Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Than you will stand with me to support an IR voting system? It's one of the simplest solutions to the two-party system.
In the Primary? Sure.
Why just the primary? That will stop extremist candidates like Trump, but it will not deal with the problem the two-party system poses.
Because it'll require another US Constitutional Amendment to change how Presidents are elected. It'll be so difficult, it's almost a non-starter.
Next best thing is to change the Primary nomination process and encourage more engagement in local politics.
I'm not saying get rid of the delegate system, I'm saying have the delegates be elected by IRV. I'll have to check, but I don't think the Constitution says only FPTP is allowed.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Whembly, is this more palatable? The best of both candidates, HRC's political acumen and Don's charm!
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Than you will stand with me to support an IR voting system? It's one of the simplest solutions to the two-party system.
In the Primary? Sure.
Why just the primary? That will stop extremist candidates like Trump, but it will not deal with the problem the two-party system poses.
Because it'll require another US Constitutional Amendment to change how Presidents are elected. It'll be so difficult, it's almost a non-starter.
Next best thing is to change the Primary nomination process and encourage more engagement in local politics.
I'm not saying get rid of the delegate system, I'm saying have the delegates be elected by IRV. I'll have to check, but I don't think the Constitution says only FPTP is allowed.
Changing the primaries has nothing to do with the constitution. The primaries are completely controlled by the political parties that run them. The Republican Party and Democrat Party can change the primary voting system tomorrow if they felt like it. Candidates and nominees still have meet the constitutional requirements for eligibility for the office but that's it. If you wanted to change how people are elected to Congress that would involve changing the constitution.
Than you will stand with me to support an IR voting system? It's one of the simplest solutions to the two-party system.
In the Primary? Sure.
Why just the primary? That will stop extremist candidates like Trump, but it will not deal with the problem the two-party system poses.
Because it'll require another US Constitutional Amendment to change how Presidents are elected. It'll be so difficult, it's almost a non-starter.
Next best thing is to change the Primary nomination process and encourage more engagement in local politics.
I'm not saying get rid of the delegate system, I'm saying have the delegates be elected by IRV. I'll have to check, but I don't think the Constitution says only FPTP is allowed.
Changing the primaries has nothing to do with the constitution. The primaries are completely controlled by the political parties that run them. The Republican Party and Democrat Party can change the primary voting system tomorrow if they felt like it. Candidates and nominees still have meet the constitutional requirements for eligibility for the office but that's it. If you wanted to change how people are elected to Congress that would involve changing the constitution.
Of course, but I'm talking about delegates for the electoral college.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
There's a rise in folks that want to break out of the two-party, lesser-of-two-evils Presidential paradigm in which we live every four fething years.
Yes, there a lot of idiots who have become sufficiently frustrated to take to the internet. These people not only remain idiots, but get dumber as their emotions rise and the echoes start resounding. They are not interested in discussion, they are interested in yelling.
That's the whole fething point of being dissenters... if you dissent, based on your principles, you're duty-bound to root yourself down and tell the others "No... you move". (yes, I've seen the new Captain America movie. )
How do you owe a duty to an idea?
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
TheMeanDM wrote: Wasn't it Perot that got about 20% of the vote as a 3rd party back in the day?
Apparently that wasn't good enough to move the system toward a less two-party doninated system.
I don't know what it will take....
Well, moving to IRV would help. It would mean that more people could vote 3rd party without the fear of their vote not counting. Getting anti-gerrymandering laws would also help, as it would weaken the carefully constructed power hold the parties have. As would campaign finace reform, meaning that established candidates don't have such a massive advantage.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
But, I think that on a personal level, there are some ideas that we each hold that we feel it is our "duty" to uphold them. I mean, if I use about as uncontroversial an idea I can think of... let's say "seatbelts save lives" ... I am not going to go around driving without using mine, and I am not going to move my vehicle (if I'm driving) if one of my passengers isn't buckled up.
As we've seen in recent months and years, some people take this to the extreme....
Money, a platform that is materially distinct from the big two, and a lot of luck.
the platform is particularly sticky, IMO, because both of the big two seem pretty adept at seeing a new thing, dividing it up politically and swallowing it whole.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/19 01:06:56
But, I think that on a personal level, there are some ideas that we each hold that we feel it is our "duty" to uphold them. I mean, if I use about as uncontroversial an idea I can think of... let's say "seatbelts save lives" ... I am not going to go around driving without using mine, and I am not going to move my vehicle (if I'm driving) if one of my passengers isn't buckled up.
But that's a fairly simple idea. Political ideas are not so simple, and when they are simplified it is almost certainly a sales gimmick.
the platform is particularly sticky, IMO, because both of the big two seem pretty adept at seeing a new thing, dividing it up politically and swallowing it whole.
The big two have the money to hire competent people who then develop their platforms.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
There's a rise in folks that want to break out of the two-party, lesser-of-two-evils Presidential paradigm in which we live every four fething years.
And ultimately that’s simply not a very sensible thing. Even referring to candidates as evil shows a level of hyperbole that is really stopping you from understanding the actual situation.
Here’s the thing – Clinton is a perfectly ordinary Democratic candidate. I know Republicans are just primed to hate her, because they’ve been feed almost 25 years of conspiracies and rumours, but if you look past all the gossip and silliness and just look at her voting record and policies, she’s just a left wing politician, slightly to the left of the Democratic centre.
And yes, politics will be run on a ‘lesser of two evils’ theme. This isn’t because the candidates are actually evil or awful people, but because that’s what the electorate wants... because people are fundamentally whinging turds. That won’t change.
I want the vote count on the Presidential tickets to go waaaaaaay down, such that, the major parties would ensure that this doesn't happen again in the future.
There’s no ‘this’ that’s so terrifying. One party nominated a normal candidate, the other party nominated a total lunatic. Things like this happen from time to time. The solution is to vote for the sensible person, and try and figure out if there’s anything that needs fixinig in the party that nominated the lunatic.
That's a crock of gak from PJ. He's simply #NeverTrump.
Yes, that’s the point. He’s #NeverTrump because Trump isn’t just run of the mill wrong the way that Republicans think of Democrats or Democrats think of Republicans, he’s wrong in a whole other kind of way. A way that is so wrong that The Economist actually lists the possibility of a Trump election as a major economic risk to the world.
I mean, you may believe that Clinton is a horrible liar, but with Trump we’re talking about something in a whole other ballpark.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: Wasn't it Perot that got about 20% of the vote as a 3rd party back in the day?
Apparently that wasn't good enough to move the system toward a less two-party doninated system.
I don't know what it will take....
Yeah, he got 20% in 1992 and 8% in 1996. Then just wandered off in to the wasteland of history, all that effort and money spent, and all it achieved was to make him the answer in a pub quiz question.
As to what it will take to break the system... well it’d take a party with sufficiently different platform from either of the major two parties that it could win a significant portion of the vote in local and state elections. Then that platform would have to be effective and achievable at a local level so as to build greater support to become a dominant local force and competitive force in federal elections. And it’d have to be something different enough from the major parties that they couldn’t just co-opt the popular elements.
Which is pretty much a magical unicorn.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/19 03:21:46
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
dogma wrote: The big two have the money to hire competent people who then develop their platforms.
I think it's less about money to develop platforms and more that a two-party system encourages parties that are giant blobs of vaguely-related positions. If you can think of any major issue in the US it's a safe bet that one party takes one side, and the other party takes the opposite side. You don't need lots of money to do that, you just need to be willing to say "ok, we'll add that to the platform" about everything.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
There's a rise in folks that want to break out of the two-party, lesser-of-two-evils Presidential paradigm in which we live every four fething years.
And ultimately that’s simply not a very sensible thing. Even referring to candidates as evil shows a level of hyperbole that is really stopping you from understanding the actual situation.
Here’s the thing – Clinton is a perfectly ordinary Democratic candidate. I know Republicans are just primed to hate her, because they’ve been feed almost 25 years of conspiracies and rumours, but if you look past all the gossip and silliness and just look at her voting record and policies, she’s just a left wing politician, slightly to the left of the Democratic centre.
So... the sensible thing is to vote for Clinton? Sorry bro, I'm opting out of this madness.
And yes, politics will be run on a ‘lesser of two evils’ theme. This isn’t because the candidates are actually evil or awful people, but because that’s what the electorate wants... because people are fundamentally whinging turds. That won’t change.
Objection your honor! Both Hillary and Trump are 'awful people'.
I want the vote count on the Presidential tickets to go waaaaaaay down, such that, the major parties would ensure that this doesn't happen again in the future.
There’s no ‘this’ that’s so terrifying. One party nominated a normal candidate, the other party nominated a total lunatic. Things like this happen from time to time. The solution is to vote for the sensible person, and try and figure out if there’s anything that needs fixinig in the party that nominated the lunatic.
Hillary Clinton is *not* a normal candidate.
No other politician could ever survive on her type of baggages.
But my point is that the total votes for President in 2016 would be drastically lower than 2012, to drive home the point to both party leaders that they've fethed up big.
That's a crock of gak from PJ. He's simply #NeverTrump.
Yes, that’s the point. He’s #NeverTrump because Trump isn’t just run of the mill wrong the way that Republicans think of Democrats or Democrats think of Republicans, he’s wrong in a whole other kind of way. A way that is so wrong that The Economist actually lists the possibility of a Trump election as a major economic risk to the world.
Again... we're being asked if we'd prefer gonorrhea or syphilis.
For lulz:
So do Trump too... shouldn't be too hard as he changed is positions by the minute.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/19 04:03:14
whembly wrote: Again... we're being asked if we'd prefer gonorrhea or syphilis.
Yeah, you keep making this comparison in some form or another. It’s a good line, but ultimately at some point you actually have to establish exactly how electing Clinton is like the nation contracting syphilis.
And not just by launching another personal attack, a claim that she lied about this thing, or by alluding to some Republican allegation of a possible scandal maybe. Talk about actual policy – the things that candidates actually do when they are in office. List some policies of Clinton that are either unpopular among the general Democratic voter base, or policies that represent some kind of genuine threat to the nation in a way that Trump’s proposed debt and trade policies do.
Because until someone, anyone anywhere really, actually manages to do that, what we actually have is a lot of people saying “we are forced to choose between a candidate with genuinely dangerous policies that border on nonsense, and a candidate with a perfectly ordinary set of policies who has some negative personality traits and I just don’t know what to do”. Which is incredible, really, it shows an almost complete lack of understanding in what is important in a president.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: Again... we're being asked if we'd prefer gonorrhea or syphilis.
Yeah, you keep making this comparison in some form or another. It’s a good line, but ultimately at some point you actually have to establish exactly how electing Clinton is like the nation contracting syphilis.
And not just by launching another personal attack, a claim that she lied about this thing, or by alluding to some Republican allegation of a possible scandal maybe. Talk about actual policy – the things that candidates actually do when they are in office. List some policies of Clinton that are either unpopular among the general Democratic voter base, or policies that represent some kind of genuine threat to the nation in a way that Trump’s proposed debt and trade policies do.
Because until someone, anyone anywhere really, actually manages to do that, what we actually have is a lot of people saying “we are forced to choose between a candidate with genuinely dangerous policies that border on nonsense, and a candidate with a perfectly ordinary set of policies who has some negative personality traits and I just don’t know what to do”. Which is incredible, really, it shows an almost complete lack of understanding in what is important in a president.
It's also worth pointing out that the candidate with genuinely dangerous policies which border on nonsense also has a lot of negative personality traits, which just makes the whole choice even more one-sided.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/19 08:22:04
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
I'm only British, but to me, Clinton looks like a well-educated, experienced, successful, career administrator and politician who has collected some baggage along the way like practically any older politician does. Much of which appears to be Republican mud-slinging; so much has been thrown that some of it inevitably has stuck. She doesn't have a lot of charisma on screen, though I've read she's a lot better in person.
whembly wrote: Again... we're being asked if we'd prefer gonorrhea or syphilis.
Yeah, you keep making this comparison in some form or another. It’s a good line, but ultimately at some point you actually have to establish exactly how electing Clinton is like the nation contracting syphilis.
And not just by launching another personal attack, a claim that she lied about this thing, or by alluding to some Republican allegation of a possible scandal maybe. Talk about actual policy – the things that candidates actually do when they are in office. List some policies of Clinton that are either unpopular among the general Democratic voter base, or policies that represent some kind of genuine threat to the nation in a way that Trump’s proposed debt and trade policies do.
Because until someone, anyone anywhere really, actually manages to do that, what we actually have is a lot of people saying “we are forced to choose between a candidate with genuinely dangerous policies that border on nonsense, and a candidate with a perfectly ordinary set of policies who has some negative personality traits and I just don’t know what to do”. Which is incredible, really, it shows an almost complete lack of understanding in what is important in a president.
This is the woman that promised to invade Iran if she becomes president, thats bad enough without considering the rest of her hawkish past.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/19 09:59:30
ulgurstasta wrote: This is the woman that promised to invade Iran* if she becomes president
I added an asterisk there. Are you sure you aren't omitting something from that sentence? Are you sure there weren't more words right where I put that asterisk? That's exactly what she said? She said that, without any broader context, or without being asked about a specific scenario?
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
I think it's less about money to develop platforms and more that a two-party system encourages parties that are giant blobs of vaguely-related positions. If you can think of any major issue in the US it's a safe bet that one party takes one side, and the other party takes the opposite side. You don't need lots of money to do that, you just need to be willing to say "ok, we'll add that to the platform" about everything.
You need money to do so in a coherent fashion, because interns and volunteers are afraid to speak up.
whembly wrote: Again... we're being asked if we'd prefer gonorrhea or syphilis.
Yeah, you keep making this comparison in some form or another. It’s a good line, but ultimately at some point you actually have to establish exactly how electing Clinton is like the nation contracting syphilis.
And not just by launching another personal attack, a claim that she lied about this thing, or by alluding to some Republican allegation of a possible scandal maybe. Talk about actual policy – the things that candidates actually do when they are in office. List some policies of Clinton that are either unpopular among the general Democratic voter base, or policies that represent some kind of genuine threat to the nation in a way that Trump’s proposed debt and trade policies do.
Because until someone, anyone anywhere really, actually manages to do that, what we actually have is a lot of people saying “we are forced to choose between a candidate with genuinely dangerous policies that border on nonsense, and a candidate with a perfectly ordinary set of policies who has some negative personality traits and I just don’t know what to do”. Which is incredible, really, it shows an almost complete lack of understanding in what is important in a president.
I ain't voting for either of them.
I realize we still have a loooooooooooongtime where I may be forced to change my mind.
And frankly, Clinton will handily win Missouri so my vote isn't worth gak. So... I'm opting out.
IMHO, Clinton will be a disaster because A) she won't be able to escape Obama's past failures as she'll own it, B) Congress will remain divided and I doubt she'll get much done. About the only 'good' thing Clinton does for team blue is that she'll be able to fill 2 maybe 3 more Supreme Court Justice, as well as the lower courts.
That may be enough for the Bernie Bros to hold their noses and pull for Clinton.
Trump would be a disaster, but in a different way. I see him very akin to Obama's thin skin... as when things don't go his way he'll act like a petulant brat. ("I won" or "my way or the highway")
The difference between Trump v. Clinton is that while Clinton may put us on a longterm disasterous path (think Libya & other ME shenanigans)... Trump would be using his authoritarian streak and abuse his powers to put out 100 small fires (hello IRS! get started on auditing 'those' people. And, hello DoJ!). He'd be too busy to create 1 big fire that'll last generational.
However... Clinton? She knows what she's doing... but, I question her rationale as she's not doing this for altruisitic reasons. It's Team Clinton first. As much as I criticize Obama... I truly believe that he has a vision for America and wants to shape the future.
Here's another comparison... do we want a "Shady As Feth Candidate"? Or, an entitled "70 year old Imbecile Fratboy"?
Bush managed to win the Presidency despite the Iraq War, GITMO, the Patriot Act, and DHS.
Iraq's favorability was split almost entirely on party lines in 2004. The Patriot Act, the majority felt that it wasn't that big of an issue at the time. Hell, his favorability admist these scandals was way beyond Clintons today. Gotta say that Clintons issues of trustworthiness do cut much more deeply then Bush's issues of his day. If the Republicans had not picked such a divisive candidate themselves, I'd have to say it would be a shoe in for the R's.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/19 14:29:03
)
