|
Why does anyone even offer those options if nobody's ever supposed to eat them?
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 12:39 |
|
|
Mirthless posted:Will Deez Nuts make it on the ballot? I'm worried their support may cool off and shrivel up before the general erection.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:For everyone suggesting a third party candidate hamstringing the party in the general, isn't that what Nader did in 2000, and didn't that just push the Democratic party further to the center? It's also largely incidental to whether a third-party hamstringing of the party would accomplish anything. The last time a third party had any real impact was in the elections of 1992 and 1996, but even that isn't terribly relevant because the political landscape has changed and the character of the would be third party would almost certainly be different. quote:We do this to ourselves every time we get in power. We don't show up to midterms and we make protest votes in the general and then we're surprised that Republican and conservative shitheads have been in charge for the majority of the last six decades. Losing elections to conservatives does not do what you think it does. We have lost enough times to low turnout to know that by now. Losing elections pushes the left to the center, because getting a seat at the table is more important than maintaining ideological purity. quote:Vote for Bernie in the primary. Hope he wins. But if he doesn't and you choose to abstain, you have no right to call yourself a progressive or a leftist. You're just a spite voter. Vote for my party's candidate or you're a poopy head! That's very mature and sure to win people over.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Equine Don posted:Lmao Jesus Christ, Clinton. If she doesn't pick up her game soon, she's going to get eaten alive in the general. Even if Sanders wasn't running I'd want to vote for someone over Clinton, just because if she keeps up this wishy-washy bullshit, literally any realistic Republican nominee will dance all over her at the debates.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
greatn posted:Make me post there. Do it. A Good Mod
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
Feather posted:No, Nader had nothing to with 2000, but it's a very handy punching dead-horse that some democrats use as an excuse. Gore lost in 2000 because of one vote: the deciding vote in the SCOTUS case. More democrats voted for George Bush than voted for Nader (by a huge margin). Nader is the Democrats' Goldstein. This is how Nader voters live with themselves for literally ruining our country for ten years. Florida was decided by a few hundred people. 1-3% of Florida's electorate would have been more than enough to tip the scales so the vote never went to the Supreme Court in the first place. And if you don't want another presidential election decided by an appointed body, maybe you should care more about who is appointing those justices. Harrow posted:Jesus Christ, Clinton. If she doesn't pick up her game soon, she's going to get eaten alive in the general. Even if Sanders wasn't running I'd want to vote for someone over Clinton, just because if she keeps up this wishy-washy bullshit, literally any realistic Republican nominee will dance all over her at the debates. Yeah, definitely kind of sour about this one. She needs to take some solid positions eventually, refusing to have a stance is one of the (many) reasons Kerry failed to connect with basically everyone. It would be a disaster if we went for the electable candidate (again) and ended up losing (again) Mirthless fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Jul 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
rear end cobra posted:A Good Mod To be fair he didn't force him to post there, just not to post (at all) for some amount of time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
Actually the people who are to blame for ruining the country are Republican politicians, not the voters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
Boomstick Quaid posted:Actually the people who are to blame for ruining the country are Republican politicians, not the voters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
Boomstick Quaid posted:Actually the people who are to blame for ruining the country are Republican politicians, not the voters. The voters in Florida were absolutely to blame for what happened in 2000. Protest votes would have covered the gap that allowed bush to coast into power. It's the one case I can think of where every vote mattered. The people are to blame for the leaders they elect. A vote for Nader was effectively a vote for Bush. And it certainly didn't drive the party further to the left. Good god, most of the left won't even talk about serious climate change reforms because of what happened to Gore in 2000. But he just wasnt liberal enough! Good thing we got Bush instead, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
Damnit the official filing of Deez Nutz as a candidate has me giggling like a god drat moron at work someone help
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Harrow posted:Jesus Christ, Clinton. If she doesn't pick up her game soon, she's going to get eaten alive in the general. Even if Sanders wasn't running I'd want to vote for someone over Clinton, just because if she keeps up this wishy-washy bullshit, literally any realistic Republican nominee will dance all over her at the debates. Yeah this is the central flaw in Hillary's campaign argument: she's bad at politics and could easily lose, even given her opponents.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:The voters in Florida were absolutely to blame for what happened in 2000. Protest votes would have covered the gap that allowed bush to coast into power. It's the one case I can think of where every vote mattered. The people are to blame for the leaders they elect. A vote for Nader was effectively a vote for Bush.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:Yeah, definitely kind of sour about this one. She needs to take some solid positions eventually, refusing to have a stance is one of the (many) reasons Kerry failed to connect with basically everyone. It would be a disaster if we went for the electable candidate (again) and ended up losing (again) Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah this is the central flaw in Hillary's campaign argument: she's bad at politics and could easily lose, even given her opponents. Okay, I wanted to make sure it wasn't just me. I really can't tell if I'm just more consciously looking for noncommittal statements from Clinton or if she's just a lot worse at hiding hers than most other presidential frontrunners. There's nothing unusual about politicians being unwilling to take a stand on certain issues, but Clinton's been more transparent about it than I expected. I guess I thought she was better at politics than this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:The voters in Florida were absolutely to blame for what happened in 2000. Protest votes would have covered the gap that allowed bush to coast into power. It's the one case I can think of where every vote mattered. The people are to blame for the leaders they elect. A vote for Nader was effectively a vote for Bush. Actually it's Gore's fault for requesting selective recounts of left-leaning counties. Also for losing his home state, cmon son.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Harrow posted:Okay, I wanted to make sure it wasn't just me. I really can't tell if I'm just more consciously looking for noncommittal statements from Clinton or if she's just a lot worse at hiding hers than most other presidential frontrunners. There's nothing unusual about politicians being unwilling to take a stand on certain issues, but Clinton's been more transparent about it than I expected. I guess I thought she was better at politics than this. Bill could say the same thing in a "just us folks" way that would seem both substantive and warm. Basically - she sucks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
and ballot design in palm beach county, and the purging of black voters from the rolls. nader isn't the only reason gore lost, and you should be a lot angrier at the other ones - denying thousands of people the right to vote is a lot more of an outrage than thousands of people preferring one candidate to another.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Actually it's Gore's fault for requesting selective recounts of left-leaning counties. Of all the 2000 related arguments, "Gore didn't even win Tennessee" is probably the dumbest. Gore lost Tennessee by four points and if any Democrat came that close in Tennessee in a presidential election after 2000 they'd be winning in a landslide.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Antti posted:Of all the 2000 related arguments, "Gore didn't even win Tennessee" is probably the dumbest. Gore lost Tennessee by four points and if any Democrat came that close in Tennessee in a presidential election after 2000 they'd be winning in a landslide. On the other hand, Tennessee been deeply Republican every election before and since dating back to realignment, with the exception of Carter's election.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
You D&D losers seem like you're more into telling people how to meta-game the first-past-the-post two party poo poo heap instead of empowering voters with representation. Just look at the last three pages or so of discussion. "How can I reconcile my love of Sander's policy with my usual poo poo inclination of strategic voting and telling people how they should vote?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
Boomstick Quaid posted:You D&D losers seem like you're more into telling people how to meta-game the first-past-the-post two party poo poo heap instead of empowering voters with representation. Just look at the last three pages or so of discussion. "How can I reconcile my love of Sander's policy with my usual poo poo inclination of strategic voting and telling people how they should vote?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Don't even take into account all the other things that'd be different if Al Gore were president, because there'd be many. But imagine if the Kyoto Protocols were ratified on day one of a Gore presidency. Climate change enforcement that isn't completely spineless. It's almost unfathomable now, isn't it? Yeah, here we are ten years later taking about the effects of climate change with absolute finality. A sector of our population has just accepted this is going to be what ends the human race, and the rest of the country just doesn't give a poo poo thanks largely in part to the concerted efforts of the Republican party. 2000 was a costly mistake that we really can't afford to repeat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
I still think 9/11 would have pushed Gore off the deep end and he'd have glassed Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:I still think 9/11 would have pushed Gore off the deep end and he'd have glassed Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
No doubt he would have transformed into a GUNDAM and destroyed Katrina while still in the Gulf or whatever the left was expecting though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Al Gore, noted warmonger. We know he has a temper. If you read some of the hearsay stories about him urging Clinton to go HAM on sensitive military and extraction missions, it's not hard to imagine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:No doubt he would have transformed into a GUNDAM and destroyed Katrina while still in the Gulf or whatever the left was expecting though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:I still think 9/11 would have pushed Gore off the deep end and he'd have glassed Afghanistan. Yeah, the foremost advocate for climate change in the US definitely would have used nuclear weapons on Afghanistan. Sorry, I'm not even convinced 9/11 would have happened in the first place with a Gore presidency. Remember all those memos Bush ignored?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:If by "empowering voters with representation", do you mean "empowering them to make a vote which will not lead to anyone representing them"? If we had more than say two whole parties, I imagine the Republican party would schism into two or three parties, each better representing their voting bloc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Antti posted:Of all the 2000 related arguments, "Gore didn't even win Tennessee" is probably the dumbest. Gore lost Tennessee by four points and if any Democrat came that close in Tennessee in a presidential election after 2000 they'd be winning in a landslide. And yet Bill won Tennessee four years earlier by three and and didn't even get a majority. Gore ran a bad campaign that didn't exploit the popularity of Bill. And if that's not enough for you get mad at the Jewish retirees in Long Beach that 'voted' for Buchanan and/or butterfly ballots.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The pipeline doesn't increase oil usage, so it's weird to see you claiming it would "undo the effects of the energy plan". Also you're pretty loopy if you think anyone can deliver better than 33% renewable in 3 years from inauguration (hell it sounds way too optimistic at 33%!) If it doesn't increase oil usage, what's the point?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:If it doesn't increase oil usage, what's the point? It's so they can build a pipeline through an aquifer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:And yet Bill won Tennessee four years earlier by three and and didn't even get a majority. Voting for the wrong candidate on accident is a lot less damning than voting for the wrong candidate on purpose. Gore's campaign was good enough to win him the popular vote. He could have done a better job, but it still comes down to a handful of votes in Florida. Nader voters would have decided the election if they hadn't thrown their votes away in protest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Boomstick Quaid posted:If we had more than say two whole parties, I imagine the Republican party would schism into two or three parties, each better representing their voting bloc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Hillary's planned parenthood statements are pretty poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Boomstick Quaid posted:It's so they can build a pipeline through an aquifer. There is already pipelines running through there. There were pipelines before, there will be pipelines in the future. The only reason this is up for vote is that it's an international pipeline. The alternative is moving stuff by truck and tanker. I'm opposed to the thing (and I work in midstream  ) but it's not like my opposition is helping anything. Standing in the way of the pipeline isn't doing anything for climate change and it certainly isn't reducing our dependence on off shore and middle eastern oil
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
For the first time I'm starting to get legitimately worried that we'll have a full-on Republican government after the 2016 elections.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Boomstick Quaid posted:It's so they can build a pipeline through an aquifer. As an experienced Dwarf Fortress overseer, I can attest that this is a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 12:39 |
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:And yet Bill won Tennessee four years earlier by three and and didn't even get a majority. He didn't get a majority because Perot was splitting the ballot. Take that away and he most likely would have lost the state.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:39
|
|