|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Trumps VP Which ribbon do you get for committing torture?
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 05:32 |
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Of course, those big not-Romney bounces weren't announcement bounces. Gingrich, for example, announced some four months before his surge in the polls. The "not-Romney" bounces were cycles of a candidate having a nice media event (Cain winning the FL straw poll, Bachmann winning the IA straw poll, Gingrich being snarky in a debate, Santorum surging in a flawed CNN poll) followed by a couple weeks of them surging in the polls, which led to media scrutiny and occasionally negative advertising from Romney, which led to their downfall. This is well described in the chapter on the GOP nomination from The Gamble. Trump's "surge" will be different because there's no need for media scrutiny. Unlike Rick Santorum, everyone in America already knows who Donald Trump is and has a pretty good idea of his political agenda (brown people, he's against 'em!). He'll be more like Ron Paul: a fringe candidate with a ceiling of support somewhere around 10% who draws a cult following and gets more exposure than he deserves because of it. The frontrunners would be wise to form the same secret non-aggression pact with him that Romney did with the Pauls.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:My big fear is that we're not going to get nearly the same amazing dildos based upon ratings that we did last time because of all of the runners. Maybe once they start dropping out. Not dildos, butt plugs! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The "not-Romney" bounces were cycles of a candidate having a nice media event (Cain winning the FL straw poll, Bachmann winning the IA straw poll, Gingrich being snarky in a debate, Santorum surging in a flawed CNN poll) followed by a couple weeks of them surging in the polls, which led to media scrutiny and occasionally negative advertising from Romney, which led to their downfall. This is well described in the chapter on the GOP nomination from The Gamble. Thanks for digging up that poll. People who seriously think Trump will endure the rigors of a presidential campaign and become the nominee are naive about what this race actually will require from the winner. Even discussing the possibility is a waste of time, albeit entertaining. That being said, there's a lingering question as to whether or not Trump is egotistical enough to make an independent run after (possible national humiliation) and pulling out. The first debate is August 6th, and it's GOP, so it's closer than we think. Marco Rubio is the smartest choice for the GOP IMHO but he needs to step it up a lot. The sad thing is that Trump has the strongest social media presence of any GOP candidate and that's kinda sad. They have a lot of catching up to do on the social media front. It's gonna be a massive factor in this election
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
pwnyXpress posted:How do you suggest we deal with the fact that the "lesser of two evils" still elects "evil?" What if both would plunge us into further wars and pull the world closer to militant corporate fascism? Put on your big boy pants and understand that it's literally impossible for you to get your dearest wishes to come true in a country of 310 million+ people and where you only get to vote for 3 out of 535 congress members. Though I guess you can't because you're actually scared of corporate fascism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The "not-Romney" bounces were cycles of a candidate having a nice media event (Cain winning the FL straw poll, Bachmann winning the IA straw poll, Gingrich being snarky in a debate, Santorum surging in a flawed CNN poll) followed by a couple weeks of them surging in the polls, which led to media scrutiny and occasionally negative advertising from Romney, which led to their downfall. This is well described in the chapter on the GOP nomination from The Gamble. Yeah, I imagine Trump has a hard ceiling on his polling numbers. He already draws big disfavorability numbers, and there's probably nothing he can do to win those people back. Sadly, he may be less fringe than Paul ("gently caress immigrants!" is a pretty populist stance, particularly within the republican party). If Trump somehow "wins" a debate by talking over everyone I think we will see the other candidates figure out what needs to be done.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:How much longer is Bernie going to be in the Senate? Given his current age? At least until 2025, maybe even 2030. Hieronymous Alloy posted:First past the post voting system ensures there won't be more than two major parties basically. Tons of non FPTP systems out there still only have two major parties in contention for positions like Prime Minister, even when there's many parties in the country. For instance it's been nearly 40 years since the last German legislative leader in power wasn't from the two parties that have flipped between since. And that's what's relvant when we're comparing other countries' party system with the President. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Jul 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
Nth Doctor posted:Which ribbon do you get for committing torture? Last I heard Ollie North got a Bronze Star for Iran Contra... So, I guess at least an Army Commendation Medal? Torturing goes for way less these days in a PC homo-military.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Put on your big boy pants and understand that it's literally impossible for you to get your dearest wishes to come true in a country of 310 million+ people and where you only get to vote for 3 out of 535 congress members. Also, 99.9% of the country doesn't view it as a choice of two evils. The President, even a progressive one, should acknowledge that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The "not-Romney" bounces were cycles of a candidate having a nice media event (Cain winning the FL straw poll, Bachmann winning the IA straw poll, Gingrich being snarky in a debate, Santorum surging in a flawed CNN poll) followed by a couple weeks of them surging in the polls, which led to media scrutiny and occasionally negative advertising from Romney, which led to their downfall. This is well described in the chapter on the GOP nomination from The Gamble. Given enough candidates with different sugar daddies, Trump's 10% might be enough to stay relevant
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The "not-Romney" bounces were cycles of a candidate having a nice media event (Cain winning the FL straw poll, Bachmann winning the IA straw poll, Gingrich being snarky in a debate, Santorum surging in a flawed CNN poll) followed by a couple weeks of them surging in the polls, which led to media scrutiny and occasionally negative advertising from Romney, which led to their downfall. This is well described in the chapter on the GOP nomination from The Gamble.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Tons of non FPTP systems out there still only have two major parties in contention for positions like Prime Minister, even when there's many parties in the country. For instance it's been nearly 40 years since the last German legislative leader in power wasn't from the two parties that have flipped between since. And that's what's relvant when we're comparing other countries' party system with the President. It's not FPTP specifically that leads to this effect, it's the winnowing of viable candidates through electoral rules (of which FPTP is one of many). Germany has successfully and purposefully killed off small parties via a very strict 5% electoral threshold. Israel used to be full of a billion parties and ever-changing alliances, but a recent 3% threshold has slowed that trend by a considerable amount. In general, a 1% threshold (which Israel used to have, is considered lenient and ineffective at restricting the number of parties while Germany's 5% threshold is thought to be unreasonably strict. It's kept the nazis out of parliament and so many find 5% very acceptable. Germany's Overton Window is pretty drat moderate because of this rule imo i say swears online fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Jul 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Meanwhile, in Los Angeles the pro-Trump rally: Who the gently caress would protest at the Sunset/405 interchange on a Friday afternoon? Way to gently caress up the westsides traffic even more than usual you Brentwood fucktards.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:It's not FPTP specifically that leads to this effect, it's the winnowing of viable candidates through electoral rules (of which FPTP is one of many). Germany has successfully and purposefully killed off small parties via a very strict 5% electoral threshold. Israel used to be full of a billion parties and ever-changing alliances, but a recent 3% threshold has slowed that trend by a considerable amount. There are now 10 parties in the Israeli parliament after the 3.25% threshold, and that's before coalitions have had a chance to split up once elected. 5 of them are in the knife's edge coalition, the second and third biggest are in opposition. The parliament prior to these elections had 13 parties. Before you think to yourself that this is some big difference, one of the current parties was simply formed out of two of the ones in the previous Knesset, while another was formed out of three. They haven't split yet, but they easily could according to their founding documents. Raising the threshold has not been able to do anything about the serious fracturing of Israeli society, and the diverse parties which this creates.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:It's not FPTP specifically that leads to this effect, it's the winnowing of viable candidates through electoral rules (of which FPTP is one of many). Germany has successfully and purposefully killed off small parties via a very strict 5% electoral threshold. Israel used to be full of a billion parties and ever-changing alliances, but a recent 3% threshold has slowed that trend by a considerable amount. In general, a 1% threshold (which Israel used to have, is considered lenient and ineffective at restricting the number of parties while Germany's 5% threshold is thought to be unreasonably strict. It's kept the nazis out of parliament and so many find 5% very acceptable. Germany's Overton Window is pretty drat moderate because of this rule imo No, it's because there's very few systems that stably have no large parties. When you have any large parties, they're going to completely soak up most chances of some random small party being able to lead its own coalition, they'll often demand to be leaders of coalitions with small parties where they need to make coalition, and thus usually get to take the PM/chancellor/whatever role. In such parliamentary systems there's a whole bunch of parties with sizable power, but you're still only going to have 2, maybe 3, serious parties for a head of government position, since there can be only one head of government at a time - same reason that even if America decided to make the Congress full proportional representation and all that jazz, but we still had the presidency, there's probably be two new parties who were the only serious ones in the running in a given year to get that. You can't proportionately represent with a single person, after all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
I wonder how likely the Republican field stays large post IA/NH. In 2012 it was down to 4 almost immediately, but there was a clear front-runner who had pretty much full-backing from the GOP establishment. In 2016, I have to believe that Bush, Rubio, Walker and Paul are in it for the long haul because they all have establishment (or Ron Paul crazy) support. Santorum and Huckabee both had successes in the past and no current commitments so I could see one or both staying in. If there is still a large divided field come Super Tuesday, and if Trump is actually committed to running this time, his 10-15% national vote share could easily win a few primaries, which would be hilarious. Those are both pretty big ifs; Trump probably doesn't know how far he's going to go with this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You can't proportionately represent with a single person, after all. In a parliamentary system the executive isn't unitary. The Prime Minister or First Minister is a first among equals and a leader, but the various ministries hold some autonomy, and are usually proportionally spread out between the coalition partners.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Put on your big boy pants and understand that repeatedly throwing fits and posting hyperbolic unsubstantiated judgments of people on the internet makes you look like a total rear end. Really though, what you posted sounds a lot more like, "bend over and take it like me! You'll eventually faint from the pain and blood loss and then you won't feel or think a thing about it!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:So who are Bernie Sanders' potential running mates, then? We've talked a lot about Hillary Clinton's potential VP picks, but not Bernie Sanders'. Tavis Smiley is waiting in the wings in The Most Hopeful Timeline.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 04:19
|
|
" I may kill you.
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:In a parliamentary system the executive isn't unitary. The Prime Minister or First Minister is a first among equals and a leader, but the various ministries hold some autonomy, and are usually proportionally spread out between the coalition partners. But this is irrelevant to the fact that a singular position can only have one dude in it. After all, there's been cases in America of appointing a Republican to a token department in a Democrat cabinet or vice versa, or even the case of the Lincoln/Douglas ticket where the President and Vice President were separate parties! pwnyXpress posted:Really though, what you posted sounds a lot more like, "bend over and take it like me! You'll eventually faint from the pain and blood loss and then you won't feel or think a thing about it!" You think you're totally blowing people's minds but I remember people like you whining on the BBS I was on, talking about how Perot was totally going to change things, maaaaaaan around the 1996 elections. Guess what? Unless you get like 60 million people actually willing to turn out in the right states, you're not getting your "no I totally swear there's no evil here" happening. And you won't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You think you're totally blowing people's minds but I remember people like you whining on the BBS I was on, talking about how Perot was totally going to change things, maaaaaaan around the 1996 elections. Guess what? Unless you get like 60 million people actually willing to turn out in the right states, you're not getting your "no I totally swear there's no evil here" happening. And you won't. Nintendo Kid posted:people like you Nintendo Kid posted:Put on your big boy pants and understand that repeatedly throwing fits and posting hyperbolic unsubstantiated judgments of people on the internet makes you look like a total rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:In a parliamentary system the executive isn't unitary. The Prime Minister or First Minister is a first among equals and a leader, but the various ministries hold some autonomy, and are usually proportionally spread out between the coalition partners. Do you think strength of the executive has a correlation with fewer parties?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:But this is irrelevant to the fact that a singular position can only have one dude in it. After all, there's been cases in America of appointing a Republican to a token department in a Democrat cabinet or vice versa, or even the case of the Lincoln/Douglas ticket where the President and Vice President were separate parties! It's kind of different in an actual coalition government where the ruling party actually needs the support of the other parties to stay in power. I mean, I agree that ultimately a unitary executive can only have one person in it, but there's a degree of leverage in those situations that's not present when you have a token Republican in a Democratic cabinet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:But this is irrelevant to the fact that a singular position can only have one dude in it. After all, there's been cases in America of appointing a Republican to a token department in a Democrat cabinet or vice versa, or even the case of the Lincoln/Douglas ticket where the President and Vice President were separate parties! It is entirely different in parliamentary governments. Entirely so. It's not a matter of putting someone from an opposing party in a token department to keep the peace, it's part and parcel of the make-up of a coalition government, to the point where the PM can't get the FM to do what he wants because he doesn't want to risk the government dissolving and early elections. The PM does not have the same power or the same significance in a parliamentary democracy as the President has in a Presidential one. There is no-one in a Parliamentary democracy that has that power, full stop. Your analysis simply does not apply. Aliquid posted:Do you think strength of the executive has a correlation with fewer parties? There are quite a few parliamentary democracies where there are usually 3 significant parties. I think it has a bit to do with the power of the executive, but also with the difference between regional FPTP and national proportional; it's much harder to sustainably get people elected as a small party in the former than it is in the latter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
I convinced my cousins to take me to Davenport to see Bobby Jindal! Other than asking him to be more like Trump, what question should I ask him? Also, Happy Joe's pizza is an abomination, and I feel bad for all the candidates who have to eat that poo poo on a regular basis and pretend to like it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:It is entirely different in parliamentary governments. Entirely so. It's not a matter of putting someone from an opposing party in a token department to keep the peace, it's part and parcel of the make-up of a coalition government, to the point where the PM can't get the FM to do what he wants because he doesn't want to risk the government dissolving and early elections. The PM does not have the same power or the same significance in a parliamentary democracy as the President has in a Presidential one. There is no-one in a Parliamentary democracy that has that power, full stop. Your analysis simply does not apply. You seem to be missing the point of the analysis though: the point is that people in America get mad there's usually only 2 at all likely options for President and think that this would be significantly different in another system. The fact that the closest true analog in other systems ends up having the same problem, even when compensated by coalition partners (assuming the parties need coalitions for it, which in many other countries they often don't) is extremely relevant. Proportional representation and other fairer voting systems can only help shake up a legislative branch, they can't do much for the leader who runs the executive, even if that leader is responsible to a fair legislature. So did you ever have an actual counterargument to the fact that you're super-naive and pushing an argument that simply hasn't worked in decades upon decades, or what? I'm sorry that the factual electorate and structure of the country is mean to you though. How horrible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You seem to be missing the point of the analysis though: the point is that people in America get mad there's usually only 2 at all likely options for President and think that this would be significantly different in another system. The fact that the closest true analog in other systems ends up having the same problem, even when compensated by coalition partners (assuming the parties need coalitions for it, which in many other countries they often don't) is extremely relevant. The Prime Minister does not run the executive in a parliamentary democracy in a way that is comparable to how the President runs the executive in a Presidential democracy. The specific identity of the ministers is much more relevant than that of the secretaries; for example, in Israel, the Kulanu party ran specifically on having its leader be the Finance Minister, and that is what the voters were expecting - to create support for a specific finance minister with specific parliamentary backing, which is only a reasonable strategy in a parliamentary system (and it actually worked). This is not the first time that this has happened, either; I can think of at least one time where a party ran to get a specific person in the Ministry of the Interior - that also worked and did have the expected results.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
Guys, help, I think I'm ODing on Trump. Send an ambulance. Make sure it's Yooge.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:The Prime Minister does not run the executive in a parliamentary democracy in a way that is comparable to how the President runs the executive in a Presidential democracy. The specific identity of the ministers is much more relevant than that of the secretaries; for example, in Israel, the Kulanu party ran specifically on having its leader be the Finance Minister, and that is what the voters were expecting - to create support for a specific finance minister with specific parliamentary backing, which is only a reasonable strategy in a parliamentary system (and it actually worked). This is not the first time that this has happened, either; I can think of at least one time where a party ran to get a specific person in the Ministry of the Interior - that also worked and did have the expected results. But it's so confusing considering expected results and necessary results. If it's a party-list election, doesn't tactical voting rear its ugly head if you're voting for a party just to get its top-listed candidate into government?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:So did you ever have an actual counterargument to the fact that you're super-naive and pushing an argument that simply hasn't worked in decades upon decades, or what? I'm sorry that the factual electorate and structure of the country is mean to you though. How horrible. Nah, I was just hoping you'd go full  on me. Like I'd really try engaging you in any way. I don't want to get probated alongside you, so you're going on the ignore list now. I hope you can sort out your problems eventually!Edited for brevity: PROBATION 06/22/15 01:33pm Nintendo Kid Stop making smug adhom one-liners all the time. User loses posting privileges for 3 days. Exclamation Marx Ralp PROBATION 06/03/15 02:32pm Nintendo Kid At least try to couch this as an actual argument next time. User loses posting privileges for 1 day. Absurd Alhazred Ralp PROBATION 04/26/15 05:04pm Nintendo Kid Stop calling people child or kid or sonny or whatever, god drat. User loses posting privileges for 1 day. XyloJW XyloJW PROBATION 02/17/15 08:43am Nintendo Kid Fishmeching. User loses posting privileges for 3 days. Thermopyle XyloJW PROBATION 01/28/15 05:03pm Nintendo Kid What the gently caress? Don't share that CP poo poo. User loses posting privileges for 6 hours. OSI bean dip OSI bean dip PROBATION 09/18/14 08:18pm Nintendo Kid Shut the gently caress up fishmech. User loses posting privileges for 6 hours. Alereon Alereon PROBATION 01/15/14 11:25am Nintendo Kid Being Fishmech. User loses posting privileges for 1 month. Downtown Abey Pipski PROBATION 09/13/13 03:31pm Nintendo Kid Fishmech if you don't agree with some technical claim (excuse me: what I meant to say is, if something is "obviously wrong and even a child would know it; god"), don't you think it would be helpful to explain why? Or is it more important to hold that card back for yourself and keep everybody from seeing it, so you can bring it out later and again feel extremely satisfied with yourself, despite no one else knowing what the hell you are talking about. User loses posting privileges for 3 days. evilweasel toby PROBATION 06/24/13 10:19pm Nintendo Kid You're not allowed to tell others they're not very smart. User loses posting privileges for 1 week. Louisgod angerbeet PROBATION 05/22/13 05:34pm Nintendo Kid Try being less of a dick, child. User loses posting privileges for 3 days. Kewpuh Debbie Metallica PROBATION 05/22/13 07:12am Nintendo Kid A history of poor posting and a defiant attitude about shitposts. You're a gem forever. User loses posting privileges for 3 days. Zoolooman The Finn PROBATION 09/09/12 11:32am Nintendo Kid Fishmechin' to the extreme. User loses posting privileges for 1 day. Alereon Debbie Metallica PROBATION 05/22/12 10:18pm Nintendo Kid Fishmechin' like a champ. User loses posting privileges for 6 hours. Star War Sex Parrot Star War Sex Parrot PROBATION 11/08/11 10:27pm Nintendo Kid Fishmechin' User loses posting privileges for 3 days. Star War Sex Parrot angerbeet PROBATION 11/08/11 09:44pm Nintendo Kid Shut up. User loses posting privileges for 6 hours. Star War Sex Parrot Star War Sex Parrot PROBATION 10/31/11 11:53pm Nintendo Kid You don't understand my point therefore you are an idiot!!! User loses posting privileges for 1 day. Louisgod Debbie Metallica  Good Citizen posted:Guys, help, I think I'm ODing on Trump. Send an ambulance. Make sure it's Yooge. I gotta be completely honest. I hope Trump makes it to the general almost as much as I hope Bernie does. Can you imagine those "debates?" (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:So did you ever have an actual counterargument to the fact that you're super-naive and pushing an argument that simply hasn't worked in decades upon decades, or what? I'm sorry that the factual electorate and structure of the country is mean to you though. How horrible. I don't think you really want capitalism to die.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:But it's so confusing considering expected results and necessary results. If it's a party-list election, doesn't tactical voting rear its ugly head if you're voting for a party just to get its top-listed candidate into government? It really depends on the party, but the list, including its head, represents either the will of the registered members of the party in some form of primaries, or the will of some kind of council like with the religious parties. So you know what ideology you're voting for, not just the person. I think in Kulanu's case, like with Yesh Atid, the people were actually chosen by the party head, so you're really voting for this person and people he trusts. There is always tactical voting, although I think the removal of the artificial threshold would take care of that as much as is possible (that is, have the threshold be what you need for one seat, or 1/120 in the case of the Knesset).
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
pwnyXpress posted:Nah, I was just hoping you'd go full Cool meltdown bro, this really asserts your point that uh, what was it again? That no one is allowed to tell you that your ideas are so played out it's almost retro cool about making fun of them? I mean I get it, you're some random GBS poster who wasn't paying attention to politics in a meaningless way until the BernMeme thread happened, but you don't have to be so blatant about it. Aliquid posted:But it's so confusing considering expected results and necessary results. If it's a party-list election, doesn't tactical voting rear its ugly head if you're voting for a party just to get its top-listed candidate into government? Why do you treat tactical voting as a bad thing? It's simply being an educated citizen. Full Battle Rattle posted:I don't think you really want capitalism to die. I do, but it's also pretty obvious that it's not happening before a long while yet, if ever. Bernie doesn't though, since he's a social democrat who takes Scandinavia as a good model.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
People can't really benefit from compromising their beliefs. At this point anyone in this thread should be wary of anyone who says they want to work with those lunatics over in the other aisle. Democrats should wholly abandon the idea of appealing to anyone in the Republican base. They should at least be self aware to walk out themselves. And the only people who argue for the status quo in this thread are the people who benefit from it. I don't. A whole bunch of other people in this thread don't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:People can't really benefit from compromising their beliefs. I guess then nobody ever benefits from politics ever, because politics is all about compromising, as other people usually have different interests and beliefs than you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I guess then nobody ever benefits from politics ever, because politics is all about compromising, as other people usually have different interests and beliefs than you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I guess then nobody ever benefits from politics ever, because politics is all about compromising, as other people usually have different interests and beliefs than you. That dude's sort of attitude is exactly my problem with the people who pop up every 4 or so years talking about how some random candidate is the savior because "Finally There's Not The Lesser Of Two Evils" because compromise and politics in general is anathema to them. And then they're inevitably mystified when it turns out that Random Savior doesn't play in Peoria as it were.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I'd be inclined to agree if it's like, a note against pre-emptive compromising. You may have to meet the guy in the middle, but it's like that political cartoon where you move towards the other guy and he moves away from you. Right. It is the job of the politicians to find compromise, and the job of voters to vote their beliefs so that they are more correctly represented.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:And the only people who argue for the status quo in this thread are the people who benefit from it. I don't. A whole bunch of other people in this thread don't. This is my main problem with this election. Every candidate on the right is awful. Hillary is the "only" candidate on the left, and voting her in is basically a vote for the status quo (inasmuch as "the status quo" is actually just a slower slide to the right). As someone who cares about things like a social safety net, income inequality, corporate ownership of the government, educational opportunities, and climate change, I am totally unrepresented by everyone mentioned so far. Now, obviously I left out Bernie. There's no such thing as a perfect candidate, and I disagree with him on a few bits, but he is the closest to one I've had since registering to vote nearly twenty years ago. Obama came out of nowhere and fooled me into thinking he was that candidate in 2008, but Bernie actually has the history to back it up. How can I possibly trust someone like Clinton after seeing what Obama has been like? Bernie is the only "good" choice as far as I can see.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 05:32 |
|
|
If Obama fooled you, you probably never paid attention to his congressional voting record, or his time as a law professor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 05:48
|
|