• 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
I think 99% of politicians are corrupt some are just better at getting away with it then others. So I guess my answer would be it all comes down to who is holding more positions at any given time.
 
fedup said:
You're delusional. What a bunch of propaganda. Do you even know what socialism is?
Click to expand...

No, I'm not a leftist.

Socialism espouses centralized control, by government usually, of resources and their distribution. Corporatism espouses centralized control, by corporations, of resources and their distribution.
 
Baralis said:
I think 99% of politicians are corrupt some are just better at getting away with it then others. So I guess my answer would be it all comes down to who is holding more positions at any given time.
Click to expand...

99%? In over 225 years, 2 have been accredited with being honest. George Washington and Honest Abe Lincoln.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
You do realize that when you make a comparison between two different datasets that future revisions are possible. In this case, it is datasets between the temperature stations in the 1930s and today. They would not have all been in the same places then, different parts of the country would have been lacking measurements then as compared to today, urban heat islands would have been far more prevalent today, land use and coverage was different then, and so on. This is statistical analysis 101 here, nothing nefarious about it unless one is ignorant of how it works.
Click to expand...

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.
 
US Conservative said:
Clinton was not impeached over a blowjob. He was impeached and debarred because he lied under oath. PLEASE state the facts or you might appear like a bit of a daydream johnny.
Click to expand...

Speaking of "PLEASE stating the facts", go back to what I ACTUALLY said: "but when Clinton lied about getting a blowjob, well, THAT was impeachment-worthy!"

Funny how you jump all over my case about not stating the facts...and misquote me in order to have an excuse to do so.

BTW - when Reagan, Bush 41, and company obviously LIED about Iran-Contra, where was the conservative push to impeach them? Oh, wait - there was NO conservative push to impeach them.

And one last thing - it's time for you to get real here. How many married men would admit before Congress - including ALL the cameras of ALL the major networks and ALL the major newspapers in the nation - that they've had a blowjob from a woman who was not their wife? Almost every man I've ever known - myself included - whether red-meat conservative or dyed-in-the-wool liberal - would lie their asses off about it. They (and I) would NOT care that it's an oath-bound statement in front of Congress. They would only care about what would happen to their wives in the public eye after such an admission literally in front of the entire planet...and what would happen behind closed doors.

There's a French saying: "He who refuses to lie, does not love his wife." That is a true saying.

You can get on your high horse and claim "Ohhh, he's the president and it's sworn testimony in front of Congress and the American people!" all you want...but if you'll recall, Clinton's favorability rating did NOT drop after his admission - and soon afterwards it went UP. Why? Because MOST American people realized how STUPID it was to go after the President of the United States for an extramarital affair.

And for you to somehow think that Clinton lying about getting a blowjob is somehow worse than Reagan, Bush 41, and Oliver North getting away with Iran-Contra...that's so indicative of what today's conservatives are like.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Speaking of "PLEASE stating the facts", go back to what I ACTUALLY said: "but when Clinton lied about getting a blowjob, well, THAT was impeachment-worthy!"

Funny how you jump all over my case about not stating the facts...and misquote me in order to have an excuse to do so.

BTW - when Reagan, Bush 41, and company obviously LIED about Iran-Contra, where was the conservative push to impeach them? Oh, wait - there was NO conservative push to impeach them.

And one last thing - it's time for you to get real here. How many married men would admit before Congress - including ALL the cameras of ALL the major networks and ALL the major newspapers in the nation - that they've had a blowjob from a woman who was not their wife? Almost every man I've ever known - myself included - whether red-meat conservative or dyed-in-the-wool liberal - would lie their asses off about it. They (and I) would NOT care that it's an oath-bound statement in front of Congress. They would only care about what would happen to their wives in the public eye after such an admission literally in front of the entire planet...and what would happen behind closed doors.

There's a French saying: "He who refuses to lie, does not love his wife." That is a true saying.

You can get on your high horse and claim "Ohhh, he's the president and it's sworn testimony in front of Congress and the American people!" all you want...but if you'll recall, Clinton's favorability rating did NOT drop after his admission - and soon afterwards it went UP. Why? Because MOST American people realized how STUPID it was to go after the President of the United States for an extramarital affair.

And for you to somehow think that Clinton lying about getting a blowjob is somehow worse than Reagan, Bush 41, and Oliver North getting away with Iran-Contra...that's so indicative of what today's conservatives are like.
Click to expand...

Clinton, like Obama are victims. Got it.
 
Started off that way, with the dems being the consummate in corrupt parties, masters of corruption. But the reps caught up soon enough to be neck in neck.
 
US Conservative said:
Clinton, like Obama are victims. Got it.
Click to expand...

Not only could you not apologize for misquoting me, but you could not even bring yourself to honestly admit what almost every married man knows deep in his heart.

Hm. For some reason this reminds me of all those conservative pundits and politicians who were so eager to send the nation to war...but had never been in the military themselves. Wonder where the connection is...?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Not only could you not apologize for misquoting me, but you could not even bring yourself to honestly admit what almost every married man knows deep in his heart.

Hm. For some reason this reminds me of all those conservative pundits and politicians who were so eager to send the nation to war...but had never been in the military themselves. Wonder where the connection is...?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I never did much care for the candidates for POTUS who never served in any capacity. But then, after Korea and Vietnam, can't really blame them too much. But be honest with us, you wouldn't have been any more for war if all involved in the decision were decorated veterans.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
And one last thing - it's time for you to get real here. How many married men would admit before Congress - including ALL the cameras of ALL the major networks and ALL the major newspapers in the nation - that they've had a blowjob from a woman who was not their wife? Almost every man I've ever known - myself included - whether red-meat conservative or dyed-in-the-wool liberal - would lie their asses off about it. They (and I) would NOT care that it's an oath-bound statement in front of Congress. They would only care about what would happen to their wives in the public eye after such an admission literally in front of the entire planet...and what would happen behind closed doors.

There's a French saying: "He who refuses to lie, does not love his wife." That is a true saying.
Click to expand...

You might find this difficult to believe, but there are many married men who have never engaged in any form of sexual activity with anyone other than their wives.

If I were to cheat on my wife, what do you suppose would be more hateful to her—my having cheated on her, or my willingness to lie or be truthful about it?

If I were to cheat on my wife, and this were to become publicly known, would this be more shameful to me, or to my wife?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Speaking of "PLEASE stating the facts", go back to what I ACTUALLY said: "but when Clinton lied about getting a blowjob, well, THAT was impeachment-worthy!"

Funny how you jump all over my case about not stating the facts...and misquote me in order to have an excuse to do so.

BTW - when Reagan, Bush 41, and company obviously LIED about Iran-Contra, where was the conservative push to impeach them? Oh, wait - there was NO conservative push to impeach them.

And one last thing - it's time for you to get real here. How many married men would admit before Congress - including ALL the cameras of ALL the major networks and ALL the major newspapers in the nation - that they've had a blowjob from a woman who was not their wife? Almost every man I've ever known - myself included - whether red-meat conservative or dyed-in-the-wool liberal - would lie their asses off about it. They (and I) would NOT care that it's an oath-bound statement in front of Congress. They would only care about what would happen to their wives in the public eye after such an admission literally in front of the entire planet...and what would happen behind closed doors.

There's a French saying: "He who refuses to lie, does not love his wife." That is a true saying.

You can get on your high horse and claim "Ohhh, he's the president and it's sworn testimony in front of Congress and the American people!" all you want...but if you'll recall, Clinton's favorability rating did NOT drop after his admission - and soon afterwards it went UP. Why? Because MOST American people realized how STUPID it was to go after the President of the United States for an extramarital affair.

And for you to somehow think that Clinton lying about getting a blowjob is somehow worse than Reagan, Bush 41, and Oliver North getting away with Iran-Contra...that's so indicative of what today's conservatives are like.
Click to expand...

All that's a fine bit of nonsense that's disregards what happened prior. The whole world, including Hillary already knew about Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones and Juanita Brodderick. It was in the public 24/7/365. He wasn't trying to spare Hillary a thing. In fact, it was because of Hillary's dealings with HER law firm that got him to that chair to begin with. And he didn't just lie about getting a blowjob. Put that busted arrow back in the trash where it belongs.

I suppose you still believe Al Capone was just a lowly tax cheat. :lamo
 
clownboy said:
Yeah, I never did much care for the candidates for POTUS who never served in any capacity. But then, after Korea and Vietnam, can't really blame them too much. But be honest with us, you wouldn't have been any more for war if all involved in the decision were decorated veterans.
Click to expand...

I remember the big hullaballoo when Clinton was first elected, because he was the first one who hadn't been in the military.

As a retired Navy man, yes, I would generally much prefer a war veteran to someone who had never been in the military...but I would most certainly prefer someone who had never been in the military to someone who is a chickenhawk...

...and Bush 43 - he of the "boutique" Air Force squadron that never left American soil - is IMO a chickenhawk, as Dick Cheney and almost every conservative pundit you care to name.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
You might find this difficult to believe, but there are many married men who have never engaged in any form of sexual activity with anyone other than their wives.

If I were to cheat on my wife, what do you suppose would be more hateful to her—my having cheated on her, or my willingness to lie or be truthful about it?

If I were to cheat on my wife, and this were to become publicly known, would this be more shameful to me, or to my wife?
Click to expand...

And I haven't cheated on my wife either - we've been married nearly 22 years, and our relationship is the envy of all who know us - that's not bragging, that's simple fact. For instance, we have never even once had an argument over money - not too many couples that have been together as long as we have can say the same. My wife and I have honest-to-goodness true love...and believe me when I say that I hope you have the same, for I wish that everyone else had the same.

But the fact that neither you nor I have ever cheated on our wives does NOT change the fact that if either you or I did, and if we were placed in front of Congress with all the world's media's cameras focused on us, either one of us would lie our asses off regardless of what oaths we took to tell the truth...IF we thought that there was even a ghost of a chance we'd get away with it.

You can claim otherwise all you want...but that doesn't mean much seeing as how you weren't the one with the cameras rolling, with live feed to all the networks.

Maybe you would tell the truth...but if that's the case, then you are part of a very, very small minority of married men.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
What is it that you are claiming that “almost every married man knows deep in his heart”?
Click to expand...

Are you really going to claim that if all the nation's networks are filming live feed to their viewers while Congress is asking you if you got a blowjob from a woman not your wife, if you thought you had even a ghost of a chance to lie your way out of it, that you would tell the truth anyway?

Are you really going to claim that?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
And I haven't cheated on my wife either - we've been married nearly 22 years, and our relationship is the envy of all who know us - that's not bragging, that's simple fact. For instance, we have never even once had an argument over money - not too many couples that have been together as long as we have can say the same. My wife and I have honest-to-goodness true love...and believe me when I say that I hope you have the same, for I wish that everyone else had the same.

But the fact that neither you nor I have ever cheated on our wives does NOT change the fact that if either you or I did, and if we were placed in front of Congress with all the world's media's cameras focused on us, either one of us would lie our asses off regardless of what oaths we took to tell the truth...IF we thought that there was even a ghost of a chance we'd get away with it.

You can claim otherwise all you want...but that doesn't mean much seeing as how you weren't the one with the cameras rolling, with live feed to all the networks.

Maybe you would tell the truth...but if that's the case, then you are part of a very, very small minority of married men.
Click to expand...

And again, that's nonsense. Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Juanita Brodderick AND The young lady at question with a stained dress in hand.
 
clownboy said:
All that's a fine bit of nonsense that's disregards what happened prior. The whole world, including Hillary already knew about Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones and Juanita Brodderick. It was in the public 24/7/365. He wasn't trying to spare Hillary a thing. In fact, it was because of Hillary's dealings with HER law firm that got him to that chair to begin with. And he didn't just lie about getting a blowjob. Put that busted arrow back in the trash where it belongs.

I suppose you still believe Al Capone was just a lowly tax cheat. :lamo
Click to expand...

Oh my goodness!!!! Democrats doing the nasty with women not their wives!!!! That's SO scandalous! Worse by far than selling missiles to the Iranians as part of an arms-for-hostages scheme, and then using the proceeds to buy drugs to finance a rebellion in Nicaragua!!!!

By the way - you do know about "Diaper Dave" David Vitter, the married senator that paid hookers to have sex with him while he was wearing a diaper? You know, the same David Vitter that Republicans keep reelecting to the United States Senate?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
I remember the big hullaballoo when Clinton was first elected, because he was the first one who hadn't been in the military.

As a retired Navy man, yes, I would generally much prefer a war veteran to someone who had never been in the military...but I would most certainly prefer someone who had never been in the military to someone who is a chickenhawk...

...and Bush 43 - he of the "boutique" Air Force squadron that never left American soil - is IMO a chickenhawk, as Dick Cheney and almost every conservative pundit you care to name.
Click to expand...

I used to buy that argument, until I understood that it was always civilians that sent the military to war. The framers wanted it that way.
 
clownboy said:
And again, that's nonsense. Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Juanita Brodderick AND The young lady at question with a stained dress in hand.
Click to expand...

What vast hypocrisy.

Guy, if you kicked out every guy in Congress who had an extramarital affair, you'd be doing good just to have enough left to field a baseball team.

How you can possibly compare the (hetero) sexual innuendo of a politician to freaking Iran-Contra and us getting lied into illegally invading a nation that posed no clear and present danger to the American people...is beyond me.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Oh my goodness!!!! Democrats doing the nasty with women not their wives!!!! That's SO scandalous! Worse by far than selling missiles to the Iranians as part of an arms-for-hostages scheme, and then using the proceeds to buy drugs to finance a rebellion in Nicaragua!!!!

By the way - you do know about "Diaper Dave" David Vitter, the married senator that paid hookers to have sex with him while he was wearing a diaper? You know, the same David Vitter that Republicans keep reelecting to the United States Senate?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Until Clinton took over, it had always been military veterans - and mostly war veterans - who had taken us to war.
Click to expand...

No, that so. The President does not declare war, not in the powers of office. Congress declares war.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
And I haven't cheated on my wife either - we've been married nearly 22 years, and our relationship is the envy of all who know us - that's not bragging, that's simple fact. For instance, we have never even once had an argument over money - not too many couples that have been together as long as we have can say the same. My wife and I have honest-to-goodness true love...and believe me when I say that I hope you have the same, for I wish that everyone else had the same.

But the fact that neither you nor I have ever cheated on our wives does NOT change the fact that if either you or I did, and if we were placed in front of Congress with all the world's media's cameras focused on us, either one of us would lie our asses off regardless of what oaths we took to tell the truth...IF we thought that there was even a ghost of a chance we'd get away with it.

You can claim otherwise all you want...but that doesn't mean much seeing as how you weren't the one with the cameras rolling, with live feed to all the networks.

Maybe you would tell the truth...but if that's the case, then you are part of a very, very small minority of married men.
Click to expand...

Glen Contrarian said:
Are you really going to claim that if all the nation's networks are filming live feed to their viewers while Congress is asking you if you got a blowjob from a woman not your wife, if you thought you had even a ghost of a chance to lie your way out of it, that you would tell the truth anyway?

Are you really going to claim that?
Click to expand...

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:

Glen Contrarian said:
There's a French saying: "He who refuses to lie, does not love his wife." That is a true saying.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom