|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Also he voted for Bush. And then left the country after Bush won again. And came back later because it was too difficult to live thousands of miles from the nearest triple cheeseburger and he was too socially inept to make any new friends. And then when he came back he was too busy spending all his time on some vampire videogame to see any of his friends. And now he's a brony blogger wannabe-politician?
|
#
¿
May 15, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 03:10 |
|
|
This is a preview of what politics will look like in twenty years when today's Reddit users have finally accumulated enough body fat to be mistaken for adults. And by god, it's going to more than make up for a couple hundred years of politics being lovely.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Then on the last possible day for the 2012 elections, the Greens challenged every other third party's presidential candidates and got them pulled, even though most of them ended up getting decent vote totals even with just write-in access. It gave the Greens no real advantage because they weren't going to win any electoral votes anyways and pissed off every other third party, but they did it anyways. I have a feeling if we do change, it'll take a long time for all the old grudges to die down. I don't think many functional political parties follow the "we're not going to win anyway so let's not bother with vote-getting" school of thought. The problem is that FPTP encourages parties to fight off and drive out all parties ideologically similar to them, in order to avoid the risks of vote-splitting and spoiler effects, and because even parties that don't have a shot at winning can still accrue significant benefits if they manage to get enough votes. The big two parties don't usually bother bullying third parties into nonexistence since their combined voter counts are usually insignificant, but those third parties themselves have to fight over every last vote. A party with 0.65% of the vote doesn't have the luxury to ignore parties with 0.15% of the vote.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Remember Boyko's very visible and cringeworthy internet hobbies, the concept that "you're judged by the company you keep" seems alien to them Different people have different perspectives - he seems to have been brought on the bilk money out of the Reddit-and-4chan crowd, where his message of "you don't have to stop being a disgusting nerd who openly fetishizes children's shows just because you're an adult with a real job and political aspirations" probably rings true with more than a few people. Watch the bottom of the page for the MayOne SA banner ad and its slogan "The Internet has a SuperPAC" - they're clearly hoping Boyko's appeal to the freaky internet pervert demographics will make up for the incredibly miniscule risk that the media will bother to pay any real scrutiny into an organization like theirs.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:If they were about having decent ideas in the first place, they probably wouldn't be doing this whole project or even considering him to employ. I dunno, it's worked out pretty well for them. They got their $5 million they can do whatever they please with, and the media didn't bother looking into Boyko at all, so as far as I can tell everything turned out just great for them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:So whats up with Mark McKinnon, I haven't heard of him? Campaign advisor for Bush 2 and McCain, has since run or founded mega-centrist and scammy organizations like No Labels and Americans Elect, and voted Libertarian in 2012.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Also, i'd like to see how often someone with such a big money disadvantage pulls an upset like this. I can understand if someone with a 4 million dollar war chest beats someone with a 5 million dollar one, but again, it was a 26 to 1 advantage. Happens more often than one might expect, usually when some profoundly unpopular businessman or politician with more money than charisma tries to brute-force an election by pouring in money.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 03:10 |
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:A rich person has just as many votes as you do. Sure, but they have far greater ability to influence how others vote, and also to influence how the candidates behave once elected.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 17:15
|
|