• 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!

The Dangers of Hillary Clinton

HenryChinaski said:
yeah I don't get the whole "turning Texas blue" nonsense, That'll never happen, there's just way too many rednecks.
Click to expand...

Which definition are you using?

1. The term redneck is a derogatory term chiefly used for a rural poor white person of the Southern United States.[1][2] Its usage is similar in meaning to cracker (especially regarding Georgia and Florida), hillbilly (especially regarding Appalachia and the Ozarks),[3] and white trash (but without the last term's suggestions of immorality).

2. Political term for poor farmers
The term characterized farmers having a red neck caused by sunburn from hours working in the fields. A citation from 1893 provides a definition as "poorer inhabitants of the rural districts...men who work in the field, as a matter of course, generally have their skin stained red and burnt by the sun, and especially is this true of the back of their necks".
 
HenryChinaski said:
"Proud Texas Conservative" People who wear their political affiliations on their sleeve are like people who wear religion on their sleeves. Both are sucking air through bent straws
Click to expand...

Says the angry anti-conservative democrat that uses racist terms to denigrate working white people as a class.
Here is a present for you.

Unethical-calling-themselves-victims-to-get-out-of-responsibility.jpg
 
Last edited:
Fenton said:
:lamo


Is that what happened in the last Midterms ?? When your party got routed by the GOP ??

Republican Party wins the midterms: Democrats couldn’t escape President Obama’s poor approval ratings.

Gerrymandering, huh ??
Click to expand...

Everyone knows what happened in the midterms, record low Democratic turnout combined with the gerrymandering gave predictable results and record low approval ratings for the Congress that was elected. The will of the people was obviously not transmitted.
 
iguanaman said:
Everyone knows what happened in the midterms, record low Democratic turnout combined with the gerrymandering gave predictable results and record low approval ratings for the Congress that was elected. The will of the people was obviously not transmitted.
Click to expand...



the will of the people being more mediocrity, more failed government, more crony capitalism and more class envy?
 
Fenton said:
:lamo

Here's what California has.....

The Highest Poverty rate in the Nation...
California once again has nation’s highest rate of real poverty | The Sacramento Bee

The Highest Child Poverty Rate in the Nation....
California Has Highest Child Poverty Rate In Nation | KPBS

The Largest Chronic Homeless Population in the Nation...
L.A. tops nation in chronic homeless population - LA Times

San Francisco Homeless Crisis..
San Francisco Homeless

The Largest Unfunded Pension Liabilities in the nation...
California's Pension Funding Crisis Just Got Worse

The most Cities in Financial Default, Michigan and Illinois are a close second
http://californiapolicycenter.org/californias-most-financially-stressed-cities-and-counties/

Lost 9000 Businesses since 2008....
http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/blog/morning_call/2015/11/california-lost-9-000-business-hqs-and-expansions.html


Should I continue ???? California's a beautiful state populated with very nice easy going people. It's too bad your ilk and your destructive, divisive and twisted ideology turned it into a economic and fiscal basket case.
Click to expand...

It's too bad that you and YOUR ilk cherry-pick your information and use it to compare apples to oranges, instead of apples to apples. For instance, the article you referenced apparently used a particular study that came up with a higher poverty rate...and then used THAT higher poverty rate to compare to the "normal" (i.e. from the Census Bureau) rates of all the other states. In other words, apples to oranges. You can't compare the results of one state in one study and compare it to all the other states in a completely different study using different metrics! That, sir, is statistical malpractice!

HOWEVER, if you actually compare apples to apples using the latest available information from the Census Bureau (compiled on this page), California is NOT the worst - it's in 35th place out of 50-states-plus-D.C. And you know what? Except for D.C., EVERY SINGLE STATE THAT HAD A WORSE POVERTY RATE WAS A FREAKING RED STATE!!!!

Next time, check the veracity of your sources, willya?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
It's too bad that you and YOUR ilk cherry-pick your information and use it to compare apples to oranges, instead of apples to apples. For instance, the article you referenced apparently used a particular study that came up with a higher poverty rate...and then used THAT higher poverty rate to compare to the "normal" (i.e. from the Census Bureau) rates of all the other states. In other words, apples to oranges. You can't compare the results of one state in one study and compare it to all the other states in a completely different study using different metrics! That, sir, is statistical malpractice!

HOWEVER, if you actually compare apples to apples using the latest available information from the Census Bureau (compiled on this page), California is NOT the worst - it's in 35th place out of 50-states-plus-D.C. And you know what? Except for D.C., EVERY SINGLE STATE THAT HAD A WORSE POVERTY RATE WAS A FREAKING RED STATE!!!!

Next time, check the veracity of your sources, willya?
Click to expand...

Cherry picking ?? Lol ! Having the highest child poverty rate in the Nation isn't cherry picking.

For a State like California its just reprehensible. And California has a higher poverty rate than Alabama when cost of living is taken into consideration.

You Libs need to focus on fixing your own substantial messes and stop worrying about States like Texas.

We're doing great here in the Lone Star State, we even have a multi billion dollar budget surplus
 
Fenton said:
Cherry picking ?? Lol ! Having the highest child poverty rate in the Nation isn't cherry picking.

For a State like California its just reprehensible. And California has a higher poverty rate than Alabama when cost of living is taken into consideration.

You Libs need to focus on fixing your own substantial messes and stop worrying about States like Texas.

We're doing great here in the Lone Star State, we even have a multi billion dollar budget surplus
Click to expand...

You didn't even check what your reference did, did you? You didn't even look to see if there was statistical malpractice as I pointed out. You saw what you wanted to see...but you haven't the intestinal fortitude to check to see if what you read was actually accurate.

I even provided you solid proof that the worst 15 states (not counting D.C.) are ALL RED. You couldn't bring yourself to investigate why your article made the claim that it did when it provided ZERO actual data of other states. The study your reference was based on was CA and ONLY CA...and so your article could not make the claim that CA was the highest in the nation.

The difference 'tween you and me, sir, is that I'm not afraid to see if what I think is wrong. If someone shows me an article that seems to prove me wrong, I dig into the data to see if I'm wrong...or if the article's wrong. YOU, on the other hand, didn't do that. YOU did not DIG into the data to see why there was such a discrepancy between the article and the findings of the Census Bureau. But then, I forget - "fact-checking" is just a liberal thing that conservatives think is somehow subversive to these United States of 'Murica...so no real conservative should ever "fact-check" a damn thing.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
You didn't even check what your reference did, did you? You didn't even look to see if there was statistical malpractice as I pointed out. You saw what you wanted to see...but you haven't the intestinal fortitude to check to see if what you read was actually accurate.

I even provided you solid proof that the worst 15 states (not counting D.C.) are ALL RED. You couldn't bring yourself to investigate why your article made the claim that it did when it provided ZERO actual data of other states. The study your reference was based on was CA and ONLY CA...and so your article could not make the claim that CA was the highest in the nation.

The difference 'tween you and me, sir, is that I'm not afraid to see if what I think is wrong. If someone shows me an article that seems to prove me wrong, I dig into the data to see if I'm wrong...or if the article's wrong. YOU, on the other hand, didn't do that. YOU did not DIG into the data to see why there was such a discrepancy between the article and the findings of the Census Bureau. But then, I forget - "fact-checking" is just a liberal thing that conservatives think is somehow subversive to these United States of 'Murica...so no real conservative should ever "fact-check" a damn thing.
Click to expand...



I posted numerous links that you apparently ignored and no you " dig into the data " to re-affirm your partisan bias.

California IS the worst , has the highest poverty rate when cost of living is taken into consideration.

Thats from the BLS and thats just the begining of California's issues.

California Has Highest Rate Of Poverty In The Nation, According To U.S. Census Bureau | Huffington Post
 
Fenton said:
I posted numerous links that you apparently ignored and no you " dig into the data " to re-affirm your partisan bias.

California IS the worst , has the highest poverty rate when cost of living is taken into consideration.

Thats from the BLS and thats just the begining of California's issues.

California Has Highest Rate Of Poverty In The Nation, According To U.S. Census Bureau | Huffington Post
Click to expand...

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Look at the first sentence of the Huffpost article:

An alternative method of looking at poverty has found that California has the highest rate of impoverished people in the nation, according to figures released Wednesday by the U.S. government.

Why do you suppose that this brand-spanking new ALTERNATIVE statistical model hasn't supplanted the traditional way of measuring poverty? Because then you start really going off into the weeds. Why? Take those who are in poverty in CA according to the new method...and what is the new method missing? Does it account for educational attainment? Texas' is among the worst in the nation (though CA's isn't much better and is worse in one out of the several metrics). Does it account for percentage of the population covered by health insurance of any type? Texas' IS the worst, and CA's is significantly better...and you must ask yourself what the hell good is a few dollars more if you can't afford health insurance because Texas freedom? Does it account for the fact that Texas has a significantly worse divorce rate than CA (and red states as a whole are MUCH worse). And then there's teenage pregnancy - Texas is third-worst, while CA's 21st on the list.

In other words, there's a heck of a lot more that goes into "poverty" than just lack of funds. Your 'alternative' measure takes into account a few of the other factors...but there's a heck of a lot of extra factors - doggone important factors - that it did not take into account. In order to have a proper statistical perception, we either have to make the model as simple as possible...or we've got to look at ALL the factors that determine poverty, and so run the very real risk of getting lost in the weeds as the authors of that study most certainly did.
 
Politicshead said:
Aren't the Dems just 3 points behind the Reps in Texas? That's within polling margin of errors.

Trump is so bad that Hillary Clinton has an outside chance of taking Texas!
Click to expand...

I didn't see Texas polls mentioned in the article of the OP. Diversion noted. Trying to derail the thread or just here for the rhetoric?
 
Russian Reset that worked so good. Wait........
The failure of the U.S.-Russia reset in 9 photos
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-failure-of-the-u-s-russia-reset-in-9-photos/

Maybe it didn't.

Clinton presented Lavrov with a gift-wrapped red button, which said "Reset" in English and "Peregruzka" in Russian. The problem was, "peregruzka" doesn't mean reset. It means overcharged, or overloaded.

And Lavrov called her out on it.

"We worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it?" Clinton asked Lavrov.

"You got it wrong," Lavrov said. "This says 'peregruzka,' which means overcharged."

The two top diplomats, who met in Geneva, laughed and Clinton explained: "We won't let you do that to us, I promise."
Click to expand...

1421912307508.jpg
Clinton Goofs on Russian Translation, Tells Diplomat She Wants to 'Overcharge' Ties | Fox News
 
Last edited:
sanman said:
The 'Safer' Choice Has Perils of Her Own:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/opinion/sunday/the-dangers-of-hillary-clinton.html




There are plenty of stupid national leaders with failing policies out there - and Hillary seems to count a number of them among her inspirations.
Click to expand...

I've said all along that Hillary is the best Republican on the field and for those who were paying attention at the last debate, as soon as it was over, Hillary walked into the audience and the first person she hugged was Meg Whitman. So that tells anyone everything they need to know.
 
Politicshead said:
Aren't the Dems just 3 points behind the Reps in Texas? That's within polling margin of errors.

Trump is so bad that Hillary Clinton has an outside chance of taking Texas!
Click to expand...

if you subtract those polled from Houston, Austin and Dallas, Trump would be winning Texas double digits. Those 3 cities are the biggest Liberal enclaves in the state.

Houston is the biggest and stupidest. Why stupidest? They keep re-electing Shelia Jackson Lee....need i say more?
 
HenryChinaski said:
You mean angry old white people that need more fiber in their diet's.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah. The typical "Angry old White people" claptrap.

How unoriginal. Can't you Lefties come up with something new once in a while? I mean, besides the catchphrases your SJW wing seems to invent every other day.
 
Roadvirus said:
Oh yeah. The typical "Angry old White people" claptrap.

How unoriginal. Can't you Lefties come up with something new once in a while? I mean, besides the catchphrases your SJW wing seems to invent every other day.
Click to expand...

I'm Asian - but I know that once there aren't any more "Angry old White people" to snarl at, then it will be "Angry old Asian people" or somebody else. Scapegoats are necessary in order for Leftism to survive.
 
sanman said:
The 'Safer' Choice Has Perils of Her Own:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/opinion/sunday/the-dangers-of-hillary-clinton.html




There are plenty of stupid national leaders with failing policies out there - and Hillary seems to count a number of them among her inspirations.
Click to expand...

We all know, have known from the beginning how limited her scope is. But she has experience that Trump doesn't and is a steady hand. Should we expect her to bring the country ahead? She certainly hasn't indicated she has any concept that could. Sure, she's more probably a crook than anyone since Nixon, but is she as dangerous as Sanders would have been? Certainly not.
 
Fenton said:
Lol....You people were claiming you were going to turn Texas blue back in 2014.

We actually ADDED GOP seats to our legislator. We're REDDER.

Nothing grows the Conservative base like the consequences of Democrat policies. Its the hitch in the Lefts attempt to grow their numbers and push their agenda
Click to expand...

Dont mean a thing, since the GOP controls districts and can basically gerrymander their majority..... which is exactly what they have done.
 
PeteEU said:
Dont mean a thing, since the GOP controls districts and can basically gerrymander their majority..... which is exactly what they have done.
Click to expand...

Both parties gerrymander. Partisan blinders are no way to see the world truthfully.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Both parties gerrymander. Partisan blinders are no way to see the world truthfully.
Click to expand...

Oh they do... but the GOP is the worst of the two.. at the moment (last 15 years). Frankly it should not be possible for either party or anyone to gerrymander districts to get a specific result. Look at Austin, Texas and how badly that is gerrymandered when it comes to congressional districts..
 
PeteEU said:
Oh they do... but the GOP is the worst of the two.. at the moment (last 15 years). Frankly it should not be possible for either party or anyone to gerrymander districts to get a specific result. Look at Austin, Texas and how badly that is gerrymandered when it comes to congressional districts..
Click to expand...

I live in Illinois. You lose the argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom