|
Nintendo Kid posted:You've been able to change back to short dumb passwords for a while now. Excellent. Thank you for the info, I appreciate it. I'm going to post a smiley joke, so don't take it wrong: 
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 18:48 |
|
|
Oh my god.quote:"We the Millennials, in order to form a more perfect union, pledge to work towards a bipartisan future. " -Millennials For Jeb
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Does Jeb always hunch over like that, or was his podium too small?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:Does Jeb always hunch over like that, or was his podium too small? He reads his speeches from sheets of paper and doesn't use a teleprompter. That edited video shows him at his public-speaking best, with all the pauses removed and sound levels changed to emphasize key points. He's a very dull speaker. But his brother was a two term President and nobody would claim public speaking was his forte either....
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Joementum posted:
Dubya seemed to do his best speeches on the golf course.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
Pohl posted:How does that make any sense, and how are these people being paid to be so drat wrong? Old white people make up the primary electorate in both parties.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:Old white people make up the primary electorate in both parties. That's mostly true, but the Democratic primary in South Carolina is probably the most densely black statewide race for anything in the country and they are an early, important contest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Do you believe that Obama is a Christian? No loving way. He's agnostic at best and I would venture that he's privately an atheist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
Karnegal posted:he's privately an atheist. Maybe even not-so-privately. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
You are on a roll today Joe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
Does anyone here really think voting matters? Because voting is a front to make people think there is actually a democracy when there has never been one. It's just the rich running things like they always have. How do you deal with the fact that arguing about it, caring about it, and doing anything about it will never matter? Or is it one of those celebrity worship things where you follow them because you admire them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
gnarlyhotep posted:Does anyone here really think voting matters? Because voting is a front to make people think there is actually a democracy when there has never been one. It's just the rich running things like they always have. I moved from a red state where my vote didn't matter to a blue state where my vote doesn't matter. At the same time, Obama is president, and no matter how I feel about that, there are a lot of people upset that a black man is president. Somehow that happened, so vote harder I guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 06:10
|
|
|
While your personal vote in a national election doesn't matter, and you shouldn't particularly agonize over it, voting in aggregate does matter and voting in primaries particularly matters. The idea that both parties produce the same outcomes is puerile and false. But it's also true that following politics-as-sport and arguing about candidates and the horserace is fun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Too bad Wisconsin is 86% white. Milwaukee isn't See that article about it from a few months ago for details on what produced such a horrible creature as him http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118145/scott-walkers-toxic-racial-politics icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 06:29 on Feb 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
gnarlyhotep posted:Does anyone here really think voting matters? Because voting is a front to make people think there is actually a democracy when there has never been one. It's just the rich running things like they always have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
Joementum posted:voting in aggregate does matter and voting in primaries particularly matters. The idea that both parties produce the same outcomes is puerile and false. After 2000 how can you believe this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
Webb is unelectable. I don't know why anyone is taking him seriously.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
gnarlyhotep posted:After 2000 how can you believe this? 2000 is the textbook case for both of the statements you quoted being true.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
Joementum posted:2000 is the textbook case for both of the statements you quoted being true. Please bear with me because I am very stupid. So you're saying that even though there was a majority vote for Gore, Bush won because there wasn't any fuckery going on? I am purposely not counting the electoral college because it's bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 06:41
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Webb is unelectable. I don't know why anyone is taking him seriously. For the most part, because they're a bit racist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
gnarlyhotep posted:Please bear with me because I am very stupid. So you're saying that even though there was a majority vote for Gore, Bush won because there wasn't any fuckery going on? I am purposely not counting the electoral college because it's bullshit. For being bullshit, it's how Bush got elected. Your opinion of the rules does not change their applicability.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:For being bullshit, it's how Bush got elected. Your opinion of the rules does not change their applicability. I'm not debating my opinion of the rules, in fact you are talking about exactly what I'm talking about. Which is that there is no democracy and probably never has been.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
gnarlyhotep posted:Please bear with me because I am very stupid. So you're saying that even though there was a majority vote for Gore, Bush won because there wasn't any fuckery going on? I am purposely not counting the electoral college because it's bullshit. I don't understand how Florida in 2000 is proof that voting in aggregate doesn't matter. Had the difference not been within the MoE due to protest votes for various third party candidates, there would not have been a need for a recount, or the totally bullshit involvement of SCOTUS in that mess. The same is true for other states that didn't get the attention Florida got that year, like New Hampshire. And I have no idea why anyone would still believe that there was no difference between Bush and Gore in terms of political outcomes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
gnarlyhotep posted:I'm not debating my opinion of the rules, in fact you are talking about exactly what I'm talking about. Which is that there is no democracy and probably never has been. [citation needed] Who do you think is responsible for 9/11? Do you think men actually walked on the Moon? Where do you stand on vaccines and autism?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I don't understand how Florida in 2000 is proof that voting in aggregate doesn't matter. Had the difference not been within the MoE due to protest votes for various third party candidates, there would not have been a need for a recount, or the totally bullshit involvement of SCOTUS in that mess. I don't think Bush and Gore were similar, that's kind of central to my whole point. What I'm saying is that the 2000 election is a prime example of how the US presidential electoral system is and always has been a huge farce. It's run by the rich, for the rich. How is that not obvious?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 07:04
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Webb is unelectable. I don't know why anyone is taking him seriously. Is anyone other than Jim Webb and maybe Joe Scarborough taking him seriously?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:[citation needed] I don't know who was responsible for 9/11 and don't care. Yes, I think men walked on the moon. I think all children should be vaccinated and there is no proof that vaccines cause autism. just because we don't agree on politics I'm crazy? lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:[citation needed] What the gently caress man? He's talking about choice. Is a false choice a real choice? This isn't complicated. gnarlyhotep posted:I don't know who was responsible for 9/11 and don't care. He is actually one of the better posters in here so I'm not sure what the hell that post was.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
gnarlyhotep posted:It's run by the rich, for the rich. How is that not obvious? It is obvious, and true, that the rich have extreme and undue influence in US politics, but it does not necessarily follow that voting doesn't matter. In fact, that elections are so closely contested is evidence against that statement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
gnarlyhotep posted:I don't know who was responsible for 9/11 and don't care. More because you're wildly ignorant in a dumb way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
Joementum posted:It is obvious, and true, that the rich have extreme and undue influence in US politics, but it does not necessarily follow that voting doesn't matter. In fact, that elections are so closely contested is evidence against that statement. I will concede the point to you since you are obviously much better informed than I. And I'm not being sarcastic. I really hope this is true. But my heart tells me it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:More because you're wildly ignorant in a dumb way. as for you haha, thanks Nintendo Kid for putting me in my place
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
gnarlyhotep posted:I don't know who was responsible for 9/11 and don't care. When you start spouting crazy unsupported conspiracy theories ("there is no democracy and probably never has been.") my first response is to doubt your sanity. There is no evidence whatever to support that assertion. It's something that you hear from an angsty 15-year-old. Powerful groups and individuals certainly influence elections. That has been true throughout history. There is a rather large difference between influence and control, however, and you seem unable to make that distinction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
gnarlyhotep posted:I will concede the point to you since you are obviously much better informed than I. And I'm not being sarcastic. I really hope this is true. But my heart tells me it isn't. His point is that if elections were run by the rich, why wouldn't Bush have just won 2000 outright instead of going to the Supreme Court and making him have an eternal asterisk next to that election in the eyes of basically everyone?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
gnarlyhotep posted:Does anyone here really think voting matters? Because voting is a front to make people think there is actually a democracy when there has never been one. It's just the rich running things like they always have. Why do your dogs and cats watch out when you start running around the house? There's no way your cat or your little dog has any ability to change the course of the household you run, but they sure as poo poo can watch your general demeanor and movement and make inferences. Like, when your big ape-rear end starts lumbering around the house, and they've seen this pattern before, they know to move their asses before they get stepped on. Despite their best efforts to make people like you feel like your involvement in government doesn't matter, government actually impacts a shitload of things in your life, and I think you'll find that most people here will agree as an absolute baseline is that being AWARE of this stuff actually can make a difference in your life. I, on the other hand, keep track of this so I can choose the absolute worst rear end in a top hat I can pick in every election, in the hopes that they will get their way and destroy the country, because I'm stupid and so god drat crazy that way. It's a fun alternative to apathy, and makes the game MUCH more enjoyable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 07:14
|
|
|
Somewhat interestingly, the US Presidential general election is the one where money has the least influence of any democratic election in the world. The reason for this is that both of the major parties have roughly the same amount of funding in the election and the voter is more informed about their choice than in any other contest. There were very few people who went to the polls in 2012 without knowing who Mitt Romney and Barack Obama were and why they might want to vote for one of the two of those people. Each party spent a lot of money ensuring that was the case. It's very different in your average state legislative contest where the incumbent typically has ten times as much cash on hand as any challenger, who'll be lucky if he can even get the local paper to print his name correctly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 07:18
|
|
|
To me, evidence enough that voting matters is the degree to which the party preferred by the richest and most powerful goes to suppressing turnout. They don't want you to vote.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 07:23
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:To me, evidence enough that voting matters is the degree to which the party preferred by the richest and most powerful goes to suppressing turnout. They don't want you to vote. I think that is what he is arguing, in that, their is no choice. We have a lesser of two evils thread every election, but is that choice? Obviously we as voters don't want either loving candidate, but we have to pick one. Then we blame everybody else because they are stupid, and the entire thing keeps rolling along.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
Pohl posted:I think that is what he is arguing, in that, their is no choice. We have a lesser of two evil thread every election, but is that choice?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 18:48 |
|
|
Pohl posted:We have a lesser of two evil thread every election, but is that choice? Absolutely yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 07:29
|
|