|
gnarlyhotep posted:and none of that changes anything If you dislike the American system for choosing leaders, devise your own and start a movement to adopt it. If enough people like it, you can get the Constitution amended with your system. But then that's going to require running a political campaign to build popular support for it, then asking people to vote for your stuff. Then the Illuminati who actually control all the elections will have to kill you to make sure your reforms are never enacted. But since voting doesn't matter, there's no point in doing all that anyway.
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 17:22 |
|
|
Quidam Viator posted:YOUR loving SYSTEM IS BUILT TO RESIST RAPID CHANGE AND THE WORLD IS RAPIDLY CHANGING. Governmental systems that are not built to resist rapid change tend to spiral into chaos and self-destruct in pretty short order. Resistance to rapid change in government is also a lot of fun just because it's so annoying to ideologues who demand instant gratification.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
bpower posted:I presume that photo was found and published by some sort of of hacker. I mean the idea he thought that was a good thing to publish is laughable. https://twitter.com/GovWalker
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:it is a terrible feeling when you realise that you are legitimately much smarter than powerful elected officials. like, "could do a better job by that attribute alone"-smarter. goddamn That was actually one of the big things that came out of the Watergate scandal. Prior to that people tended to put politicians on a pedestal and assume they were made of sterner intellectual and moral stuff than everyone else. Then Nixon's tapes came out, and everyone could hear for themselves what a bunch of petty morons were running the country. National politicians haven't gotten the same level of deference since.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:when de Gaulle wanted a french regiment to liberate Paris Eisenhower was like "ok but it has to be all white frenchmen" Eisenhower made up for it with the 1958 Civil Rights Act, though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
redreader posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax#IQ_estimations_by_academics  "Histometry" is essentially the invention of one guy with no actual scientific basis. It's as credible as phrenology. He could just be making up numbers out of thin air and no one would know the difference as there is no way to cross-check his results with another methodology.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:I don't think anyone has said it would happen within a couple years. A lot of this hope is Texas shifting, which will still probably take a decade or two. The meantime demographic shifts don't exactly help republican's with a national election. Especially since their base can't shut up about just how much they hate those minorities. The GOP coalition has a lot of factions that really dislike each other and have widely disparate policy goals. They've held it together with racism and complete opposition to everything Obama does, but once he is off the stage they are likely to start eating each other. The right has cultivated enough hatred of Hillary that they may be able to hold it together for a while, but they can't afford to alienate 90% of women the way they have every other demographic this isn't white. The next few years will be turbulent for them, anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Chris Christie posted:I know it's early and the MAINSTREAM MEDIA needs something inconsequential/stupid to bark about and make hay out of, but I can't help getting giddy over the idea that Democrats would be dumb enough to run away from Clinton, and toward a dumb-rear end like O'malley no less. Nobody is running away from Clinton. The email thing is a minor blip and will fade away despite the Republicans' best efforts to paint as the worst scandal in the history of United States politics. You've been watching too much Fox News.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Obama would never have supported a public option, that was off the table from the beginning. Obama would have supported whatever he had the votes for. He deliberately left the details of it alone so that it wouldn't be "his" bill, making it too easy for Congress to run away from it. I agree with you on the rest.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Do Not Resuscitate posted:I get where you're coming from and I agree to a certain extent, but this issue is actually "a thing" and isn't bullshit. Now, it may be possible to make it seem like bullshit by successfully marrying it to the GOP's three-mile-high opp file on the Clintons, but there are some serious questions about the email server that should be addressed. No, it is actually nothing. She broke no laws, and possibly not even recommendations. It's certainly not a good thing, but lots of people of both parties have used private email servers while in office so it's not even particularly unique. It's just the latest shiny thing for the anti-Hillary crowd (left and right) to chase after.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Do Not Resuscitate posted:I don't know how you say this with certainty as we have yet to learn about the entire set-up. Nobody gives a poo poo about the answers to any of those.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Assuming Hillary Clinton runs and loses the primary, who is the Democratic nominee? Is O'Malley really the only legit option here? I cannot possibly imagine Biden winning. He's 73 next year, will look 80, and he acts like he is 8. Senility could be an improvement. Elizabeth Warren would have trouble attracting moderates in purple or non-blue states. Does Gore make a go of it? Any dark horses? So you're assuming Hillary runs and loses the primary to no one. If she loses, the nominee will be whomever beats her. Apparently Republicans require this sort of thing to be explained to them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Arkane posted:So...who? If the answer to that was obvious, Hillary wouldn't be considered the presumptive nominee at this point. There is this guy named Oback Barama, though. He was actually born in Mozambique but the Democratic Party made up some fake birth notices that they planted in a local paper 50 years ago just in case they needed somebody to beat Hillary again this cycle. Keep an eye out for him.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:It's a symptom of a sick political system when you start nominating candidates from the same families. I guess our political system has been sick for about 190 years, then. The disease does not appear to be fatal.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Trumps supporters will largely not care in the slightest if Trump pivots on policy, because most of them do not care about policy, especially conservative policy, they care about anger or spite or presentation and Trump can easily pivot in terms of policy while still keep those things the same. All he needs to do is focus on talking about generally popular stuff and people that do care about policy will continue to assume that his intentional vagueness means that in reality he supports whatever it is they want to believe he supports. There's a reason his supporters praise him for "telling it like it is" despite nearly everything coming out of his mouth being bullshit. He's selling a fantasy like any good conman, and knows now to work a crowd. They will continue to hear what they want to hear regardless of what he actually says.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:Kasich won't be the VP pick for Trump or Cruz because they'll probably try to get a woman VP Thankfully, Sarah Palin isn't busy these days.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
Joementum posted:If Cruz thinks he can beat Donald using reality TV show tactics...... boy, I dunno. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Top Bunk Wanker posted:Just saw a Ted Cruz commercial and a Club For Growth #NeverTrump commercial during the Blues/Blackhawks game on Fox Sports Midwest. Can't imagine they're hitting a lot of Indiana voters with that one, but maybe they know something I don't. Given all we've seen thus far, the answer is almost certainly that they don't.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
rakovsky maybe posted:If they're all innocent women and children who have been thoroughly vetted, then Trump's rhetoric will not turn them into terrorists so your entire point is invalid. We can talk about them however we want, they have been predetermined as safe. You turn them into terrorists by shunning them, keeping them isolated and rejected by mainstream society. That will ensure that the kids grow up good and alienated so then they'll be ripe for recruitment and strapping on a bomb vest.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Gyra_Solune posted:i thought hillary was supposed to be getting like +30% over trump and it was going to be the biggest blowout in any general election for now and forever +11% would be the largest MoV since '84. Obama won by less than 4% in 2012 and it was an electoral blowout.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Thump! posted:But isn't Trump trying to win the election? I honestly don't think so. He loves the attention and jerking everyone around, but I don't think he really wants to be President and stuck in the confines of Washington for four years. He would much rather lose so he can storm off in a huff, accuse everyone of sabotaging him, and get back to firing people on TV.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:contingency is weird No, Hoover properly took the blame for making it far worse than it needed to be. He spent 3 years cutting spending and trying to balance the budget, which just sent the economy into a deflationary tailspin. He was doing what any good businessman would do in such a situation. Too bad the government isn't a business and it was exactly the wrong thing to do. GDP started growing again when Roosevelt took office and started his 100 day plan.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:if the democrats do somehow get the house i hope they ram through DC statehood and PR if theyre up for it PR doesn't want to be a state. The residents of DC should get to vote as citizens of Maryland.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:I'm not sure that the republicans can pivot from calling Trump hitler to supporting him Calling him Hitler was meant as a compliment.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:i remember i was whining about how stupid american politics were to an italian coworker back in, i dunno, 2008? and she was like 'this is nothing by italian standards' Italy under Berlusconi would be a decent model for what the US under Trump would look like.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
L-Boned posted:I need to purchase a MAGA hat. Should I go for the traditional red, or go crazy with camo, white, or black? Get the Union Jack pattern.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:other than adding superdelegates, what other changes could the republicans make to their primary process to more easily shut-out candidates like donald trump? Proportional allocation of delegates in state primaries would help. Better yet, dump primaries altogether and go back to smoke-filled rooms.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Karl Sharks posted:Eh, I think he means "a candidate has to have held public office as a republican before" at the very least, which would have disqualified trump Yeah, I don't think including (and enforcing) a statement as to the minimal requirements to be considered for the party's Presidential nomination is at all unreasonable.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
mannerup posted:lmao at the site he links in the statement Hmmm. Googling "Bob Guillo Trump University" got an interesting result: Trump University Customer: 'Gold Elite' Program Nothing But Fool's Gold quote:Guillo paid nearly $35,000 to be part of Trump University's "Gold Elite" program, taking money out of his individual retirement account to pay for it. It was a decision he would come to regret.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:Why Trump toned down his judge attack Since when does anybody listen to Reince Priebus?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:They aren't going to take it away from him unless he does something obviously disqualifying. IMO they won't take it away from him directly, rather that Trump is more likely to just say "gently caress this poo poo" and walk away, if it happens at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
weekly font posted:I'm genuinely curious about his Hillary dump on Monday. Is it just gonna be emailsemailsbenghazi or is he gonna pull some deep cut conspiracy theory bullshit and go real off his rocker? There's a new anti-Hillary book out that he's going to quote from extensively, it looks like.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:Trump won't walk away, and the party won't take the nomination away. That's why I added "if it happens at all." The only way the GOP can get out of the Trump disaster is for him to walk away willingly before the convention, on good terms. That's the only way to avoid the RNC turning into a riot and them coming up with some sort of alternative reasonably amicably. There's a non-zero chance of that happening, but it's not large nonetheless.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:Gosh, imagine how much more believable this would have been coming out just after their presidency ended instead of during a presidential campaign in which she's running. Or if there were literally ANY other corroborating witnesses. It seems to be Troopergate 2.0. The first version generated a collective eye-roll from the public, so I'm sure it will receive similar treatment this time.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/740575078140809216 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Grey Fox posted:Wait I thought Cruz was supposed to be the GOP candidate that everyone recoils in horror from after an up-close encounter? That was actually true of most of them this time around.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:So it's progressive to support throwing eggs at "privileged idiot" women? You learn something new everyday I guess. Women are such fragile creatures. We must protect them always.  
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Vile posted:What is the most Trump movie? I would vote for Idiocracy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:At first I thought he wasn't releasing his taxes because it had a bunch of scumbag rich person loopholes that show he pays like 0%, but now I suspect it really is because he's worth like a fraction of what he says and it would ruin his self-image. Donald Trump is the Duchy of Grand Fenwick.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 17:22 |
|
|
rear end cobra posted:Obviously, but I still think you need to be some kind of bully genius to come up with ones that actually work, simplicity aint easy. See: Dangerous Donald. Think in terms of a kindergarten playground.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 00:45
|
|