|
Artificer posted:I would eat that cake. How much is it? What cake wouldn't you eat?
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 03:12 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Eugene Debs received 6% of the PV in 1912, which I believe is still a higher bar than the Greens or Libertarians have managed to set (but lower than the numbers put up by George Wallace and Strom Thurmond Assuming Trump loses, if the Republicans ever decide to stop courting those people, I bet we'll have our next 3rd party candidate to get electoral votes, and I'll hate all of it even though Hillary coasts to victory over Rubio/Ryan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 08:06
|
|
)
|
Artificer posted:I would eat that cake. How much is it? Menu doesn't say, but appetizers are 15-ish so probably around there. It's really not a terribly expensive restaurant by bad-optics-haver standards.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Nah it's all good, the point was we didn't see any of the real stupidity in the primary because we're all on the same side Fair enough. I'm glad we didn't see too much stupidity during the primary, too. I wouldn't call it a particularly "friendly" primary, but it was pretty lukewarm overall. It probably helps that Sanders could direct most of his dislike towards DWS, as opposed to Clinton personally.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 08:07
|
|
|
Artificer posted:I would eat that cake. How much is it? For real nothing worse than paying  for a slice of cake that probably cost whole from Costco. If you dont deliver on the dessert I can't gently caress with you
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
McAlister posted:He released a partial, summary, statement about one year(2014). Clinton has released full returns for decades. In that year his deductions alone were more than the median household salary. His income from salary between him and his wife was over 200K. Who the hell knows what his tax deferred income from 401K style investments is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 08:11
|
|
|
Islam is the Lite Rock FM posted:What cake wouldn't you eat? Yellowcake.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 08:20
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The point isn't if Sanders deserves his third home, it is the optics If anything It's disheartening that at 75 even someone like him can have north of $300k in outstanding debt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
Gyges posted:There's this little thing called Iran Contra. Yeah, but as president he was pretty good. Excellent foreign policy and raised taxes rather than slashing spending.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
The point is that in the event of Sanders's victory stuff like that could potentially become a huge and heavy anchor no-true-scotsmanning the Bernie base down. It's a powerful, convenient vector of attack on both his persnickety-outsider-grandpa image and ideological credentials.
HookedOnChthonics fucked around with this message at 08:42 on Oct 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 08:36
|
|
|
Artificer posted:Yellowcake. Wimp! Yellow cake is delicious!  Gyges posted:There's this little thing called Iran Contra. Tbf, CIA Director is a political appointment, and not nearly as powerful a position within the organization as most people think. If you're gonna blame someone for whatever poo poo went down during Bush's term as director, go after the Deputy Director or Assistant Directors. They're the ones that actually do stuff. He also helped implement the post-Church Commission reforms, so he deserves a little credit for that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
If you go by the polls then Bernie would have had a significant advantage over Hillary vs Trump in the general, so ground game wouldn't have mattered as much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 08:38
|
|
|
Bastard Tetris posted:You're out of your element here. You could have called him Donny. Why didn't you call him Donny??
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 08:40
|
|
|
NaanViolence posted:If you go by the polls then Bernie would have had a significant advantage over Hillary vs Trump in the general, so ground game wouldn't have mattered as much. Ehhhh, but I doubt those national polls would have held. Most of the electorate hadn't considered Bernie to be a likely general election candidate; if they had, and he had undergone the degree of scrutiny that Clinton has over the past few months, I think his national poll numbers would have suffered. That's not to say I think he would have necessarily lost, but I don't think he would be running away with the election.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:The point is that in the event of Sanders's victory stuff like that could potentially become a huge and heavy anchor no-true-scotsmanning the Bernie base down. It's a powerful, convenient vector of attack on both his persnickety-outsider-grandpa image and ideological credentials. https://twitter.com/ejmaron/status/759519052016459776 You probably shouldn't throw shade for the hell of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
dont nobody give no fucks bout dat bernie v hillary poo poo except a bunch of moron paultards who are just gonna vote Johnson neway because that's what white millennials do
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
Bhaal posted:If anything It's disheartening that at 75 even someone like him can have north of $300k in outstanding debt. Why would that matter? You don't get some sort of reward for being debt-free when you die. And if he just bought a new house then it's likely that he financed it, which is totally normal
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:https://twitter.com/ejmaron/status/759519052016459776 I edited that out of my post before you even quoted me lol But yes one should always scroll down for a little more context before hitting the quote button while catching up on months-old picture thread posts, lesson learned.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:dont nobody give no fucks bout dat bernie v hillary poo poo except a bunch of moron paultards who are just gonna vote Johnson neway because that's what white millennials do Clinton is actually dominating in millenial popularity
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 08:48
|
|
|
Campaign staff, and DNC staff being dumb wasn't unique to any one side, in the end average people just focused on a very fat orange give a speech that spelled doom for America if it didn't curtail the brown menace. It will be nice to get the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Clinton is actually dominating in millenial popularity overall yeah and i guess it remains possible that it's with all groups but millennials are only really more liberal than GenX because we're more diverse. Our white subset are still huge fuckers like every other white demo and they went for Romney like +10 in 2012
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
NaanViolence posted:If you go by the polls then Bernie would have had a significant advantage over Hillary vs Trump in the general, so ground game wouldn't have mattered as much. Bernie Sanders has a significant advantage over Donald Trump in the polls of the current-reality-2016, because Hillary Clinton is the target of Republican attacks and opposition research* in current-reality-2016. * ""opposition research""
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 08:50
|
|
|
foobardog posted:Assuming Trump loses, if the Republicans ever decide to stop courting those people, I bet we'll have our next 3rd party candidate to get electoral votes, and I'll hate all of it even though Hillary coasts to victory over Rubio/Ryan. I'm not sure I buy a third party overtaking the Republicans in any state, while not just resulting in Hillary surpassing both parties. GOP Brand awareness and loyalty is just so huge that I have trouble conceiving of a third party building the credibility out of nowhere by co-opting Trump's message, except perhaps by Trump himself. Maybe we could have a small chance of a very popular local son running an outsider campaign and winning his home state a la Gary Johnson, polling way above his national average in New Mexico. The big problem I see is: where would such a candidate get any credibility? It would take someone well respected and prominent turning away from the GOP and staking a claim for a pretty well reviled, and not particularly moneyed or connected base, to lend their credibility. Otherwise, the media will ignore it, and people will write it off as just another irrelevant party somewhere near the bottom of the ballot. The other option is a demagogue celebrity or eccentric billionaire emulates Trump, and somehow gets a ton of traction for a third-party run. Any thought of where a nativist/white supremacist third party would have a chance? Edit: Thinking about it, maybe we can end up in a place with Trump being alt-right kingmaker, but I have trouble seeing his personality disorders allowing it. Heteroy fucked around with this message at 08:56 on Oct 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/senatorshoshana/status/781643503533166592 When I started loving politics, I'd listen to Rush, Hannity, Levin, etc etc etc. First time I heard people talk about free markets I loved it bc it made sense to me and nobody was saying it. They all promised they spoke truth. Bc so much made sense, even when I was skeptical I thought they deserved the benefit of the doubt. So I thought CNN, MSNBC, etc were biased They build up enough trust that you give them some deference if they make sense to you. I learned better as I spent more time working in politics. Stopped listening to much talk radio by college. But I understand how people give too much deference to talk hosts, Trump, etc. You think they really have your interests in mind. You don't ever think about it being a business. You're excited by what they say and that SOMEONE is saying something that resonates. Many don't learn what's really going on bc they have lives, they're busy, and they don't see what goes on behind the scenes. And if you think to question their authority, you're pacified by the fact that so many politicians and prominent people go on their shows I'm very sympathetic to those who believe false things said by talk show hosts. It's a really easy trap into which to fall. https://twitter.com/LPDonovan/status/781657875588538368 This is a worthwhile thread. But I think it's important to note that radio talkers are just exploiting a bigger blind spot that renders our base more susceptible. Just look at who finances the talkers- or FNC for that matter. GoldLine. Roslyn Capital. Liberty Safes. Lifelock. Vivos. Food Insurance. It lends some insight into the audience. Old. Overly credulous, if not paranoid. Susceptible to or even thirsty for apocalyptic narratives. Take it all together and it's not shocking that it leads to Trump. The perfect chain email candidate. FW:Fwd:Fw: Make America Great Again. https://twitter.com/LPDonovan/status/781656607264481280
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
Heteroy posted:I'm not sure I buy a third party overtaking the Republicans in any state, while not just resulting in Hillary surpassing both parties. GOP Brand awareness and loyalty is just so huge that I have trouble conceiving of a third party building the credibility out of nowhere by co-opting Trump's message, except perhaps by Trump himself. Maybe we could have a small chance of a very popular local son running an outsider campaign and winning his home state a la Gary Johnson, polling way above his national average in New Mexico. So for the people with realistic political foresight, is there any chance one of the parties will just be replaced/displaced by a third party? Or is it more likely that a third party and demographic will just become popular and merge into Democrats/Republicans and turn those parties into something else? I really liked EJ Dionne's book about how the Republican Party has just kept promising the impossible which resulted in first the Tea Party and now Trump. That's clear devolution and it seems possible (to me anyway) that the Republican Party will either cease to be or it will become something entirely different.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:06
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:So for the people with realistic political foresight, is there any chance one of the parties will just be replaced/displaced by a third party? Or is it more likely that a third party and demographic will just become popular and merge into Democrats/Republicans and turn those parties into something else? our third parties in this country are craven incompetents who couldn't take over a BBQ tent if there's any split in the future it'll be from the GOP withering away into a rump party and the Democrat's tent getting so big that for awhile, the national elections will essentially be the Democratic primary between candidates on the far left and regular left well some of our third parties aren't too bad but they're mostly focused on issues and caucus with one party or the other, so aren't themselves going to be winning office anytime soon but will likely get more of their platforms enacted than ones that focus exclusively on that
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:10
|
|
|
I think it's realistic that a 3rd party will get to the debates in the next couple of cycles. Beyond that anyone who claims to know is lying. Best of luck undergoing any sort of political evolution as long as FPTP voting keeps America tethered to a woefully inadequate and anachronistic system
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:11
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:So for the people with realistic political foresight, is there any chance one of the parties will just be replaced/displaced by a third party? Or is it more likely that a third party and demographic will just become popular and merge into Democrats/Republicans and turn those parties into something else? It's important to remember that our nation's history is only 56 presidential elections long, and the modern campaign process only really dates back to Carter or so. Anything can happen, it's just hard to know if or when. We've already had major parties rise and fall, and a party re-alignment that I'm not sure is comparable to any other country. Unless we drastically re-structure the electoral process we'll almost certainly always have a binary party system. It's not impossible that one or both of the current parties could fade away and be replaced by new ones, but brand recognition is a really big deal and the current parties are a huge part of our national identity, which is about as polarized as I think it's ever been. The establishment republicans could get their poo poo together and jettison the tea party/trumpists to nothing third parties, which might wrangle power in a few state governments, but there really isn't that much ideological space between people like Kasich and Trump, so it's hard to think what they might rally around in a split. If the republican party does splinter or fail, expect the democrats to swing more conservative as all the money scurries their way. Ideally we might have a two-party system with centrist democrats and a leftist socialist party or something, but I doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:14
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:our third parties in this country are craven incompetents who couldn't take over a BBQ tent I'm curious what happens after that. Like, eventually things should rebalance to two parties, right? I'm wondering how that would go; would the Republicans try to transform themselves somehow without losing what they already have (which seems difficult given how psychotic they've made their remaining base that isn't liable to go blue sooner or later too), or would the Democrats split or something? WeAreTheRomans posted:I think it's realistic that a 3rd party will get to the debates in the next couple of cycles. Beyond that anyone who claims to know is lying. Us getting IRV is something I'm hopeful for with this election, actually. Obama, Sanders, and McCain all support it, among others, and Hillary's trying to place herself as a continuation of the first's time in office, appeal to people who liked the second, and I might be misremembering but may have been a bit positive towards the third as well? That and other things have me hoping (though I admit it's still unlikely) that she might push for electoral reform in some manner.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:15
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:So for the people with realistic political foresight, is there any chance one of the parties will just be replaced/displaced by a third party? Or is it more likely that a third party and demographic will just become popular and merge into Democrats/Republicans and turn those parties into something else? Like, if hypothetically speaking the Republican party keeps loving that chicken and their base starts dying off while they make no efforts to change their ways in the slightest, over the next twelve or sixteen years. At the same time, the Libertarians manage to assemble some degree of coherence, perhaps due to the intervention of Satoshi Nakamoto, perhaps simply due to disgusted expatriate Republicans. At some point the Libertarians would probably absorb the Republicans, or would essentially fuse with them, likely greatly altering the platform in the process. Honestly it feels more likely with the Democrats because the Republicans have burned brand loyalty into so many people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:17
|
|
|
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/10/04/trump_used_foundation_funds_for_2016_run_filings_suggest.html From 2011 through 2014, Trump harnessed his eponymous foundation to send at least $286,000 to influential conservative or policy groups, a RealClearPolitics review of the foundation’s tax filings found. In many cases, this flow of money corresponded to prime speaking slots or endorsements that aided Trump as he sought to recast himself as a plausible Republican candidate for president. https://twitter.com/PoliticsReid/status/783297844472078340 https://twitter.com/seanhackbarth/status/783793139458990080
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:17
|
|
|
Instant-runoff voting is way too complicated. I can't imagine it being anything but a mess here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:17
|
|
|
it ain't perfect but everything else is worse gimme FPTP over parliament any day. At least this way Trump and his Nazi hordes get routed instead of the MAGA 1488 Party gaining a bunch of seats from states that still elect Klan sympathizers and gaining legitimacy and a voice in the national discourse for years to come Roland Jones posted:I'm curious what happens after that. Like, eventually things should rebalance to two parties, right? I'm curious how that would go; would the Republicans try to transform themselves somehow without losing what they already have, or would the Democrats split or something? In this case, it'd be an Overton window shift and what we refer to as left and right at the moment would change dramatically, even if everything was still being framed that way. So it'd be...well whatever issues end up being the wedge, it's tough to tell in this theory, but we wouldn't have multiple branches of government pushing hard to gay rape/suicide camps and Trail of Tears 2.0 because the window shifting would change what "right wing" means
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:18
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:
IRV is still weak as hell in comparison to STV. Although I guess I can really only speak to STV within a parliamentary system. I would expect an attempt to introduce IRV would create a complete political shitstorm which could quagmire a Clinton presidency, but who knows?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:20
|
|
|
This is perhaps an oversimplification, but major political shifts in the country have trended towards voter blocs shifting from one party to another, since parties under a two-party system are naturally going to be very big-tent. In the case of the Republicans, that's going to be when the business wing of the GOP, the evangelical wing, and the unreconstructed-racists wings can no longer hold together. In the case of the Democrats, that's going to be when the business wing and the progressive wings can no longer hold together, with possible sub-groups within what constitutes "progressives" on the spectrum of liberalism versus leftism. The Democrats have been able to hold together so far on the strength of the Republicans being a unifying threat, but if we ever saw a day where the GOP's hold on regional politics is broken (whether by sheer Democratic triumph and the succeeding changes or by the GOP's own in-fighting), I think it's possible that the rift that was hinted at in this Sanders / Clinton primary is only going to get wider. It just requires that there's actually enough of the country until Democratic control that they're not constantly trying to fend off Ayn Rand, Jeff Davis, and I-can't-name-a-Christian-Dominionist every four years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:20
|
|
|
The evangelicals and the racists are the same thing though, and racism is a nice strong bridge to the libertarian wing of the party too. I think the biggest risk of a split is poo poo like HB2 threatening business
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:24
|
|
|
Why is everyone so excited about 3+ political parties? The primary system exists so you get a stronger voice in the general election candidates already. Just because no one votes in primaries doesn't mean we only get two candidates. People keep quoting the founding fathers saying two parties are bad yet neglect that we've had two party presidential elections for basically all of them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:24
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Instant-runoff voting is way too complicated. I can't imagine it being anything but a mess here. It'd be more fair to the will of the people but leftists would be dismayed when they get three socialists in congress and there are fifty theocratic nationalists pushing explicitly for a all white Christian state.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:27
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:The evangelicals and the racists are the same thing though, and racism is a nice strong bridge to the libertarian wing of the party too. I think the biggest risk of a split is poo poo like HB2 threatening business Yeah, there's probably more overlap than I let on with what I wrote, if we accept that Libertarianism and certain brands of Christianity are covers for racism, plus the just-racists themselves on one side, and then the business wing on the other. Stereotype posted:Why is everyone so excited about 3+ political parties? The primary system exists so you get a stronger voice in the general election candidates already. Just because no one votes in primaries doesn't mean we only get two candidates. People keep quoting the founding fathers saying two parties are bad yet neglect that we've had two party presidential elections for basically all of them. I for one am not. A third-party isn't going to come from behind and usher in sweeping change. It's going to be one of the existing parties undergoing a sea change in their base in response to current events.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 03:12 |
|
|
Stereotype posted:Why is everyone so excited about 3+ political parties? The primary system exists so you get a stronger voice in the general election candidates already. Just because no one votes in primaries doesn't mean we only get two candidates. People keep quoting the founding fathers saying two parties are bad yet neglect that we've had two party presidential elections for basically all of them. For one thing, it's somewhat anomalous in modern democracies, and most of the rest of the world looks at the American system as a cautionary tale. though at least Westminster is giving you guys a run for your money, for similar reasons
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:28
|
|