The Trump Presidency - how I stopped worrying and learned to love the Hair

FDR puts Japanese in interment camps but Nixon spied on his political rivals, yeah Republicans are soooo much worse.

Yes, let's look at something from 80 years ago to determine what the modern party is representative of today...
At least the current democratic party is not allowing self described Nazis to run, or accused pedophiles.

Also look up which party started the KKK, answer will shock you!

No party started them. They were a bunch of assholes. The fact that there were several democrats in the kkk had nothing to do with it.

[/quote]
I have said it before and I will say it till I’m dead. All politicians are crooks, they are all corrupt, there is simply no other way to succeed in politics.
[/quote]

This is bullshit.
 
O’rly? Wasn’t Hillary Clinton accused of running a pedophile ring? Was it utter bs? Sure. But she was accused.

There was nothing credible about the accusations against Hillary. I do find it telling you neglect the Nazis though.

Edit

That is not to say you approve of nazis, but you do seem quick to smear a democrat despite the hollow nature of that story.
 
Last edited:
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"
:LOL: 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.
 

Did you really just fucking quote PragerU as a source?

Level. Dude. Honestly. Go dumpster diving some more. But you won't find PragerU at the bottom, that's too shitty to be in a bin.

Prager 'University' is not a University, has no real teachers, does not grant any sort of diplomas and is simply a conservative propaganda youtube channel.
Here's what a real history academic (Prof. Kevin M. Kruse, from Princeton) had to say about it.

And Jim, all I said is that you already were given the data, you didn't care to go look at it, so you asked for it again. Do you need people to help feed yourself too? May Level found something in the dumpster for you.

We are talking about administrations and high level crime here. Politicians are corrupt? No shit, what next, fire is hot?
But the level of corruption and specially at high level, where you should expect the most out of people who were supposedly elected to lead a whole country, the scale is heavily, impossibly tipped to the Republican side. There's no argument to be done there.

So yeah, go on, Republicans are angels, specially in the south and not racist at all, PragerU is a reliable source of information, the party switch in the south never happened.

I almost forget sometimes that you guys support the regime of 'alternative facts' where reality and history takes a back seat to agendas and lies. It's useless.
 
Last edited:
I do find it telling you neglect the Nazis though.
(Forgot to address tbh) Dems allow communists to run, they are just as bad as the Nazis in my eyes (lead to more death historically too).
That is not to say you approve of nazis, but you do seem quick to smear a democrat despite the hollow nature of that story.
You used the term accused, I simply demonstrated that accusation is a very low bar to clear.
Only reason I “smear” Dems is because you (and Blind) are acting as if there are good guys - Dems and bad guys - Reps. But really there are just guys.
Again I say I don’t support either party they are all assholes in their own way.
 
Democratic solcialist is not the same as a communist.
 
they both end with riots and people starving to death though.
 
Got a citation for that?
 
Several, actually. They're easy to find. Admittedly bolivia is on the early stage of that. And those are more...historic precedents than citations. Brazil is not included there, but especially poignant as it was an economic miracle on the eyes of the planet (BRIC anyone?) until everyone found out it was fueled on corruption and the politics system is so screwed there the candidate who was literally imprisoned had a chance of winning this election cycle.

And before you go "well, that's because the wrong people were/are in charge" like every single left-leaning professor since 1848, consider the statement implies you literally need hundreds of incorruptible people for it to function. I guess an ideology of "free lunches for everyone" is attractive until you remember there is no such thing as one of those.
 
Last edited:
That is not to say you approve of nazis, but you do seem quick to smear a democrat despite the hollow nature of that story.
Democratic solcialist is not the same as a communist.
Democratic socialism doesn't exist, socialism will always devolve into autocracy.
 
Also @GRtak communism and socialism are largely the same system. Only difference is that in a communist society there is no idea of money as everyone gets whatever they want.
 
And Jim, all I said is that you already were given the data, you didn't care to go look at it, so you asked for it again. Do you need people to help feed yourself too? May Level found something in the dumpster for you.
I had never seen Blind_Io’s data before l, hence why I requested it. And when he did put it up, I said I would take a few days before addressing it with a deep dive, which I did late last night. Yet between my posts saying I would look at it later, and the one where I did just that, you made the leap that I had already reviewed it and pre-determined what I would say before you even had a chance to see what it would be.

We are talking about administrations and high level crime here. Politicians are corrupt? No shit, what next, fire is hot?
Blind_Io, as I quoted just above already, stated Republicans were more corrupt than Dems. He made no mention of unelected officials until he trotted out his homemade data at my insistence.

But the level of corruption and specially at high level, where you should expect the most out of people who were supposedly elected to lead a whole country, the scale is heavily, impossibly tipped to the Republican side. There's no argument to be done there.

So yeah, go on, Republicans are angels, specially in the south and not racist at all, PragerU is a reliable source of information, the party switch in the south never happened.
You didn’t read my post above, or you would know the above is entirely false.

JimCorrigan said:
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."

Did you really just fucking quote PragerU as a source?
Challenge the message, not the messenger.

I almost forget sometimes that you guys support the regime of 'alternative facts' where reality and history takes a back seat to agendas and lies. It's useless.
This is rich coming from someone who has never refuted anything factual I’ve provided, only ignored it or gone on emotional tirades.

I challenge you to find something I’ve said that is factually incorrect. Not because you want it to be so, but because it is so. Go on.
 
Last edited:
You complain about my source but then use TWITTER as your own source? :lmao:

Did you even click the link? It's the personal twitter of the professor I just quoted and it goes on for quite a few rebuttals. Doesn't matter if it's twitter or a self hosted website, what matters is the credentials of who wrote it. Which, by the way, trump Shapiro's. He might have gone to Harvard but this guy is a professor. And of course, PragerU's.

Also @GRtak communism and socialism are largely the same system. Only difference is that in a communist society there is no idea of money as everyone gets whatever they want.

Wrong. Socialism is the first step into the road to communism, it's not the same system. It's like saying an egg is the same as a ham and cheese omelette. There's no notion of everyone getting 'whatever they want', it's more of the idea that everything belongs to Society as a whole, not to individual people, it's all 'communal', owned by everyone and nobody at the same time.

And Jim, I won't even bother. You like to take shit down to the petty semantics and definitions and argue from there. The trend of the discussion was that Republican administrations are more corrupt than Democrat ones and there's no arguing to be done, all the figures point towards it. And of course, if you go and read the title of this thread, it's gonna be the same with this corrupt, immoral administration of Mister Angry Cheeto. It could even break records.
 
Last edited:
And Jim, I won't even bother. You like to take shit down to the petty semantics and definitions and argue from there.
Yes, I can see how a factual discussion would dissuade you.

The trend of the discussion was that Republican administrations are more corrupt than Democrat ones and there's no arguing to be done, all the figures point towards it.
Show me a figure. You’re just citing one forum member’s uncorroborated document.

I cited documents with their own references. They refuted his assertion. Period.

And of course, if you go and read the title of this thread, it's gonna be the same with this corrupt, immoral administration of Mister Angry Cheeto. It could even break records.
Time will tell. We also don’t know what will be the final tally for the Obama administration following recent developments.

Like I said. We should all cheer for honest government, not for teams.
 
Top