|
SlothfulCobra posted:Shame I'm not hip enough to recognize them. Hip? Outside of Usher, the majority of those artists haven't been relevant for 20 years.
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:02 |
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Shame I'm not hip enough to recognize them. those loving hipsters, always listening to Heart  xcore posted:Hip? Outside of Usher, the majority of those artists haven't been relevant for 20 years. If we're nitpicking, Michael Bolton did a song with the Lonely Island guys awhile ago. Die Sexmonster! fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
And being able to recognize a guy from Imagine Dragons is the opposite of "hip" I'm pretty sure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:John Mellencamp may look more like Beast from Disney's Beauty And The Beast every year but that's still a really hurtful thing to say about him. Sheryl Crow was still looking pretty good for being in her 50s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:She should have just cut him off after his bullshit proved indefatigable. The problem is that the media is just as complicit in reinforcing that "everything is terrible be afraid constantly" bullshit as the politicians so for them to really start calling it out is just going to bring a lot of uncomfortable attention on their OWN behaviour.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
The most interesting thing about the GOP Convention that wasn't covered in any of these shows was that bald billionaire guy who was Trump's friend and had actual personal anecdotes (unlike Trump's family) that shed some light on his personal life. It revealed to me that that his life was still mostly boring rich people stuff like golf and stories that play well only in private parties in small rooms filled with rich people. Unlike the other stuff, it's not damning, but (if you actual infer between the lines) it's still weirdly different from the public image he's crafted for himself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
It's nuts to me that almost 50% of the country support this party and their ideals though. The people at this convention looked legitimately insane. I know the people at this things are the "extreme" but even I if I leaned right, I'd find it really hard to stand behind these guys and support them. I feel like there needs to be 3 parties. A left wing/liberal party, a right wing conservative party concerned with Capitalism and a separate party with all the crazy religious, abortion hating, "don't tread on me" militants
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
xcore posted:I feel like there needs to be 3 parties. A left wing/liberal party, a right wing conservative party concerned with Capitalism and a separate party with all the crazy religious, abortion hating, "don't tread on me" militants Until then, you only have a chance of being elected if you're under the banner of one of the two electable parties.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
Sivart13 posted:The only way a third party would make it in the US presidential race is if we adopted an alternative voting system like STV. Yeah, that's why Bernie campaigned under the democrat banner even though as a senator he's an independent. The most impact you can have as a third party is to split the vote enough that the guy you like the least ends up winning as seen in the 2000 elections with Nader splitting votes away from Gore (admittedly I don't know if this actually made an impact on the electoral college which is where Gore lost). The US electoral system is flawed in a lot of ways though - the two parties thing is just one of the many, many symptoms. They also need to address things like gerrymandering, low voter turnout, the electoral college system in general, more clearly defining state vs. federal issues... there are lots of problems.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Yeah, that's why Bernie campaigned under the democrat banner even though as a senator he's an independent. The most impact you can have as a third party is to split the vote enough that the guy you like the least ends up winning as seen in the 2000 elections with Nader splitting votes away from Gore (admittedly I don't know if this actually made an impact on the electoral college which is where Gore lost).
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 10:07
|
|
|
Vodos posted:Gore didn't actually lose the election.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Yeah, that's why Bernie campaigned under the democrat banner even though as a senator he's an independent. The most impact you can have as a third party is to split the vote enough that the guy you like the least ends up winning as seen in the 2000 elections with Nader splitting votes away from Gore (admittedly I don't know if this actually made an impact on the electoral college which is where Gore lost). People really have got to stop buying into this horseshit narrative. It's propaganda. 1. The people to blame for an [X] presidency are the people that vote for them 2. A massive portion of registered Florida Democrats voted for Bush 3. There is no reason to assume that the people who voted for third party candidates would unanimously vote Gore 4. And even if they by some miracle did, it was such a small number of people that it would not have changed the results anyway
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Sivart13 posted:The only way a third party would make it in the US presidential race is if we adopted an alternative voting system like STV. A third party would make it into the US presidential race in two ways, either someone really rich/charismatic ran or if a 3rd party was willing to develop a ground game and build up from smaller offices. People did honestly believe the Reform Party was putting together a real ground game after Ventura got elected by being willing to go after governorship and states rather then jump right to the top. The party feel apart due to issues but it's the best way to go rather then jump into the billion dollar Presidential race.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:A third party would make it into the US presidential race in two ways, either someone really rich/charismatic ran or if a 3rd party was willing to develop a ground game and build up from smaller offices. I would agree. It has to start at a state by state level, gain some ground and popularity before pushing for a larger office. It's even more possible to do it without accepting large donations from corporate interests with the crowdfunding ideal, but it would definitely be a multi-year process.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
There were a lot of factors contributing to the fuckup that was Bush V Gore, but remember again that the man had a really boring apathetic campaign. He chose Joe loving Lieberman as his VP for Christ's sake.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
The only way I could see the two-party system ending right now is if the two parties were completely dismantled and replaced with multiple new ones. But I'm not american nor all that well versed in politics so maybe this is the dumbest post.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:A third party would make it into the US presidential race in two ways, either someone really rich/charismatic ran or if a 3rd party was willing to develop a ground game and build up from smaller offices. Yeah state level elections are a lot more attainable - as mentioned earlier Sanders was elected to the senate as an independent, and in a lot of places candidates are just running unopposed - usually because one party is just so unpopular that it's not worth running a campaign, but that still leaves room for third party candidates who might be closer to the incumbent on the political spectrum but different enough to not want to just run as a primary candidate for the dominant party. Woebin posted:The only way I could see the two-party system ending right now is if the two parties were completely dismantled and replaced with multiple new ones. There's pretty significant historical precedent for that happening. If you look at the history of US candidates you can see new parties emerging and old ones dying out. People like to think that the way things are now are the way things have always been but things are always changing. Admittedly the two main parties have been the only ones to win presidential elections for the last 150 years but third parties have made fairly successful pushes every now and then (Teddy Roosevelt ran as a 3rd party in 1912 - he lost by a significant margin to the Democrats, but got more votes than the Republicans). And honestly with the way things are going it seems like the Republican party is on the verge of collapse. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:There were a lot of factors contributing to the fuckup that was Bush V Gore, but remember again that the man had a really boring apathetic campaign. He chose Joe loving Lieberman as his VP for Christ's sake. Lockbox.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
In Nader's defense, he ran after Perot did very well in '92 and '96, and he ran when the Democrats were shifting rightward. And nobody knew how bad Dubya was going to be and Gore didn't "earn" Nader's votes. And Nader, even in '04, was still criticizing Bush more than Kerry. Also, Nader had some genuine political victories behind him, like a bunch of public safety stuff. However I don't have much respect for Jill Stein, who seems like she's just acting a show. She doesn't have a strategy besides chasing the corpse of Bernie's campaign. She hasn't really organized a campaign on the ground; she's not serious about even pretending to win. She's just selling something she knows she can't deliver. And she clearly isn't even pretending to be leading a movement's that's "bigger" than her campaign. And Gary Johnson was pretty much a Koch-fueled Republican until he decided to pivot towards libertarianism when he wanted to establish his national brand. And even if he does court some "respectable republican" votes, it won't really be a victory for libertarian ideals, not that they're worth anything anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
Propaganda Machine posted:Lockbox. Strategery. Echo Chamber posted:In Nader's defense, he ran after Perot did very well in '92 and '96, and he ran when the Democrats were shifting rightward. Oh yeah, Perot did well those two elections. In 1996, he didn't run much of a campaign, and he still netted just as many electoral votes as he did in 1992, and we're talking a serious number because he in fact won a percentage of the total electoral votes that it'd take to win the election. (It's true because zero is technically a percent!) In high school, we held a mock election, and Perot won easily. It is one of the two reasons why I'm against the lowering of the minimum voting age to 16. The other reason, strangely enough, is also from the 1992 election: Bill Clinton became the first presidential candidate to make what seemed like a genuine effort to win the youth vote by taking his case to the... well, to the youth, I guess. He did a town hall style meeting on MTV, and then a teenage girl, or maybe a couple of them, said the three words that proved that you can't let kids vote. Here they are, a historic opportunity, on TV for the world to see. The girl's mouth opened. "Boxers or Briefs?" 
tarlibone fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Jul 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:Apparently the Bernie Bros cross-bred with the Algore Bores and now we have a whole new kind of insufferableness quote:Everybody had thought that the chads were where all the bad ballots were, but it turned out that the ones that were the most decisive were write-in ballots where people would check Gore and write Gore in, and the machine kicked those out. There were 175,000 votes overall that were so-called “spoiled ballots.” About two-thirds of the spoiled ballots were over-votes; many or most of them would have been write-in over-votes, where people had punched and written in a candidate’s name. And nobody looked at this, not even the Florida Supreme Court in the last decision it made requiring a statewide recount. Nobody had thought about it except Judge Terry Lewis, who was overseeing the statewide recount when it was halted by the U.S. Supreme Court. The write-in over-votes have really not gotten much attention. Those votes are not ambiguous. When you see Gore picked and then Gore written in, there’s not a question in your mind who this person was voting for. When you go through those, they’re unambiguous: Bush got some of those votes, but they were overwhelmingly for Gore. For example, in an analysis of the 2.7 million votes that had been cast in Florida’s eight largest counties, The Washington Post found that Gore’s name was punched on 46,000 of the over-vote ballots it, while Bush’s name was marked on only 17,000 quote:if you look at where those votes occurred, they were in predominantly black precincts. And (when you look at) the history of black voting in Florida, these are people that have been disenfranchised, intimidated. In the history of the early 20th century, black votes would be thrown out on technicalities, like they would use an X instead of a check mark. All while Florida election rules say/said that no vote “shall be declared invalid or void if there is a clear indication of the intent of the vote”. Source: http://rinr.fsu.edu/winter2005/features/battlefield.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:Strategery. So 16 year olds who have jobs and pay taxes shouldnt have representation?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 11:02
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:Strategery. my grandfather voted perot both times. he's weird. also this is still the biggest vote-getter for clinton https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckHfgqK_hcU
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 11:09
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:Oh yeah, Perot did well those two elections. In 1996, he didn't run much of a campaign, and he still netted just as many electoral votes as he did in 1992, and we're talking a serious number because he in fact won a percentage of the total electoral votes that it'd take to win the election.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 11:23
|
|
|
Man, John seemed ANGRY tonight. Mind you, I can't say I blame him after what Trump said about Zakir. That was wildly inappropriate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
El Gallinero Gros posted:Man, John seemed ANGRY tonight. Mind you, I can't say I blame him after what Trump said about Zakir. That was wildly inappropriate. He was absolutely furious about it. I think he's reaching a breaking point where if Trump is elected he might literally set fire to the studio.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
he does a shitload of vet stuff thanks to his wife
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
I really don't want to be THAT guy,but I feel that John is a bit too anti-Bernie. I mean I feel he has an actual legitimate strong dislike for him and his camp. Could just be me though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I really don't want to be THAT guy,but I feel that John is a bit too anti-Bernie. I mean I feel he has an actual legitimate strong dislike for him and his camp. Could just be me though. He's not nearly as anti-Bernie as Sam Bee. I'm not American so I don't even have a dog in that fight but Bee's Bernie bashing was getting a little offputting. Colbert, on the other hand, was really feeling the Bern.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
Well, here's the thing about Bernie's whole... shtick, I guess. Here's the thing. If you're not emotionally invested in Bernie, then here is what you think about when considering his role in the campaign: 1. He became a Democrat specifically to use their massive voting base to give himself a chance at being elected president. That's worse than bandwagoning because you're using the clout of a party you proudly didn't belong to 10 minutes ago to achieve your goals. 2. He made lofty promises, the kind that he could not possibly ever even come close to fulfilling, either because the math doesn't work out (free college and healthcare for everybody), or because there's this thing called Congress that he'd have to deal with that would fight him tooth and nail every step of the way over things like, well, free college and healthcare. And pretty much every other pie-in-the-sky thing he promised. His promises were as feasible as Donald Trump's are, it's just he's a much better human being, so it's easy for excited kids to fall for it all. 3. He complained about a rigged system whose rules didn't change when he entered the race. He knew what he was getting into; the rules weren't secrets or anything. 4. No matter how you slice it, he didn't have more supporters than Hillary did. There are mathematical models that convert his caucus wins to primary vote totals based on realistic variables, and no matter how you play with the numbers--making all states have primaries, making all primaries open primaries, etc.--he ends up with fewer votes. So his railing against superdelegates feels hollow when you realize that his only hope for nomination was for the superdelegates to ignore the will of the majority and side with him. 5. Finally, at the end of the day, he stayed in the race for so long, even after it was very clear that he could not realistically (and eventually, when he couldn't possibly) win, that he turned a grassroots movement into a bona fide schism in the DNC, and that's trouble because that is the one thing, the only thing, that could lead to a Trump presidency. And take a good look at that last point, because the Bernie-or-Bust folks were very loudly proclaiming that they would choose not to support Hillary because of REASONS. Their reasons often sounded petulant and childish, "my guy didn't win so I'm taking my ballot and going HOME!"-type stuff. That all but verified the fears of the people who at all costs do not want a Trump presidency that they're going to split the Democrat vote and hand Trump the win. People who don't love Bernie remember all of those points above, and they have little reason to love him. It can't even be said that he brought a bunch of new blood to the party because that new blood left when he did. So I'm not surprised that people who either preferred Hillary or just really hate Trump are hard on Bernie. (And full disclosure: I say this as a guy who voted for Bernie. Not because I believed his promises, because... well, I'm not a loving idiot. But he was much better than Hillary, who is just awful. But... (sigh)... awful is better than Trump.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
I don't get the vibe that Oliver dislikes Bernie Sanders.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
Sam Bee's dislike of Bernie is less of a dislike of Bernie than it is a dislike of Bernie Bros, who are 1) very loud, 2) very verbally abusive, and 3) very stupid. You get the impression that she's not a fan of any of the three. Plus, she's a woman in mass media and the internet, and I guarantee you that she will have drawn more abuse (and worse, in certain ways) from a certain sector of the internet (that overlaps with the archetypal Bernie Bro) than her male counterparts have. Her Real or Fake [Emails/Twitter/Youtube Comments] videos sure are something. Mars4523 fucked around with this message at 05:09 on Aug 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
I like Bernie and voted for him in the primary but I can't understand the Bernie or bust people at all. I'm kinda hoping all those people who are crying the loudest probably didn't vote in the last election and probably weren't even gonna vote in this election. The Trump idea scares me and I'm doing mental hurdles to convince myself he won't get elected.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Harton posted:I like Bernie and voted for him in the primary but I can't understand the Bernie or bust people at all. I mentioned the possibility of radically remaking SCOTUS as a more progressive institution and the response was "The court is broken, impeach Alito" And since neither were politically conscious through BushVGore, the thought of compromising their ideals to vote for (ugh) a  lesser evil So in a few cases, it's a case of "First Politically Active Moment" or "Babby's first presidential vote". The ones that go full Trump I have no idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
John Oliver barely commented on Bernie Sanders so I don't know where this discussion in this thread is coming from.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:2. He made lofty promises, the kind that he could not possibly ever even come close to fulfilling, either because the math doesn't work out (free college and healthcare for everybody), or because there's this thing called Congress that he'd have to deal with that would fight him tooth and nail every step of the way over things like, well, free college and healthcare. And pretty much every other pie-in-the-sky thing he promised. His promises were as feasible as Donald Trump's are, it's just he's a much better human being, so it's easy for excited kids to fall for it all. Agreed on the Congress part, but how can you say that the US can't afford things that are completely normal in the majority of Western democracies? We pay somewhat more taxes in Europe but at least we don't go bankrupt from medical emergencies or tens of thousands into debt for an education. In the US you're paying more "taxes" than us Europeans, you just don't call them taxes because you're paying the private sector for the services covered by our "high" taxes. Plus a huge chunk of your actual taxes go directly into the pockets of the private sector.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
My presidential vote doesn't matter, so it's going third party. Hillary, just like Trump, is a pathological liar that doesn't deserve my vote. I can understand voting for her in a state where you vote might actually matter at all to strategically vote against the "greater evil" in Trump, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
Squall posted:My presidential vote doesn't matter, so it's going third party. Hillary, just like Trump, is a pathological liar that doesn't deserve my vote. I can understand voting for her in a state where you vote might actually matter at all to strategically vote against the "greater evil" in Trump, though. I live in Indiana and I will be going to the polls for Hillary. I used to use that same bullshit excuse until Indiana went for Obama and I then owed one of the union stewards at work lunch. You'll never stand a chance of flipping the state when every liberal in it is crying about how their vote doesn't count. What's the actual voting percentage of America? 35%? The only reason the Republican Party still acts this way is because most people don't vote so they still cater to the crazys who vote in EVERY election, midterms and all. Edit: Also I'm going to vote even though I'm 99.9% sure Indiana will go for Trump. It would sicken me if he took my state without me letting out the slightest whimper. You should feel the same way. Harton fucked around with this message at 08:21 on Aug 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
Harton posted:I like Bernie and voted for him in the primary but I can't understand the Bernie or bust people at all. I'm kinda hoping all those people who are crying the loudest probably didn't vote in the last election and probably weren't even gonna vote in this election. The Trump idea scares me and I'm doing mental hurdles to convince myself he won't get elected. Isn't it true that right now more Bernie people say they will vote for Hillary, than Hillary people said would vote for Obama back in 2008 at this same point in the election season? EDIT: I cannot find this article for the life of me. Basically it did polling for how many Bernie supporters right now say they will vote Hillary and are comparing it to 2008 polling from the same time for Hillary supporters saying they would vote for Obama. It showed that back in 2008 there were actually way more Hillary supporters saying they wouldn't vote for Obama at this same time in the election as we're at now. ApexAftermath fucked around with this message at 08:51 on Aug 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:02 |
|
|
Harton posted:I live in Indiana and I will be going to the polls for Hillary. I used to use that same bullshit excuse until Indiana went for Obama and I then owed one of the union stewards at work lunch. You'll never stand a chance of flipping the state when every liberal in it is crying about how their vote doesn't count. What's the actual voting percentage of America? 35%? The only reason the Republican Party still acts this way is because most people don't vote so they still cater to the crazys who vote in EVERY election, midterms and all. I would imagine that the argument more goes for places like California, Texas, and New York, which are not only solidly of one color or the other, but also big enough states that individual votes really do matter much, much less. Then you have Vermont, which is consistently called for the democrat precisely when the polls close, with 0% of precincts reporting. Even if you expect Indiana to go red, the mere fact that it's mid-sized means your vote counts more before you even factor in that Obama did take it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 10:25
|
|