Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 27, 2015, 08:40:23 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10

 on: Today at 03:56:36 am 
Started by #TheShadowyAbyss - Last post by morrisconley
Donald Trump is a bully and ignorant person. This is nonsense for a politician and a public figure. Trump once called Fox News disabled pundit Charles Krauthammer who uses wheelchair a "loser" that does nothing but being a "jerk". 

 on: Today at 03:33:31 am 
Started by 🌲🌃🐎♀ - Last post by Zioneer
They say they support transgender rights, then the bathroom issue comes up and everyone loses their minds.

 on: Today at 03:33:02 am 
Started by TDAS04 - Last post by Intell
None, though I used to get in trouble for talking in class, or doing sh*t I wasn't supposed, or doing homework from other periods in that period. I actually never did my homework at home.

 on: Today at 03:27:15 am 
Started by Lord of the Dome - Last post by Pun intended
Option 4 or 5.

His poll numbers won't significantly decline but he will perform worse than expected in Iowa and/or New Hampshire. This will be the beginning of the end.

 on: Today at 03:24:14 am 
Started by Lord of the Dome - Last post by 🌲🌃🐎♀
If people don't answer by the start of December, they are by every single definition 100% delusional. Smiley

i will bet you 5 actual euros that trump is still leading by the start of december.

i'll take that as a retraction then

 on: Today at 03:20:00 am 
Started by ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ - Last post by traininthedistance
Better than deontology, that's for sure.

I don't think that there's much to be learned from treating the two as fundamentally opposed theories, because I'm not convinced that utilitarianism isn't deontological. This is part of what makes utilitarianism downright creepy.

Well, that gets into the distinction between act and rule utilitarianism.  Perhaps "consequentialist" would be a better word.

I'm far from a pure utilitarian– a heavy dose of virtue ethics seems necessary to ward off the reductio ad absurdums that any dogmatic approach inevitably fosters, and help bridge the gaps in our knowledge that will never go away– but IMO if ethics is to be more than a tool for ego-stroking or social control, some concern for empiricism and results and, well, consequences, is vital. 

 on: Today at 03:17:32 am 
Started by TDAS04 - Last post by Draft Uncle Pat for President, 2016!
I drove home from Tally with my best friend,and he reminded me of an incident from fifth grade.

So there was this kid named Nick who moved to Delray from France. He was stereotypically effeminate and was allowed to have long hair despite the schools policy. He was like a small puppy who snips at your shoes-needless to say, he wasn't well liked. One day in Mrs. Ericsons PE class (total MILF by the way), my best friend Chris and my other friend Matt decided that pantsing people was fun. They tried doing it to me but failed as I grabbed hold of my pants. Chris and Matt then pantsed our friend Mason as Mrs. Mook, our forth grade teacher, walked by. She laughed and walked on by. Chris and Matt then saw Nicholas, who was in the outfield (we were playing kickball I think), ran after him, and eventually pulled down his pants. Instead of lifting them back up, Nicholas literally began to sob with his pants around his ankles.

So Chris and Matt went to the office, to face the Principal, Mr. Guilzow, a soft spoken mild mannered man. The same principle who had literally shrugged his shoulders when I fought a kid a month earlier in the same class was very, very pissed. Chris and Matt received three weeks of detention, two Saturday schools, had to write apology letters to Nicholas, both his parents, Mrs. Ericsson, and to the Principle himself. They also had to clean the bus, to top it off, while the Principal lectured them.

Good times. Before my brother went into the group home, and long before my other brother and mother developed addiction problems. I still believed in the Iraq War. Grandma June was still alive and would remain so for seven years. I yearn for those days Tongue

 on: Today at 03:16:45 am 
Started by Eomer - Last post by Eomer
1.) How did Bush almost manage to win Honolulu County?

2.) How can congressional district no. 2 be colored in the 50% shade when Kauai, Maui and Hawaii Counties are >60% Kerry and when congressional district no. 1 is >50% Kerry? Wouldn't that mean that Bush won the Honolulu County area beyond district no. 1?

 on: Today at 03:13:08 am 
Started by Orser67 - Last post by heatmaster
Trump underperform in the south, he would be a perfect fit in hillbilly country, most of those folks are low information and anti everything voters, you know the folks who only read the national enquirer and hang out in Walgreens and go to Micky D's for an evening out, yep Trump will be at home in Dixie,  he should do well in Idaho,  most of those folks are so low information, they think Ireland is a town in there state. Yep he's gonna...do real well😊

 on: Today at 03:11:49 am 
Started by Frodo - Last post by BigSkyBob
^ Well, i understood situation right since your first post, and understand it now too. But - personally for ME moral side still prevails. Let's end the talk on this and see how it turns out... Thanks!

Don't bother feeding the troll.

In an update, it has been reported that one of the voters in the disputed election was the Democratic candidate's brother. He lives outside the district. Somehow, posters here have claimed that the Republican candidate has forfeited his moral right to object to voting fraud for reasons that, fundamentally, remain unspecified.

FWIW - it was the GOP's candidate's brother not the Dem.

Trolls don't care about their "information" being correct, they care only about "achieving their purpose"...

I stand correct. The truth matters, so you last statement is yet another strawman.

Correcting the record, the Democrat's objection is that the Republican's brother may have voted illegally, and that he believes the Republican majority might be unfair to him, while Republican's objection is that was that he was leading by six votes with four disputed ballots, until rejected ballots were counted.

In light of my correction, I would note that if the Republican won the draw, and the his brother was determined to have illegally voted for him, with no other error discovered, the Democrat, not the Republican, ought to have been seated. The forum is rife with rank partisan hypocrisy, but, that is not an excuse to presume that I am similarly inclined.

Further, supposing one of the Republican's votes is stricken, and one of the Democrat's vote is stricken, resulted again in a tie, the Democrat ought to be seated, because he won the draw, which is how Mississippi election law states how tied elections are to be settled.

The only "moral argument" against an election challenge would be if before the draw both the Democratic, and Republican candidates agreed to drop any potential challenges, and abide by the results of the draw. The Democrat wanted a rerun, while the Republican wanted a challenged. Any other "moral argument," including the one offered, is specious.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10

Login with username, password and session length


Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines