|
People need to stop talking up Warren as an immediate candidate. She seems honestly committed to staying in congress until maybe she can snag a Supreme Court or District Court nomination.
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 01:55 |
|
|
Santorum just feels like he should be a lot older than that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
I demand the Joe Biden becomes the first three-term Vice President, and god willing a fourth term.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
AYC posted:I agree with Debs: "It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than vote for what you don't want and get it." I refuse to perpetuate our neoliberal status quo if I can help it. So why do you want a mealy mouthed center left at best party with hilarious anti reality baggage over actual Socialists? You have them on the ballot in California. Not sure who Party for Socialism and Liberation is running in 2016 yet (will it be Peta Lindsay again?) but they'd almost certainly be a better choice, for example. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Nov 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
AYC posted:I said I agree with Debs on this particular issue; I didn't say I was a revolutionary socialist (I'm a European-style Social Democrat). A socialist party is closer to social democrats than the Green party is. Like seriously if you're really after voting your conscience, greens probably aren't the way to go unless you're an aging hippie who hasn't paid attention to things in years, or you're very centrist person who leans every so slightly to the left and believes in pseudoscience. AYC posted:
Ok, here's a case in point: the national Green Party supports sweeping deregulation of healthcare providers, by allowing and promoting the sale of alternative medicines that science has proven not to work. That means less oversight over the area of business that literally can mean life and death for people.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:You've got a serious hang-up about this poo poo, don't you? But guess what - it wasn't the Greens who are responsible for all this anti-science woo medicine bullshit! No, that was a joint effort between the Democrats and Republicans (the guy responsible served time as both) to push this poo poo nationwide and really sink it into the national conscience (while conveniently making it legal when it really shouldn't be). And this poo poo is supported by politicians worldwide of all stripes, including in Europe. The Greens as a party do however support exacerbating the issue. The national org is a piece of poo poo, and they deserve to be hated. The whole problem with using them as a protest vote is what you just said - that they want to continue the status quo on a pretty important issue where the status quo already sucks! So why vote for a status quo reinforcing party as a protest against major parties who... maintain the status quo. And yes all the decent ones are fairly regional, but almost every state where people are able to freely vote third party because it's guarenteed to go Democrat in the presidential election, there's not just a Green party candidate, but also one or more regional actual leftist candidates. And conversely, in most states guarenteed to go Republican, there's often no Green Party access at all, and the available third parties tend to be crap like Libertarian Party or other right wing third parties.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
All the proportional EV plans seem to fall apart on the basis of "no seriously this time we can really win all of it! why let the other party keep half?".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
aslan posted:
Truman only got in because he was already promoted to President when FDR died. He had the recognition of finishing the biggest war on his side going into 1948. Perhaps people simply don't care about a vice-president's education, they're pretty much always a minor concern in an election. And he already got his bona fides proven during a partial term as President anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:While it's certainly true that the several most recent presidents had Ivy League educations, I highly doubt that if you were to go out on the street and ask people "what kind of education should a president have?" the answer would be "Ivy League law school" Why? I mean, Ivy League schools at least have a reputation of being the best schools. And law school at least has the reputation of being the best thing for a politician to know.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:Now this is just my personal opinion, but I just don't think that your average Joe on the street thinks that way. I would even go so far as to think that they might even be distrustful of so called elite schools considering they pump out the kind of people and personalities that your average person blames for what's wrong with the country. "Ivy League" has name recognition, alongside a few non-Ivies like MIT. Most other colleges are primarily known for sports programs or simply because they're the best in your home state, but "Harvard" and "Princeton" and "Yale" etc are certainly schools with a very high reputation. People sure don't act like they distrust people who go to those schools when they go to the polls. Trabisnikof posted:Does the convention city have a chance to help a party anymore or only hurt? I remember the Philadelphia GOP convention in 2000. Bush lost PA 46.43% to 50.6% that year.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:I think it can certainly be used against a candidate if they don't poll well. Maybe not specifically Ivy League, but of being aloof and not able to relate to people. Which you can certainly manage to do without an Ivy League education too. Just think of that professor you had in college that INSISTED on being called Doctor because he had a PhD. How well do you think he'd poll in a political race? It's simply not going to be a workable anti-candidate thing unless the candidate's already doing like poo poo. Most instances of elections where "so and so is an educated snob" came up and actually worked, said candidate tended to have gone to generic private college or generic state college, rather than a big time school. You have to also remember that the actual result of graduating Yale et al isn't so much the education as the fact that your classmates tend to also be pretty big in politics or the sons/daughters of people who are. You get the connections, you get the funding sources, you get the ability to call in favors- all things that more than offset Jimmy the Redneck's hatred of learned folks or whatever
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:VP slot is a good launching point for Republicans, sure. On the other hand, they have a pretty good track record of getting in after deaths in office and still being able to eke out a voted term.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
FMguru posted:There are a lot of "app" companies with zillion-dollar valuations and no viable business model. It's an overheated sector and it'll fall down sooner or later, but it's a pale shadow of the size and insanity of the 1990s bubble. Note: higher than the entire taxi and livery sector of the world economy not just the US.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Salvor_Hardin posted:Do they have a hierarchy of all titles compared against each other? Like if someone was both a surgeon general and a 3-star general and speaker of the house what would he/she get called? If this is a bad example I am sure there are better ones. Surgeon Generals have been one, three, and four star general equivalents (since they're all either rear admirals, vice admirals, or admirals, with the exception of the guy who served a short term under Reagan before Koop). So Surgeon Generals who were admirals would be the higher position than their 3 star general status.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:What about as VP? CC may be able to shore up some blue state votes (NY, NJ, DE,). I don't know. That fucker just had his brother insult the Eagles and the Giants while he personally praised the Cowboys. That's poison up there.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:The Huckabees themselves are straight-up Stephen King. They look like they've been trapped in a late 90s digital camera world.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Is there a single voter in the country who would be shocked or react negatively upon learning that Bill and Hillary live separately. Probably at least one guy who was in a coma for 20 years out there.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:A thought occurred to me today, what if after all the insanity of primary season, there's no candidate and we get a floor fight I can only imagine that this will lead to people drawing and firing guns on the floor.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:This would be a smart idea if it was Columbus, but Cleveland is blue as gently caress. Reminder that the RNC in the recent past held conventions in Philadelphia and NYC, both the most left major cities in their respective states. They don't seem to really try to hold conventions places they'll get votes.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
In the last 5 conventions, the Republicans lost the state they held the convention in all 5 times, meanwhile the Democrats only lost the state they held the convention in 1 time in their last 5.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
I sincerely wish that Joe Biden gets to become the first ever 3 term vice president, and after the first ever 4 term vice president.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
2016, if all the states that were just narrowly Democrat in 2012 instead went Republican:
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Wisconsin doesn't have a governor's mansion? Just because a governor's mansion exists doesn't mean a governor will actually live there. Plenty of states have their governors prefer to use the official residence for formal events only.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
baw posted:could you explain the difference if you have time? A brokered convention involves all the primary races turning up nothing but a plurality of votes for any one candidate, but there's a willingness to negotiate that guy x accepts runner up guy y as the vice presidential candidate and favors are traded after the election for guys z and w. A deadlocked convention is the same thing, but no combination of factions that can generate a majority agree enough on any person exists.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Incidentally a lot of the extra guns being bought are just being hoarded, while the guns already in ownership are often quite neglected and even unusable without extensive restoration. It's kinda like keeping track of passenger vehicle ownership in the US and making sure to count every rusted out hulk or perpetually immobile garage "restoration" project that hasn't been registered or legal to drive in 10 years.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Guns are much more durable than cars. Consider that a Smith and Wesson revolver from the same time period as the Model T is likely to still be functional without maintenance of any kind. Yeah but last I checked the methodology on things like "300 million guns in the US" tries to count things like a civil war relic weapon that was last maintained before McKinley went down, or some weird gun grandpappy jones lifted off a dead Japanese soldier on a beach. It's not stuff anyone will actually shoot any time soon.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Technically, it is entirely possible the musket great-13th grandpappy mugged a british soldier for while he was pissing against a wall behind a tavern, might fire. We really need to have it x-rayed to see if it's still safe, I think. It's in good shape. We used to shoot it once a year till the late 70s. And so you think that all those millions of thoroughly obsolete guns are in fact gonna be restored and used anytime soon? Because if you don't, you're missing the point: that counting them just serves to build up a Scary Number with no bearing on actual usage, just as you could easily count Americans as owning dozens of millions more cars if you start counting vehicles that haven't moved in decades or are permanently "being worked on" and not drivable.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
euphronius posted:If you campaign against vaccination I think you should be shot without trial. And this isn't hyperbole. I disagree, you should merely be sent to old-fashioned leper asylum towns.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:What method of transport is best for shipping the untouchables to their new ghettos? Those vans they used in ET.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:They play "Hava Nagila" in goyim weddings?! Last two Christian weddings I've been to they've done it.  Though I think it was more of an excuse to do that thing with the chairs and poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
shadow puppet of a posted:Christie seems like someone that could have been a perpetual strongman/kingmaker/governor/ur-bureaucrat in NJ for the rest of his life if he'd just stepped out of the national spotlight a few months ago. He's going to blow everything up in his life with this presidential campaign. How wonderful. Not really, people who were governors don't tend to get to run political machines in the state, plus he's term limited to 2. Also since he's Republican he'd have basically no sway in the supermajority democrat legislature once out of governorship.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
Do Not Resuscitate posted:Isn't this more the purview of Speakers or am I off about this? Typically the machine guys don't even hold any special elected office. The head guy will tend to be maybe a state senator or a state rep/assemblyman/whatever your state calls them, with a nearly bulletproof gerrymander to keep their spot, else they're entirely out of elected office. Sometimes they'll be mayors of towns that vote reliably.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:If enough people vote "I don't like any of these twits" people start to notice Note: "enough people" rarely happens except in local elections, and practically never for Senator let alone president.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:I'm always surprised by how spry W was there Hey if I was George Bush I'd be training on the reg to be able to dodge things thrown at me too. You'd expect it to happen.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:Oh wow, he goes all the way back to... the Family Guy pilot. Seriously, it might have a different name but thats what you posted, it even shares a lot of the same cutaways as the first official episode (drive-by arguments, etc.) It was a completely different concept, and meant to be targeted at preteen audience. The only thing in common are the voices and having a talking dog and a stupid man (neither of which are unusual concepts in cartoons). That ol Sethy later recycled bits from it in his actual Family Guy pilot just shows he's a bit lazy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
O'Malley's the kind of guy who'd make for a perfectly bland administration if he won, something of a throwback to the 19th century presidents.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:Jesus christ, Hillary's got some seriously tough skin She's been getting bagged on ever since she dared to suggest fixing healthcare in the 90s. She's used to it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Yeah, I think one of the issues the right is going to have is that they have literally been blaring HATE HILLARY CLINTON for twenty-four years. It's background noise. It's not so much that, as they already built maximum hate for her in the populace susceptible to hating her. Everybody else figured out whether they liked her or hated her by now, which is something sort of unique in recent candidates.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I see a consistent trend. It's important to notice that much of the high turnout of the 19th century traces to things like only wealthy white men being able to vote, and that the low turnout at the end of the 18th and beginning of 19th has to do with the fact that there was simply no popular vote for president in most states for quite some time, nor were there popular votes for senators.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 01:55 |
|
|
Mister Macys posted:Out of curiosity, when did women get the vote on that chart? 1920 was the first election year women could vote.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2015 20:00
|
|