It is when I'm having to post the same thing multiple times.
It isn't when you and I have never had this discussion: again, it's your assertion, why should I search your post history to try and prove your point for you? As James May would say, "don't be such a trade unionist and get on with it."
"It's your assertion, you gotta prove it, which you did with data, but that's not enough because it goes against my assertion which is backed by none"
Yes, how
dare I ask for his data to see if it reinforces his point! Facts have no place in a political discussion with you, I know. And again, it's not my job to look for it since it's his assertion he needs to back up.
It's cute that you employ the same misquoting tactics as the person I'm trying to have a discussion with.
Even being someone who tries to argue against the fact that Hydrogen only has one proton in its nucleus, you have to admit the most criminal, crooked presidents in the past century of US history have been Republican.
Look above, or don't. You don't seem to have anything of substance to discuss, anyway. Regarding "most crooked" presidents, that's not the same thing as convicted of crimes, so that's harder to pin down (but of course I'm not denying that
thus far the Nixon administration is considered the most corrupt, certainly the most scandalous, in American history).
---
@Blind_Io Re: your data... and it really is
yours, isn't it? There's no external links to any publications that I can see. Tell me, based on your recent history of straight up posting things that aren't true, why should anyone take your word for it? Where are your external sources? As the old expression goes, "figures don't lie, but liars can figure." Ain't no data like raw data, otherwise you're just taking someone's word for it.
Tell you what. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your list of all the people who committed various crimes is entirely factual.
I'll even accept that you limited your data to just appointed executives during presidential reigns simply out of an understandable desire not to go too far down the rabbit hole for lack of time.
That still doesn't translate into an accurate fact pattern to back your previous assertion:
If I wanted to pick a convicted criminal out of a pool, I would have a better chance of doing that by dipping into the GOP pool than the Democrat pool.
Now, I'll even accept that your data is "old", in that you made it in response to another post months/years ago, so of course your referencing it now to a challenge of a possibly slightly different statement (because I don't know the context of your original discussion that led to these findings) can't be expected to be perfectly attributable.
BUT.... that statement very clearly implies the corruption isn't just limited to appointed officials, but also elected officials at any level of governance. And in order to prove your case above, one would have to compare all records for all officials, elected or appointed, at federal, state, and municipal levels.
So, uh, about that...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_state_and_local_politicians_convicted_of_crimes#1990–1999
(wikipedia may not make the
best reference, but when it comes to criminal convictions, these can easily be fact checked. And even one citation is more than you provided)
I can't copy/paste the entire article here, because it's huge. But I encourage you to read it at your leisure, and feel free to check my math on the raw data provided within.
Disclosures:
- I included only the 50 states and the district (not Guam or the like), going back to 1970, although the article goes back much farther.
- I only tallied Dems and Repubs, not independents or those without any affiliation listed. I even left out the Minnesota's DFLs.
- I'm willing to stipuate this list isn't comprehensive, because the skeptic in me finds it hard to believe that criminal actions amongst elected officials wasn't as rampant a few decades ago compared to now. Maybe politicians were just more adept at covering their tracks back then, who knows?
State and local politicians convicted of crimes (Democrat vs Republican)
2010-on: 147 vs 84
2000-2009: 79 vs 64
1990-1999: 55-33
1980-1989: 36-15
1970-1979: 33-16
Total: 350 state and municipal Democrats convicted of various crimes vs 212 Republicans from 1970-present day.
The larger point I'm trying to make (I'm trying my hardest to... wait for it....
spoon-feed it so you and your Portuguese back-scratcher can't deliberately misinterpret it) was not that I believe Democrats are necessarily more corrupt than Republicans, but that corruption does not know party limits, and if you seriously believe your precious blue donkeys are more virtuous, honest, or law-abiding as a whole than the great red elephants, you need to re-evaluate what matters more: policies you believe in, but still holding the principle of equal application of the law to everyone, regardless of their political affiliation, or just rooting for the people on your sports team and always booing the other guys "just because."
TL;DR -
Blind_Io: I make claims without basis in fact, which explains why I bitch when someone dares ask me to show how I came to my conclusions.
mpicco: Hold my beer.