• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Democrats more corrupt than Republicans?

Are Democrats more corrupt than Republicans?

  • Im a right leaning American, yes.

    Votes: 8 20.5%

  • Im a left leaning American, yes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Im not American, yes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Im a right leaning American, no.

    Votes: 1 2.6%

  • Im a left leaning American, no.

    Votes: 8 20.5%

  • Im not American, no.

    Votes: 2 5.1%

  • Im a right leaning American, they are exactly the same as Republicans.

    Votes: 8 20.5%

  • Im a left leaning American, they are exactly the same as Republicans.

    Votes: 9 23.1%

  • Im not American, they are exactly the same as Republicans.

    Votes: 3 7.7%
  • Total voters
    39
clownboy said:
So what? You're just throwing flak now. You made an assertion, I showed it to be false. Now you're pulling out the kitchen sink. None of that had to do with Clinton's choice to lie under oath. And btw, not my state, I don't get to vote on Vitter.

I didn't vote for Clinton either. You seem to agree with me that his commitment to Hillary, his wife, is the most important commitment, and if he can betray that, he could easily betray his lesser commitments, like to the office and the country.

That's why I don't vote for adulterers.
Click to expand...

So...you wouldn't have voted for Eisenhower, Reagan...or George Washington, for that matter. How about edjimicating yourself on adultery in the presidency - it's not for nothing that it is said that power is the best aphrodisiac.

What you - and Blaylock, apparently - are not getting is that we all have feet of clay.
 
clownboy said:
No, that so. The President does not declare war, not in the powers of office. Congress declares war.
Click to expand...

Mm-hmm...and I suppose you haven't heard of the War Powers Act wherein the president can initiate combat and then Congress would be presented with a fait accompli, a choice of whether to pull our troops out of the combat they're already engaged in, or to go full tilt for the war (which is precisely what has happened several times since the Act was passed).

BTW - I did not say that the president DECLARED war, did I? I said that they have TAKEN us to war...and that is a very, very accurate statement. All it takes is skillful use of the bully pulpit.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I don't know what I'd do in that situation. I've never been in it, and I can see no realistic possibility that I ever will. In order to get into that situation, I would have to have acted in a manner that is so far outside of what is normal for me, that I do not see any valid basis on which to speculate about how I would act in that situation, based on the personality of myself who would never get in that situation in the first place.

I do think that most men are more honest than you assume. Perhaps you use yourself as the standard of honesty which you think applies to most men,and as a consequence, are greatly underestimating most others.

But really, the whole point of my jumping into this discussion was to respond to this:

​

I have to say that I just don't get it. Either I completely disagree with what you were trying to say here, or else I have no idea what you are trying to say. If it makes any sense at all, then it surely must make sense only to someone who values honesty far less than I do.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, Bob, but you're being more naive than you think.

Most men ARE generally honest. Most men ARE good men - absolutely! I've never said otherwise! But all too often men start thinking with the wrong head and forget the warning in Randy Travis' song, "On the other hand".

From Forbes':

It’s difficult to ask people about their own sexual behavior because they are understandably reluctant to admit to personal transgressions. So pollsters often ask about people they know. In 1964, just 24% of people surveyed told Harris interviewers that they knew someone who had an unfaithful wife or husband. That number rose to 30% in 1971.

But in polls conducted by CBS News in 1995 and by Gallup in 2008, a much higher figure (around 55%) gave that response. It’s unlikely that behavior has changed that dramatically. But the Harris polls were conducted in person, and people may have been reluctant to discuss infidelity (either in general or their own knowledge of it) with a stranger in their living rooms.

I would recommend that you remember that we all have feet of clay. This is not to say that extramarital affairs are good or right - certainly not! BUT you do not know what goes on behind closed doors. Judge not, y'know?

And besides, if extramarital affairs were really a disqualifying factor for the presidency, well, there's George Washington, the father of our country, and Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence....
 
Glen Contrarian said:
So...you wouldn't have voted for Eisenhower, Reagan...or George Washington, for that matter. How about edjimicating yourself on adultery in the presidency - it's not for nothing that it is said that power is the best aphrodisiac.

What you - and Blaylock, apparently - are not getting is that we all have feet of clay.
Click to expand...

Had I known about their affairs, no I wouldn't have. There's an old historian's joke about George. He didn't earn the title Father of our Country by serving as general or becoming the first president, but because he probably was father to the majority of the new country's children.

Btw, I didn't vote for Reagan, either time. I was unaware of his infidelities, but I knew him from his time as California's governor. We called him Clayfoot Reagan. And Eisenhower, no one knew that until years after he was dead.

Now, JFK, total douche. Had the press in his pocket. Not sure who were the bigger racketeers, he and his brothers or the Mafia.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Mm-hmm...and I suppose you haven't heard of the War Powers Act wherein the president can initiate combat and then Congress would be presented with a fait accompli, a choice of whether to pull our troops out of the combat they're already engaged in, or to go full tilt for the war (which is precisely what has happened several times since the Act was passed).

BTW - I did not say that the president DECLARED war, did I? I said that they have TAKEN us to war...and that is a very, very accurate statement. All it takes is skillful use of the bully pulpit.
Click to expand...



I think you're probably talking about the War Powers Resolution. The War Powers Resolution is the most unconstitutional piece of drak, and proof positive the SCOTUS is worthless.

War Powers Act of 1941 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
War Powers Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Both parties probably are about even. They both have their share of people who simply want to gain power, either because they sincerely believe that they have the best answers or they want the power and political contributions that come from using power for some special interest.
The Constitution is an amazing document that, when followed, can keep corruption down. Unfortunately those very 2 parties probably do more than anything or any one individual to cause corruption. If there was a way to ban political parties.....
 
Depends on what?

On military matters...no.

On social programs (like Obamacare)...yes.
 
Fenton said:
LOL !

It's NOT ABOUT STATISTICS and there would be no need for " revisions " if the NOAA had used measurements based on empirical research and not manipulated data for the sole purpose of producing the desired results.

Before the manufactured false narrative of AGW there existed a universally agreed upon set of Scientific standards. A list of specific techniques agreed upon by the International Scientific community used for investigating either old or new phenomena.

In order for that method to be considered " Scientific ", any and all methods of inquiry HAD TO BASED ON EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. That's observations based on ACCURATE measurements.

It's how they achieved the temperature data from the 30's.

The reason why it's SO IMPORTANT to adhere to these LONG HELD standards and to use ACCURATE measurements based on THE EMPIRICAL PROCESS is to REMOVE BIAS.

It doesn't matter how many times you people embarrass yourselves with your claims of exclusivity as you butcher age old and widely accepted Scientific principles, the definition of what's Scientific and what's NOT Scientific has never changed.

The NOAA didn't make any temperature offsets to the original data from the 30's, THEY MANIPULATED THEIR MEASUREMENTS to reflect a desired outcome.

What the NOAA did what to invite bias into the Scientific debate on Global warming as they used a corrupted process meant to achieve a predetermined outcome and you people have the nerve to call it " Science "

Unreal.
Click to expand...

This is a topic for a different thread. However, what you don't seem to understand is that you have two different datasets, one from the 30s, one from today. With different stations in different places and different levels of coverage over the same area. For example, today we have weather stations on Mt Evans, in desert areas that we have no data from the 1930s on, in various areas of the north woods that we didn't have then, and so on. So what you have to do when comparing them is to normalize the data between them, anytime you do so there is bound to some revisions later on. This is why you when you actually look at underlining findings you will find that a percentage confidence level behind it. For example, based on the data one my say we have a 91% level of confidence that X year was warmer than Y year. The same is true when you compare employment figures between different decades, economic growth and so on. You will rarely ever find anyone in science to state something is 100% when comparing 2 different datasets.
 
Last edited:
clownboy said:
Had I known about their affairs, no I wouldn't have. There's an old historian's joke about George. He didn't earn the title Father of our Country by serving as general or becoming the first president, but because he probably was father to the majority of the new country's children.

Btw, I didn't vote for Reagan, either time. I was unaware of his infidelities, but I knew him from his time as California's governor. We called him Clayfoot Reagan. And Eisenhower, no one knew that until years after he was dead.

Now, JFK, total douche. Had the press in his pocket. Not sure who were the bigger racketeers, he and his brothers or the Mafia.
Click to expand...

Really?

Then you'd also fire many CEO's. You'd fire many department heads. You'd fire some of your best and brightest. You'd fire Einstein - and yes, he also had an extramarital affair.

You really need to get off your moral high horse, and remember that what goes on behind closed doors - as long as it is not abusive - does not determine whether or not the person is the best man - or woman - for the job.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Really?

Then you'd also fire many CEO's. You'd fire many department heads. You'd fire some of your best and brightest. You'd fire Einstein - and yes, he also had an extramarital affair.

You really need to get off your moral high horse, and remember that what goes on behind closed doors - as long as it is not abusive - does not determine whether or not the person is the best man - or woman - for the job.
Click to expand...

Rubbish and rank hyperbole. I don't vote to elect CEOs or mathematicians to represent me, to be the leader of my nation. And one of the qualities I value for the job of POTUS is faithfulness to commitments. I want to know they will FAITHFULLY execute their office. I don't really care if CEOs or mathematicians are faithful to their duties.

Btw, just so you know, it wasn't just an extramarital affair in Einstein's case, it was also incest.
 
clownboy said:
Rubbish and rank hyperbole. I don't vote to elect CEOs or mathematicians to represent me, to be the leader of my nation. And one of the qualities I value for the job of POTUS is faithfulness to commitments. I want to know they will FAITHFULLY execute their office. I don't really care if CEOs or mathematicians are faithful to their duties.

Btw, just so you know, it wasn't just an extramarital affair in Einstein's case, it was also incest.
Click to expand...

I used the CEO's as an example because they are also in positions of leadership and trust. I used Einstein as an example because he was very, very intelligent and was also considered by many as a wise man.

Tell you what - how about you make a list of all the great leaders that you really, really look up to, and then see how many of them were completely faithful. Better yet, how about looking at the ones who WERE completely faithful...like Hitler. As far as I can tell, Stalin also never had any extramarital affairs and certainly was harsh towards those who did.

In other words, really, guy, what goes on behind closed doors - as long as it is not abusive - has NO bearing on a man's trustworthiness on the job.
 
No, they aren't more corrupt. But they are corrupt. So are the Republicans. Pretty much all politicians are corrupt. And they're power-mad.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
In other words, really, guy, what goes on behind closed doors - as long as it is not abusive - has NO bearing on a man's trustworthiness on the job.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go that far - that it has NO bearing - but certainly agree that it's only one factor to consider, and can be overwhelmed by many other aspects of a person's character and how that's revealed in his or her daily lives. I've known plenty of otherwise good men and women who cheated on their spouses at some point. Lots of reasons that can occur, and in several cases, the couples reconciled and are happily married years later. Other times the affairs were reflections of marriages that were completely broken in all but name. Fact is we're complicated animals and attempts to use simple rules to classify us based on single factors are almost guaranteed to fail in real life. For example, which is worse - a person having an affair, or two affairs, or a person who makes his life's purpose the pursuit of power or money or success or fame, and therefore inevitably puts his or her family behind those pursuits? It would depend...
 
JasperL said:
I wouldn't go that far - that it has NO bearing - but certainly agree that it's only one factor to consider, and can be overwhelmed by many other aspects of a person's character and how that's revealed in his or her daily lives. I've known plenty of otherwise good men and women who cheated on their spouses at some point. Lots of reasons that can occur, and in several cases, the couples reconciled and are happily married years later. Other times the affairs were reflections of marriages that were completely broken in all but name. Fact is we're complicated animals and attempts to use simple rules to classify us based on single factors are almost guaranteed to fail in real life. For example, which is worse - a person having an affair, or two affairs, or a person who makes his life's purpose the pursuit of power or money or success or fame, and therefore inevitably puts his or her family behind those pursuits? It would depend...
Click to expand...

You're right - I should have said "little bearing" instead of "no bearing".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom