• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"48% of White Evangelicals Would Support Kavanaugh Even If He Assaulted Dr. Ford"

Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
The point is that complaining about Nader costing Gore the election is rather hypocritical since he never would have been Vice President and therefore would never have been in the running for President if not for a third party candidate.
Click to expand...

Then dont say things you dont mean.
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
whirlingmerc said:
While serious... and it's her word against his... you are talking about behavior as a minor. If he had a pattern that continued as ab adult I think I would agree but allegations from when he was a minor? Certainly Bill Clinton and some of the Chapaquidick Kennedy behavior was far worse into the adult years
Click to expand...

But the abuse wasn't with an adult, but a minor. And the issue has now also come to include his veracity. If it can be shown that he lied in any of his testimony then he is obviously unfit for judgeship. Any judgeship.

.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Audie said:
Then dont say things you dont mean.
Click to expand...
Now what did you mean by that? I thought that it was well known how Bill Clinton won. Without Perot it would not even have been close. Perot got an amazing 18.9%, Nader got only 2.7% of the vote. One thing people do not see are Republicans whining about losing that election because of Perot. Yet Perot, a moderately conservative independent, entered arguably because he did not like Bush. He had not chance of winning, but he clearly turned the election.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Skwim said:
But the abuse wasn't with an adult, but a minor. And the issue has now also come to include his veracity. If it can be shown that he lied in any of his testimony then he is obviously unfit for judgeship. Any judgeship.

.
Click to expand...
Yep, a judge that lies under oath clearly can not be a proper judge. Would he assume that witnesses lied just because he did? Projection is often a flaw of the guilty.
 
Sunstone

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Subduction Zone said:
The point is that complaining about Nader costing Gore the election is rather hypocritical since he never would have been Vice President and therefore would never have been in the running for President if not for a third party candidate.
Click to expand...
[emphasis added]

There is a distinction between "complaining" and "observing". Furthermore, even complaining about Nader costing Gore the election would not be hypocritical unless someone was arguing that Nader should not have cost Gore the election on the basis of some principle which applied equally to Gore and Nader and Clinton and Perot.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Sunstone said:
[emphasis added]

There is a distinction between "complaining" and "observing". Furthermore, even complaining about Nader costing Gore the election would not be hypocritical unless someone was arguing that Nader should not have cost Gore the election on the basis of some principle which applied equally to Gore and Nader and Clinton and Perot.
Click to expand...
To me it sounds like complaining. Dealing with fringe candidates is part of running for office.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Skwim said:
But the abuse wasn't with an adult, but a minor. And the issue has now also come to include his veracity. If it can be shown that he lied in any of his testimony then he is obviously unfit for judgeship. Any judgeship.
.
Click to expand...
Do you think her being a minor is significant, ie, makes
the assault worse, given that he was also one?
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Sunstone said:
Suit yourself.
Click to expand...
I would not be against the sort of election that other countries have. Not only is it time to get rid of the electoral college, if there was no clear majority in the election a "top two" runoff election could be held so we would not have complaints about spoiler candidates. But of course without the electoral college both Gore and especially Clinton would have won. Perhaps the second is not necessary.
 
Sunstone

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Subduction Zone said:
I would not be against the sort of election that other countries have. Not only is it time to get rid of the electoral college, if there was no clear majority in the election a "top two" runoff election could be held so we would not have complaints about spoiler candidates. But of course without the electoral college both Gore and especially Clinton would have won. Perhaps the second is not necessary.
Click to expand...

I'm also for changing the election system along the lines of proportional representation.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Subduction Zone said:
I would not be against the sort of election that other countries have. Not only is it time to get rid of the electoral college, if there was no clear majority in the election a "top two" runoff election could be held so we would not have complaints about spoiler candidates. But of course without the electoral college both Gore and especially Clinton would have won. Perhaps the second is not necessary.
Click to expand...
Maybe....without Perot, we might've had another Bush term,
thereby providing a possibly very different alternative future.

I agree with you about changing the system, but I don't expect
that this or that party will benefit, nor do I think we'd have any
better results. The primary process looks to be a far more
troubling part of the system.
I also favor at large voting for representatives. But I know the
risk that not only will Libertarians win a seat or two, but so will
commies. It would be interesting.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Sunstone said:
I'm also for changing the election system along the lines of proportional representation.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by this? Are you talking about the Senate? Are you trying to claim that Alaska does not deserve equal power in the Senate to California? Now how would that be fair?:rolleyes:
 
Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
Now what did you mean by that? I thought that it was well known how Bill Clinton won. Without Perot it would not even have been close. Perot got an amazing 18.9%, Nader got only 2.7% of the vote. One thing people do not see are Republicans whining about losing that election because of Perot. Yet Perot, a moderately conservative independent, entered arguably because he did not like Bush. He had not chance of winning, but he clearly turned the election.
Click to expand...
Tralala.

"Turnabout is fair play:?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top