Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

Bobithan · 2016-11-07 22:18:13

Still, I'd much rather drink a shot of sewer water than a shot of hydrofluoric acid, ya know? My vote is definitely going to the sewer water.

Different55 · 2016-11-07 22:21:24

T H I R D P A R T Y

hummerz5

Bobithan · 2016-11-07 22:23:47

Sure, the shot of tequila is also running, but it's virtually impossible it'll win. Not voting for the sewer water is just giving better chances to you having to down the acid.

Norwee · 2016-11-07 22:36:40

Having only two choices is pretty bad. In my country we get to vote for like 8 major parties as well as many minor ones. When they form coalitions there's a good chance the government will actually care about the people.

RavaTroll

mrjawapa · 2016-11-07 22:37:50

@bob the problem is everyone thinks they're reaching for the glass of sewer water.

Bobithan · 2016-11-07 22:40:02

Tell me: how does Trump's mountain of scandals and idiocy compare to Clinton's? If Trump looks like an idiot, sounds like an idiot, and acts like an idiot, I'm pretty sure he's an idiot.

Pingohits · 2016-11-07 22:48:04

Bobithan wrote:

Sure, the shot of tequila is also running, but it's virtually impossible it'll win. Not voting for the sewer water is just giving better chances to you having to down the acid.

This is what I call "Voter's Paradox".

As a forewarning, I do understand that it is highly, highly unlikely to have millions cooperate over a single thing, but bear with me.

You speak of this:

Bobithan wrote:

Sure, the shot of tequila is also running, but it's virtually impossible it'll win

You're right in certain cases.

However, here's the problem.

Third party candidates have no chance because you're not giving them a chance.

They won't win because you believe they won't. There are hundreds and thousands of other people thinking the exact same thing, "Third party candidates have no chance, so I'm not voting for them."

If they keep on thinking and persuading themselves that this in fact is true, that argument would never be possible. And thus becomes of the "Voter's Paradox".

For example:
Your teacher is going over multiple choice questions. She tells you to raise your hand if you believe this letter answer is correct. You pick C, and you believe it is C.

Letter A comes around. No answers. Letter B comes around. A select few raise their hand. The clueless students in the back who smoke weed in the bathroom raise their hand as well, following suit. Others join in, believing their own answers were wrong, since more people chose B.

You question yourself. Would B in fact be the correct answer, as more people chose it? I'm not choosing C, because I'll become the minority. It'll have no chance. I guess I'll pick B then, because it's what the majority believes in.

This may not be the most solid analogy, but I hope you understood what I was going for.

There are many other reasons why third party candidates will never win, but keep in mind that this is simply something to think about.

Bobithan · 2016-11-07 22:55:34

Pingohits wrote:

Third party candidates have no chance because you're not giving them a chance

This line of reasoning is true, yes, but the chance that half the country is going to decide "hrm, maybe I should vote third party instead" is next to none. It's just the reality we have to deal with when under a system using first-past-the-post. Third party votes are wasted votes; deal with it.

Different55 · 2016-11-07 22:56:57

Bobithan wrote:

Sure, the shot of tequila is also running, but it's virtually impossible it'll win. Not voting for the sewer water is just giving better chances to you having to down the acid.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Pingohits · 2016-11-07 23:01:25

Bobithan wrote:

Pingohits wrote:
Third party candidates have no chance because you're not giving them a chance
This line of reasoning is true, yes, but the chance that half the country is going to decide "hrm, maybe I should vote third party instead" is next to none. It's just the reality we have to deal with when under a system using first-past-the-post. Third party votes are wasted votes; deal with it.

Exactly, which is why I said

As a forewarning, I do understand that it is highly, highly unlikely to have millions cooperate over a single thing

I understand why third party candidates are a no-no
I understand why it would be, not necessarily BAD, but a not very kinda not so much very good choice to go third

It's all just something to think about

Bobithan · 2016-11-07 23:03:22

Different55 wrote:

This is why we can't have nice things.

Yeah :/ -- There is progress being made to end this though so that's cool.

Pingohits wrote:

It's all just something to think about

My argument is that it's so irrelevant it's not worth thinking about

Pingohits · 2016-11-07 23:06:47

Bobithan wrote:

My argument is that it's so irrelevant it's not worth thinking about

but, but, my fedora it was merely an act to portray myself as an arrogant pre-teen philosopher who knows more than the brain dead mannequins with their "snappychat" and "tweettweet"

Ratburntro44 · 2016-11-08 00:58:14

Glenn21 wrote:

@Bobithan
Hillary did do something illegal because "110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received". The only reason she won't get prosecuted is because the FBI "did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information" and because people that did get prosecuted for similair cases in the past "involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice." (Source: FBI)
Any person that did something illegal would try to remove the evidence, so you can't deny it's really suspicious that Hillary deleted about 33,000 emails "because they were personal". It's not like the FBI would just publish her personal emails for no reason.

if the law requires intent for something to be illegal then it's not illegal to do it unintentionally
the quotes you singled out aren't saying that she did something illegal but they're choosing not to prosecute because it was unintentional (as you seem to be framing them to be), but that the legality depends on whether there was intention and, because there was no clear intention in this case, it would not be reasonable to prosecute. in particular, note that the report is referring to

a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way

so, perhaps she did something illegal, but that would be tied to the intentionality, not separate, and you don't present any actual basis saying "Hillary did do something illegal", and I doubt that you are able to present a basis for it considering the fbi evidently wasn't able to

Kessiope · 2016-11-08 01:04:38

I hope Trump win, and make America (north and south apparently) great again. (great again cause that mean Mexicans take place in America..)

But i prefer him to ISI... Clinton..

Pingohits · 2016-11-08 01:45:04

Kessiope wrote:

I hope Trump win, and make America (north and south apparently) great again. (great again cause that mean Mexicans take place in America..)
But i prefer him to ISI... Clinton..

did you just mash words together and hope for the best?

modedit: got u fam

Glenn21 · 2016-11-08 03:08:00

Ratburntro44 wrote:

Glenn21 wrote:
@Bobithan
Hillary did do something illegal because "110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received". The only reason she won't get prosecuted is because the FBI "did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information" and because people that did get prosecuted for similair cases in the past "involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice." (Source: FBI)
Any person that did something illegal would try to remove the evidence, so you can't deny it's really suspicious that Hillary deleted about 33,000 emails "because they were personal". It's not like the FBI would just publish her personal emails for no reason.
if the law requires intent for something to be illegal then it's not illegal to do it unintentionally
the quotes you singled out aren't saying that she did something illegal but they're choosing not to prosecute because it was unintentional (as you seem to be framing them to be), but that the legality depends on whether there was intention and, because there was no clear intention in this case, it would not be reasonable to prosecute. in particular, note that the report is referring to
a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way
so, perhaps she did something illegal, but that would be tied to the intentionality, not separate, and you don't present any actual basis saying "Hillary did do something illegal", and I doubt that you are able to present a basis for it considering the fbi evidently wasn't able to

I guess I should have used the full quote: "Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.".
There are several other statements in the report that make it clear they mishandled classified information "in a grossly negligent way", therefore it's a felony.

Pyromaniac · 2016-11-08 03:40:30

Different55 wrote:

T H I R D P A R T Y

I have a question for you.

What is a leppo???

Evilbunny

Ratburntro44 · 2016-11-08 03:46:25

Glenn21 wrote:

I guess I should have used the full quote: "Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.".
There are several other statements in the report that make it clear they mishandled classified information "in a grossly negligent way", therefore it's a felony.

gross negligence ≠ extremely careless, gross negligence is a specific legal term meaning

A lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, and can affect the amount of damages.

this is quite different and not at all apparent, hence, again, the decision that was made

Different55 · 2016-11-08 03:56:01

Pyromaniac wrote:

Different55 wrote:
T H I R D P A R T Y
I have a question for you.

What is a leppo???

Not a psychopath or a loudmouth racist, that's what. And Johnson's not the only third party running. There's also Jill Stein who I know literally nothing about.

Ratburntro44 · 2016-11-08 04:06:39

ah yes, Jill "A number of scientific studies have raised red flags about possible health effects of WiFi radiation on young children" "Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous, expensive and obsolete" "We should have a moratorium until [GMOs] are proven safe, and they have not been proven safe in the way that they are used" Stein

32OrtonEdge32dh, Different55, Onjit, Dencc, Pingohits

Different55 · 2016-11-08 04:09:12

Ratburntro44 wrote:

ah yes, Jill "A number of scientific studies have raised red flags about possible health effects of WiFi radiation on young children" "Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous, expensive and obsolete" "We should have a moratorium until [GMOs] are proven safe, and they have not been proven safe in the way that they are used" Stein

Yeah see she sounds great, let's vote for her.

Bobithan · 2016-11-08 05:29:13

Why talk about Stein and Johnson when Joe Exotic is an option?

mrjawapa · 2016-11-08 12:41:32

this topic is a perfect example as to why our country is falling apart, and we can get nothing done as a nation.

EDIT:
This was shown to my Journalism class yesterday: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes- … p-clinton/
A gathered 20-some people, all with a different story, and asked them questions about Trump/Hillary/Election in general.

Onjit · 2016-11-08 12:53:35

im gonna vote for bernie sanders

feel the bern

mrjawapa · 2016-11-08 13:00:05

no you're not, you dirty aussie

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#426 2016-11-07 22:18:13

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#427 2016-11-07 22:21:24

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#428 2016-11-07 22:23:47

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#429 2016-11-07 22:36:40

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#430 2016-11-07 22:37:50

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#431 2016-11-07 22:40:02

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#432 2016-11-07 22:48:04

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#433 2016-11-07 22:55:34

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#434 2016-11-07 22:56:57, last edited by Different55 (2016-11-07 22:57:31)

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#435 2016-11-07 23:01:25

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#436 2016-11-07 23:03:22

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#437 2016-11-07 23:06:47

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#438 2016-11-08 00:58:14

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#439 2016-11-08 01:04:38

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#440 2016-11-08 01:45:04, last edited by Bobithan (2016-11-08 02:18:26)

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#441 2016-11-08 03:08:00

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#442 2016-11-08 03:40:30

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#443 2016-11-08 03:46:25

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#444 2016-11-08 03:56:01

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#445 2016-11-08 04:06:39

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#446 2016-11-08 04:09:12

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#447 2016-11-08 05:29:13

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#448 2016-11-08 12:41:32, last edited by mrjawapa (2016-11-08 12:48:09)

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#449 2016-11-08 12:53:35

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#450 2016-11-08 13:00:05

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

Board footer