rtcity choose establishment democrat Charles Wingate as his running mate; who is he running against?

FUDGIEFIGHTERIA wrote:

Flamcastro wrote:
because she was and he didn't

if she was really guilty they would have actually found her guilty lmao end of story everything after that was him trying to basically cast doubt on the decision by saying 'well yeah she basically was guilty though even though we didn't find it to be the case'

the percentage of the eligible population that votes changes

yes it does but what does that have to do with my statement

her actions disqualified herself to be president in public opinion she showed herself to be rebellious egotistical and reckless the only reason the findings didn't wreck her shit is because you literally can be disqualified from ever holding a security clearance (like she almost was before they realized it'd be pointless) and still be elected president (and effectively given one) because of the gaps in our ridiculous bureaucracy

and even by the definition of the law she was guilty and comey came just short of saying so he just said he wasn't going to recommend a prosecution because the logic of "no harm no foul" and the fact it was an accident both combined

you sure do lurve hillary huh

what it has to do is 55.3% of the eligible population voted and obama's first election got 58.2% turnout

Flamcastro wrote:
her actions disqualified herself to be president in public opinion she showed herself to be rebellious egotistical and reckless the only reason the findings didn't wreck her shit is because you literally can be disqualified from ever holding a security clearance (like she almost was before they realized it'd be pointless) and still be elected president (and effectively given one) because of the gaps in our ridiculous bureaucracy

1) she clearly wasn't disqualified in the eyes of the public because she won the popular vote by two points and three million votes
2) presidents by law cannot be disqualified from holding a security clearance period so even if they had if she'd won it would have been meaningless

and even by the definition of the law she was guilty and comey came just short of saying so he just said he wasn't going to recommend a prosecution because the logic of "no harm no foul" and the fact it was an accident both combined

except if this were true she would have actually been found guilty bud

what it has to do is 55.3% of the eligible population voted and obama's first election got 58.2% turnout

yes, because obama was an exceptional candidate and won one of the biggest victories for the democrats in their history

in 2012, turnout was 54.9%

in fact if you go back you'll notice that turnout has been roughly the same for decades but has been trending upwards slightly in recent electoral history

72: 55.2%
76: 53.6%
80: 52.6%
84: 53.3%
88: 50.2%
92: 55.2%
96: 49.0%
00: 51.2%
04: 56.7%
08: 58.2%
12: 54.9%
16: 55.3%

in other words, FD, the voter turnout keeps pace with the increase in population and it has also been increasing in general

FUDGIEFIGHTERIA wrote:

Flamcastro wrote:
her actions disqualified herself to be president in public opinion she showed herself to be rebellious egotistical and reckless the only reason the findings didn't wreck her shit is because you literally can be disqualified from ever holding a security clearance (like she almost was before they realized it'd be pointless) and still be elected president (and effectively given one) because of the gaps in our ridiculous bureaucracy

1) she clearly wasn't disqualified in the eyes of the public because she won the popular vote by two points and three million votes
2) presidents by law cannot be disqualified from holding a security clearance period so even if they had if she'd won it would have been meaningless

and even by the definition of the law she was guilty and comey came just short of saying so he just said he wasn't going to recommend a prosecution because the logic of "no harm no foul" and the fact it was an accident both combined

except if this were true she would have actually been found guilty bud

what it has to do is 55.3% of the eligible population voted and obama's first election got 58.2% turnout

yes, because obama was an exceptional candidate and won one of the biggest victories for the democrats in their history

in 2012, turnout was 54.9%

1) yes she was because without ridiculous voter purges (if you don't believe me look at the votebuilder leaks and how every state conspicuously had massive republican primary turnout and comparatively lower republican primary turnout) she wouldn't have even won against bernie socialist sanders and people only voted for her as a lesser of two evils
2)that's literally exactly what i said i just said it in a wrong way it meant the same thing

oh is that why turnout was like 19th out of like 48 elections in 2008
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections

FUDGIEFIGHTERIA wrote:in fact if you go back you'll notice that turnout has been roughly the same for decades but has been trending upwards slightly in recent electoral history

72: 55.2%
76: 53.6%
80: 52.6%
84: 53.3%
88: 50.2%
92: 55.2%
96: 49.0%
00: 51.2%
04: 56.7%
08: 58.2%
12: 54.9%
16: 55.3%

because politics has been depressing bullshit for about that long

Flamcastro wrote:
1) yes she was because without ridiculous voter purges (if you don't believe me look at the votebuilder leaks and how every state conspicuously had massive republican primary turnout and comparatively lower republican primary turnout) she wouldn't have even won against bernie socialist sanders and people only voted for her as a lesser of two evils
2)that's literally exactly what i said i just said it in a wrong way it meant the same thing

take the L buddy it's okay to admit that maybe people didn't care about your "voter purges" and the "unfit for office" meme

oh is that why turnout was like 19th out of like 48 elections in 2008
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections

straight from your link:


shockingly, when only a small fraction of the population has voting rights, turnout tends to be much higher, and as it turns out, women weren't allowed to vote in presidential elections until 1920, while blacks functionally weren't given full voting rights until 1964

as you'll note, the two big spikes on the chart just so happen to coincide with both a higher portion of america being able to vote, and lowered turnout

it's almost like there's a correlation

FUDGIEFIGHTERIA wrote:

Flamcastro wrote:
1) yes she was because without ridiculous voter purges (if you don't believe me look at the votebuilder leaks and how every state conspicuously had massive republican primary turnout and comparatively lower republican primary turnout) she wouldn't have even won against bernie socialist sanders and people only voted for her as a lesser of two evils
2)that's literally exactly what i said i just said it in a wrong way it meant the same thing

take the L buddy it's okay to admit that maybe people didn't care about your "voter purges" and the "unfit for office" meme

oh is that why turnout was like 19th out of like 48 elections in 2008
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections

straight from your link:


shockingly, when only a small fraction of the population has voting rights, turnout tends to be much higher, and as it turns out, women weren't allowed to vote in presidential elections until 1920, while blacks functionally weren't given full voting rights until 1964

as you'll note, the two big spikes on the chart just so happen to coincide with both a higher portion of america being able to vote, and lowered turnout

it's almost like there's a correlation

you can't just shrug off political corruption as a, "meme", buddy

you're right that is a better model than i was using but guess the fuck what turnout still isn't high enough if it's not 100% it's not high enough