|
I wonder whether political discourse will devolve fast enough to reach a point where "give Congress the D" is a relevant political campaign phrase.
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:15 |
|
|
tsa posted:Yet you are going to vote for people with the exact same views, hope this helps. Really? Cause holy loving poo poo if you can figure out other people's yet undetermined future actions you should take out a patent on that
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
Weird how if you vote Democrat it makes you a conservative. Says a lot about the United States, in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
In a strict two party system abstaining from voting for the lesser of two evils is effectively casting a vote for the greater.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 07:49
|
|
|
Choose Your Warcriminal, America's Top Political Idol. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:Weird how if you vote Democrat it makes you a conservative. Says a lot about the United States, in my opinion. Maybe it makes you a centrist. Democrats haven't been particularly liberal in the past couple decades with a couple exceptions. The Republicans are just so cartoonishly right that it makes the Dems look liberal in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 08:47
|
|
|
In terms of the rest of the world "liberal" does mean conservative, just usually a center-right. Only the US seems to use "liberal" as a word to describe leftism, mostly because the overton window of discourse is so intensely shifted to the extreme right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 09:59
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:In terms of the rest of the world "liberal" does mean conservative, just usually a center-right. Only the US seems to use "liberal" as a word to describe leftism, mostly because the overton window of discourse is so intensely shifted to the extreme right. also "socialism", "social" and to a lesser extent "labor" are dirty words in America, so a lot of the terminology most places have available to them is not available Brits are certainly able to recognize that the president and other american democrats are more Tory than anything
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 10:42
|
|
|
The idea that, if the US wasn't an interventionist global superpower, someone else would be... Isn't necessarily true. The US isn't just a dominant power, it's a massively dominant power, and it is able to be so massively dominant because of specific conditions. If America dynamites its overseas bases tomorrow, there's no guarantee another power will fill that position.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 12:47
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:In terms of the rest of the world "liberal" does mean conservative, just usually a center-right. Only the US seems to use "liberal" as a word to describe leftism, mostly because the overton window of discourse is so intensely shifted to the extreme right. No it doesn't. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but in the UK 'Liberal' is almost entirely left. It can mean. centre-left, left wing, to just short of outright Marxist. Sure there are a few conservatives who speak of 'classical liberalism' etc, but if anyone told you socially that they were a liberal, you'd assume they were left-leaning and you'd be right 99% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 12:49
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:No it doesn't. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but in the UK 'Liberal' is almost entirely left. It can mean. centre-left, left wing, to just short of outright Marxist. lib dems, noted leftie party
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 13:27
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:lib dems, noted leftie party Yes, centre-left party for generations. Taken into a coalition with the conservatives by a leader desperate for a whiff of actual power much to the horror of most of his own voters and who are going to be destroyed as a result in the next general election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:Yes, centre-left party for generations. Taken into a coalition with the conservatives by a leader desperate for a whiff of actual power much to the horror of most of his own voters and who are going to be destroyed as a result in the next general election. are you familiar with the Orange Book? e. what i'm saying is, being to the left of the tories doesn't make you leftie, it makes you not-necessarily-hard-right
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:In a strict two party system abstaining from voting for the lesser of two evils is effectively casting a vote for the greater. In a parliamentary system it seems voting for the party you like just ends up with them compromising on their ideals anyway. (At least if they're not particularly big and/or your opponents are particularly big)
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:The idea that, if the US wasn't an interventionist global superpower, someone else would be... Isn't necessarily true. The US isn't just a dominant power, it's a massively dominant power, and it is able to be so massively dominant because of specific conditions. If America dynamites its overseas bases tomorrow, there's no guarantee another power will fill that position. Why take the risk? It benefits us to be the massively dominant power, and we belive that it would be better for the whole world if we were massively dominant than if any other country was. So, maintaining or dominance isn't just in our own best interests, but safeguards the best interests of the whole world. This all played out for real with the Cold War. Imagine how much better the world could have been if we had resolved after ww2 to nip the Soviet Union in the bud. The stakes are simply too high to play games or conduct experiments. hakimashou fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Feb 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
computer parts posted:In a parliamentary system it seems voting for the party you like just ends up with them compromising on their ideals anyway. In a way loosely analogous to how parliamentary coalitions work out the governments they form, the primaries in the US accomplish the same thing. There are a wide array of candidates in the primaries, and the primaries are the test to see which of the parties' ideals get priority going forward, as well as to select the standard bearer. I think the Democratic Party is much more unified on its platform than the Republicans. Whereas they actually squabble over just what it means to be a republican etc, ( to wit RINO), the democrats seem more interested in just selecting who will carry the standard. There are no enemies on the left 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Why take the risk? hakimashou posted:In a way loosely analogous to how parliamentary coalitions work out the governments they form, the primaries in the US accomplish the same thing. None of this is true. How can you believe any of this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
gnarlyhotep posted:I had one fire off a few rounds of Joseph Conrad at me once, it was a close call Only to be dismayed by a stern volley of Kipling, you pugnacious bastard. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Pohl posted:None of this is true. How can you believe any of this? On the contrary it is all quite true. How much dissention is there really between democratic primary candidates vs republican ones. The republican have a religious right wing, a libertarian wing, a moderate conservative wing, and assorted loons. And they don't really like each other much. Why is "RINO" a huge thing for republicans, with literal contempt by wings of the party for one another, but "DINO" not a thing at all? Would picking Hillary instead of Barack in 08 have lead to markedly different priorities for the democratic administration that followed? Or if Biden had got the nod? Or John Edwards? I don't think it is wrong to say that views within the Republican Party are more diverse and at odds than views within the democratic party. And as for the other post it is literal truth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:On the contrary it is all quite true. Haha, ok. Let me tell you about blue dogs... Your other post was something else. I'm not sure I would call it literal truth, but you are definitely on to something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Haha, ok. Let me tell you about blue dogs... Does a proper blue dog democrat have any kind of shot at the democratic presidential nod though? And is there vitriol toward blue dog democrats like the vitriol half the Republican Party seems to spew at moderate/liberal republicans? If you read a republican forum like ar15.com, the salt of the republican earth, they bitch about republicans nearly as much as democrats. Bear in mind this is the age of tea party republicans losing seats for the party by running wing dings in primaries and winning them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Does a proper blue dog democrat have any kind of shot at the democratic presidential nod though? Ummm, no Tea Party candidate has a shot at the presidential nod. The Republican party might be a little bit more divided than normal at the moment, but they are far more cohesive than the Democratic party. Remember the old saying by Will Rogers? "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
I usually follow this thread for the schadenfreude involved in following Republican primary candidates, what the hell happened to it in the last couple pages? When did we get invaded by a bunch of neoliberal just war apologists who literally think the world is better off with historical American intervention in the middle east and south-east Asia?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 16:38
|
|
hakimashou posted:Does a proper blue dog democrat have any kind of shot at the democratic presidential nod though? Joe Lieberman got the VP in 2000. Blue Dogs have largely been thrown out of office in the last three elections, but when they were prominent, yes people hated them with a passion.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Ummm, no Tea Party candidate has a shot at the presidential nod. The Republican party might be a little bit more divided than normal at the moment, but they are far more cohesive than the Democratic party. It depends on your definition of Tea Party but someone like Rand Paul has a reasonable shot, at least as reasonable as Scott Walker anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Why take the risk? All "nipping the soviet union in the bud" would have done is get a lot of people killed. Soviets had massive numerical superiority. The only card we had to play was to nuke every soviet city, at a very slow pace because our bomb production wasn't very quick back then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Yall are arguing with a guy who thinks 1945 was the perfect time to attack the Soviet Union.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It depends on your definition of Tea Party but someone like Rand Paul has a reasonable shot, at least as reasonable as Scott Walker anyway. I would say that neither of them is a Tea Party candidate. They are both lovely, sure, but they aren't Sarah Palin levels of crazy. Scott Walker is probably going to be the choice of the Right, the differences between him and Rand Paul are pretty substantial.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yall are arguing with a guy who thinks 1945 was the perfect time to attack the Soviet Union. It is 7:40 on a Saturday morning and I woke up at 5 because I had a weird dream. Sorry, I'm bored.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Pohl posted:I would say that neither of them is a Tea Party candidate. They are both lovely, sure, but they aren't Sarah Palin levels of crazy. In ways that favour Rand Paul, and that's a hell of a feat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Freudian posted:In ways that favour Rand Paul, and that's a hell of a feat. Oh hell yeah. Walker reminds me of Regan, and that scares the hell out of me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Oh hell yeah. Walker reminds me of Regan, and that scares the hell out of me. Scott Walker married his wife on Reagan's birthday and celebrates his anniversary/Reagan's Birthday as a joint holiday where they eat all of Reagan's favorite foods. I'm pretty sure that, if he could get away with it, he would eat Reagan's bones to gain his power and become him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It depends on your definition of Tea Party but someone like Rand Paul has a reasonable shot, at least as reasonable as Scott Walker anyway. Iowa voters seem to see a fairly big difference.  It'll probably be between Walker, Perry and Jindal. SNAKES N CAKES fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Feb 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Pohl posted:It is 7:40 on a Saturday morning and I woke up at 5 because I had a weird dream. I had a dream that I was in a tag team with a coworker who was dressed as Jerry Seinfeld. We wrestled Dr. Sanjay Gupta. Tune in next week when I'll tell you about my dream about the incredible man with a gun who plugged a man attacking my entire family with a sig sauer from 100 ft. so why was there an LF revival this week? ^^Jindal is out first from the "seems legit" crowd. He's Perry without the cowboy hat. Who cares? Lol, what led anyone to think Trump is too moderate? De Nomolos fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Feb 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
I feel like right now Walker is kind of a right wing version of what righties saw Obama as: a blank slate which they could project all the right wing virtues onto, whatever they perceived those to be. Can anyone think of anything the guy has ever said or written? He just represents Right Wing Moxie because of the labor union thing, but we have no idea whether he has any campaign skills/mojo at all until we see some stump speeches and debates. I do find the idea of a Walker presidency disturbing because he's the ultimate cipher flunky, never been anything but a hack for big money righty interests, and he would be the most puppety president who ever pupped for corporate America.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
I am skeptical that a general assessment by a substantial portion of the state party's voters that a candidate is too far from the middle is viewed as a bad thing by the people dedicated enough to the party that they will go out when it is awful outside and spend hours voting for the party's nominee. For GOP primary voters and caucusgoers, 'too conservative' is an asset, not a liability.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
So who are the registered republicans who reckon Christie's too conservative? Have they gotten lost or something?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:So who are the registered republicans who reckon Christie's too conservative? Have they gotten lost or something? that's probably the people who are actually democrats, ideologically speaking, but vote R because they care about their gun hobby more than they care about every other issue. There are a couple of d&d posters on that part of the republican spectrum. That and low-information types who assume he is radical because he is angry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Jindal's governing record is atrocious by any measure. There's no way he'd win LA in the primary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:15 |
|
|
De Nomolos posted:Lol, what led anyone to think Trump is too moderate? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 18:47
|
|
