points, so I'll start at the beginning.
You claim there was rampant election fraud and ballot box stuffing. I would hope you have some evidence of this since everyone who doesn't already agree with your position is unlikely to simply take your word that it happened.
Also, shout-out to rogue American for being here while I was gone. Really holding it down. And to address the FOIA thing,
The grievance isn't just that the investigation didn't come up as criminal, it's that any other person would have gotten a criminal punishment with the information. provided. It is impossible to say a mistake was unwittingly made, since ignorance of security laws is a breach, as well as no excuse.
If there are concerns of Russian hacking, why make it easier for the Russians to get in by keeping a personal, unsecured server? For all we know, Russia has the rest of the unread emails, and possibly knew the nuclear response time before the careless statement at town hall.
A person who is considered to be president should be responsible. By this logic, some think Hillary wouldn't be held responsible, that there is a standard for regular people and then one for Hillary. Don't just take my word for it, check out her speeches to wall street and she says that herself, as it checks out responsibility is not a standard that is held high to, not the failed crime reforms or trade deals made, not the inconsistencies, and not the public's interests either.
I'm on a freaking roll here, is that 4 different sections of portioned arguments right there? stuff just comes pouring out when I rack my mind for reasons, and it isn't just a conspiracy theory or a general distaste, or a moral panic, it is too easy!
-ions), but if we are talking about Hillary, it can be confirmed that she has done nothing to confirm that she should be the president?. She was not persuasive, and that was with all the outlets available to her. Ignorance of the public, as well as willfully staying out of touch, poor campaigning decisions, not acknowledging her opponent, and result interpretation based on the rules agreed upon beforehand (that is important, you can't complain to losing by rules you agree to) even with the curve her election votes created in a recognized worst case scenario of fraud, best case scenario a fair vote acknowledges her defeat.
It's still funny to hear that people say she was the people's choice. The people's choice doesn't lose so hard that their opponent comfortably slides into swing states and their opponents almost perfectly guaranteed states without saying the right things.
Winning the people by cheating their trust? The DNC did that first, if we talk about emails that goes back and forth but DNC collaboration is undenied. Winning the election by electoral swinging? Trump was first initially, and when more decided they couldn't vote for Hillary that should raise flags on Hillary based by public perception. Winning by showing their own strengths, qualifications, after election Trump had kept good on keeping at least one factory out of Mexico, and he doesn't even have to power yet, just the bargaining knowledge he will be (an official statement from the head of the company confirms this by "putting faith in president elect Donald Trump").
I'd say, what else is there to measure on? Morality? A lesser of two evils just spins on its head, more speculation on trump but more proof of Hillary.
We cannot base our government on altruism, people are selfish. Instead, we must base our ideas and work on people being selfish to block selfish activity from higher up, while protecting collective benefits, while denying individual crusading.
I don't want to turn this into a political attack, and I can say that many of the grievances against trump are media created and perpetuated. "out of his mouth" clips and videos can and have been proven to be edited not simply the words, but context which is then put into bite sized material that does not represent the situation.
people voted for trump because he addressed grievances. Even though the losing side says that he will not follow his promises, or that he is just like the other elites, look at whose predictions on his actions as well as America's has been wrong. Trump won the nomination and election, and it wasn't by the slim margins predicted, the probability was much higher as well as the weight to that victory by electoral votes.
Why is it that his opponent completely ignored those topics, those valid worries? It was ignoring much of the voter population and making assumptions about them. Then, it lumps in with racism, guilt trips, has a pinch of self affirmation. To be a good leader isn't to convince people you are going in the right direction, but to convince them. Trump campaigned to wins and won places that wouldn't have been possible otherwise (Maine was considered a sure loss, but by visiting he received the split vote status, for example). So by this, can't we assume Hillary was incompetent?
But wait, there's more! Hillary's campaign has been expected to be incompetent, no amount of Russian hacking or rigging counters the direction that actual manipulated votes went, it does not explain Hillary's size of faithless electors leaving her, and it surely doesn't matter if even the documents were provided by Russia because the truth is the truth, no matter if it is a spiteful ex and a screenshot that can be brought over to the actual phone for confirmation. Any blame on Russia, has been inconclusive. Any result interpretation of the election results, except for the "mob rule" interpretation, draws a clear line of loss.
So if it is in regards to Hillary should have won due to Donald Trump being an invalid candidate, I think I've covered the concerns raised on his validity and expect they will arise in the same manner as the northern movement did (it is comparable, bunk complaints on bunk assumptio
Hey, I'm back! Remember me? I figured I'd drop in after the election to see what there is to discuss. there are new and old faces, and possibly new faces to old accounts, so I'll be unspecific to responses. But first, my view.
Hillary Clinton lost by a more democratic system than the majority rule, electoral college. If we do not take into consideration state lines or population density, many locations would get shafted by the few spots that people live in, and so not representative of the nation. If we do not accept that to be true, then the rights for states to decide what is not federally decided would be a violation. Since the 10th amendment is an expansion, not a violation, representation of states are just as important.
In every case of deciding if the general was rigged, Trump gains more votes in areas that were confirmed to be rigged, and in places like Detroit where Hillary won voter fraud exceeded the number of voters. It is not merely people repeatedly voting, which is insignificant if we take the values of the handful against thousands, it is counting fraud, where ballots are stuffed in values of twice as many votes. If that isn't decisive, I can't convince anyone that the third party investigations at least do not point in a Russian direction.
If we want to talk about transparency, then why is it that in any WikiLeaks that provides a different process of the DNC, which not only had superdelegates vote against the interests of the state unlike the Electoral College, is less valid than Trump on pettier issues. When people say that Trump is ineligible because his business would profit or because he doesn't pay taxes, it's unsubstantiated, underhanded, and clearly neglects the policies that have been proposed by him to keep the system clean. Notice how Trillions of dollars simply went missing in the government last year, it didn't just go into the debt, it wasn't spent on wasted projects, it went missing. Also bills involving term limits, why are they so vehemently denied if they can keep our politicians working? Many do not spend more than three days working and have gigantic breaks either to campaign or have a month of recesses. If we want to talk about a lack of transparency, transparency is inconsequential if the government is out of touch with the people.Will act regardless of the will, so even if Trump could be confirmed as transparent, which his opponents would request one issue after another, they deny because "there must be something"
I wish you guys would devote a fraction of the time and effort to worry about the overwhelming secrecy of our soon to be commander in chief and leader of the free world (for now)
in an ideal world.
2 scenarios where that may not work in reality.
1. transparency = red tape, which I'm all for, but if the workload is high, it may make getting the actual job in conflict with maintaining optics. my solution would be to higher more staff, but we all know how Republicans like spending money so choices have to be made.
2. in an ideal system all politicians will work together to compromise and promote the needs of their consitutence... without sabotaging each other and playing political games. unfortunately political games appear to be priority #1 in Washington and NOONE has been more of a favored target then hillary.... starting around the time she tried to pass single payer healthcare (such a selfish and corrupt activity -.-)
I would hope the secretary of state would not be a slack off job, and #2 definitely applies to hillary, so likely both are reasons.
nonetheless, it is suspicious, and investigations are in order... investigations that have happened, and found nothing.
Im saying an altruistic government official would guarantee their actions were transparent.
selective enforcement and presumption of guilt is not how our justice system works. especially if you claim to respect our constitution.
but even with those, after numerous investigations turned up nothing, this is no longer an abuse of justice, but a literal modern day witch hunt.
her ability to remain collected through all these attacks is remarkable.
that was something she did before any foia requests were in, not in response to or a threat of a foia. your assuming she was doing it to hide something without evidence because you want to reach a guilty conclusion. her republican predecessor also use a private server, as do numerous other government officials. where's the outcry for an investigation there?
What Im getting at is she was circumventing FOIA by hiding her emails on her own server.
what do you mean her actions in response to a potential request? if it was potential it never happened so how can she respond to it.
Hillary Clinton has been under attack for decades, we'll before the email scandal and in extremely unfair and completely partisan ways. she was careless with the emails, but did nothing wrong in the prior decades except fight for universal health care and protections for women and children. she has been scapegoated and subject to witchhunts since the beginning of her public career. I can understand why she would be scared of a partisan foi request cause the right will use any ammo against her, even if it means fabricating fake news around innocent truth.
yall are scumbags.
To the best of the available information, yes. If you are referring to the deleted emails, you might want to do some research into what investigations found a long time ago. You seem to be missing the fact that she has been the subject of an intense, years long investigation and so far has been largely vindicated. She was somewhat careless, but not criminal. How much tax money do you suppose went into this vendetta?
And were her actions done in respect of potential FOIA requests?
I wasnt talking about her specific situation but the general situation of government employees using separate emails.
it should be banned.
it should be investigated when found.
but reality, people will break this, and I see 3 reasons why they would.
1. steal / sell info.
3. overworked and government protocol is too long.
the first 2 prosecuted, the first one hard.
but in a gov, which is notoriously cash strapped and working under limited capabilities... #3 is too be expected, probably quite common.
I'm not saying Hillary was overworked, but then again I have no idea the work load of any of these offices. and the fbi and numerous investigations rule out #1 in all likelyhood.
is it not judging to call our acts shameful? if they need another server our gov. should provide one. which do u think would be more secure? hers or the gov.? it is just fishy and as long as it gets truly investigated good.
yes, they are careless. on the otherhand, you don't know their workload. they could be swamped and this is a necessity. it could also be mixed. some are lazy, others are swamped. we can only guess or launch investigations. but judging is too easy.
regardless. it's not corruption unless something fishy is in the emails. thus far, Nada. sending confidential emails should be penalized, but yall are treating her like she's selling them to the Russians or something, based completely on assumptions and what ifs. that's unconstitutional and shameful.
none of them should.
many government officials use private servers. it may not be right, and perhaps should be more strictly enforced, but you can't suddenly vilify her for a very common practice cause you don't like her for whatever reason.
and suspicion isn't guilt. she's even been investigated nonstop for years. nothing. this is a witch hunt.
you grill her every step of the way, but shrug off trump not releasing basic expected information of a candidate. the most secretive person ever elected, and already looking like the most corrupt.
this is a witchhunt, there's no other way to put it.
the private server is a good point. if u can't trust the gov. that u work for what can you trust? a private server made things worse. I hope that Trump does what he says and makes America great again. I'm not sure he is the best canidate but he is the one to do it now.
What were her intentions of a private server? Most evil people aren't sociopathic. They believe they are doing the right thing.
you don't agree with trump, but you believe Hillary is downright dangerous. I'm the opposite. I do agree with some of what trump says, I just think he is lying, has our interest in mind as priority last, and is downright dangerous. I think he is the one who is beyond corrupt.
Hillary was a good, but far from ideal entirely due to her carelessness, but nothing having to do with corrupt self interest. she was a true public servant in her intentions, despite the kool-aid you've been fed (to borrow terminology)
ok I can accept that. who would u preferred?
she made mistakes, and I would have preferred a host of other Democrats over hillary, however that is not corruption.
she is careless, not corrupt. she hasn't taken any money for selling out the people as far as we know. she has always acted in accordance to what she preached on the campaign trail and voted accordingly while serving us. she just made some stupid, but in no way corrupt decisions.
I don't agree with Trump either.
And Trump has bribed government officials. That is corruption. How many intentional crimes does someone have to commit before you open your eyes?
mistake. can I ask how many mistakes a person has to make before u open ur eyes? what she did was beyond rational if it was a mistake. and that is only one of many mistakes.
I don't mind that he doesn't share all of my political beliefs since I have never seen a politicians who did. I don't think he should be president because he has shown himself to be a thin skinned childish bully by lashing out at everyone who disagrees with him. He bashes SNL on Twitter because they teased him. They tease all politicians, that's kinda what they do. He also has a tendency to talk without thinking through what he is saying, then rather than backtrack he doubles down. Look through some of the fact checking of his statements (or better, fact check them yourself) and you can see he constantly makes bald faced lies, then refuses to back down. That is a terrifying trait for someone in a position of power to have, let alone one who runs the nation.
lying to cover up a mistake is not corruption. corruption involves personal profit. unless there's something in HOW SHE USED THE EMAILS that showed insider trading or illicit deals for personal gain (that is corruption) then that's not corruption.
no I have heard it all my life. though it does need to be their.
I've never heard Democrats supporting the electoral college before. did you make that up?
it's kind of funny though. since Trump won each party flipped on its belief. the rep. wanted to take away the electoral but now praise it and the dem. wanted to keep the electoral and now they want it down.
Why do you find the popular vote to be relevant historybuff, and do you really hold the belief that just because Trump does not agree with some of your beliefs he should not be president? If so, that is idiocy!
hmm sounds like stuff from Trump websites. well to put one simply would be the email thing. wether she really did or not doesn't matter at this point. people will believe it no matter what. I personally think she did because of all she did at the time are certainly shall we say suspicious.
we've been down that rabbit hole before. they link some rediculous conspiracy website that says Hilary has her enemies assassinated and bathes in the blood of children or some such nonsense.
lol, and what corruption has Hillary done? or are you just quoting propaganda like a sheep?
hey look we got Hilary. what next u going to say his kids are the best thing about him? if u want to look at corruption look at Hilary.
I'm not dictating what he is talking about. I'm debating.
yeah and Trump's experience at bribing elected officials and exploiting the poor is so useful. lol
She was experienced, but I still have little respect for that experience.
unfortunately for you, you don't get to dictate what people talk about.
she was by far the better, more qualified candidate. she received millions more votes. it's pretty obvious she should have been president. instead the world gets a man who thinks global warming is a Chinese plot and who picks fights with people on Twitter.
doesn't matter. Trump is president now. instead let's hope he does a great job