|
enraged_camel posted:A Governor doesn't have the power to declare wars on other countries. Neither does the POTUS.
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 12:19 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:No, they can't. Name any Republican candidate with a platform position that is preferable over Hillary to a theoretical informed Sanders supporter. Name any Democratic candidate with a platform position that is preferable to Jeb Bush's to a theoretical informed Huckabee supporter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:No, they can't. Name any Republican candidate with a platform position that is preferable over Hillary to a theoretical informed Sanders supporter. Teddy Roosevelt because it is theoretical that a crazy mustached swindler of latin american states might be better than dishwater.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:It's improbable for an election to be that close? Were you alive in the year 2000?? We're talking about a single vote making the difference. That didn't happen in 200. It's also been agreed by several other posters that discussing such a situation is ridiculous, so feel free to hector them about it too. quote:Holy poo poo this isn't about you specifically it's about the attitude you have that many others have that could affect election outcomes how the gently caress do you not understand this yet. I've already stated that outright. and you seem to be missing the context. I didn't start this arguement because someone made a very sensible and realistic argument of "Well I believe that even if the Democrat's aren't perfect, a significant third party could detract from them and allow the much worse Republicans to come in. Now although your individual vote carries very very little actual weight you should carefully consider if the costs and benefits involved." I made it because people were making idiotic fear mongering arguements like "They literally are, that's the whole point of a two party system. If you're not voting for the democrats then you're helping an actual lunatic get into office." That was the comment I started posting in reference too and although you try and mvoe the goal posts and reinterpret rationales, you have done nothing to defend such a position which is the entire thing I'm arguing against. Please just acknowledge that the attitude of "Voting third party is the same as voting republican" is completely and utterly ridiculous. Just concede that point. Start there. Not only that but even if we talk in general trends of people, it still doesn't influence my decision. Trends of people go both ways and a mass of people voting for a third party, big enough that it doesn't win but it is set-up as a potential challenge to the two party system, is preferable to me than the endless cycle of Republican and Democrat. Individual or en masse, I have no reason to do anything but vote third party. Alien Arcana posted:I think you've misunderstood the tragedy of the commons. The commons don't fail because the shepherds are selfish; they fail because the shepherds are making decisions as individuals rather than as a group. Let's quote Garrett Hardin who originated the term in his 1968 article "The Tragedy of the Commons". "Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all." I'm sorry, what's the word for when someone makes decisions based on their own individual interest with no thought for other people? It's on the tip of my tongue, I think it begins with an 's'....
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Neither does the POTUS. Stop shifting goal posts. We're talking about federal-level elections vs. local level. I gave POTUS as an example of the former.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Trends of people go both ways and a mass of people voting for a third party, big enough that it doesn't win but it is set-up as a potential challenge to the two party system, is preferable to me than the endless cycle of Republican and Democrat. Guys, I think team overhead smash doesn't actually understand how FPTP voting works.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Stop shifting goal posts. We're talking about federal-level elections vs. local level. I gave POTUS as an example of the former. No, we're actually talking about off year elections versus Presidential year elections.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No, we're actually talking about off year elections versus Presidential year elections. Either way, the POTUS can also have a tremendous impact on people's lives.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Guys, I think team overhead smash doesn't actually understand how FPTP voting works. What I said is pretty basic stuff that no-one should have a problem with understanding. If you've got a problem, point it out instead of shitposting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:No, they can't. Name any Republican candidate with a platform position that is preferable over Hillary to a theoretical informed Sanders supporter. This doesn't invalidate an argument that strategic voting in contested states is a smart thing to do, but if it is smart, it's not because large numbers of people not engaging in strategic voting is necessarily a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Let's quote Garrett Hardin who originated the term in his 1968 article "The Tragedy of the Commons". I'll confess: I was ignorant of the full history of the phrase 'tragedy of the commons'. But I went to some trouble to explicitly extend the metaphor to a situation where the individual action is not selfish, yet the collective effect is still disastrous. I notice you didn't quote that part. I would also point out that Hardin isn't blaming the problem on the word you oh-so-coyly hint at, he's blaming it on freedom - the freedom to be short-sighted and myopic, to make one's own decisions in a vacuum, without having to consider what will happen when other people make the same decision for the same reasons. (Incidentally, what Hardin was particularly concerned with was families having too many children and contributing to overpopulation.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Either way, the POTUS can also have a tremendous impact on people's lives. I don't really believe this any more. The system is designed for stability, and I have a hard time imagining any president having a tremendous impact on my life. Theoretically it's possible, but highly unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Alien Arcana posted:I'll confess: I was ignorant of the full history of the phrase 'tragedy of the commons'. But I went to some trouble to explicitly extend the metaphor to a situation where the individual action is not selfish, yet the collective effect is still disastrous. I notice you didn't quote that part. Well like I said in that very post, I believe a third party vote is positive either way. Starving to death is pretty objectively bad. The political repercussions of a third party gathering momentum while the left-centrist party goes out of power and the right-wing takes over are more mixed. In my subjective opinion, that is still a positive development in comparison to just voting Democrat and the democrats getting in. The logic you use can be reversed and used to show that people shouldn't mindlessly vote democrat because it is the popular option, but should work together to get a real left-wing party in power. It all depends on your personal opinions of what is morally right and what repercussions are likely to happen in different situations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:What I said is pretty basic stuff that no-one should have a problem with understanding. What you've said so far is pretty basic stuff that would totally make sense, if FPTP didn't choose based on plurality, rather than majority.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Somfin posted:What you've said so far is pretty basic stuff that would totally make sense, if FPTP didn't choose based on plurality, rather than majority. How does that influence my point? It is about my subjective opinion of the benefit of a third party getting considerable votes (while still being in third) outweighing the benefits of a continuation of a third party system I don't want. It's doesn't matter if it's plurality or majority.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:It is about my subjective opinion of the benefit of a third party getting considerable votes (while still being in third) outweighing the benefits of a continuation of a third party system I don't want. How much, in your mind, is "considerable?" 1%? 5%? 20%?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Somfin posted:How much, in your mind, is "considerable?" 1%? 5%? 20%? Enough to lose the Democrats the election.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
more than 2 parties in fptp has been a disaster in uk and canada, not sure why you'd want to do it in the us too
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Enough to lose the Democrats the election. And then what?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Play posted:I'm sorry but I think you're actually completely wrong here. At the time, the public option WAS utterly politically nonviable. I can't remember the name, but I read an entire book on the passage of the ACA. It was an incredibly difficult, complicated process that was only completed by the most absurdly slim of margins and after endless debate, alterations, and compromises. A public option would never have flown, ever. This is a good point. Keep in mind that Democrats had a near consensus on Medicare buy-in (the alternative to a public option) but Lieberman killed it. There is no way he would have ever supported a public option and they had to get his vote. The biggest failure of Obama was stepping back during the midterm elections rather than convincing Democrats and specifically the DCCC (seriously gently caress the DCCC forever) not to run away from him during the midterms because they needed him to turn out the Democratic vote. tadashi fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Enough to lose the Democrats the election. They've lost em before, and over not moving harder to the left even. The world didn't end then and it won't end if it happens this time either. Maybe they could, I dunno, represent their constituents well enough to not have to fear the left flank?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 13:30
|
|
|
chairface posted:They've lost em before, and over not moving harder to the left even. The world didn't end then and it won't end if it happens this time either. Maybe they could, I dunno, represent their constituents well enough to not have to fear the left flank? Maybe representing 100 million people is actually pretty hard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 13:32
|
|
|
Losing 2016 would be a literal referendum on Obama, yeah don't even contemplate it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
What a dumb derail. "my vote doesn't count" "yes but there is millions of idiots like you and 900 votes difference gave us Bush" "ugh yes but MY vote still wouldn't count go convince the other 899 idiots then maybe I'll consider it" This country would be a better place if young people and leftists would just go loving vote instead of jacking off about how progressive and indie they are. I don't get why the western left is more concerned with ideological purity and self-cannibalization than with defeating the common enemy, it's like a drat religious conflict. "I'll take Bush any day before I dare vote for the Marxist-Lennist-Maoists! Orthodox Second Conceiving Marxist-Leninism is the One True Leftism!" vintagepurple fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
Is there a thread for the nuclear deal? If Obama can't even protect the deal with a veto, that's going to be a big pall on his legacy. The deal already looks shaky enough given that the GOP majorities are going to fall in line and vote against it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:Is there a thread for the nuclear deal because if Obama can't even protect the deal with a veto, that's going to be a big pall on his legacy. Obama will veto, and the veto-overturn is a difficult battle for the GOP to win. Many Dems are eyeing leadership positions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
vintagepurple posted:What a dumb derail. This is a trend that started in the 60s and 70s with the New Left movement. New Leftists thought the government was too inefficient and callous with its social programs, and they wanted to refine or perfect these things. By the late 60s they had the reins of the Democrat Party in Congress, pushing out your older, New Deal Democrats. Lo and Behold, Republicans started to latch on to the idea that government programs were inefficient and impersonal, only with the added caveat that we should just do away with programs altogether. The White working class backlash in the Northern Cities to the Civil Rights Movement (Particularly in the ethnic enclaves of major cities like Chicago and Detroit only further pushed the New Left away from the traditional supporters of the Democrat party (working class voters). Combine their control of the Democrat Party with the New Left primarily more focused on moral/social beliefs, and you get the trend that continues to this day where the American Left as a whole has given politics and real legislation a backseat to endless proselytizing and theorizing. A real clear example of this endless theorizing is the focus on "power", which has become akin to the religious idea of "original sin", as opposed to a simple social theory.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
chairface posted:They've lost em before, and over not moving harder to the left even. The world didn't end then and it won't end if it happens this time either. Maybe they could, I dunno, represent their constituents well enough to not have to fear the left flank? Yeah, gently caress all those dead brown people on the other side of the world. You aren't being PERFECTLY REPRESENTED.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
The left flank isn't going to ruin Democratic chances in 2016, hope this really helps. Trump will, however increase Republican chances of spectacular rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
There are going to be a lot of disappointed and angry and confused people on the left if Clinton moves too far in that direction and so loses or (god forbid) Sanders gets nominated, and we see another 1984 trouncing. The Republicans don't have many impressive people here but even a joker like Huckabee would beat a radically left agenda, to say nothing of someone like Jeb or Cruz.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Plastics posted:There are going to be a lot of disappointed and angry and confused people on the left if Clinton moves too far in that direction and so loses or (god forbid) Sanders gets nominated, and we see another 1984 trouncing. The Republicans don't have many impressive people here but even a joker like Huckabee would beat a radically left agenda, to say nothing of someone like Jeb or Cruz. You don't think Sanders could beat a republican? I think his unprecedented rise in popularity over the past couple months begs to differ. Far-left politics seem to be growing in popularity among the general public.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:You don't think Sanders could beat a republican? I think his unprecedented rise in popularity over the past couple months begs to differ. Far-left politics seem to be growing in popularity among the general public. General white male public.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:You don't think Sanders could beat a republican? I think his unprecedented rise in popularity over the past couple months begs to differ. Far-left politics seem to be growing in popularity among the general public. In the world where Hillary, Biden and whoever else all get hit by lightning and the DNC can't persuade Al Gore to run so Sanders wins by default, he loses to the top half dozen Republicans in the race by ten points. He can beat the complete muppets but none of the semi-serious candidates.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Obama will veto, and the veto-overturn is a difficult battle for the GOP to win. Many Dems are eyeing leadership positions. Many Dems are also beholden to organizations like AIPAC, who are rabidly opposed to a deal. I don't think you can just write off the possibility that Congress would overturn the veto.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Adar posted:In the world where Hillary, Biden and whoever else all get hit by lightning and the DNC can't persuade Al Gore to run so Sanders wins by default, he loses to the top half dozen Republicans in the race by ten points. He can beat the complete muppets but none of the semi-serious candidates. I think if his momentum continues and his popularity grows enough to win the Dem primary, it will grow enough to win the general election. That, plus whoever wins the democratic nomination I think is favored over the generic republican. I think that's just where our country's politics are at the moment. The middle-of-the-road voters might be a little more centrist in their views, but they also by and large recognize the insanity that is the Republican Party. That said, a lot can change in a year. Who the hell knows what people will be feeling in November 2016.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Adar posted:He can beat the complete muppets but none of the semi-serious candidates. Serious candidates? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:General white male public. TBH, while it's not enough to straight up election, that's still a fuckton of votes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:Serious candidates? D&D smugness aside, any of Bush/Rubio/Walker, either of Christie/Paul assuming they somehow won the nom, and whichever dark horse eventually comes out of the junior varsity seven are probably 40/60 or so to Hilldawg and one September 2016 economic crisis away from the office. They're dogs, but you don't get to be the 2016 GOP nominee without automatically getting 45% of the vote and that's not all that far off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:General white male public. Are you saying that you think that minority and female voters would suddenly flock to the GOP if Sanders got the nomination?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 12:19 |
|
|
GyroNinja posted:Are you saying that you think that minority and female voters would suddenly flock to the GOP if Sanders got the nomination? Might not vote, which is what is repeatedly said if HIllary wins the nomination.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 00:06
|
|